Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

 :: General :: Theory

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by proletarian blood on Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:34 am

Dear participants,

In all historical-political contexts, we must place values on the quality of separate nationalisms. When two nations come into conflict, often one is forced to pick a side. It is therefore the role of the socialists to endorse the nation whose victory will result in the more far-reaching advancement of the proletarian cause. Nationalism which manifests in imperialist aggression and social chauvinism thus is reactionary nationalism while nationalism which advances the anti-imperialist proletarian cause is progressive nationalism.

While the following list is by no means exhaustive, in my opinion these nationalisms therefore have/had progressive aspects to them in their historical contexts:

Irish nationalism - Northern Ireland is occupied by imperialist Britain. Groups like the Irish Republican Socialists embody a progressive nationalism.
Palestinian nationalism - Palestine is occupied by neocolonial Israel. Groups like the PFLP have fought for national liberation under a socialist banner, while today the fight is largely by Islamists, it still retains some progressive character.
Basque, Catalonian, and Galician nationalism - Occupied by imperialist Spain, the struggles for national liberation in these areas have often been carried on by the Marxist traditions.
Puerto Rican nationalism - Occupied by the imperialist US, resistance groups like los Macheteros ideologically uphold Marxism-Leninism.

On the other hand, other forms of nationalism have been utilized to hold back the advancement of the proletarian cause:

American nationalism - this was the principal force holding back the Soviet Union.
British nationalism - this enslaved much of the world and continues to divide the Irish nation.

Yet one must be aware that the progressive or reactionary character of a nationalism is not static, but is subject to fluctuation and gray areas. For example, American nationalism was progressive at its outset by showing that it is right to rebel against colonial masters, while it was gradually twisted into a force of reaction in later years. Russian nationalism contributed to Soviet victory in WWII, yet ultimately led to the dissolution of the USSR in favor of the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States. It would also seem that Lenin's policy of revolutionary defeatism was, in the end, a means by which to turn reactionary nationalism into progressive nationalism. By calling for the defeat of one's own reactionary (Russian) nationalism, a new progressive (Soviet) nationalism can be built in its wake.

What are your thoughts on progressive nationalism versus reactionary nationalism?

Fraternally,

pb

proletarian blood
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 3
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-08-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by GF on Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:06 am

I mostly agree, but we need to remember that we support proletarian nationalism not bourgeois nationalism. Proletarian nationalism is based on the proletariat, while bourgeois nationalism is nationalism which is not based on any particular class, and continues to exploit the proletariat under capitalism. In a proletarian, socialist state there would be no exploitation of other nations, so I see no reason as to see proletarian nationalism as reactionary.

_________________




"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."

"My special juice is gonna help me win." - Honey Boo Boo Child

Commissar of Latrines
avatar
GF
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Socialist
Posts : 375
Reputation : 191
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 20
Location : FL

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:26 am

First of all let me write that I am not a progressive or a reactionary Nationalist. I am a Hungarian Nationalist ( who also happens to be a Socialist, more specifically a Syndicalist).

Nationalism is simply the belief that the interests of a particular Nation must be upheld. That belief is not reactionary or progressive, neither is it left wing or right wing. Now of course I am opposed to Nationalists who accept Capitalism but that does not make a progressive or proletarian Nationalist. I am opposed to Capitalism because such an economic system goes against the interests of my Nation. Therefore I am a Socialist because I am a Nationalist.


Last edited by Rebel Warrior 59 on Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:35 am

Godfaesten wrote:I mostly agree, but we need to remember that we support proletarian nationalism not bourgeois nationalism. Proletarian nationalism is based on the proletariat, while bourgeois nationalism is nationalism which is not based on any particular class, and continues to exploit the proletariat under capitalism. In a proletarian, socialist state there would be no exploitation of other nations, so I see no reason as to see proletarian nationalism as reactionary.

Class based Nationalism? And what would that be? One class of the Nation goes at anothers throat?

