Nationalism

Quote:

Here is an article about the case in Portugal, scientifically proving the exact same thing.

The article is from 2005, before the crisis. Most of these people are now probably jobless.

Quote:

When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans by John Fine, The National Question in Yugoslavia by Ivo Banac, South Slav nationalisms by Charles Jelavich

Fair enough.

Quote:

I never said that they weren't considered separate nations in the SFRY, but Tito hoped that an inclusive Yugoslav identity would become more important and override these differences.

Of course he was proven wrong (in 1971 and on several other occasions) , which he himself admitted.

@ Misuzu:

Quote:

Anybody who partakes in any nation's culture and language is a part of it. You are being British by participating in British culture and society.

BS. If I visit Japan I partake in Japanese culture and society. Does that make me Japanese while I'm there? You yourself are partaking in British culture by typing in English on this board. Are you British on SE?

Quote:

The Three Kingdoms were never really nations in and of themselves, but were "proto-nations", that is the predicessors to the one Korean nation.

They were merely states. I don't think there was anything that could be seen as a Baekche identity, except perhaps within the Baekche court.

Quote:

That's what I've been saying all along. You seem to still confuse nations with states.

No I'm not. The nation is imposed upon society by the state. The nation is used to justify the state because previous tools of state/class legitimisation no longer work.

Quote:

A nation does not need a state to exist, for example, the Tibetan nation still exists in China.

But only because it is propagated by the Tibetan government in exile as well as the Chinese government (in a different way obviously). The Tibetan nation, like any other nation, cannot be considered a community.


@ Loz:

Quote:

Except that the working classes are not national nihilists and will not lose this sort of identification with their nation. As Lenin said "the national feeling is one of the strongest feelings in a man".

Then Lenin is wrong. If national identity is such a strong feeling within every human, how come the nation-state needs to constantly propagate the idea of nation to its subjects? It has fly national flags everywhere, play national anthems before "national" events, promote national dress and national cuisine, etc. It even has to decree national holidays by law to make sure we all partake in a national event and conduct similar activities (leisure) on the same day. If a nation is such an organic and inherent part of our psychological makeup, why does the state need to do any of this? Surely we would all naturally do it of our own accord?

Quote:

Disarming the bourgeois nationalism (which, as noted in the previous sources i gave, is just a facade for shameless betrayal of national interests) with socialist patriotism is a much more feasible strategy IMO.

Socialist patriotism can foster warmer feelings towards "your" bourgeoisie than "foreign" bourgeoisie. Also, "national interests?" WTF? You sound like the US government! National interests are nearly always at the expense of another nation (because all nations are in perpetual competition with each other).


@ Soviet78

Quote:

The fact that you could say this shows how little you know of the degeneration of Soviet-style culture in the post-socialist world.

Yeah, I'm no expert.

Quote:

We went from having some of the most intelligent, beautifully filmed and well-acted cinematography to pornography and mafia-funded garbage churned out as a way to launder money.

Quote:

In art, socialist realism has been ridiculed intensely and now we've got the same forms of abstract art where a man has monkeys role around on a canvas that people in the West have long enjoyed.

Well all of this is subjective. Frankly, the idea of just having socialist realism as acceptable art sounds just as awful as what you are describing now. However, if you want different art and cinema, why don't you try and encourage/make it? If it sells, the Russian bourgeoisie won't mind. Things like that need a stimulus.

Quote:

We've got American Pie, 'Garry Potter', and 'Uitni Huston' in the depths of remote villages, but also an education reform plan which makes the study of classical Russian literature a paid, optional subject.

See, you're stuck in the past. By saying 'classical Russian literature' you imply that Russia's best writings have already been written. How about adding some new literature rather than relying on the old?

Quote:

Reading about the USSR with its 'old and reactionary cultural practices', I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I wasn't actually talking about the USSR specifically. However, now that you bring it up, I always liked the experimental art that was produced in the very early years of the revolution (or rather, the fact that people felt free to be so experimental). I find it so sad that the Bolsheviks (who were very conservative in their artisitic tastes) cracked down on this.

