Workers' Nationalism

by **Celtiberian** Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:23 am

The following is a brief article, published in the June 2009 issue of The Journal of the Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist, which I think forum members will appreciate. Judging from the article, the CPB-ML (not to be confused with the CPGB-ML) actually espouses a form of left-wing nationalism analogous to that which we in the RSF advocate—though I would argue that theirs is significantly less developed.

WORKERS' NATIONALISM

Founded in 1968, the Communist Party of Britain regards Britain as composed overwhelmingly of the British working class in all its diversity. Workers are the nation, though the nation is not yet for the working class, nor do all workers yet recognise that their class constitutes the nation.

Britain is where people first overthrew a feudal monarchy and where the scientific enlightenment forged the first industrial revolution and the first working class. It was within the framework of the nation and for the good of its industry that systems of education and health, and the skills of its people were developed, and working class organisation in the form of trade unions was invented and fought for to protect the gains that had been made.

Today’s Britain—robbed by finance capital and its apologists in government, its industry deliberately laid waste, its laws dictated by a foreign power (the EU), its parliament anachronistic, corrupt, supine and subservient both to the EU and the US, its reputation now in tatters—cries out to be rescued by its people.

The revolutionary possibility of this country run by workers in the interest of the working class is what we call "workers' nationalism." Workers have the understanding, based on their history, education and the knowledge which comes from work, to put together a national plan for everything from economics and foreign policy to local government and the environment. The nation is key, because workers have no choice other than to fight for a future where they live and raise their families. We know best about our country; others know best about theirs.

Capitalism, however, will resist this to the death. A spent force, so increasingly vicious, it regards the destruction of sovereign nations as the solution to prolonging its life just a little bit longer. Workers’ nationalism means that each nation must fight to build socialism in its own land, the only alternative to capitalism.

If you come to live and work in Britain, you become part of our geography, history and working class culture. Join a union and, more importantly, join our struggle to build an independent nation led by workers. Be clear and committed on this national class question. That is the only possible basis for internationalism.

Source

by Isakenaz Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:58 am

Thanks for that Celtiberian, this group is worth looking at, in fact I had made limited contact with them prior to the demise of my computer just before Christmas. Might be worth a visit to the 'May Day' meetings.

http://www.workers.org.uk/

by capitalism_collapse Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:35 pm

Nice statement by the CPB-ML. Good to see others espousing Left-wing nationalism.

by TheocWulf Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:07 pm

I like the article,until the Cosmo last sentence.

by **Celtiberian** Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:26 pm

TheocWulf wrote:I like the article,until the Cosmo last sentence.

The fact the sentence reveals that the CPB-ML does not adhere to an ethnic conception of nationalism doesn't somehow render them cosmopolitan.

by TheocWulf Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:45 am

In your opinion yes.
I don't see how an African or an Asian immigrant becomes part of the Geography of a nation just by working in it. A nation is the folk or tribe that inhabit a specific part of the world,the CPB-ML clearly espouse a tolerance of the current globalised multiculturalist world,if every non indigenous worker is considered part of the folk and then assuming there customs and language ect are also tolerated where does that leave us.

The sentiment of workers nationalism from the CPB-ML is to applauded I agree,But without the folkish sentiment to back it up it leaves us in the same position we are now.

by **Celtiberian** Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:07 pm

TheocWulf wrote:In your opinion yes.

No, it's a simple definitional truth. Cosmopolitanism regards both territorial boundaries and national identity as indefensible practices. The CPB-ML, by contrast, uphold both, hence they cannot be considered cosmopolitan.

I don't see how an African or an Asian immigrant becomes part of the Geography of a nation just by working in it.

They obviously become part of its geography simply by residing within its borders. Whether or not they also become recognized members of the national community by virtue of that fact is a separate issue.

A nation is the folk or tribe that inhabit a specific part of the world

Nations are decidedly more than that. They are active communities, extended in history, which possess a shared belief in and mutual commitment to one another, and are distinguishable from other communities by a distinct public culture. They needn't be ethnically exclusive, and seldom are.

the CPB-ML clearly espouse a tolerance of the current globalised multiculturalist world

Nonsense. They explicitly oppose globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism.

by DSN Sat Nov 03, 2012 7:54 pm

Celtiberian wrote:Nonsense. They explicitly oppose globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism.

Clearly they are opposed to immigration, but does the following statement not contradict that?

If you come to live and work in Britain, you become part of our geography, history and working class culture.

I wouldn't be handing out "if" statements like this if I were opposed to immigration.

by TheocWulf Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:46 am

Celtiberian wrote:Nonsense. They explicitly oppose globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism.

The CBL-ML may be against immigration however they consider a non European person born in the UK who has citizenship a member of the tribe if you like,So they do seem to in favour of multiculturalism.

by DSN Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

TheocWulf wrote:The CBL-ML may be against immigration however they consider a non European person born in the UK who has citizenship a member of the tribe if you like,So they do seem to in favour of multiculturalism.

Well as you can see, they don't even take it so far as to mention being born in the UK. But to address your point, do you consider cultural assimilation to be multiculturalism simply because of the fact a person is not of British/European ancestry?

by TheocWulf Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:47 pm

DSN wrote:Well as you can see, they don't even take it so far as to mention being born in the UK. But to address your point, do you consider cultural assimilation to be multiculturalism simply because of the fact a person is not of British/European ancestry?

I'm a folkish Socialist so yes as far as I'm concerned in the case of modern Britain assimilation and multiculturalism are as bad as each other and at times the lines between the two blur.

by DSN Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:33 pm

TheocWulf wrote:I'm a folkish Socialist so yes as far as I'm concerned in the case of modern Britain assimilation and multiculturalism are as bad as each other and at times the lines between the two blur.

Well Britain isn't a very good example of assimilation due to the Asian populations here. Surely someone of non-British decent who adheres to the culture fully isn't as harmful to your idea of Britain as people of non-British decent who refuse to adhere to the culture? Apparently I'm the equivalent of the Pakistani barber around the corner who's lived here for over five years and can't string together a sentence in English or make a cheese sandwich without an instruction manual.

by TheocWulf Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:24 pm

Well even if non indigenous people take on our culture fully as many of my work and school mates have I'd still want to see a few things.

1 The non indigenous people's who have no intention of taking on our culture and values move to autonomous zones where they can practice whatever culture and have what ever laws they like as long as it does not harm the wider folk.

2 a number of generations would have to pass to allow said assimilation,so in that time we would have to have a closed border policy,once assimilation has been archived we open the borders again to workers from kindred nations.

We have a history of assimilating different cultures and people's especially in England like Britons,Danes,Huguenots, Germans,Poles,Ukrainians ect ect so there's no reason we can't again we just need a little break from the capitalists slave labourers and the liberals enrichment bollocks.

by **Celtiberian** Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:37 pm

TheocWulf wrote:The CBL-ML may be against immigration however they consider a non European person born in the UK who has citizenship a member of the tribe if you like,So they do seem to in favour of multiculturalism.

You're conflating very different things in this thread. Multiculturalism is a philosophy whereby it is argued that no culture should be regarded as officially hegemonic within a country. It has nothing whatever to do with race or ethnicity, and it isn't inherently cosmopolitan. Your particular conception of nationality may have a racial or ethnic component, but that doesn't somehow render other conceptions of nationalism to be cosmopolitan or multicultural.

by DSN Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:46 pm

So I see that your main concern is the rate of immigration rising above the rate of assimilation, which I would say makes perfect sense. So what level of importance do you place on race? Are you saying that it would be fine for non-British Europeans to merge with English families (assuming they are assimilators)?

by TheocWulf Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:07 pm

Celtiberian wrote:
TheocWulf wrote:The CBL-ML may be against immigration however they consider a non European person born in the UK who has citizenship a member of the tribe if you like,So they do seem to in favour of multiculturalism.

You're conflating very different things in this thread. Multiculturalism is a philosophy whereby it is argued that no culture should be regarded as officially hegemonic within a country. It has nothing whatever to do with race or ethnicity, and it isn't inherently cosmopolitan. Your particular conception of nationality may have a racial or ethnic component, but that doesn't somehow render other conceptions of nationalism to be cosmopolitan or multicultural.

That of course depends on what the CBL-MLs definition of Britishness is really,because from what I've read it's not in line with me and all the other indigenous working class people I work and socialise with.

by TheocWulf Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:18 pm

DSN wrote:So I see that your main concern is the rate of immigration rising above the rate of assimilation, which I would say makes perfect sense. So what level of importance do you place on race? Are you saying that it would be fine for non-British Europeans to merge with English families (assuming they are assimilators)?

Exactly the current rate of immigration and the low level of assimilation creates tension in our society,look at Bradford,Oldham and other northern and midlands towns its like Northern Ireland but with less violence,you have communities living side by side yet living apart and general disliking one another.

I don't personally have a problem with non indigenous people merging with indigenous ones,it's not for me but for some love conquers all I suppose.But that's why I say no more immigration for generations,allow for this simulation until we get to s stage where nobody notices anymore.At the end of the day we are 90% of the population in a few generations and a minority of indigenous people intermarrying we could assimilate those who want to in a few generations.

Now those who wish to follow there foreign culture and marry traditionally and live by there folk traditions and laws,then they can live autonomously in areas where they already make up the majority of the population.

by Sponsored content

Workers' Nationalism

Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism

Re: Workers' Nationalism