Progressive vs. reactionary nationalism

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.