Quote:

All of that changed after October 1917, where the Soviet leadership and the cultural and academic elite was left to determine what of bourgeois modernity was salvageable and valuable for the new socialist state. As to 'when the people decided', that's a question of historical dates (i.e. when the anthem, the flag, etc. were signed into the constitution).

Exactly! The ruling elite got to determine the characteristics of the Soviet nations, not the people themselves! This just reinforces my argument that the concept of nation is a tool of the ruling classes (or perhaps caste would be a better phrase in referring to the USSR) for manipulating their subjects.

Quote:

It does when the influences are the result of a domestic cultural collapse and an attempt by a neoliberal regime and their criminal elite caste of 'businessmen' to integrate with the West. Sure I suppose more English words would be incorporated faster if the Soviet government wasn't so strict in enforcing language standards in education, government documents, etc. Still, I see no reason for it to have done so.

You're making ti sound like Russian is a dying language or something. It isn't, it's just evolving. Even in Britain, older people lament changes in English which have occurred in their lifetime. These changes aren't bad as English is always changing. We just have to go with the flow rather than say "this is how people should always speak language X for evermore!"

Quote:

How so? I am a patriot, yet I feel no intrinsic hatred for any nation or national group.

You are a patriot, therefore you place the importance of "your" nation above all others. You therefore leave yourself open to manipulation by your "national leaders". As an example: look at the Social Democratic Party in Germany in 1914. A party of leftists and supposed anti-imperialists, and yet as soon as the German "national leaders" propagated a threat to the German "nation", they happily voted for Germany's participation in an imperialist war. At least the Spartacists saw sense here.

Quote:

What was the connection of cultural nationalism to the retention of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class during the Soviet period?

In the USSR, it maintained a ruling caste rather than a bourgeois ruling class.

Quote:

No I cannot, seeing how liberal attitudes toward nations today serve the interests of the bourgeoisie even more than nationalism does, this so-called 'globalism' really serving a form of cultural and commercial imperialism.

You can, it just takes a bit of time (like it took me). Read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson to help you on your way.

Quote:

Then Lenin is wrong. If national identity is such a strong feeling within every human, how come the nation-state needs to constantly propagate the idea of nation to its subjects? It has fly national flags everywhere, play national anthems before "national" events, promote national dress and national cuisine, etc. It even has to decree national holidays by law to make sure we all partake in a national event and conduct similar activities (leisure) on the same day.If a nation is such an organic and inherent part of our psychological makeup, why does the state need to do any of this? Surely we would all naturally do it of our own accord?

And yet the Kurds (and others all over the world) are still fighting for self-determination of their own nation, despite not just not having all that, but being actively repressed by the Turkish state which even denies their language (as a recognized language).

Quote:

Socialist patriotism can foster warmer feelings towards "your" bourgeoisie than "foreign" bourgeoisie.

Why are we talking about the bourgeoisie in socialism?

Quote:

Also, "national interests?" WTF? You sound like the US government! National interests are nearly always at the expense of another nation (because all nations are in perpetual competition with each other).

Yes, if Chad (and so on) raised import taxes on European chicken to help their own farmers be able to compete that would be at the expense of subsidized European chicken-exporting nations.

Quote:

We went from having some of the most intelligent, beautifully filmed and well-acted cinematography to pornography and mafia-funded garbage churned out as a way to launder money.

Quote:

In art, socialist realism has been ridiculed intensely and now we've got the same forms of abstract art where a man has monkeys role around on a canvas that people in the West have long enjoyed.

Quote:

We've got American Pie, 'Garry Potter', and 'Uitni Huston' in the depths of remote villages, but also an education reform plan which makes the study of classical Russian literature a paid, optional subject.

