Nationalist Internationalism

Pantheon Rising wrote:If they do not ever stand a chance of amassing public support than that is just one more reason why they do not deserve funds. Hence, why cosmopolitan groups are not worthy of financial support and valuable resources that could be invested in domestic socialism otherwise.

As I alluded to in my first response, members of an organization's vanguard may indeed espouse certain cosmopolitan positions and nevertheless be capable of securing adequate support. Take the Bolsheviks, for example. Lenin and Stalin can be said to be cosmopolitans insofar as they ultimately believed that communism would generate a global monoculture. However, they amassed a following in spite of this because, apart from opposing the continuation of the First World War and demanding that all power be given to the Soviets, they also supported a policy of national self-determination which resonated with many of the minority nationalities of the Tsarist empire. Lenin and Stalin's cosmopolitanism thus wasn't of immediate concern to the people because it was merely theoretical, was alleged to materialize at some point in the distant future, and was not stressed in any of the party's public statements to the people. In other words, a party which upholds a policy on the national question somewhat similar to the Bolsheviks' may still be capable of leading a revolution, and they would be deserving of material assistance provided they are serious about constructing democratic institutions following the overthrow of the dictatorship of capital. An organization which constantly emphasizes cosmopolitanism and runs on a platform which undermines national self-determination (as many contemporary socialist and communist parties do), on the other hand, wouldn't have any chance at succeeding.

I actually believe that it has been more highly successful than you claim. In modern day America, we have two camps who have seem to have grown from bourgeois thought. Those who espouse reactionary chauvinistic forms of racism and those who think identity is relatively insignificant and we are all just capable of holding hands in a multi-racial utopia.

The individuals who espouse cosmopolitanism today can be broadly categorized as follows:

1.) Members of the bourgeois and coordinator classes who not only don't have to compete in a labor market replete with cheap foreign labor, but whose only contact with different cultures comes by way of occasionally dealing with their maid(s) and/or janitorial staff, or in their various luxurious vacations abroad. The bourgeoisie's economic incentive to import foreign workers compels many of them to conjure up humanistic excuses for the policy, with cosmopolitanism being most convenient.
2.) Idealists who have never lived in a multicultural area.
3.) Those who are under the impression that national sentiments are a byproduct of class society which will be overcome once the substructure of society is sufficiently altered (e.g., Luxemburgists and Marxist-Leninists).
4.) Aberrations who genuinely do possess a 'global conscious'—by which I mean, they have no affinity toward any ethnic or cultural group(s) and desire the emergence of a vapid monoculture.

All of the above are statistically insignificant. Nationalistic sentiments have not declined in recent decades, and, in certain parts of the world, have even increased in intensity. In Europe, for example, cosmopolitan social engineering is more thoroughly practiced than anywhere else and yet cosmopolitanism is still only espoused by a minor fraction of the population. A relatively high percentage of people polled may answer in the affirmative to questions such as, "Is diversity a strength?" but acknowledging that diversity itself is desirable is the exact opposite of the cosmopolitan vision of ethnocultural homogeneity.

And on the need for a national unity and to raise the proletariat culturally as well.

Neither of those are necessary to emphasize. The workers understand that their comrades in the revolution will be their compatriots; it wouldn't even occur to them to think otherwise. As for 'raising the proletariat culturally,' socialism itself will have that effect. Criticizing the proletariat's current leisure-time activities as being frivolous nonsense, or what have you, will only be met with hostility.

You could say these are all arbitrary values, then again, so is the proletariat's emancipation. Even the form of direct democracy we espouse is a completely arbitrary value.

There's a significant difference: capitalism and depriving people of the ability to control their own lives literally results in poverty, misery, and death. Let's no pretend as if these other values you champion are anywhere near as important as working class emancipation.

Strasser actually subscribed to a different idea, called "Triune Polarity". It is neither the materialist progressive or cyclical theory of history of Spengler

The Triune Polarity is in fact derived from Spengler's cyclical theory of history, as Strasser himself fully acknowledged—though it is 'supplemented' with a few of Strasser's own contrivances. It is also sheer idealist twaddle:

"From the foregoing dissertations it will have become plain that we accept the validity of Oswald Spengler's brilliantly formulated law of the rise and fall of the cultural circle—in this instance the western cultural circle; and that we perceive therein a great law of motion of all organic life, the law of birth, maturity, and death.

