On Nationalism

a rhizzone community article by — published
dear friend,



today I witnessed quite a sight, a nazi getting into a fight with a german! well, I was standing in line waiting for free hare krishna food and some dude behind us was asking to get in front to get food sooner... well, soon this german was asking "what's this around your neck" and it was this


well the guy explained it to the german who immediately replied "well this is offensive where I am from because it is a nazi symbol."

"I hope you are offended by the hammer and sickle too," the guy said, "because the communists killed more people."

and so it began! highlights include him informing the german that "communists raped millions of german women" to dilute their race or whatever, the german asking with a straight face if he was a nazi, the guy claiming he is not a nazi while wearing a national socialist black metal sweatshirt, and so on. by the end of it they were getting heated and the german was like "well I don't TALK TO RACISTS" and so on. but the moment I chimed in was when the nazi was like "well communists don't believe in nationalism."

HOW WRONG YOU ARE MY FRIEND!

left wing nationalism exists! it sure does! lenin advocated the self-determination of oppressed nations. this was within the scope of czarist russia that he called "a prison of nations" but can be related to somewhat with black nationalism and indian liberation movements. stalin advocated a "revolutionary patriotism". mao was a nationalist. nationalism is not incompatible with leftism! and it better not be!

why? well, I've encountered quite a few anti-nationalists here during my time in europe and mark my words they are all leftists and mainly all germans. it is understandable historically for leftist germans and europeans in general to feel a slight queasiness when it comes to flag waving, but it is an emotion they better get over. people like waving flags, especially when they're under attack, and will rally around one whether you like it or not. and when they think crazy stuff like "leftism has no room for nationalism" and you agree with them, they're gonna go wave a flag with the EDL.

the working class is under attack worldwide and will not gather around one flag because the one flag concept is what is attacking them. leftist protesters in the united states have the wherewithal to wave flags. they don't mind. they understand the forces at work against them are flagless, and we count on footage of pigs trampling the flag while they beat your ass to stir that kernal of patriotism still embedded deep in every american thanks to years of pledging the damn thing in grade school. it's a smart move and very practical at this juncture. globalization depends on a fake front of dissolution of nation states to get by. it gets by the left because the left has decided that flags are fascist and it gets by the right by padding their pockets with mad cash. but the people have not forgotten! the twelve stars in the EU flag don't mean a goddamn thing and the people know it so they're going to go start searching for more meaningful flags, like it or not.

so you'd better be there with arms outstretched offering a new flag, oh ya lefties, because otherwise you're neutered from the discussion. my german friends tell me they can't discuss certain things (like israel) because they're taboo politically. well you'd better man up because people are going to discuss them and you're going to be left out of the conversation. you should talk to racists, even to laugh at them, because otherwise they're going to talk to other people instead. at the heart of this is a kind of burning shame felt by these leftists. when someone says something racist, they engage them as if they themselves feel shame, when one should do precisely the opposite - paraphrasing stetson kennedy here - and make THEM feel shame.. use your frown power!

anyway, with this shame of the flag and shame of nationalism, you are just crippling yourself and giving tacit approval to nasty forces like globalization. the people See This. they know you hate flags and so do the people who move capital and labor transitionally. they know you support one people of the world and the elimination of nationalism - guess what, so do the vampires at goldman sachs! maybe getting in the streets and shouting on about stuff pertaining to the "occupy" movement is going to help wash some of this association away, but you need to get past the dumb anarchist stuff because nobody is going to take that seriously, and meanwhile with your horizontal movement you're just shooting yourselves in the foot. you demand things like nationalism and color and race and means of birth and gender don't matter but then stock your movement with rich white educated males who beat every POC and woman over the head at any chance they get for being racist, sexist, nationalist, whatever. the genuine desire for revolution is not present. you are not being serious.


let's reclaim this!



so perhaps the most serious thing the left could do right now is embrace nationalism. haha I know that sounds nuts, right, but bear with me...

when we hate on nationalism as leftists it's a privileged sort of nationalism, a nationalism that is the product of the modern nation-state. it is sometimes the product of racism. it can be offensive. it can be reactionary. but not all nationalism is reactionary! we live in a world where certain entities can travel wherever they like and do whatever they want. capital does not believe in borders when it suits his purposes. so why not shove some real borders up his ass? not all nationalisms were created equal and we should be unafraid to challenge reactionary false-nations, but do look to your own first please! reclaim the flag I guess is what I'm saying! don't be afraid to talk about stuff or figure out why certain things are appealing to others or else you're gonna end up with a bunch of nazis running around killing turks and will be too petrified to fight them as a united front.