I don't understand why cultural products created way before you were even born somehow BELONG to you. As an American, I can appreciate classical Russian literature and Soviet cinema just as much as you can. Things are made by individuals for the entire world to enjoy. They are not the private possessions of nations. I really hate the idea of a "national corpus." Just because someone who was born in your country made a valuable work of art does not add to the worth of your imagined "nation" in any way. Reminds me of those ridiculous debates about whether Gogol's works belong to the Ukrainian or Russian national corpuses or whether Ivo Andric was more Croatian, Serbian, or Bosnian.


ALSO, Vasco: I was wondering what system you will use to determine nationality after capitalism is 'smashed' (so we can make sure to send people back to the correct nation-state). Would you send a 3rd generation Indian immigrant in Portugal to India, even though he was born in Portugal and his parents were born in Portugal? What if someone has parents of two different nationalities? What about the Roma people, and other nations who lack a state? What country should they be sent to?

Quote:

ALSO, Vasco: I was wondering what system you will use to determine nationality after capitalism is 'smashed' (so we can make sure to send people back to the correct nation-state). Would you send a 3rd generation Indian immigrant in Portugal to India, even though he was born in Portugal and his parents were born in Portugal? What if someone has parents of two different nationalities? What about the Roma people, and other nations who lack a state? What country should they be sent to?

In that case he should ask if he want to stay or if he want to go to India .
Roma is part of Italy so isn't such thing as Roma People .
Galiza, Basque Country and Catalonia should have it's own nation since they seem to be more interested in Indepence than remain in Spain.

Quote:

And yet the Kurds (and others all over the world) are still fighting for self-determination of their own nation, despite not just not having all that, but being actively repressed by the Turkish state which even denies their language (as a recognized language).

That's because Kurdish nationalism was created by the Kurdish bourgeoisie during the final years of the Ottoman Empire when the awakening of many national movements within the Empire (i.e. the beginning of the historical role for various bourgeois groups) helped hasten its collapse. The Kurdish national movement is pretty much a hangover from that. Pretty much all other nations within the Ottoman Empire managed to achieve their own nation-state in the 19th and 20th centuries. Only the Kurds failed.

Quote:

Why are we talking about the bourgeoisie in socialism?

Because the bourgeoisie are the repressed class under socialism. You don't want people going soft on them because they feel some sort of national solidarity with them.

Also, the very fact that the socialist state needs to use nationalism to justify its existence implies that it is not a democratic workers' state. The legitimacy of the state should be founded solely in the rule of the working class in that particular part of the world and the preservation of this rule whilst simultaneously destroying the remnants of bourgeois rule.

Quote:

Roma is part of Italy so isn't such thing as Roma People

He means Gypsies, also known as the Roma people.

Quote:

He means Gypsies, also known as the Roma people.

Wikipedia says that they had origin in India so they should have a right to creat a " State " in India .

Vasco wrote:

In that case he should ask if he want to stay or if he want to go to India .
Roma is part of Italy so isn't such thing as Roma People .
Galiza, Basque Country and Catalonia should have it's own nation since they seem to be more interested in Indepence than remain in Spain.

Vasco, what if there is a mixed area, such as in Bosnia, where there are Serbian and Bosniak villages side-by-side. It would be impossible to divide the territory up according to nationality. What do you propose then? Who does the land belong to? Self-determination is a nice principle, but it often infringes on the rights of others. When Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia and became a Croatian nation-state, do you think that that was fair to the significant Serbian minority living there? How do you resolve these problems that arise when you say every nation deserves its own state?

Vasco wrote:

Wikipedia says that they had origin in India so they should have a right to creat a " State " in India .

Wikipedia says you "have origin" in Africa, so I think you should be sent there.

Quote:

Vasco, what if there is a mixed area, such as in Bosnia, where there are Serbian and Bosniak villages side-by-side. It would be impossible to divide the territory up according to nationality. What do you propose then? Who does the land belong to? Self-determination is a nice principle, but it often infringes on the rights of others. When Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia and became a Croatian nation-state, do you think that that was fair to the significant Serbian minority living there? How do you resolve these problems that arise when you say every nation deserves its own state?

