Socialism for reactionaries?

To carry on a discussion from another section;

Socialism cannot be a simple ‘one size fits all’ political solution. Any attempt to see it as so is infantile idealism at its worst. A problem that seems to infest many of the differing socialist groups. Socialism is proclaimed as a cure all for the world’s problems, with the same enthusiasm as many of today’s miracle cures, and with the same disappointments when it fails to deliver.
For socialism to work it must be approached from a national level, as each nation of the world suffers distinct situational differences which require distinct solutions, hence left wing nationalism or socialist-nationalism.
The social and economic situation that faces Britain today, is markedly different from those affecting America. Therefore the solutions must be different. Socialism must be embraced from a national perspective, and not from a utopian, one world, open borders one that in the end can only benefit the international capitalist.

I follow what you're saying here, Isakenaz. The international capitalist is bankrolling and plundering off of one worldism premise. It's obscene to put it mildly the death of cultural/national uniqueness for profit.

We have a new secret weapon.......it is called Nationalism-Ho Chi Min

Ah but nationalism was acceptable to the left when it was the Vietnamese asserting their idependence from the colonial French and Americans. It is not however acceptable for say a British worker to advocate nationalism, that is simply chauvanistic, intolerant, racism.
On your knees Englisher, apologise for the exploitation committed by your forebears!

Isakenaz wrote:Ah but nationalism was acceptable to the left when it was the Vietnamese asserting their idependence from the colonial French and Americans. It is not however acceptable for say a British worker to advocate nationalism, that is simply chauvanistic, intolerant, racism.
On your knees Englisher, apologise for the exploitation committed by your forebears!

Is that you George Galloway?

TheocWulf wrote:Is that you George Galloway?

Ahhhh, Gorgeous George beloved of Allah

Isakenaz wrote:Socialism cannot be a simple ‘one size fits all’ political solution. Any attempt to see it as so is infantile idealism at its worst. A problem that seems to infest many of the differing socialist groups.

I'm unaware of anyone who claims otherwise. Could you perhaps provide a few examples of notable socialists arguing the contrary?

Uneven economic development, diverse cultural practices, and varied historical experiences all effect the manner by which socialism will materialize across the world. At most, socialists argue that the institutional solutions to the problems caused by capitalism (e.g., exploitation, alienation, and environmental degradation) remain the same for each country.

Socialism is proclaimed as a cure all for the world’s problems, with the same enthusiasm as many of today’s miracle cures, and with the same disappointments when it fails to deliver.

There was undoubtedly a millenarian undercurrent among the early utopian socialists that unfortunately persists within certain Marxist sects (particularly of the radical cosmopolitan variety), but I think most intelligent socialists are realistic enough to understand that human perfectibility is an unattainable goal.

For socialism to work it must be approached from a national level, as each nation of the world suffers distinct situational differences which require distinct solutions, hence left wing nationalism or socialist-nationalism.

I agree.

The social and economic situation that faces Britain today, is markedly different from those affecting America.

They are certainly different, but not dramatically so. We are both First World nations which descend from a similar Anglo culture and whose mode of production is practically indistinguishable.

Ah but nationalism was acceptable to the left when it was the Vietnamese asserting their idependence from the colonial French and Americans. It is not however acceptable for say a British worker to advocate nationalism, that is simply chauvanistic, intolerant, racism.
On your knees Englisher, apologise for the exploitation committed by your forebears!

First of all, a definition of nationalism is required before a sensible conversation can be had on this subject. Secondly, what's at issue here is whether Britain is currently undergoing conditions conducive to a national or social revolution. Occasionally, the two overlap—as in the cases of Vietnam, China, and Cuba in the 20th century—but I don't see that in Britain today. Your country is in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, as mine is, and it's during these turbulent periods that the class struggle can most effectively be advanced. The 'foreign threats' to British national character, which reactionaries constantly dwell on, are usually overstated and merely serve to distract the working class away from the issues which matter. (Mass immigration, as you well know, is directly caused by capital's perpetual quest to reduce labor costs by whatever means necessary—in this case, by inflating the size of the labor market. Its impact on nationality is epiphenomenal, and therefore best addressed by the social revolution anyway.)

Celtiberian,
Greetings, there is, as you know, little difference between you views and mine, despite what others may choose to believe.
I had started on a long, philosophical answer to your post, but in the end what is the point?
Britain is fast approaching a tipping point, both economic and social, and fine words and clever argument is not going to be of any use. Now is a time for action, not rhetoric. Either we of the left find a way to deal with the onrushing situation, or the fascists,as so often in the past, will wrap themselves in a the flag and present a simpler solution.

In Asia, anti-imperialism is practically synonymous with anti-capitalism. The nationalism of Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese socialists is not at all comparable with the nationalism of Western nationalists or fascists however.

Whilst I agree that socialism must be carried out "from the national level", "British nationalism" is reactionary to the core. It is a perfect example of a the subordination of the proletariat to the interests of the imperialistic bourgeoisie.

The real victims of British nationalism are the stateless common people of England, Wales, and Scotland, and the occupied people of northern Ireland. They are the ones who are being alienated from their national identities as a direct result of Britain's colonial adventures as the former colonised peoples are now fleeing to their mother country.

