Thread: Nationalism, Reactionary or Progressive?

Is Nationalism a reactionary ideology of a progressive ideology? Essentially nationalism is a reactionary ideology seeing as the division of national borders ultimately leads to imperialism and an unequal distribution of world power between both social classes and national states. However I do not see this as a reason to abolish national borders, I believe that with the rise of socialism and the overthrow of the ruling classes, the abolition of national borders would be an unnecessary step seeing as the economic incentive for one country to expand on the expense of another would cease to exist.

Also, I am not sure if all forms for nationalism are reactionary and result in the oppression of others. Now this is not something which I am yet entirely certain of. But I do think that perhaps we should draw a line between the kind of reactionary "national-chauvism" which results in the expansion of national-bourgeois interests at the expense of other nation-states. And the (perhaps) progressive form for anti-imperialist nationalism which strives for "national independence" and the abolition of foreign hegemony. I dare say that the struggle for national liberation could possibly present a progressive step towards international proletarian emancipation.

Originally Posted by seb1991

Is Nationalism a reactionary ideology of a progressive ideology? Essentially nationalism is a reactionary ideology seeing as the division of national borders ultimately leads to imperialism and an unequal distribution of world power between both social classes and national states. However I do not see this as a reason to abolish national borders, I believe that with the rise of socialism and the overthrow of the ruling classes, the abolition of national borders would be an unnecessary step seeing as the economic incentive for one country to expand on the expense of another would cease to exist.

Also, I am not sure if all forms for nationalism are reactionary and result in the oppression of others. Now this is not something which I am yet entirely certain of. But I do think that perhaps we should draw a line between the kind of reactionary "national-chauvism" which results in the expansion of national-bourgeois interests at the expense of other nation-states. And the (perhaps) progressive form for anti-imperialist nationalism which strives for "national independence" and the abolition of foreign hegemony. I dare say that the struggle for national liberation could possibly present a progressive step towards international proletarian emancipation.

The rise of socialism only creates a gap in the classes, it will not abolish or overthrow the elite class, but it will feed it.

How have you been BTW?

Wrong! the rise of authoritarian socialism may create a gap in the classes. Because it ultimately leads to the state becoming the new institution of exploitation and as a result of authoritarianism and the lack of democracy, the class differences may actually become greater than before the revolution.

However the rise of democratic socialism will lead to a classless society, emancipated from the rule of the elite class. Democracy could be the people's means of protecting themselves from the state becoming the new institution of exploitation. As long as the socialist state truly is democratically represented by the revolutionary people it cannot be corrupted and become the "new oppressor".

I've been fine. Just got bored of the forum but decided to come back and make a new thread. =D

Originally Posted by seb1991

Wrong! the rise of authoritarian socialism may create a gap in the classes. Because it ultimately leads to the state becoming the new institution of exploitation and as a result of authoritarianism and the lack of democracy, the class differences may actually become greater than before the revolution.

However the rise of democratic socialism will lead to a classless society, emancipated from the rule of the elite class. Democracy could be the people's means of protecting themselves from the state becoming the new institution of exploitation. As long as the socialist state truly is democratically represented by the revolutionary people it cannot be corrupted and become the "new oppressor".

I've been fine. Just got bored of the forum but decided to come back and make a new thread. =D

I would like for you to site one socialist economy that has brought prosperity to the population without creating a super class. It can't be done, you see socialism is a farce, it can only lead to enslavement, and that is history talking not me.

I don't think there's too much distinction between the nationalism of the oppressor and that of the oppressed - it's just that their different positions lead us to see the same thing through a different light. Look at Mugabe for a prime example of someone who used to be seen in the West as a hero of progressive anti-colonialism, but now looks like a reactionary and repressive bigot. This doesn't necessarily mean the man has changed (though he might have), we could just be seeing the same ideology in a position of power, as opposed to in a position of weakness struggling against oppression.

So how do you believe people should struggle against foreign hegemony, if not through national liberation?

Originally Posted by michaelr

I would like for you to site one socialist economy that has brought prosperity to the population without creating a super class. It can't be done,

It doesn't have to be done, in social democracies (modern socialism) the society is capitalist, with huge disparities in incomes. It's mandatory, in order to promote ambition and success. There will always be classes, what governments should do is make easier the passage from one classe to another, according to the success of the individuals and regarless to where they come from. That's the purpose of modern socialism (social justice: equal opportunities for everyone but it's up to you to exploit those opportunities and be successful).

