Nationalism and the workin class

So you may get this a lot here, but I havnt seen an answer to it. How can left-wing nationalism work with revolutionary socialism? If one looks at revolutionary socialism from a Marxist view, they realize nationalism and nations are a way to divide the working class and create competition between them, rather than to unite them. Thnx

OskerIWK wrote:How can left-wing nationalism work with revolutionary socialism?

In our opinion, left-wing nationalism is an integral component of revolutionary socialism—for the latter cannot exist without the former. Simply put, people possess a propensity toward national identification and, in virtually all of the sociological studies conducted on the issue, ethnocultural diversity has been found to reduce solidarity within populations. If socialism is to function optimally, it will obviously require a significant degree of solidarity. Therefore, we view left-wing nationalism as being of instrumental- as well as intrinsic- value.

If one looks at revolutionary socialism from a Marxist view, they realize nationalism and nations are a way to divide the working class and create competition between them, rather than to unite them.

What leads you to believe that, following the proletarian revolution, the working class will choose to dissolve nations along cosmopolitan lines? Lenin was of the opinion that the workers would democratically decide to implement a policy of national self-determination, and I happen to agree with his views on the matter.

Once bourgeois social relations have been transcended by a socialist mode of production, competition will no longer be a feature of the economic life of socialist nations, so I fail to see how competition is relevant to the issue of left-wing nationalism.

Simple becuse people have always drawn together into Tribes within Kin/Folk groups and based these Tribes on a common culture and in many cases ethnicity and these tribes have gone onto be nations usually based on the same principle.

Only bourgeois Globalisation would like to see an end to our national and cultural heritage so we can all unite in one massive consumerist monoculture.

I have a question for you though why do the modern cosmopolitan left support a similar posistion to our globalist enamy,The ethnic cleansing of every single Folk group on this planet and the establishment of one worldwide monoculture?.

Thanks

@TheocWolf U seem to assume that people had choices in nationality. Did u choose where to be born? U are forgetting that that formation of nations/tribes was not from the collective masses, but from those in power who needed to establish hierarchy and division among the people. As for your question to me, the answer is simple, we are all human beings, nations and nationality are social constructs. There is nothing in a humans DNA that says I am from Peru, or I am from Finland. I am also not for monoculture because communists seek to put the power in the workers, which is a very diverse group. The bourgeoisie are not diverse, which is where monoculture comes from.

@Celtiberian while I disagree with you on Lenin, thanks for an intelligent answer.

OskerIWK wrote:@TheocWolf U seem to assume that people had choices in nationality. Did u choose where to be born? U are forgetting that that formation of nations/tribes was not from the collective masses, but from those in power who needed to establish hierarchy and division among the people. As for your question to me, the answer is simple, we are all human beings, nations and nationality are social constructs. There is nothing in a humans DNA that says I am from Peru, or I am from Finland. I am also not for monoculture because communists seek to put the power in the workers, which is a very diverse group. The bourgeoisie are not diverse, which is where monoculture comes from.

Of course I didnt choose where I was born.I think its more likely though that our ancestors formed tribes for security,prosperity,leadership ect ect and did so within kin groups or kin groups of a similar ethnicity, language, culture ect ect for the above reasons and becuse its easier to do so among familiar peoples or groups.What reason do you belive that say a neolithic family joined together with other similar neolithic familys and formed a tribe to create division?.Id say it may have been the opposite.Also hierarchy is natural do you hava a problem with leadership or nature?.Are modern Amazonian tribes creating divisions?.

So your against monoculture good to hear so post revolution you will be happy for me and my folk to live free from outside influence among our own people unmolested in an English/British workers state?

OskerIWK wrote:So you may get this a lot here, but I havnt seen an answer to it. How can left-wing nationalism work with revolutionary socialism? If one looks at revolutionary socialism from a Marxist view, they realize nationalism and nations are a way to divide the working class and create competition between them, rather than to unite them. Thnx

If one analyses the nation state from a Marxist perspective, they will come to understand that bourgeois social relations have served as historical forces that have largely determined national policies and continue to do so. However, nations transcend mere material relations. They are constructs founded upon common identity, and we believe this to be inherent to human nature. This is not to say that the exact lines of differentiation are static and themselves inflexible, but only that individuals and therefore societies will in the long run display a proclivity toward ethnocultural homogeneity. This form of "ethnocentrism" is a factor we contend to be reconcilable with the aims of working class solidarity—indeed, a necessary component of this aim.

Left-wing nationalism is an intrinsic property of revolutionary socialism because it fosters solidarity. Self-determination within a post-revolutionary context will, in our view, best correspond with the interests of varying peoples and ensure the long-term stability and amiability of global society. Left-wing nationalism (which is stipulated on the premise of a socialist order) is the only manner of maintaining favorable relationships in a diverse international climate due to the fact that it respects diversity whilst mitigating the friction resulting from it.