SYRIAN SOCIAL NATIONALIST PARTY – “Social Nationalism vs National Socialism”

By contrast, Saadeh excluded the notion of race as a criteria of nationality. In one of his most vigorous statements against the national socialist conception of the N.S.D.A.P, he declared: “The alleged purity of the race or the blood of any nation is a groundless myth. It is found only in savage groups, and even there it is rare.” ...

Another significant difference between National Socialism and Social Nationalism relates to the concept of national history. In National Socialism purity of blood speaks louder than reason, and race is the center of all human history...

On the contrary, Saadeh regarded racial fusion as one of the driving forces of human history...

Moreover, whereas in national socialism the nation, in both its existence and history, is seen in a purely racial sense, in social nationalism, it is based on human as well as geographical factors. “There can be no people,” wrote Saadeh, “where there is no land, no society where there is no physical environment, and no history where there is no society.”

http://www.ssnp.com/new/ssnp/en/ssnp_001.htm

Entfremdung wrote:

By contrast, Saadeh excluded the notion of race as a criteria of nationality. In one of his most vigorous statements against the national socialist conception of the N.S.D.A.P, he declared: “The alleged purity of the race or the blood of any nation is a groundless myth. It is found only in savage groups, and even there it is rare.” ...

Another significant difference between National Socialism and Social Nationalism relates to the concept of national history. In National Socialism purity of blood speaks louder than reason, and race is the center of all human history...

On the contrary, Saadeh regarded racial fusion as one of the driving forces of human history...

Moreover, whereas in national socialism the nation, in both its existence and history, is seen in a purely racial sense, in social nationalism, it is based on human as well as geographical factors. “There can be no people,” wrote Saadeh, “where there is no land, no society where there is no physical environment, and no history where there is no society.”

http://www.ssnp.com/new/ssnp/en/ssnp_001.htm

While I see merit in this particular form of nationalism that separates race from nation, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party happens to have a range of views and actions that I disagree with and are in fact contradictory to the forum's core principles. The most obvious one is that the SSNP has visible fascist influences, and they also approve of capitalism, albeit in corporatist/dirigisme form. (Though they use socialist rhetoric more often than other quasi-fascist parties.) In addition, the SSNP has been completely complacent with Assad's regime throughout the Syrian Civil War.

However, I also actually sympathize with the party in its aims for a Greater Syria, and it has been ridding itself of fascist influences within the last few decades. Though, I fear that the party has a tendency towards authoritarianism and economic statism that plagues left-nationalist parties in the Third World.

Thanks for the additional info. I hoped someone with more knowledge of the region might fill some things in. There isn't a lot on the SSNP in English-language media. I guessed that they would likely be authoritarian and economically centralist --and quite possibly other things I don't agree with.

I did think it was a useful definition of 'Social Nationalism' that could be applied in a more economically radical and socially liberatarian form.

Entfremdung wrote:Thanks for the additional info.  I hoped someone with more knowledge of the region might fill some things in.  There isn't a lot on the SSNP in English-language media.  I guessed that they would likely be authoritarian and economically centralist --and quite possibly other things I don't agree with.  

I did think it was a useful definition of 'Social Nationalism' that could be applied in a more economically radical and socially liberatarian form.

I actually have quite a bit of knowledge about the region, since I'm actually Syrian in descent and had done plenty of research on Syrian politics. Though, I identify myself as American first. In fact, my grandfather was a member of the SSNP once.

Uberak wrote:
While I see merit in this particular form of nationalism that separates race from nation, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party happens to have a range of views and actions that I disagree with and are in fact contradictory to the forum's core principles. The most obvious one is that the SSNP has visible fascist influences, and they also approve of capitalism, albeit in corporatist/dirigisme form. (Though they use socialist rhetoric more often than other quasi-fascist parties.) In addition, the SSNP has been completely complacent with Assad's regime throughout the Syrian Civil War.

However, I also actually sympathize with the party in its aims for a Greater Syria, and it has been ridding itself of fascist influences within the last few decades. Though, I fear that the party has a tendency towards authoritarianism and economic statism that plagues left-nationalist parties in the Third World.

I share your critique of that party. Moreover, I feel as though the its emphasis on a 'Greater Syria' is basically part of an imperial enterprise that is now shrouded in the liberal rhetoric of cooperation and inclusiveness (several contemporary, Western apologists for the party have utilized such language in order to disarm left-wing opposition).

