What is Nationalism to you?

Rev Scare wrote:I've stated that your insistence upon upholding the "interests" of your own nation (apart from a very superficial sense) implies a chauvinistic disregard for other nations as well as the real status of the world order. I am afraid that genuine socialist nationalism, and not simply a pretense such as national socialism, does indeed require an international framework in order to develop in a healthy and consistent fashion, for socialism itself demands the elimination of capitalism, and by extension, imperialism and aggression founded upon material circumstances. Furthermore, it is entirely unreasonable to practice a unilateral foreign policy in an age of mass communication, transportation, and economic dependence. In an increasingly interactive international sphere, it is impossible for one state to arbitrarily isolate itself from all others without externalizing costs and thereby breeding conflict. Issues such as nuclear arms proliferation, global resource management, military intervention, territorial disputes, the expansion of capitalism, etc., cannot be reasonably addressed via unilateral policies.

In a complex, interwoven world, it is silly at best to expect positive outcomes from such a myopic disposition toward solving (inter)national problems. Unless one supports insignificant and backwards concepts such as national autonomous zones or green bioregionalism, a progressive mindset would seek to facilitate international collaboration rather than impede it.

1. As far as I know chauvinism means hatred of other Nations or feeling that your better than them because your a member of such and such a Nation ( none of which applies to me). I dont see what not caring about other Nations and minding your own business has to do with that at all. But hey if you want to call me a chauvinist then fine so be it. But Im telling you right now, if you think Im gonna sit up at night worrying about the problems of Greeks, Algerians, Nepalese, etc then ( as the overplayed Judas Priest song says) you got another thing coming.

2. Look dude I believe in both Nationalism and Socialism ( or Socialism and Nationalism, however the fuck you want to phrase it). I call myself whatever I feel like and thats that. Labels arent important to me.These terms are pretty much interchangeable anyways. There honestly is no difference between a Socialist Nationalist or a Nationalist Socialist besides the way they phrase their names. If you want to spend time playing semantics then go ahead but I wont.

3. I want to replace the Capitalist system my Nation lives under with a Socialist one. I dont believe in getting rid of Capitalism worldwide. I wouldnt mind if that happened but its up to each individual Nation to liberate itself from Capitalism. If lets say the Hondurans want to live under Capitalism then more power to them. Thats their business not mine.

4. I believe that my Nations policy should be the same as all other policies: Whats good for the Nation goes. If its in our benefit to enter a treaty or whatever than we do it. If its not we dont do it.

5. There arent any major international problems right now that my Nation cant get out of itself. Im going to focus on that and Ill worry about the international stuff when it affects my people. As for progressive mind, again I dont care about such words. I believe in doing the best for my people and that is it. All these terms are useless to me. And for the record I dont believe in NA zones or green bio- whatever the hell it is.

Godfaesten wrote:I agree with you, but saying upholding the interests of your nation is slightly vague, and it could lead some to imperialistically oppress other nations because it is "upholding the interests of your nation". I would say upholding the interests of your nation without preventing others from doing the same might be a better way to put it.

Well to me it goes without saying. Sure it is vague but I cant and dont want to come up with a longstringed definition.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:1. As far as I know chauvinism means hatred of other Nations or feeling that your better than them because your a member of such and such a Nation ( none of which applies to me). I dont see what not caring about other Nations and minding your own business has to do with that at all. But hey if you want to call me a chauvinist then fine so be it. But Im telling you right now, if you think Im gonna sit up at night worrying about the problems of Greeks, Algerians, Nepalese, etc then ( as the overplayed Judas Priest song says) you got another thing coming.

2. Look dude I believe in both Nationalism and Socialism ( or Socialism and Nationalism, however the fuck you want to phrase it). I call myself whatever I feel like and thats that. Labels arent important to me.These terms are pretty much interchangeable anyways. There honestly is no difference between a Socialist Nationalist or a Nationalist Socialist besides the way they phrase their names. If you want to spend time playing semantics then go ahead but I wont.

3. I want to replace the Capitalist system my Nation lives under with a Socialist one. I dont believe in getting rid of Capitalism worldwide. I wouldnt mind if that happened but its up to each individual Nation to liberate itself from Capitalism. If lets say the Hondurans want to live under Capitalism then more power to them. Thats their business not mine.

4. I believe that my Nations policy should be the same as all other policies: Whats good for the Nation goes. If its in our benefit to enter a treaty or whatever than we do it. If its not we dont do it.