No I am in favor of destroying both the Proletarian and the Capitalist class in order to form new classes which will no longer be rivals. That way all classes within the Nation will be able to cooperate if necessary for the good of the whole. I will get more into this on another thread but for now I will say Capitalism must be destroyed so that class collaboration may come about.
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by GF on Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:50 am

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Class based Nationalism? And what would that be? One class of the Nation goes at anothers throat?

I am in favor of giving all power to the proletariat, since that is the only class that builds the nation. The capitalist class does absolutely nothing, so yes, I support having the workers of the nation be given power, and the exploitative capitalist class be demolished.

_________________




"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."

"My special juice is gonna help me win." - Honey Boo Boo Child

Commissar of Latrines
avatar
GF
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Socialist
Posts : 375
Reputation : 191
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 20
Location : FL

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:55 am

Godfaesten wrote:I am in favor of giving all power to the proletariat, since that is the only class that builds the nation. The capitalist class does absolutely nothing, so yes, I support having the workers of the nation be given power, and the exploitative capitalist class be demolished.

That is all fine and dandy but the Proletariat only exists because of the Capitalists. If the Capitalists no longer exist then neither does the Proletariat. That is what I mean when I speak of forming new classes. Ex Capitalists and Ex Proletarians will form new classes after Capitalism is destroyed.
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by GF on Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:04 am

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:That is all fine and dandy but the Proletariat only exists because of the Capitalists. If the Capitalists no longer exist then neither does the Proletariat. That is what I mean when I speak of forming new classes. Ex Capitalists and Ex Proletarians will form new classes after Capitalism is destroyed.

I suppose, but there will be no exploiters, only workers, that's what I meant by based on the proletariat, not on the bourgeoisie.

_________________




"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."

"My special juice is gonna help me win." - Honey Boo Boo Child

Commissar of Latrines
avatar
GF
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Socialist
Posts : 375
Reputation : 191
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 20
Location : FL

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Rebel Redneck 59 on Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:09 am

Godfaesten wrote:I suppose, but there will be no exploiters, only workers, that's what I meant by based on the proletariat, not on the bourgeoisie.

I see. Anyways my personal opinion is Capitalism must be destroyed in order to strenghten national solidarity.
avatar
Rebel Redneck 59
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Venerable Rogue
Posts : 377
Reputation : 62
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : West Virginia

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by TheocWulf on Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:24 am

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I see. Anyways my personal opinion is Capitalism must be destroyed in order to strenghten national solidarity.

Im of the same opinion once the English/British workers and people have control of the nation we can then support other nations to achive the same goal starting with Europe and then the rest of the world assumeing they have not already done so of course.
avatar
TheocWulf
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : English Folk Distributism
Posts : 461
Reputation : 113
Join date : 2011-08-18
Location : England

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Admin on Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:38 pm

proletarian blood wrote:Dear participants,

In all historical-political contexts, we must place values on the quality of separate nationalisms. When two nations come into conflict, often one is forced to pick a side. It is therefore the role of the socialists to endorse the nation whose victory will result in the more far-reaching advancement of the proletarian cause. Nationalism which manifests in imperialist aggression and social chauvinism thus is reactionary nationalism while nationalism which advances the anti-imperialist proletarian cause is progressive nationalism.

While the following list is by no means exhaustive, in my opinion these nationalisms therefore have/had progressive aspects to them in their historical contexts:

Irish nationalism - Northern Ireland is occupied by imperialist Britain. Groups like the Irish Republican Socialists embody a progressive nationalism.
Palestinian nationalism - Palestine is occupied by neocolonial Israel. Groups like the PFLP have fought for national liberation under a socialist banner, while today the fight is largely by Islamists, it still retains some progressive character.
Basque, Catalonian, and Galician nationalism - Occupied by imperialist Spain, the struggles for national liberation in these areas have often been carried on by the Marxist traditions.
Puerto Rican nationalism - Occupied by the imperialist US, resistance groups like los Macheteros ideologically uphold Marxism-Leninism.

