Nationalism

Nationalism is the support for self-determination or political independence of a given nation in a given territory, usually in the form of a nation-state. Since nationalism is closely linked to the controversial and nuanced concept of nations, the concept can be difficult to define or categorize. The distinction between nationalism and patriotism is also hotly debated, especially since the development in the 20th century of the concept of socialist patriotism, which holds that pride for a socialist state and its peoples is key to the state's success.

Marxists, and indeed Karl Marx, have held various positions on whether different nationalisms, or the idea of nationalism itself, constitute a progressive force. Although Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto:

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

by the 1860s he would come to staunchly support Irish and Polish nationalism as directly in line with the interests of the working class; i.e., progressive. The traditional Marxist–Leninist position is typically based on the theory of Joseph Stalin's 1913 Marxism and the National Question and the praxis of the RSFSR (later the Soviet Union) towards the dozens of ethnic groups in the former Russian Empire.

It is important to note, however, that nations themselves, especially nation-states, are often constructed by nationalism and "nation-building" rather than arising naturally or independently of political and social forces. In 19th-century Europe, the era of romantic nationalism, this involved breaking up empires which were up to a thousand years old and creating new national cultures in order to create a new form of political legitimacy for the new bourgeois states. Then as now, nation-building has involved the compilation and synthesis of a national mythology, the fostering of a national language by removing outside influences, and the forcible implementation of a standard culture, even including cuisine and the idea of a "national dish". 20th century nationalism in places such as Thailand and indeed the Zionist entity has directly imitated this European template (e.g. the role of revived Hebrew in the latter case), with varying degrees of success. In the 21st century, this also occurred in places such as Ukraine.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, nationalism has played what most Marxists consider to be a progressive role in the dissolution of colonial and neocolonial holdings throughout the world. Leftist responses to these struggles usually focus on the principle of self-determination for minority peoples, and a interpretation as leftist internationalism as focused on affirming different nationalisms rather than negating them.

Forms of Nationalism

Fascism

Main article: Fascism

Fascism is a Hyper-Nationalist rightist ideology. It is very focused on the State.

Nazism

Main article: Nazism

Fascist ultranationalism is based on the idea of a mythologized "nation," generally tied to some form of racial identity. One example of this is the "Aryan" of Nazism.

Hot takes on Nationalism The previous version of this article was, in my opinion, incoherent. This is a direct result of a contradiction in the modern orthodox (ML, Maoist) position on nationalism, which obsesses over validating nationalisms which are treated as broadly progressive while ignoring their dialectically reactionary potential, and being forced to fuss with an arbitrary distinction between the nationalism of imperialist states and the nationalism of oppressed minorities that somehow distinguishes them on grounds other than the correct but bland analysis, "This is reactionary because it is imperialist". This is puzzling given that the meltdown of the Soviet Union due to nationalist feeling (fomented by outside powers) happened over forty years ago, and the reactionary, anti-communist role of nationalism in the never-ending tragedy which has followed it is clear for any to see. I offer no improvement over the USSR's solution to the national question, nor do I even claim that it could have been improved on. But a real study of the theory and praxis of the leftist movement and especially the First International towards nationalism in Europe, and a serious, genuine critique of the role of nationalism in leftist struggle, would do well to work towards resolving this contradiction for the 21st century leftist movement. Harrystein (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)