Those serbs should go back to Serbia .
As for Bosnia issue i would divide a country in 2 and sebian must go tone one side of the republic and Bosniak to other part .

Quote:

Wikipedia says you "have origin" in Africa, so I think you should be sent there.

Actually the Caucasoid race came from caucausus .

http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/pie/index.html

Vasco wrote:

Those serbs should go back to Serbia .
As for Bosnia issue i would divide a country in 2 and sebian must go tone one side of the republic and Bosniak to other part .

Okay, so now you're literally advocating ethnic cleansing.

Vasco wrote:

Actually the Caucasoid race came from caucausus .

Actually, it's highly unlikely that's the case, but even so, to Azerbaijan with you!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/08/do_white_people_really_come_from_the_caucasus.html

Quote:

Okay, so now you're literally advocating ethnic cleansing.

How i advocate that if i said that Serbian must go the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia and Bosniak to Republic of Bosnia .
I didn't say Kill all Serbs or all Bosniaks so don't try to put words that i didn't write .

That's still ethic cleansing. You don't have to kill them to make them leave.

Overall I cannot believe the shit I'm hearing in this thread.

Vasco wrote:

Galiza, Basque Country and Catalonia should have it's own nation since they seem to be more interested in Indepence than remain in Spain.

Vasco wrote:

Those serbs should go back to Serbia .
As for Bosnia issue i would divide a country in 2 and sebian must go tone one side of the republic and Bosniak to other part .

A neat little box for the peoples of the world to be constrained and contained by. How nice. This is the most nonsensical thing I've heard a communist say on here in awhile. Our goal as communists is to erase borders not draw hundreds more. That is no different from establishing more races than what currently "exist".

There is no benefit to the workers in this at all. Independent Calatolina (or what have you) would be much weaker than Spain and would necessarily be forced into predatory deals to preserve itself. This is imperialism and why the imperialists support these divisions wherever possible. The so-called communist PKK is the only workers movement in history, aside from Pol Pot's, to have America's open support. I cannot understand how anyone could think that breaking states up into little ethnic kingdoms is anything but reactionary.

Ethnic cleansing is "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." That sounds EXACTLY what you are advocating.

Vasco wrote:

In that case he should ask if he want to stay or if he want to go to India .

Asking people where they'd like to live sounds suspiciously like an open border policy. Just whose side are you on, pal?

soviet78 wrote:

Those cultural products don't belong to me, but I can lament the passing of the era during which they were made, along with the decisions on the part of government which ensured their destruction from the late 1980s on, since in a way they deprived me personally of an alternative reality and future. They belong to my nation -the Soviet Union, and they are the direct results of that nation's historical and social development. I believe the 'national corpus' is important to learn and understand within the education system as part of a way of grounding people within their society, and of educating them about its cultural and historical heritage. The debates between Ukrainians and Russians are ridiculous because, along with Belarus, they are all part of the East Slavic peoples. They are ridiculous because over the history of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, all East Slavs, together with the other peoples in the country, participated in the construction of its culture, politics, economy, and social institutions. This was especially true in the Soviet period.

I too lament the passing of the Soviet era, and feel deprived of many opportunities with the fall of the socialist states. The Soviet Union was not, however, a nation - it was a state that was composed of many different national groups, and its breakup has led to the creation of nation-states for those groups. The ideology that acted as the "glue" of the USSR, holding it together and giving it political legitimacy, was "all power to the soviets!" It was a workers' state, with the values of socialism coming before the values of nationalism.