borders DO EXIST in this world! there are borders between men and women, between white settler and black slave, between the oppressor and the oppressed, and even within the modern day bullshit borders drawn by colonists in the global south. this is a fact of life! as a very wise and probably very sexy wobbly once said in a preamble somewhere: the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. we should embrace these differences because it is part of what makes us human, and work to forge a new kind of nationalism that is both protectionist and respectful. no one should be coerced into belonging to a state. yet we should not talk down to the jamaicans, the egyptians, the georgians, the kurds, whatever. you can belong to two or more nations at once, even! the egyptians will always be egyptian but can also unite under a muslim or an arab flag as well. most tellingly: the flag is what the transnational capital class is most afraid of nowadays, so we should not hesitate to utilize it in our favor.

your input on this would be most welcome.

best wishes,
k

Also by discipline on tHE r H i z z o n E:

Knowing your audience? Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino finally made a version of Inglorious Basterds for me.
A Nation of Lazy Bums and Unpaid Interns: Youth Unemployment in 21st Century USA
The youth unemployment debate generally ignores the rapidly changing nature of the US economy. Youth unemployment is the highest in recorded history.
the united states is a sham construct used to keep the people down
the answer is creating a shadow state that delivers community services and then kicking out the state legislatures and seceding from the union, or at least renegotiating the terms of being a part of it.
More articles by discipline.

Discussion of On Nationalism on tHE r H i z z o n E:

#1
Post rating: ~
IF ANYONE MAKES A NATIONALISM SOCIALISM JOKE ILL CRACK THEIR GODDAMNED HEAD OPEN
#2
Post rating: ~
also: re: the op: agreed. hail America.
#3
Poronto
Post rating: ~
mais l'Internationale sera le genre humain
#4
Post rating: ~
nice OP. how do we, though, rise above raising the flag ironically? how do we construct something worth dying for? that's the real test. it used to be about flying the red flag but now you'd be hard pressed to find a leftist that isnt seeking exactly what the "adults" of society want -- pleasure and comfort-- something that is better left to neoliberalism...
#5
Post rating: ~
lets say we shed the word Nation in favour for something a little more appropriate in a world where the socio-political condition of a place depends entirely upon who has $$ invested there. keeping this in mind, sure there are still places out there where that condition is more or less static... under some flag... waving high with pride, maintained by the people that live there. But there are also those places that are so deep in capital's black asshole sun that the condition of the place is purchased, and as a result the people that flock there are all consequences of the purchase. It's like if you buy a wallmart somewhere you're gonna get a bunch of wallmartians to move there. Stain the land with piss, much like the ants.

But that's not to discredit any of those former flags that are still holding on to a genuine kind of culture. this is only to say that you gotta be careful when you wave flags, cause sometimes those flags are designed in Adobe Illustrator without your knowledge. sometimes whole nations are scripted up and drawn. So if you're saying the lefties have the choice (& the necessity) to stand by a flag... to claim responsibility for the very nation-state that bore them... i'm saying Let The Splintering Begin. cause tho the "occupy" movement has made their flag a word... they have already set the stage for this Tagging System. the only difference is that their flag isn't a Noun but a Verb. (or a percentage sign, even better, it's Cool, it's like xkcd). then there are those terrified meek little Anons that roam the toobs searching for a Speech to pump them full of Hacker Venom. whatever. the only flag i'll ever wave is one that i can change every 15 minutes. so what would this word be, to replace Nation? Tribe: no longer associated with any specific chunk of land but with certain principles of life that they deem to be Wholly Good.

will this stop the wars? fuck no it's only going to make them worse. if tribe A wants the land of milk and honey but tribe B's Whole Truth states that this land Belongs To Them, then they're gonna shed some teeth over that land. let them. it's their own god damn business. i'm not an advocate for pride and i'm certainly not an advocate for trying to teach idiots how to live their lives. they will only turn around and stab you in return or if they do agree with you, you'll have their enemies on your back forever.