On the other hand, other forms of nationalism have been utilized to hold back the advancement of the proletarian cause:

American nationalism - this was the principal force holding back the Soviet Union.
British nationalism - this enslaved much of the world and continues to divide the Irish nation.

Yet one must be aware that the progressive or reactionary character of a nationalism is not static, but is subject to fluctuation and gray areas. For example, American nationalism was progressive at its outset by showing that it is right to rebel against colonial masters, while it was gradually twisted into a force of reaction in later years. Russian nationalism contributed to Soviet victory in WWII, yet ultimately led to the dissolution of the USSR in favor of the so-called Commonwealth of Independent States. It would also seem that Lenin's policy of revolutionary defeatism was, in the end, a means by which to turn reactionary nationalism into progressive nationalism. By calling for the defeat of one's own reactionary (Russian) nationalism, a new progressive (Soviet) nationalism can be built in its wake.

What are your thoughts on progressive nationalism versus reactionary nationalism?

Fraternally,

pb

All good points. Your conception of progressive/left-wing nationalism does largely correspond with the forum's definition thereof.

I would only stress that there is a qualitative difference between progressive/left-wing nationalism and other expressions of nationalism that cannot be obscured on account of historical context alone. For example, early American 'nationalism' was clearly not qualitatively progressive in a number of critical areas. As such, it should only be regarded as 'progressive' in relative terms.

Thus, while certain other expressions of nationalism may well possess some inherent (largely strategic) value, I would caution individuals not to conflate ('progressive') functionality with (progressive) ideological substance.

Incidentally, many of us here describe the tendency as 'left-wing nationalism', due to the ambiguity inherent to the term 'progressive nationalism'.

_________________
De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
-Friedrich Engels Hammer Sickle

ECRSF Officer
avatar
Admin
_____________________________
_____________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 971
Reputation : 864
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : La Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Ghost Wolf on Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:48 pm

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:If the Capitalists no longer exist then neither does the Proletariat. That is what I mean when I speak of forming new classes. Ex Capitalists and Ex Proletarians will form new classes after Capitalism is destroyed.

That is the right idea, IMO, that a system that created the hostility towards and oppression of one class should not be followed by a mere reversal.

Godfaesten has the same idea I also have:

Godfaesten wrote:I suppose, but there will be no exploiters, only workers, that's what I meant by based on the proletariat, not on the bourgeoisie.

_________________
"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall." - Che Guevara

"Do not shout so loudly. You are not alone. The whole world is laughing itself to death at pious talk of morality coming from those who reek of blood." - Dr. Josef Goebbels, The Morals of the Rich

Stock market crooks and Racketeers
Enslave all of our lands.
We want to honestly earn;
Hard-working, with constructive hands.

Visit my Site: THE REVOLUTION OUTLET
avatar
Ghost Wolf
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Radical environmentalism, Anti-Right wing
Posts : 22
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-07-14
Age : 23
Location : CT

http://therevolutionoutlet.webs.com/

Back to top Go down

What about . . .

Post by Red Aegis on Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:12 pm

What about using nationalism as a tool to unite the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie towards socialism? Would that nationalism dissipate once the surrounding nations become socialist through the dissolution of borders?
avatar
Red Aegis
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : RedSoc
Posts : 738
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2011-10-27
Location : U.S.

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Rev Scare on Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:43 pm

Red Aegis wrote:What about using nationalism as a tool to unite the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie towards socialism?

It is definitely a tool to unite the proletariat, but we do not find it appropriate to pander to bourgeois society. There will undoubtedly be elements within the petit-bourgeoisie who sympathize with our views, but the majority probably will not.

Would that nationalism dissipate once the surrounding nations become socialist through the dissolution of borders?

We do not believe that it will. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that national identities will dissipate within a post-capitalist society; in fact, they may become more binding after class struggle is eliminated. It may be that in the long-term socialist future, presently existing national boundaries would erase over time, but nationalism as a concept will not, and the newly emerging order would require nationalist sentiments so as to maintain solidarity.