In fact, at the 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Sovietskiy narod was given many of the characteristics that official doctrine had formerly ascribed to the nations (natsii) and nationalities (natsionalnosti) composing the multinational Soviet state. The "Soviet people" were said to be a "new historical, social, and international community of people having a common territory, economy, and socialist content; a culture that reflected the particularities of multiple nationalities; a federal state; and a common ultimate goal: the construction of communism." INTERNATIONAL, as in, rising above national divisions. I think it's much different to identify with Soviet patriotism (based upon internationalism, local cultures, and the building of communism) than ethnic Russian nationalism (by blood, you are Russian and therefore you belong to this imagined community).

Quote:

Also, the very fact that the socialist state needs to use nationalism to justify its existence implies that it is not a democratic workers' state. The legitimacy of the state should be founded solely in the rule of the working class in that particular part of the world and the preservation of this rule whilst simultaneously destroying the remnants of bourgeois rule.

These workers do not live in vaccum, but in a specific place and time. Therefore socialist patriotism is something to strive towards.
The legitimacy of the Soviet state came from the Soviet people who have won it for themselves. Since they have won their motherland, the people were free to express and develop their national cultures while at the same time destroying national-chauvinism and all other negative remnants of the previous system.
The Soviet state didn't "use nationalism" to justify its existence, because Russia would exist even under the Whites, had they won. In fact, such a Russia would probably be more "Russian" as it wouldn't be a multi-national state the USSR was.

Yes in the meaning the opening post describes it. However, that is mostly called patriotism. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm however a staunch opponent of nationalism in the bourgeois sense, being the ideology that views membership of a certain state or population group as the basic and most important factor in the construction of society, whereas we as Communists view class and class struggle as the basic components.

However, in certain situations, especially in the Third World, nationalism can be a useful, be it temporary, means to achieve national liberation from the clutches of imperialism. Especially the "nationalism" as showed in Africa by people such as Lumumba is a very good example of how nationalism can be good and useful.

This can get out of hand though. A good example is Japan, where nationalism saved the country in the 1860's from being colonized by the West, in which the Meiji Emperor played a very important role in keeping the country united, independent and modern. Fr that reason Japan was far better of then late-Qing China. However, this new Japanese nationalism derailed quickly after the end of the Meiji Era, and became chauvinism and Japanese imperialism. The phrase "Asia for the Asians", which I completely support, thus became "Asia for the Japanese", which is unacceptable imperialism that led to terrible things as we saw from 1930-1945.

@ Loz:

Quote:

These workers do not live in vaccum, but in a specific place and time. Therefore socialist patriotism is something to strive towards.

Why? What good does it do? Your "socialist patriotism" will only go to make the workers see themselves as different and superior to workers of other countries.

Why should people automatically love their country above all others? It's not like any of us had a choice which country we were born in/grew up in.

Quote:

Since they have won their motherland, the people were free to express and develop their national cultures while at the same time destroying national-chauvinism and all other negative remnants of the previous system.

No they weren't. The state retained a monopoly on what was considered acceptable forms of cultural expression.


@ Soviet78:

Quote:

This is becoming a debate on subjective ideas, yes, but don't you agree that there are varying levels of quality (dependent on intelligence, effort, thought-provoking nature, etc.) in things like film and literature? Think about how even Hollywood (i.e. the center of the American cultural realm) has been churning out more and more garbage, to the point where everything is becoming a CG remake, reboot, sequel or cookie-cutter set piece, which guarantees profits for production executives through reduced risk and the milking of nostalgia. Doesn't this type of thing bother you? Is this hyper-capitalist attitude toward film and the decline in quality still subjective?

Yes, this is true. But let's not forget that a huge number great films have also been produced under capitalism. I think the cultural stagnation in the west is part of the fact that capitalism has reached its limit here.

Quote:

As to making an alternative, are you really suggesting that my task, instead of pointing out the reasons for decline, should be to challenge mega-corporations to come up with something new? Like if I point out the causes for collapse and degradation of the Russian film industry but I don't aspire to make my own alternative I have no right to complain?

Not exactly, but change has to come from somewhere. Punk rock started out as people playing simple songs and dressing in cheap clothing in small and dirty venues and it changed the face of pop culture for generations.

