tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post113919933050929806..comments2023-03-18T04:07:57.626-04:00Comments on Revolutionary Marxist: Nationalism and Internationalism (revised)Nicholashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10200754644557621949noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1153889796362628702006-07-26T00:56:00.000-04:002006-07-26T00:56:00.000-04:00Excellent article, Nicholas. I always enjoy your w...Excellent article, Nicholas. I always enjoy your work and was just prowling for a read on Nationalism. Thank you.k. edward warmothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08008855034542528485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1146972416735816542006-05-06T23:26:00.000-04:002006-05-06T23:26:00.000-04:00In response to AnonymousA lot of critics and sympa...In response to Anonymous<BR/><BR/>A lot of critics and sympathizers including Hobsbawm, have thought that Marx underestimated nationalism. I say that neither he nor others such as Lenin or Trotsky have underestimated nationalism (the ability of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeois to set ideological "traps" through racism, national oppression, and imperialism to divide the workers.) I believe that Marx may have underestimated (though not his fault) the treherous nature of the labor aristocrats and the labor misleaders who betray the interests of their class to make side deals with their own imperialist bourgeoisie (See Lenin State and Revolution and Prolet Rev and Renagade Kautsky)<BR/><BR/>As to Anonymous's points: First, yes classes are often fractured but it is the duty of the leaders and the vangaurd elements of the workers to, through self sacrificing struggle, to unite all of the workers and oppressed behind a common banner, revolution. This has been shown to be the case in 1905, 1917, and in other cases. Second, of course classes are territorially separated, this means they are world wide, but they are concentrated where there is heavy industry and in urban areas, this is crucial, and this is their power! Third, on the countrymen question, yes there is patriotism and national feeling, but it is the task of the revolutionary leadership, and the workers who see nationalism as the sham that it is to fight agaist it for proletarian internationalism. Thus I defend Iraq, Iran, and China against US imperialism without lending Saddam or the Mullahs one ounce of political support, and in the case of China to defend the gains of workers from the revolution, however deformed by the bureaucrats, from capitalist counter revolution! Class warfare may and does begin at a local, regional and eventually a national level, but eventually a successful revolution must aid the workers in other countries to overthrow their rulers. In any case workers must act in solidarity and certainly condemn and fight against imperialist wars and turn them into class wars.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10200754644557621949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1146099007995044112006-04-26T20:50:00.000-04:002006-04-26T20:50:00.000-04:00marx greatly, greatly underestimated the power of ...marx greatly, greatly underestimated the power of nationalism. <BR/><BR/>first, classes within a state are too fragmented politically and monetarily. they are not static entities given a fixed amount of $$. Those making more will not unite with those making less, simply because of self-interest. secondly, classes are not territorially homogenous--they are scattered. thirdly, dont you think on a personal level that people will unite more with their countrymen over someone from a different culture that cannot even speak the same language? class warfare was meant to remain within a fixed territorial unit, and not meant to be fought on a global scale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1143608150456056142006-03-28T23:55:00.000-05:002006-03-28T23:55:00.000-05:00Edie,You are correct. Marxism recognizes the 'Righ...Edie,<BR/><BR/>You are correct. Marxism recognizes the 'Right to Self-determination of Nations'. Without recognition of this right, a healthy and trustful relationship between nations can never come into being.<BR/><BR/>For detailed discussion on this subject, please read 'Marxism and the National Question' written by J. V. Stalin in 1913. This article was approved by the R.S.D.L.P and became the final word of Bolsheviks on the national question.<BR/><BR/>In Solidarity,<BR/>VidrohiVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07047775595630580078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1143607898809572302006-03-28T23:51:00.000-05:002006-03-28T23:51:00.000-05:00"There is one, and only one, kind of real internat..."There is one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is -- working whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the revolutionary struggle in one's own country, and supporting (by propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle, this, and only this, line, in every country without exception". -LeninVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07047775595630580078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1141398554010445832006-03-03T10:09:00.000-05:002006-03-03T10:09:00.000-05:00An understanding of self-determination is crucial ...An understanding of self-determination is crucial to avoiding these sorts of pet causes such as IRA and PLO that tend to steal the hearts of radicals.<BR/><BR/>Blogging can sometimes be a lonely affair. I hope you aren't discouraged; it is still a good exercise for Marxists.Ediehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05333786536254834913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1139898236398687632006-02-14T01:23:00.000-05:002006-02-14T01:23:00.000-05:00Very good question Renegade. As I understand it th...Very good question Renegade. As I understand it the logic is that when a people clearly want national independence, then Lenin argues it is the duty of communists to support, to the death if nescessay, their right to self determinination. Perhapse the best example is the Black liberation struggle. In the US it was/is perhapse themost radical arena of struggle in US history, more so even than the struggle of labor. Marx says that "labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin when in the blck skin it is branded (I do not have the sitition handy but I will post it)."<BR/><BR/>Thus, as labor is branded in the Palestinian skin, it cannot be free in the Isreali skin! We must do all that is in our power to defend palestinians from aggression on the part of imperialism. Yes they have petty-bourgeois right wing leadership in the Fatah and fundamentalists in Hamas, but by defendng them we are upholding the best of internationalism. <BR/><BR/>The Kurds, I think history has shown, should have had (I caught myself writting 'should have been given' as if it was the imperialists right to give) a state of their own. <BR/><BR/>Lenin's point in stressing self determination is not the bourgeois nationalist notion that naturally all nations should have their own state, on the contrary, that only those fighting for it and really wanting it (a mass movment) need to have it defended by communists. This not only breaks down bourgois power but it can realse other social forces of class struggle.<BR/><BR/>I am very drunk and must go to bed<BR/>Long live the struggle!Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10200754644557621949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20038069.post-1139891724995650212006-02-13T23:35:00.000-05:002006-02-13T23:35:00.000-05:00It is easy to point out the reactionary nature of ...It is easy to point out the reactionary nature of nationalism, in an advanced capitalist state.<BR/><BR/>How do you apply those principles with for example; Palestinians or Kurds?<BR/><BR/>I agree with you. I don't know how to apply that correct idea, in say the Palestinian struggle.<BR/><BR/>Regards.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.com