Regardless of the party's efforts to conceal or reform its fascist tendencies, it still falls within the rubric of reactionary nationalism. In relative terms, one could view its political triumphs as severing something of a progressive function in the region. Nevertheless, it's structurally incapable of assuming a proletarian character. Hopefully, at some point, a genuinely left-wing nationalist movement will take form in some country or region and begin to influence the character of the national struggles around the world. Until that time, however, national movements will continue to reflect the image of the retrograde theories and appalling personalities that have long been associated with them.

Uberak wrote:
While I see merit in this particular form of nationalism that separates race from nation, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party happens to have a range of views and actions that I disagree with and are in fact contradictory to the forum's core principles. The most obvious one is that the SSNP has visible fascist influences, and they also approve of capitalism, albeit in corporatist/dirigisme form. (Though they use socialist rhetoric more often than other quasi-fascist parties.) In addition, the SSNP has been completely complacent with Assad's regime throughout the Syrian Civil War.

However, I also actually sympathize with the party in its aims for a Greater Syria, and it has been ridding itself of fascist influences within the last few decades. Though, I fear that the party has a tendency towards authoritarianism and economic statism that plagues left-nationalist parties in the Third World.

I understand what you mean. In my country, there is also "Social"-nationalist parties and groups, that are "Social-nationalists" (in economic and social way) only in their program, and they too support idea of my country to be expanded to "the regions that are ours by heritage or historical right", which is, de facto, imperialism.

Admin wrote:I share your critique of that party. Moreover, I feel as though the its emphasis on a 'Greater Syria' is basically part of an imperial enterprise that is now shrouded in the liberal rhetoric of cooperation and inclusiveness (several contemporary, Western apologists for the party have utilized such language in order to disarm left-wing opposition).

Regardless of the party's efforts to conceal or reform its fascist tendencies, it still falls within the rubric of reactionary nationalism. In relative terms, one could view its political triumphs as severing something of a progressive function in the region. Nevertheless, it's structurally incapable of assuming a proletarian character. Hopefully, at some point, a genuinely left-wing nationalist movement will take form in some country or region and begin to influence the character of the national struggles around the world. Until that time, however, national movements will continue to reflect the image of the retrograde theories and appalling personalities that have long been associated with them.

I completely agree with your constatation. As I said in my repliy to comrade Uberak, many Social-Nationalist parties turns to imperialism and chauvisnism if that is "good" for them.
They might have some good ideas, but their program need to be "purified" from imperialistic and other reactionary ideas.

Socialism_in_one_country wrote:
I understand what you mean. In my country, there is also "Social"-nationalist parties and groups, that are "Social-nationalists" (in economic and social way) only in their program, and they too support idea of my country to be expanded to "the regions that are ours by heritage or historical right", which is, de facto, imperialism.

Admin wrote:
I share your critique of that party. Moreover, I feel as though the its emphasis on a 'Greater Syria' is basically part of an imperial enterprise that is now shrouded in the liberal rhetoric of cooperation and inclusiveness (several contemporary, Western apologists for the party have utilized such language in order to disarm left-wing opposition).

Regardless of the party's efforts to conceal or reform its fascist tendencies, it still falls within the rubric of reactionary nationalism. In relative terms, one could view its political triumphs as severing something of a progressive function in the region. Nevertheless, it's structurally incapable of assuming a proletarian character. Hopefully, at some point, a genuinely left-wing nationalist movement will take form in some country or region and begin to influence the character of the national struggles around the world. Until that time, however, national movements will continue to reflect the image of the retrograde theories and appalling personalities that have long been associated with them.

While I do think that the party defines "Greater Syria" way too expansively, I personally think that a "Greater Syria" encompassing Syria (Including Antioch), Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel all together in a confederation with one another would be ideal. (The majority Kurdish parts of Syria should be part of an independent Kurdistan in my opinion actually.) Of course, I so far think that we are far away from achieving this. I don't really see this as imperialistic but rather a national reunification campaign. Sometimes, consolidation is the best option when it comes to expressing national identity, a great example being Yugoslavia. Of course, this is all my opinion. It should be the people of those countries who get to decide this. I am technically still Syrian though, but I think I've Americanized to the point where I'm more American than Americans who had families dating back to the Civil War. So, I can't say that I'm part of this people. However, I still want to say what I personally believe on this subject based on my experiences living in Syria. I always wished, during my time Syria, for Syria to eventually be able to compete with Western nations as an equal, and the only way I think this is going to be happen is through a "Greater Syria" of some form.

As for the party's fascist tendencies, I am definitely not apologizing for that and am still against the party. I know that they are just trying to improve their public relations. So basically, I think a "Greater Syria" is great, but it would definitely be a very different "Greater Syria" from that of the SSNP.