_________________
"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common." Hammer Sickle
Karl Marx



RSF Executive Committee Officer
avatar
Rev Scare
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 821
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 28
Location : Utah

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Admin on Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:19 pm

Red Aegis wrote:What about using nationalism as a tool to unite the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie towards socialism? Would that nationalism dissipate once the surrounding nations become socialist through the dissolution of borders?

Before I answer your question, I should note that while I understand the practicality inherent to 'unifying' elements of the petit-bourgeoisie with the proletariat (at specific times, for specific purposes), I strongly feel that any such 'unification' be based firmly upon an immutable foundation of revolutionary socialism. I am strongly opposed to obfuscating or outright undermining an ideological commitment to the abolition of capitalist social relations — which would necessarily bring about the abolition of the petit-bourgeoisie — in order to curry favor with that class. I find it far more advisable to allow capitalism's development to lead to the proletarianization of a decisive portion of the petit-bourgeoisie, rather than attempt to convince members of that class that socialism is in their best interest.

With respect to the notion of utilizing nationalism in order to assist in socialist revolution — via the exploitation of the solidarity that such sentiments cultivate amongst a majority of proletarians — I am in agreement with you. I think most left-wing nationalists would argue that national solidarity has proven itself to be an indispensable component to most successful socialist pursuits.

Now, the notion that international socialism would necessarily lead to the dissolution of borders, national identities, etc. is one that hasn't much of an empirical basis. I do not deny that this has always been a popular conjecture amongst many socialists. (At the same time, however, there is no real consensus regarding how and when such a profound development would take place in a post-capitalist international environment.) Revolutionary socialists who adhere to left-wing nationalist principles, on the other hand, tend to believe a converse course of events to be far more plausible — particularly during the early phases of socialism. Indeed, it was with such doubts in mind that such figures as Lenin insisted that "it would be a betrayal of socialism to refuse to implement the self-determination of nations under socialism."

Left-wing nationalists tend to view the existence of national identities to be a beneficial component of a healthy socialist society due to the social cohesion that such fosters. Furthermore, the existence of a vibrant socialism would in turn serve to transcend the negative, antagonistic characteristics that would otherwise accompany said identities.

_________________
De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
-Friedrich Engels Hammer Sickle

ECRSF Officer
avatar
Admin
_____________________________
_____________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 971
Reputation : 864
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : La Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Shoreditch on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:58 pm

I was doing a bit of surfing on the www when I came across this mention of the magazine ‘Liveable
Nation’. You’ll notice that the magazine describes itself as the ‘Newsletter and Think-Tank of Progressive Nationalism’.

According to the article the Editorial of the mag describes Progressive Nationalism like this:

“Progressive Nationalism is a nationalism based on equality, popular sovereignty and national self-determination. Therefore, Progressive Nationalism rejects the dehumanising materialist doctrines of capitalism and communism – which we view as two sides of the same coin – as well as racism, imperialism, fascism and war.”

To my mind this kind of fits in with what some of you have said already.

You can find a link to the original article here: http://thirdway.eu/2011/08/05/new-issue-of-liveable-nation-out-now/

And here’s a link to the mag itself: http://thirdwayuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ln-2.pdf

Any thoughts?

Shoreditch
___________________________
___________________________

Posts : 1
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Red Aegis on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:12 pm

I disagree twith communism and capitalism being two sides of the same coin in that communism is a shift in social relations more analogous to speciation in biology.

_________________
Red Star Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Social Justice Red Star
avatar
Red Aegis
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : RedSoc
Posts : 738
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2011-10-27
Location : U.S.

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Rev Scare on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:58 pm

Shoreditch wrote:I was doing a bit of surfing on the www when I came across this mention of the magazine ‘Liveable
Nation’. You’ll notice that the magazine describes itself as the ‘Newsletter and Think-Tank of Progressive Nationalism’.