Quote:

But what were 'the people' in this historical instance? How could they rise up, organize and collectively make complex decisions, especially in a country that had just overthrown Czarism and gone through world war and civil war? What is 'the people themselves' in such a situation except for demagoguery?

I'm saying the mass of people (who supposedly make up the nation) did not decide on any of the national characteristics. National characteristics are enforced from the top down. This is because the concept of nation itself is enforced from the top down (ruling class).

Quote:

Russian civilization underwent a catastrophic setback in the 1990s, and the danger of the collapse and disappearance of the country from the pages of history has not yet passed.

The only way Russia will disappear from history is when national borders are erased under communism. This will be a good thing. This attitude of a "threat" to Russia is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of manipulation by the bourgeoisie. This is what the bourgeoisie do: create an imagined threat to "your" nation and use this climate of fear to make the working classes more acceptable of bourgeois rule.

Quote:

Russian civilization underwent a catastrophic setback in the 1990s, and the danger of the collapse and disappearance of the country from the pages of history has not yet passed. As to 'going with the flow', that presumes a state of the world where things just evolve naturally, rather than through conscious manipulation and decision-making by powerful organizations (i.e. the transnational bourgeoisie).

There isn't some evil master plan by a shady international cabal to try and insert more English words into the Russian language.

Quote:

Theoretically, maybe, but so far in practice I'm not the one who swallowed up American, British and French lies about the necessity for a no-fly zone over Libya or tough sanctions (leading to war) against Syria. Nor have I ever failed to make the connection to corporate interests behind much of Russian policy. In certain situations, like the one in Georgia in 2008, I will lament what I consider a civil war between peoples who were part of the same country when I was born, but I am not afraid to take a stand based on analysis that the Georgian leadership committed criminal aggression, supported by Western interests, and I will not go out and condemn both sides as being equally wrong, since they weren't.

So why are you a patriot? Why do you love Russia above all other countries (like you even had a choice where you grew up )? If you love Russia then you have a preference for Russians over other people. Thus you have a preference for the Russian bourgeoisie over other bourgeoisie. Thus you leave yourself open to manipulation by the Russian national leaders (bourgeoisie).


@ Wakizashi:

Quote:

However, that is mostly called patriotism. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is. Patriotism (aside from it being the friendly face of nationalism), requires your belief and support of an ideology designed to maintain the rule of the bourgeoisie (the concept of nation).

Quote:

However, in certain situations, especially in the Third World, nationalism can be a useful, be it temporary, means to achieve national liberation from the clutches of imperialism. Especially the "nationalism" as showed in Africa by people such as Lumumba is a very good example of how nationalism can be good and useful.

Agreed.

Quote:

A good example is Japan, where nationalism saved the country in the 1860's from being colonized by the West, in which the Meiji Emperor played a very important role in keeping the country united, independent and modern. Fr that reason Japan was far better of then late-Qing China. However, this new Japanese nationalism derailed quickly after the end of the Meiji Era, and became chauvinism and Japanese imperialism.

This wasn't an exception, this was normal. Just look at Britain, France, USA, Germany in the 19th century. Their nationalism made them think they had a duty to civilize the world and so they built their own empires. Japan just came late to the game.

Quote:

The phrase "Asia for the Asians", which I completely support

See, your support for the idea of nations leads you to support reactionary bullshit like this. There is no such thing as Asia or Asians.

Quote:

Why? What good does it do? Your "socialist patriotism" will only go to make the workers see themselves as different and superior to workers of other countries.

Eh? No?
Why would they? As for the "different" part, why wouldn't they see themselves as different? They are obviously living in a socialist country, unlike the rest.

Quote:

Why should people automatically love their country above all others?

I'm not saying that.

Quote:

No they weren't.

They were free (and encouraged) to develop their national cultures (unlike during the Tzar). See: Korenizatsiya.
Of course that doesn't mean that just about everything was allowed.