"If we study more closely the ideas and the forms of these various epochs, we discover the remarkable fact that we only have to do with two conflicting ideas, two opposing poles, between which the pendulum of history swings unceasingly: the idea of constraint, and the idea of unconstraint; or, we may say, conservatism and liberalism.

"In accordance with the three-dimensional character of all organic life in body, mind, and soul (the bodily plane representing the relation of human beings to things; the mental plane, the relation of human beings to one another; and the soul plane, the relation of man to God), each of these ideas manifests itself equably and simultaneously upon these three planes of life."
Strasser, Otto. Germany Tomorrow, pp. 121-124 (emphasis added).

But let's not derail this thread into yet another debate on Strasserist philosophy. Other threads exist for that purpose.

It would be absolutely silly for past events to be the deciding factor of whether or not a common front is formed today.

Using that logic, the Left shouldn't be averse to allying with Hitlerian National Socialists either.

Celtiberian wrote:As I alluded to in my first response, members of an organization's vanguard may indeed espouse certain cosmopolitan positions and nevertheless be capable of securing adequate support. Take the Bolsheviks, for example. Lenin and Stalin can be said to be cosmopolitans insofar as they ultimately believed that communism would generate a global monoculture. However, they amassed a following in spite of this because, apart from opposing the continuation of the First World War and demanding that all power be given to the Soviets, they also supported a policy of national self-determination which resonated with many of the minority nationalities of the Tsarist empire. Lenin and Stalin's cosmopolitanism thus wasn't of immediate concern to the people because it was merely theoretical, was alleged to materialize at some point in the distant future, and was not stressed in any of the party's public statements to the people. In other words, a party which upholds a policy on the national question somewhat similar to the Bolsheviks' may still be capable of leading a revolution, and they would be deserving of material assistance provided they are serious about constructing democratic institutions following the overthrow of the dictatorship of capital. An organization which constantly emphasizes cosmopolitanism and runs on a platform which undermines national self-determination (as many contemporary socialist and communist parties do), on the other hand, wouldn't have any chance at succeeding.

I will agree to an extent, though I think Stalin's vision of nation's merging and cosmopolitanism went down the drain very early on after Lenin's death. He did hint that he agreed with Marx that nations would whither away in his early essay "Marxism and the National Question", but I believe he had to adapt those views very quickly once coming to power and soon became nationalistic in order to establish socialism in one country. Despite his opposition to cultural-autonomy which I favor in the USA, I think Stalin could be seen as a Socialist-Nationalist figurehead much like the patriotic Ho Chi Minh.

The individuals who espouse cosmopolitanism today can be broadly categorized as follows:

I know where they originate from, I was simply trying to state that they are indeed breaking into two camps.

All of the above are statistically insignificant. Nationalistic sentiments have not declined in recent decades, and, in certain parts of the world, have even increased in intensity. In Europe, for example, cosmopolitan social engineering is more thoroughly practiced than anywhere else and yet cosmopolitanism is still only espoused by a minor fraction of the population. A relatively high percentage of people polled may answer in the affirmative to questions such as, "Is diversity a strength?" but acknowledging that diversity itself is desirable is the exact opposite of the cosmopolitan vision of ethnocultural homogeneity.

I will agree, nationalist sentiments are on the rise. I suppose it just worries me because all the reactionaries can capitalize on national pride and sentiment and totally degrade socialism. Many of them just getting involved are very well meaning people interested in preserving their nation and cultural identity, yet, they remain hostile to us "reds" for launching class war and such.

Neither of those are necessary to emphasize. The workers understand that their comrades in the revolution will be their compatriots; it wouldn't even occur to them to think otherwise. As for 'raising the proletariat culturally,' socialism itself will have that effect. Criticizing the proletariat's current leisure-time activities as being frivolous nonsense, or what have you, will only be met with hostility.

Yes, I don't mean to criticize the current leisure activities. I do think they need to be radically changed though and I think socialism will help with this.

There's a significant difference: capitalism and depriving people of the ability to control their own lives literally results in poverty, misery, and death. Let's no pretend as if these other values you champion are anywhere near as important as working class emancipation.