According to the article the Editorial of the mag describes Progressive Nationalism like this:

“Progressive Nationalism is a nationalism based on equality, popular sovereignty and national self-determination. Therefore, Progressive Nationalism rejects the dehumanising materialist doctrines of capitalism and communism – which we view as two sides of the same coin – as well as racism, imperialism, fascism and war.”

To my mind this kind of fits in with what some of you have said already.

You can find a link to the original article here: http://thirdway.eu/2011/08/05/new-issue-of-liveable-nation-out-now/

And here’s a link to the mag itself: http://thirdwayuk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ln-2.pdf

Any thoughts?

I find the bulk of their definition to be analogous to our own (although we prefer the term "left-wing nationalism"), but the claim that communism and capitalism are merely "two sides of the same coin" due to "dehumanising materialist doctrines" is wholly fallacious. Communism, according to Marxist theory, entails fundamentally altered social relations to capitalism (classless, stateless, communal, and voluntary) in terms of production, distribution, and consumption, and it is to be achieved through a period of socialist development in which the productive forces of society would gradually attain the capacity to meet this stage. Communism is therefore, in the Marxian sense, an emergent phenomenon presupposing an advanced socialist organization of society, not a simple alternative to capitalism.

The proprietors of the magazine have in all likelihood taken the former self-described "socialist" countries to have been examples of actual communism in practice (a common misrepresentation), with all of the inefficiency, repression, and corruption resulting from centralized planning, state ownership, and dictatorship. I would be interested in knowing what the magazine's staff considers to be a suitable mode of production in place of capitalism if not socialism (and by implication, communism). Third way is a delusion founded upon ignorance.

_________________
"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common." Hammer Sickle
Karl Marx



RSF Executive Committee Officer
avatar
Rev Scare
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 821
Reputation : 911
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 28
Location : Utah

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by RedSun on Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:11 pm

Having read posts on this forum regarding nationalism, I have to ask: are there any non-white nationalists on this forum? Cos if there aren't we should find some; if all our nationalist brethren are coming out of Stormfront having too many people talking about white nationalism could give our claims of 'left-wing nationalism' less credibility. I also think we need black/Asian/Arab/etc. nationalists to keep us on the right track and spread our cause outside the Western world.

_________________
'Make the question of the people a question of the nation; then the question of the nation will become the question of the people!'
--Vladimir Lenin
avatar
RedSun
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 246
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2011-11-05
Location : Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Admin on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:29 am

RedSun wrote:Having read posts on this forum regarding nationalism, I have to ask: are there any non-white nationalists on this forum? Cos if there aren't we should find some; if all our nationalist brethren are coming out of Stormfront having too many people talking about white nationalism could give our claims of 'left-wing nationalism' less credibility. I also think we need black/Asian/Arab/etc. nationalists to keep us on the right track and spread our cause outside the Western world.

The Socialist Phalanx's basis in left-wing nationalism is not a mere claim, but an irrefutable fact. Certainly, some closed-minded individuals will misinterpret certain forum policies and aspects of its history, but there is only so much we can reasonably do to dispel the erroneous conclusions they draw from such things.

Furthermore, not all of the nationalists here come from White Nationalist backgrounds. With respect to those who do, I can affirm that they have either abandoned that reactionary worldview entirely (choosing instead to embrace the principles of left-wing nationalism) or had their rhetoric thoroughly debated and confined to the OV section. (I personally believe that engaging those who maintain such opinions in productive debate enables us to expound upon the ideological irreconcilability that exists between left-wing nationalism and White Nationalism, as well as potentially persuade such individuals to reject the latter.)

I must also note that your suggestion warrants some constructive criticism. Adopting a policy that is specifically directed at drawing in non-European individuals strikes me as a patronizing and somewhat dubious enterprise (sort of the equivalent of combating allegations of racism by noting that you have a "black friend"). This forum has always been open to people of every race. Now, we don't bother interrogating members, in order to establish what their respective ethnic background are, but I do know for a fact that we have non-European members. Those who are inclined to actually investigate this, for whatever reason, will learn this. That being said, I think it would be nice to further diversify the membership of the forum, as it would provide us with perspectives that come from different experiences.