it's better to look at the bigger picture and to shed old flags than "reclaim" them. and does the bigger picture look like a One World of Peace & harmony? hardly. it looks like a planet of so many differences that you might as well bury yourself in a bunker and cry about it. but to deal with it is to accept that you are utterly alone. that all the cells are disbanding and the sooner you learn to hold your own the better you are off in the end. only then can you meet others who are equally needless but careful. only then can u forge a new flag that resembles nothing of the old. and that flag will probably be made of Bread
#6
[account deactivated]
#7
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
i think the definition of nationhood can adn should be expanded beyond stalin's definition that is basically accepted by all people to be any sort of intentional community. nationalism as specified, non-exclusive collective solidarity, as in the egyptian's egypt, arab and islamic nationalities
#8
Post rating: -
Nationalism is a varation of an idea that is very human.

Most people believe anyone outside their race, family, tribe, or group who are weak and poor, can't look, act or sound like them and, in the case of nationalism, are openly hostile to their nation's national, strategic, and security interests are subhuman or at the very least deserving of fewer legal and political rights.

This way of thinking can be based on what family you're born into, skin color, political or religious affiliation, or nationality.

To transcend this way of thinking you need to understand there are powerful people and there are weak people. The weak, no matter who they are, need protecting from the strong. What group they belong to (national/political/religious/whatever) means nothing.

When you read that it sounds basic and amateurish; almost something you'd teach to a 5th grade social studies class, but guess what? It's the fucking truth and always has been.

By the way, anyone else notice how nobody will say they're nationalists anymore because the Nazis went a little overboard with the way most people think and now nobody wants to admit they're nationalists even though practically everyone is? Maybe it's just me.

Also, domestic progress in democratic societies do work gradually (women's rights, gay rights, civil rights movement), but internationally? The poorest minority in the worst ghetto this country has to offer receives infinitely more rights than the average Iraqi or Afghan ever received. Since filthy foreigners don't have the protection of America's nationalist Constitution, which gives special rights to the precious American race, liberals in the ACLU are forced to pathetically argue that those who may potentially be held in Guantanamo and Anwar al-Awalki have precious American blood running through their veins and should not be treated like subhuman foreigners.

Look at the Russian and Chinese revolution to see how fragile and difficult it is to do the right thing and become internationalist. At the beginning in 1917 and 1949 when the vast majority were illiterate peasants then yea, ok, they want international solidarity. Once some enter the middle and upper class or think they have a chance at entering the middle and upper class those ideals go into the toilet mighty goddamn fast.

You mention Lenin but note that the Internationale was changed to the Hym of the Soviet Union during World War II because Stalin knew people were more willing to fight for Mother Russia rather than for a world who saw the massive casualties on the Eastern Front and thought "good, at least the Nazis are weakening Stalin".

Nationalism is the easiest thing in the world to fall back into because it's a natural selfish state. Fighting it is the duty of every good human being. How to do it? Personally, I think the military should be targeted. It's their most powerful tool. Force them to die for international reasons and you'll see things start to really matter when soldiers start assassinating people they think are leftists making them die for a world they care nothing for.

Edited by internationalist ()

#9
[account deactivated]
#10
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
lol sunnis under saddam were way better off than native americans
#11
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
palestinians have a higher life expectancy than black americans.
#12
[account deactivated]
#13
[account deactivated]
#14
Post rating: ~
what do you think of devolution in the context of nationalism? that is, would the rough edges of nationalism be smoothed out by recognition of something like a right to secession and free migration of labor? would it even be tenable, or worth the trouble? obviously any time you start talking about free migration you're going to be in difficult-to-reconcile conflict with any first world nationalist, but the upside--nations chosen freely by their citizenry--is very attractive to me.

one problem that I've always had with american nationalism is that the place is just too big, too diverse. for example, as much as i like to think of america as the neat place that created rap, rock, stand-up comedy and the critically acclaimed television drama "breaking bad," it's very difficult, both practically and intellectually, to rebut the version that casts it as a the home of pentacostalism, country music, and monocultured front lawns. like, who the fuck am I to tell some jingoist that he's Wrong when really he's Just As Right As I Am?