5. There arent any major international problems right now that my Nation cant get out of itself. Im going to focus on that and Ill worry about the international stuff when it affects my people. As for progressive mind, again I dont care about such words. I believe in doing the best for my people and that is it. All these terms are useless to me. And for the record I dont believe in NA zones or green bio- whatever the hell it is.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part,even though I want a world revolution.

Come to think of it, nationalism would perfectly support co-operation in an anarchist society

Pantheon Rising wrote:What do you base your Nationalism off of and where do you draw the line?

Personally, I am not a nationalist. The closest thing that I believe in that could somehow be called nationalism is that I believe that all countries need to develop communism is whatever way is best suited to deal with the material conditions in their country, because their are distinct cultural, economic, social, and political factors that vary between countries, regions, etc. I don't think this could be called nationalism though.

Jaycm610 wrote:Personally, I am not a nationalist. The closest thing that I believe in that could somehow be called nationalism is that I believe that all countries need to develop communism is whatever way is best suited to deal with the material conditions in their country, because their are distinct cultural, economic, social, and political factors that vary between countries, regions, etc. I don't think this could be called nationalism though.

Left-wing nationalism allows for self-identified peoples to retain sovereignty within a benign geopolitical context. This allows for both internal and international cohesion and solidarity. The RSF propounds this to be ethical and necessary for protracted stability. There is little reason to suspect that individual nationalistic tendencies would be transcended upon the advent of global socialism and perhaps even communism, and certainly not before this point, due to the nationalistic frame that revolutions invariably adopt. Left-wing nationalism, if I may venture a theoretical proposition, may be regarded as a sort of "pluralistic" nationalism, which emphasizes national unity but understands the greater scope of responsibility and dependence; it is therefore compatible with both the respect for diversity embraced by progressives and the traditional ideals of socialism.

Rev Scare wrote:Left-wing nationalism allows for self-identified peoples to retain sovereignty within a benign geopolitical context. This allows for both internal and international cohesion and solidarity. The RSF propounds this to be ethical and necessary for protracted stability. There is little reason to suspect that individual nationalistic tendencies would be transcended upon the advent of global socialism and perhaps even communism, and certainly not before this point, due to the nationalistic frame that revolutions invariably adopt. Left-wing nationalism, if I may venture a theoretical proposition, may be regarded as a sort of "pluralistic" nationalism, which emphasizes national unity but understands the greater scope of responsibility and dependence; it is therefore compatible with both the respect for diversity embraced by progressives and the traditional ideals of socialism.

This reminds me of something Mao wrote about patriotism and internationalism:

Mao wrote:Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better.... For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China's case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by hghting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism.
"The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 196.*

I can accept Mao's ideas on patriotism, that's not harmful to the international context of the communist struggle. The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

Jaycm610 wrote:I can accept Mao's ideas on patriotism, that's not harmful to the international context of the communist struggle. The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

Mao was writing within the context of an ethnically and culturally homogenous nation, so the national question was of little importance to Chinese socialism. As for left-wing nationalism being "racialized," I disagree with such a characterization. Race is of no consequence to people residing outside of the post-colonial world, i.e., the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, etc., and we stress the importance of culture (history, language, etc.) just as must as we do ethnicity when addressing the national question.

I agree that differences between workers need to be set aside if the proletarian revolution is to succeed, but that's not what most socialist and communist parties have been engaged in for the past several decades. Rampant cosmopolitanism within the radical Left of the global north has led to organizations pushing every conceivable peripheral social issue to the fore, thereby alienating the working class majority—which is heterosexual and Caucasian. Moreover, we feel that left-wing nationalism will be most relevant after the revolution. (It's basically a hypothesis regarding the manner in which the working class will organize international relations when they possess the democratic means to do so, and what conditions will best serve to foster socialist development.)

Jaycm610 wrote:The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

Nonsense. Racialism is not regarded as a legitimate expression of nationalism on this forum. Some may expression asinine viewpoints in our OV section, but that has no bearing upon the ideological foundation of the Socialist Phalanx nor its participatory parameters (outside of Opposing Views). Ethnocultural conceptions of the nation—which are most common amongst the membership here—are not the functional equivalent of racial conceptions.

I suggest you actually invest some time in familiarizing yourself with this forum's content before drawing any conclusions.

Jaycm610 wrote:The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

I think you'll find most of the active membership agrees with you, and that people who disagree don't tend to post here anymore.