Personally, I think a far more valuable pursuit would be to find individuals (regardless of their ethnic backgrounds) whose views correspond with the ideological foundation of the Socialist Phalanx and who would actually be inclined to post here regularly. That alone would do a great deal to positively promote this forum. It would also likely attract a more diverse following/membership.

_________________
De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."
-Friedrich Engels Hammer Sickle

ECRSF Officer
avatar
Admin
_____________________________
_____________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 971
Reputation : 864
Join date : 2011-04-01
Location : La Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by RedSun on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:47 am

Good to know not all of our members are non-European. I agree with your recommendation, and hope that we'll see non-European nationalist socialists here as proud of their nation as, say, Rebel Warrior 59.

Admin wrote:The Socialist Phalanx's basis in left-wing nationalism is not a mere claim, but an irrefutable fact.

This is the kind of willingness to stick to our guns that the movement needs, especially if we're going to use socialist symbols of any power whatsoever.
avatar
RedSun
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 246
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2011-11-05
Location : Canada

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by TotalitarianSocialist on Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:14 am

Godfaesten wrote:bourgeois nationalism is nationalism which is not based on any particular class, and continues to exploit the proletariat under capitalism.

I personally say bourgeois "nationalism" is only half nationalism. Under a capitalist system the nation itself is more unhealthy. A socialistic nationalism is what is needed in order to have a more healthy nation.

Red Aegis wrote:What about using nationalism as a tool to unite the proletariat and petit-bourgeoisie towards socialism?


I agree. Proletariat should focus on petit-bourgeoisie/small businesses instead of the big ultracapitalist businesses. The petit-bourgeoisie is to oppressed by the bourgeoisie.

RedSun wrote:Having read posts on this forum regarding nationalism, I have to ask: are there any non-white nationalists on this forum? Cos if there aren't we should find some; if all our nationalist brethren are coming out of Stormfront having too many people talking about white nationalism could give our claims of 'left-wing nationalism' less credibility. I also think we need black/Asian/Arab/etc. nationalists to keep us on the right track and spread our cause outside the Western world.

I recall seeing a poster who is a Baathist. Socialism seems to be more popular amongst non-white nationalists. Quite a few of the spermfront crowd are supporters of a capitalist system. I see the white nationalist movement in itself as very flawed. I am not a white nationalist, I am a pan-nationalist. A black/Asian/Arab ect. individual that support our cause is a comrade just like a white individual. I would say the Arab people have a bigger part yo play in the revolution then Northern Europeans. I would only say Slavic people have a bigger part to play. White nationalism mostly seems to be an American movement, in most white countries nationalists focus on British, German, Russian ect nationalism.
avatar
TotalitarianSocialist
___________________
___________________

Tendency : National SOCIALIST with left wing sympathies.
Posts : 41
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Celtiberian on Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:36 am

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I agree. Proletariat should focus on petit-bourgeoisie/small businesses instead of the big ultracapitalist businesses. The petit-bourgeoisie is to oppressed by the bourgeoisie.

Bourgeois oppression should be of no concern to us. It could be argued that finance capital "oppresses" industrial capital, for example, but that doesn't mean private financial institutions should be opposed for that reason. What a socialist must concern him or herself with is, first and foremost, the struggle of the proletariat; and the fact of the matter is, workers in petit-bourgeois firms are often suffering under worse conditions than their counterparts in large corporations—the reason, of course, being that corporations generate a higher rate of profit, thereby enabling corporate executives to provide higher wages, more job security, and possibly fringe benefits to their employees. (There are obviously exceptions, such as workers employed in small firms catering to a profitable niche market, for instance.) The social relations which characterize petit-bourgeois, traditional capitalist, and corporate firms are virtually identical and equally exploitative to labor, and they must all be opposed for that reason.