Socialist Warrior wrote:Whilst I agree that socialism must be carried out "from the national level", "British nationalism" is reactionary to the core. It is a perfect example of a the subordination of the proletariat to the interests of the imperialistic bourgeoisie.

No one has argued in defense of bourgeois nationalism, so I'm perplexed at why you would choose to respond in such a manner. A proletarian acknowledgement of British national identity (i.e., left-wing nationalism) does not entail support for British imperialism.

I was not making any accusations against anyone, merely explaining why I don't support such a thing.

Socialist Warrior wrote:I was not making any accusations against anyone, merely explaining why I don't support such a thing.

Your post seemed critical of the notion of workers in hegemonic bourgeois states possessing nationalistic sentiments. I, of course, entirely agree that reactionary nationalism must be exposed to the proletariat for the false consciousness it is, but that doesn't suggest that national identity itself should be opposed. If you're acknowledging that left-wing nationalism in the global north is unobjectionable, I withdraw my statement.

I do not oppose national unity under the banner of the socialist cause, far from it; but you must understand that many nationalists will espouse vague anti-capitalist rhetoric (I am speaking in general, not directed at anyone); for example, the British National Party supporters call themselves occasionally "socialists" when they are no such thing, and then denigrate "the left" in their next breath.

Preserving the national character is key for national prosperity, and this means preserving all unique national characteristics in all spheres of life and society.

Socialist Warrior wrote:I do not oppose national unity under the banner of the socialist cause, far from it; but you must understand that many nationalists will espouse vague anti-capitalist rhetoric (I am speaking in general, not directed at anyone); for example, the British National Party supporters call themselves occasionally "socialists" when they are no such thing, and then denigrate "the left" in their next breath.

I'm fully aware that fascist organizations occasionally utilize radical rhetoric in order to manipulate workers into supporting their reactionary agendas. Consequently, I'm of the opinion that instead of adopting a 'no platform' policy, socialists need to actively debate fascists so as to expose their true objectives to the workers who might otherwise be receptive to fascistic propaganda.

I agree, I apologize if I came across as trying to cause aggravation, but it is frustrating to see working class people who don't know any better being suckered into reactionary movements like the BNP, EDL etc.

The anti-fascists in this country have long maintained a policy of giving the fascists no platform; I view this as a mistake because it hasn't worked. I think it's of great importance to educate the proletariat instead.

Edit: I support the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) and their "workers' nationalism" because they are anti-mass immigration and support British jobs for British workers.

Socialist Warrior wrote:In Asia, anti-imperialism is practically synonymous with anti-capitalism. The nationalism of Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese socialists is not at all comparable with the nationalism of Western nationalists or fascists however.

Whilst I agree that socialism must be carried out "from the national level", "British nationalism" is reactionary to the core. It is a perfect example of a the subordination of the proletariat to the interests of the imperialistic bourgeoisie.

The real victims of British nationalism are the stateless common people of England, Wales, and Scotland, and the occupied people of northern Ireland. They are the ones who are being alienated from their national identities as a direct result of Britain's colonial adventures as the former colonised peoples are now fleeing to their mother country.

I'm inclined to agree with SW.The peoples of our Island(s) need a referendum on the union not just the Scottish.I personally find Great Britain as an institution a hangover from the Normans.

Socialist Warrior wrote:In Asia, anti-imperialism is practically synonymous with anti-capitalism. The nationalism of Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese socialists is not at all comparable with the nationalism of Western nationalists or fascists however.

How is that true in the least? If nationalists in Asia try to set up their own capitalist systems then how is anti-imperialism anywhere close to anti-capitalism? If you think that Vietnam and China are not capitalist then what would you call them and why? If you think that North Korea is a socialist nation then why would you say that it is socialist, let alone a model that should be emulated?

Whilst I agree that socialism must be carried out "from the national level", "British nationalism" is reactionary to the core. It is a perfect example of a the subordination of the proletariat to the interests of the imperialistic bourgeoisie.

Most form of Nationalism are reactionary in my opinion.

Red Aegis wrote:Most form of Nationalism are reactionary in my opinion.

If so, then how do you justify Left-Wing Nationalism as espoused by many on this forum? Or are we to assume that there are different degrees of nationalism? Nationalism with a big 'N', a medium size 'N' or a small 'n'.

As I've argued many times before, nationalism is a poisoned chalice. Most people aren't prepared to debate the subtelties of the term, or how this person or that was prepared to define it. They simply see the term 'nationalist' and fill in the rest according to their political beliefs.

Isakenaz wrote:If so, then how do you justify Left-Wing Nationalism as espoused by many on this forum? Or are we to assume that there are different degrees of nationalism? Nationalism with a big 'N', a medium size 'N' or a small 'n'.

As I've argued many times before, nationalism is a poisoned chalice. Most people aren't prepared to debate the subtelties of the term, or how this person or that was prepared to define it. They simply see the term 'nationalist' and fill in the rest according to their political beliefs.

I do think that there are different versions of Nationalism. It is not just a matter of degree but one of substance, by which I mean philosophical stances. When I reference my nationalism I am using it as a shorthand for the belief that people should not be forced into joining respective governments except by birth. It is also a reference to my holding my values as something that I should defend, by that I mean that I will live by my conscience.

The versions of Nationalism that hold race or imperialism as core tenets are reactionary in my opinion. They do nothing to improve society or to guide actions that I see as ethical.