speaking for myself, i'd be a lot more enthusiastic about a nation that only compromised, say, the upper midwest; i'd be way more willing and way way way more able to influence the perception of what the ideals of such a nation are or should be

and if the conflict of genuine identities isn't bad enough, america's unwieldy size makes it hard to genuinely identify with it which in turn makes it easy for people to artificially create disingenuous identities. the further you get from a human-sized community, the more powerful mass media becomes, and a nation whose identity is controlled via mass media is not a healthy one (it looks like the one we have because that's us get it U.S. haaaa)

if this sounds jumbled and inane that's b/c IT IS
#15
Post rating: ~
so when you have tribes & nations living within a certain region, how do they work out who has access to what, prevent conflict etc etc?

what are the best methods of governance - some kind of confederation?


imo this is an important question since its relevent to building flexible global movements as well as to cities
#16
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

xipe posted:
so when you have tribes & nations living within a certain region, how do they work out who has access to what, prevent conflict etc etc?

what are the best methods of governance - some kind of confederation?


imo this is an important question since its relevent to building flexible global movements as well as to cities



the answers are probably to be found in cultural traditions, eg the jirga in afghanistan

#17
[account deactivated]
#18
Post rating: ~
im a brit though. No way I'm gonna be patriotic! Haha!
#19
Post rating: +
#20
el area metro
Post rating: ~
one day germans are going to have to decide which one they hate more: nationalism or turks
#21
el area metro
Post rating: ~
Also I was in the studio last night with my band and the producer and I got super stoned and we started talking about pan-caribean black nationalism, like DR/PR/Cuba/Haiti etc... but I guess one of the problems is that like even though almost everyone here is part black (except the rich white people who live in certain parts of the island) no one wants to admit it.

Interesting stuff! Though Puerto Rican nationalism isn't even that big here either...
#22
Post rating: ~
god save the queen
#23
drivel of drunken hags
Post rating: +
good post

i used to say something like this fairly often, and the peanut gallery would always chalk it up to "concern trolling", but their callous rejection of what has historically been a vital aspect of just about every anti-capitalist movement struck me as odd.

for all the fetishism displayed by many leftists toward 20th century socialist governments (and the usually concurrent trotsky-bashing), they usually completely overlook the extent to which nationalism was co-opted in the process of building socialism, and instead denounce it as a reactionary relic. it would obviously be naive to suggest that nationalism isn't historically used just as often to repress and exploit, but if you decouple the bourgeois state from the organic concept of nation, it isn't so blatantly regressive.

you see a lot of leftists/radicals denouncing the direction the west is heading as being a slide into fascism, or invent scary/ridiculous terms like "christian nationalism" and "christofascism". it posits without hesitation that the ruling elite are easily caricatured flag-waving, god-fearing, corn-fed squares. in reality, they are much better described as abrasively cosmopolitan and degenerate (but that part is for another day). enough people on the left probably shudder at this because deep down, they feel that those things are supposed to be part of their identity.

i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?

if anything, the united states (and english canada) are archetypically post-national. the useful aspects of culture are assimilated; other traditions are marginalized or scorned until withering away into irrelevance.
#24
US
Post rating: ~
I don't have a nation so you guys figure this out on your own
#25
el area metro
Post rating: ~

Groulxsmith posted:
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?



Yeah but look at how many people consider the ideas of the constitution to be like the ultimate basis for any Good type of government ever. It seems to me like the national myth is quite strong in America, even though perhaps the language used isn't explicitly nationalist.

In my opinion nationalism can in many ways be for the most part good in cases of people outside of europe and the states as well as indigenous / oppressed populations within the metropole/euope trying to end their oppression. The problem is that unless it's like some fantasy land with no social differences the moment an idea of a nation or 'national' type identity is formed some subaltern population is usually excluded. It's pretty easy to recognize that process I think and that's why a sort of non-nation type idea wherein multiple cultures and types of people (in other words, nations) are except as part of the overall framework is so popular. That's why the myth of America is so strong and so many people uphold it as sacrosanct... even though the reality is far different from the rhetoric of the nation apparatus.

#26
el area metro
Post rating: ~
Plus multiculturalism = white supremacy and it don't get more nationalist than that. Brazil and my home of Puerto Rico are excellent examples of that.
#27
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

DRUXXX posted:

Groulxsmith posted:
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?

Yeah but look at how many people consider the ideas of the constitution to be like the ultimate basis for any Good type of government ever. It seems to me like the national myth is quite strong in America, even though perhaps the language used isn't explicitly nationalist.



thats veneration of a specific state, not nationhood.

#28
Post rating: ~

DRUXXX posted:
Groulxsmith posted:
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?


Yeah but look at how many people consider the ideas of the constitution to be like the ultimate basis for any Good type of government ever. It seems to me like the national myth is quite strong in America, even though perhaps the language used isn't explicitly nationalist.

In my opinion nationalism can in many ways be for the most part good in cases of people outside of europe and the states as well as indigenous / oppressed populations within the metropole/euope trying to end their oppression. The problem is that unless it's like some fantasy land with no social differences the moment an idea of a nation or 'national' type identity is formed some subaltern population is usually excluded. It's pretty easy to recognize that process I think and that's why a sort of non-nation type idea wherein multiple cultures and types of people (in other words, nations) are except as part of the overall framework is so popular. That's why the myth of America is so strong and so many people uphold it as sacrosanct... even though the reality is far different from the rhetoric of the nation apparatus.

- The People's Champ



can't the subaltern become the national bourgeoisie?

#29
el area metro
Post rating: ~
Yes of course I was referring to like indigenous people specifically but I would posit that usually when the subaltern become the bourgeoisie it's because of the intervention of some other force from the global power structure compared to which the new bourgeoisie and the new underclass are both subaltern.
#30
Post rating: +

DRUXXX posted:
Yes of course I was referring to like indigenous people specifically but I would posit that usually when the subaltern become the bourgeoisie it's because of the intervention of some other force from the global power structure compared to which the new bourgeoisie and the new underclass are both subaltern.

well, i was asking about the reverse. if nationalism is founded on exclusion of the subaltern, can't the bourgeoisie be designated as the new subaltern? is the nation founded on exclusion? and can the exclusion be ideas? ie. the restoration of capitalism, revisionism

not approaching this from stalin's theory, if we approach it from the theory of 'imagined communities', can't a nation be an imagined community of ideas ?

#31
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: +
like the ummah...
#32
Post rating: +
thank you, OP, for spreading wisdom and knowledge about national bolshevism to people in your daily life. i appreciate it my friend.
#33
el area metro
Post rating: ~
nazbol over lf
#34
Post rating: +
#35
Post rating: +

Crow posted:


that hit a lil' tooo close to home

#36
Post rating: ~

DRUXXX posted:
Plus multiculturalism = white supremacy and it don't get more nationalist than that.


that's a very strange way to look at it honestly.

#37
el area metro
Post rating: ~

Crow posted:
well, i was asking about the reverse. if nationalism is founded on exclusion of the subaltern, can't the bourgeoisie be designated as the new subaltern? is the nation founded on exclusion? and can the exclusion be ideas? ie. the restoration of capitalism, revisionism

not approaching this from stalin's theory, if we approach it from the theory of 'imagined communities', can't a nation be an imagined community of ideas ?



I think that's sort of what I was saying? I could give a fuk about Stalin's definition of what a nation is

Lessons posted:
that's a very strange way to look at it honestly.



In what way? Are you saying that you don't think multiculturalism is white supremacy (lol) or are you saying that white supremacy =/ nationalism?

#38
Post rating: ~

DRUXXX posted:

Lessons posted:
that's a very strange way to look at it honestly.

In what way? Are you saying that you don't think multiculturalism is white supremacy (lol) or are you saying that white supremacy =/ nationalism?


the former.

#39
el area metro
Post rating: ~
Ah. Multiculturalism is just bullshit. It's a tool of the white supremacist power structure for moving the discourse away from statistical and systematic evaluations of racial/social inequality and more towards some sort of wishy-washy definition based on Liberal values of inclusion and etc... This process is pretty apparent in most of the Western world, my favorite examples being the United States and Brazil where the multiculturalist discourse of inclusion is more or less totally dominant and has been for decades. Nonetheless, social inequality remains and is in fact ignored by the general population due to the widespread presence of multiculturalism in the societal discourse.
#40
Post rating: ~

DRUXXX posted:


there's some truth to that, and multiculturalism deserves a critique as much as any other sort of politics. still, i'm not sure why you'd locate the problem in multiculturalism rather than white supremacy itself. it's hard to imagine these states would have done any better had they pursued the alternatives to multiculturalism, i.e. attempting to enforce a monoculture or communitarianism. historically those have actually been worse.

Care to share your thoughts? Sign up for tHE r H i z z o n E and Post your heart out, baby!