Any overtures made by left-wing nationalists to the petite bourgeoisie are useless at best, and harmful to the movement at worst. I, for one, have no intention of supporting the perpetuation of that class following the revolution, and, quite frankly, I see no reason why any socialist or communist should.

_________________
RSF Executive Committee (Chairman)
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Anarcho-Edge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:41 pm

My opinion is that socialist nationalism is important for revolution,especially world revolution.The unity of proletarian against capitalism,and statism is what fuels social revolution

_________________
Hammer Sickle Democracy is the road to socialism-Karl Marx Marx
Constant tutelage of our acting and thinking has made us weak and irresponsible; hence, the continued cry for the strong man who is to put an end to our distress. This call for a dictator is not a sign of strength, but a proof of inner lack of assurance and of weakness, even though those who utter it earnestly try to give themselves the appearance of resolution-Rudolf Rocker Hammer Sickle
Hammer Sickle If Anarchy is chaos,what the hell is statism?-Me Hammer Sickle
avatar
Anarcho-Edge
___________________________
___________________________

Tendency : Irish nationalism
Posts : 32
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-12-21
Location : Hell a.k.a Delaware

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by TotalitarianSocialist on Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am

Some say that militarism and authoritarianism is reactionary I disagree. Even the USSR was authoritarian and militaristic.

What I would say is reactionary nationalism is:
Monarchy:
Monarchy is an extreme form of nepotism. A more subtitle dictatorship would be one in which the party chooses its new leader based on merit. I do not believe in a single individual having absolute despotism like Stalin did. I am in favor of the party, not an individual in the party having absolute despotism.

Non-socialism:
State capitalism is reactionary. A capitalist economic system exploits the working and middle class. Fascist Italy and similar regimes were not quite socialist. In my opinion the 3rd Reich was but with a few bourgeois compromises. I favorer a Fascist-Socialism like Lawrence Dennis did.

State religion
Having a state religion can be called reactionary but I see little wrong with that if most of the people in the state share a religion. I am into the occult and I think that religion or atheism is not above criticism. In the future I can see religion as we know it as being dead.

Progressive Nationalism is Socialist Nationalism, Baathism, National Bolshevism, National Communism and as much as I dislike it Anarcho-Nationalism
avatar
TotalitarianSocialist
___________________
___________________

Tendency : National SOCIALIST with left wing sympathies.
Posts : 41
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-10-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Celtiberian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:41 pm

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:Some say that militarism and authoritarianism is reactionary I disagree. Even the USSR was authoritarian and militaristic.

Some would argue that it became authoritarian out of geopolitical necessity, but that doesn't negate the fact that authoritarianism was one of the leading causes of the USSR's eventual downfall. The objective of socialism is, and has always been, the economic and political emancipation of the working class. These principles are incompatible with authoritarianism and militarism.

A more subtitle dictatorship would be one in which the party chooses its new leader based on merit.

What qualifies as "merit"? What's to prevent a party from selecting individuals who would advance the interests of the party to the detriment of the citizens' interests?

Fascist Italy and similar regimes were not quite socialist. In my opinion the 3rd Reich was but with a few bourgeois compromises.

In no sense was the Third Reich "socialist." To consider the NSDAP's expanded welfare state measures 'socialistic' would render every European social democracy in history as having been "socialist."

Having a state religion can be called reactionary but I see little wrong with that if most of the people in the state share a religion.

A state religion would result in otherwise secular people being socialized into believing in the state's official faith. It serves absolutely no purpose, aside from exacerbating religious tensions within and between nations.

_________________
RSF Executive Committee (Chairman)
"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
—J. B. S. Haldane Hammer Sickle

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."
—Mikhail Bakunin Red Star
avatar
Celtiberian
________________________
________________________

Tendency : Revolutionary Syndicalist
Posts : 1523
Reputation : 1615
Join date : 2011-04-04
Age : 30
Location : Florida

http://www.wix.com/executivecommittee/home

Back to top Go down

Re: Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: General :: Theory

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum