RevLeft educates us on nationalism!

I'm sorry, I just can't help it sometimes...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalism-t172112/index.html

Hexen wrote:

TheAltruist
Soooo, does this mean all nationalistic (even left-wing one) movements are fascistic in nature?

Yep...All forms of nationalism ultimately lead to fascism.

Of course not all of the posts in this thread are that bad, but it's kind of painful watching people confidently confuse nation with state, and nationalism with imperialism. I find it hard to believe that so many people come to such conclusions through deep thought and analysis as opposed to picking up what everyone else on the left says.

The worst part of that topic is watching that Portuguese Stalinist argue against Soviet national policy for ... no apparent reason other than that it was bad because it didn't try to eliminate national differences? How is that even remotely sensible?

Syme wrote:The worst part of that topic is watching that Portuguese Stalinist argue against Soviet national policy for ... no apparent reason other than that it was bad because it didn't try to eliminate national differences? How is that even remotely sensible?

It is not. Most Marxist-Leninists, particularly Stalinists, pay lip service to national self-determination when it suits their agenda. Stalin was an opportunist, after all. Their position on the national question is contradictory. While Lenin recognized the importance of self-determination, his overall vision was one of a highly centralized state encompassing numerous nationalities that would presumably integrate (since he possessed a flawed understanding of the deep-seated and benign significance of national identity) rather than a serious attempt to reconcile national differences in a healthy manner. Their justification for this is often vaguely utilitarian; i.e., nationality impedes the economic progress attainable from increased centralization of production. This is known as vulgar economism due to the implicit assumption that economic activity exclusively determines the national superstructure of society. Self-determination is arbitrarily and precariously granted to nations under imperial rule rather than made a principle for all nations. Mikhail Bakunin's stance on the national question is embraced by this forum instead:

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."

Syme wrote:The worst part of that topic is watching that Portuguese Stalinist argue against Soviet national policy for ... no apparent reason other than that it was bad because it didn't try to eliminate national differences? How is that even remotely sensible?

Their stance on the national question derives from an antiquated and wholly inadequate body of literature. These dogmatic "Marxists"—who make an utter mockery out of the admirable Marxist tradition—elevate Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to the status of omniscient deities, which is precisely why they accuse any attempts to further develop Marxian theory as representing heretical forms of "revisionism." With respect to the national question in particular, ever since Engels suggested that national distinctions would gradually fade into oblivion as a result of the dialectical processes of history in The Principles of Communism (1847), significant segments of the Left have maintained that untenable theory. (Rev Scare aptly described the Marxist-Leninist version thereof already.) So, while Marxists in the 19th and early 20th century can be excused for espousing such a view (anthropology, psychology, and sociology were in their infancy at that point), it's inexcusable for contemporary Marxists to do so.

Incidentally, the two imbecilic Portuguese cosmopolitans (JAM and AntoinePannekoek) in the RevLeft thread DSN linked to are none other than our very own Comrade_Joe and Vasco Gonçalves. It will be interesting to see whether or not the succeed in getting Psy—the sole voice of reason on that thread—banned.

Celtiberian wrote:Incidentally, the two imbecilic Portuguese cosmopolitans (JAM and AntoinePannekoek) in the RevLeft thread DSN linked to are none other than our very own Comrade_Joe and Vasco Gonçalves. It will be interesting to see whether or not the succeed in getting Psy—the sole voice of reason on that thread—banned.

Maybe it would be worth letting Psy know about this forum (if he doesn't already, of course) before he does get banned for not licking everyone's arse and quoting Marx in every post.

Celtiberian wrote:With respect to the national question in particular, ever since Engels suggested that national distinctions would gradually fade into oblivion as a result of the dialectical processes of history in The Principles of Communism (1847), significant segments of the Left have maintained that untenable theory.

I don't think it's untenable per se. We know that nations are modern phenomena, and for all we know, there may come a time in the future when nations will no longer serve as one of the primary means of identification. Recognizing that nations are 'imagined', however, in no way means we should not also recognize that they are also very REAL, that they exist, and that there is such a thing as national consciousness. I'm not sure I would say that any significant part of the Left ever failed to recognize this. Note that by 'significant' I mean that the Left was in power and had to deal with this issue on a very immediate level, e.g. in the former Russian Empire and in Central and Eastern Europe, rather than in the ethnically homogenous West.

Basically they are the polar opposite in retardation of Ironmarch.
Of course there are a few token ones just like on IM that aren't so bad.

Syme wrote:I don't think it's untenable per se. We know that nations are modern phenomena, and for all we know, there may come a time in the future when nations will no longer serve as one of the primary means of identification.

Nation states are a relatively modern phenomenon, but group identification on the basis of common culture, language, etc. has been observable throughout human history. Nations obviously aren't static, but the primary means by which they've transformed historically have been imperialism, immigration, and, to a lesser extent, trade. Should socialism materialize at some point in the future, imperialism will come to an end and immigration will change character. National identity will undoubtedly persist within such a context.

You may be correct that nationality may eventually "no longer serve as one of the primary means of identification," but it won't be as a result of communist social relations, as theorized by Engels. I can't conceive of the precise ways by which that might occur; perhaps it may happen as a consequence of technological innovations, gene therapies, and/or an unprecedented degree of cultural transmission. It isn't an inevitability, though.

I'm not sure I would say that any significant part of the Left ever failed to recognize this. Note that by 'significant' I mean that the Left was in power and had to deal with this issue on a very immediate level, e.g. in the former Russian Empire and in Central and Eastern Europe, rather than in the ethnically homogenous West.

Luxembourgists and Trotskyists clearly underestimated national identity, and so do many Leninists—those tendencies have been, and continue to represent, a significant segment of the Left. I didn't mean to suggest that Leftists (especially Marxist-Leninsts) haven't had to deal with this issue on a practical level; my criticism pertains to theory, i.e., to the many inadequate theses on the national question.