Who says that workers don't deserve poverty, misery, and death? Obviously we don't think they do and as socialists we have taken up the banner to fight against that, but where does emancipation find its justification? Surely we can give the rational answer of "the greatest good for the greatest number", but that again has no justification as to WHY there should be the greatest good for the greatest number.

But let's not derail this thread into yet another debate on Strasserist philosophy. Other threads exist for that purpose.

I agree. I actually regret mentioning Strasserism in this thread, but, I think we can drop it.

Using that logic, the Left shouldn't be averse to allying with Hitlerian National Socialists either.

Well, without trying to further the Strasserism debate, Strasserism and Hitlerism are ideologically much different so there exists more ideological common ground between the two. I am of the opinion that Strasserists, National Bolsheviks, and the KPD should have all come together to take down the Hitler regime and establish socialism but petty bickering always gets in the way I suppose.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I will agree to an extent, though I think Stalin's vision of nation's merging and cosmopolitanism went down the drain very early on after Lenin's death. He did hint that he agreed with Marx that nations would whither away in his early essay "Marxism and the National Question", but I believe he had to adapt those views very quickly once coming to power and soon became nationalistic in order to establish socialism in one country. Despite his opposition to cultural-autonomy which I favor in the USA, I think Stalin could be seen as a Socialist-Nationalist figurehead much like the patriotic Ho Chi Minh.

What happened after Lenin's death was Stalin's decision to embark on a policy of Russian cultural imperialism—what Lenin had termed "rusotiapstvo" (mindless Russian chauvinism). Though Lenin failed to uphold the principles of the very self-determination theory he had formulated, Stalin went much further in suppressing minority cultures in the USSR. In this sense, Stalin can be likened to a reactionary nationalist. Whether or not he espoused the withering away of nations thesis merely for Machiavellian purposes is impossible to know.

I will agree, nationalist sentiments are on the rise. I suppose it just worries me because all the reactionaries can capitalize on national pride and sentiment and totally degrade socialism.

Not during a period of economic unrest. Virtually every reactionary nationalist party which has gained any traction in history has had to run on a progressive economic platform to some degree. They also use national minority groups as scapegoats in order to deflect attention away from the national bourgeoisie, but that cannot be made to work forever. As you know, the contradictions of capital are such that national capitalism is impossible to maintain for an appreciable amount of time, thereby ensuring that the class struggle will persist.

Many of them just getting involved are very well meaning people interested in preserving their nation and cultural identity, yet, they remain hostile to us "reds" for launching class war and such.

The average American today is a mildly reactionary nationalist with no (or very little) knowledge of socialism or communism. I agree that reactionary nationalist ideologues despise the class struggle, but they are a marginal element in society and I doubt they'll ever amass a significant following—most people simply aren't interested in leading a life of extreme race hatred, and aren't particularly interested in imperial ventures either. I don't believe that it will be difficult to channel their nationalist sentiments into the pursuit of socialist objectives.

Who says that workers don't deserve poverty, misery, and death? Obviously we don't think they do and as socialists we have taken up the banner to fight against that, but where does emancipation find its justification? Surely we can give the rational answer of "the greatest good for the greatest number", but that again has no justification as to WHY there should be the greatest good for the greatest number.

In an abstract sense, nothing is to say that anyone is not deserving of poverty, misery, or death. But the reality of the situation is that people possess an immutable will to survive and control their own lives. Classes, however, possess conflicting interests, which inevitably generates a struggle. So, the bourgeoisie will either find a way to keep the proletariat eternally oppressed, or the workers will eventually succeed in abolishing class society.

Strasserism and Hitlerism are ideologically much different so there exists more ideological common ground between the two.

I disagree. Philosophically, Strasserism and Hitlerism share far more in common with one another than Strasserism has with, say, Marxism. But we should refrain from delving into this issue any further on this thread.

Celtiberian wrote:What happened after Lenin's death was Stalin's decision to embark on a policy of Russian cultural imperialism—what Lenin had termed "rusotiapstvo" (mindless Russian chauvinism). Though Lenin failed to uphold the principles of the very self-determination theory he had formulated, Stalin went much further in suppressing minority cultures in the USSR. In this sense, Stalin can be likened to a reactionary nationalist. Whether or not he espoused the withering away of nations thesis merely for Machiavellian purposes is impossible to know.

I do not think that he actively oppressed minority cultures, but he did put down minor revolts which were deemed counter revolutionary. I'd like to believe these actions had to be taken, especially as National Socialism was gaining power in Europe. Stalin knew the USSR was going to have to go to war which is why he tried to get the Finnish nation's help, when they refused, tried to capture many ports in Finland so they would not be accessible to Germany. Although I disagree with some of his actions and cultural policies he does have a certain "Will to Power" aspect about him that was necessary to save the USSR.

The average American today is a mildly reactionary nationalist with no (or very little) knowledge of socialism or communism. I agree that reactionary nationalist ideologues despise the class struggle, but they are a marginal element in society and I doubt they'll ever amass a significant following—most people simply aren't interested in leading a life of extreme race hatred, and aren't particularly interested in imperial ventures either. I don't believe that it will be difficult to channel their nationalist sentiments into the pursuit of socialist objectives.

You may be right in that it will be easy to channel national sentiments into socialist objectives, though, I do think the average American today is rather apolitical.

In an abstract sense, nothing is to say that anyone is not deserving of poverty, misery, or death. But the reality of the situation is that people possess an immutable will to survive and control their own lives. Classes, however, possess conflicting interests, which inevitably generates a struggle. So, the bourgeoisie will either find a way to keep the proletariat eternally oppressed, or the workers will eventually succeed in abolishing class society.

Perhaps. Though as long as capitalism is able to keep people with a comfy cozy lifestyle I don't see any abolition coming. That is not to say we aren't witnessing a decline of living standards today and an increase in revolutionary sentiment. I merely mean to imply if the bourgeoisie weren't so damn greedy perhaps capitalism could sustain itself.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Although I disagree with some of his actions and cultural policies he does have a certain "Will to Power" aspect about him that was necessary to save the USSR.

He was partially responsible for putting the USSR in jeopardy in the first place by pursuing the "social fascism" propaganda to the point that the KPD actually helped enable Hitler to come to power by way of their refusal to cooperate with the SPD during the federal election of 1933. (The NSDAP may have won regardless, but it was an irresponsible policy nonetheless.) And while Joseph Stalin deserves credit for facilitating much progress in the Soviet Union during his administration, it's inappropriate to overlook the unnecessary suffering he was also responsible for—and the same applies to Lenin and Trotsky, for that matter.

You may be right in that it will be easy to channel national sentiments into socialist objectives, though, I do think the average American today is rather apolitical.

Certainly. To the extent Americans are political at all, they are overwhelmingly reactionary anyway. But this is symptomatic of the manner by which ideology is produced and disseminated under capitalism. As Karl Marx argued, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas." That is why idealism is such a futile exercise. Ethical socialists and communists are essentially engaged in an ideological struggle which cannot be won because the people simply don't have the incentive to investigate these ideas sufficiently enough while things are still going relatively well economically. Understanding scientific socialism is of immense importance to activists, in my opinion, precisely because it emphasizes how crucial material conditions are for the revolutionary project.

I merely mean to imply if the bourgeoisie weren't so damn greedy perhaps capitalism could sustain itself.

Not all bourgeois individuals are greedy. Their position as capitalists compels them to behave in such a manner simply because that's required for an enterprise to survive in a competitive market economy. Perhaps people who are already extraordinarily greedy are generally more successful as capitalists relative to those who are forced to conform to that institutional pressure, I honestly don't know.

Having said that, I disagree with the notion that capitalism could be sustainable if only the bourgeoisie could be made to cooperate with labor—such is the class collaborationist position. This presupposes that capitalism can be in a state of equilibrium provided certain conditions are met. However, the reality of economic crises is that they are endemic to the capitalist mode of production itself. They aren't the result of, say, income inequality; they emerge from the falling rate of profit, which cannot be remedied exogenously.

I will not attempt to refute the above because for the most part I am in agreement. Stalin was definitely not perfect like many Internet NazBols rant about, I don't think they exist off the net though.

Class war is also really the only way to launch a socialist platform so I am in agreement there, and it is one reason I turned down the ideology dubbed Strasserism while still maintaining some respect for the individual himself.