Originally Posted by michaelr

you see socialism is a farce, it can only lead to enslavement, and that is history talking not me.

I'd love to hear that "history" who's talking to you, because according to mine all the countries with the highest living standards today are socialists. And no, I don't consider the US with its high criminality rate, low life expectancy and bad healthcare system, low litteracy rate, bad education, higher unemployement, as one of those countries with the highest living standards.

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

It doesn't have to be done, in social democracies (modern socialism) the society is capitalist, with huge disparities in incomes. It's mandatory, in order to promote ambition and success. There will always be classes, what governments should do is make easier the passage from one classe to another, according to the success of the individuals and regarless to where they come from. That's the purpose of modern socialism (social justice: equal opportunities for everyone but it's up to you to exploit those opportunities and be successful).

You are wrong! There will not always be classes. History has shown us that any society which maintains a class-system, consisting of oppressors and oppressed, cannot represent the final stage in our mode of production. As long as you have one class of people being repressed, they will eventually overthrow their oppressors. Look at history, has any economic mode of production which relies on one class exploiting another survived? Of course not, so why would capitalism be any different? Until we revolutionize our mode of production so that we no longer have a class system, it cannot and never will represent the final stage in our mode of production.

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

I'd love to hear that "history" who's talking to you, because according to mine all the countries with the highest living standards today are socialists. And no, I don't consider the US with its high criminality rate, low life expectancy and bad healthcare system, low litteracy rate, bad education, higher unemployement, as one of those countries with the highest living standards.

I am one of the people privileged enough to reside in one of these "socialist" countries which you are talking about. I live in Norway and we have a social-democratic government and we are considered one of the countries with the highest living standards on earth. However, although my country has good living standards compared with most others, it does not mean that it is an equal, egalitarian society. Our society is a class society just like anybody elses except that the class differences are perhaps a bit more moderate. My country has a property owning class exploiting a working class, we are waging an imperialist war on Afghanistan, the rich in our country are still benefiting from private healthcare and I, personally would never call this country socialist.

From Wikipedia: "Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services."

My country's economy does not rely on COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP, rather it still relies on PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services is still mostly administrated by our property owning, ruling class. Therefore I dare say that you have entirely misunderstood the concept of Socialism, and you have confused it with the ideology of social-democracy, which is basically just state regulated capitalism and is what we have in this pseudo-democratic state up in scandinavia.

Originally Posted by seb1991

You are wrong! There will not always be classes.

It's because we don't have the same definition of "classes". The classes I was talking about are wealth defined: the rich, the average, the poor. I don't believe in your "exploiting/exploited" classes (the communist class system) in modern democracies. There are only successful people and less successful ones, but no barrier and no unfair exploitation.

Originally Posted by seb1991

From Wikipedia: "Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services."

My country's economy does not rely on COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP, rather it still relies on PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services is still mostly administrated by our property owning, ruling class. Therefore I dare say that you have entirely misunderstood the concept of Socialism, and you have confused it with the ideology of social-democracy, which is basically just state regulated capitalism and is what we have in this pseudo-democratic state up in scandinavia.

If we follow your definition, socialism and communism are the same. Why 2 different words then? When I talk about "socialism", I'm talking about modern socialism, the socialism that's practiced in the real world today. There's not a SINGLE country which is socialist, by that wikipedia definition (if you read the article completely you'll see there are several definitions of socialism, the marxist one you cited isn't the only one).
So yes, I'm talking about social democracy, because that's the only socialism practiced today. If you're talking about a society where everything is collectively owned, you're talking about communism.

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

It's because we don't have the same definition of "classes". The classes I was talking about are wealth defined: the rich, the average, the poor. I don't believe in your "exploiting/exploited" classes (the communist class system) in modern democracies. There are only successful people and less successful ones, but no barrier and no unfair exploitation.

If you say there is no exploitation, then how do the shareholders generate an income? Even if you say you define social classes through people's wealth, does ownership not account for how much personal wealth you generate?

Originally Posted by Kyryahn

If we follow your definition, socialism and communism are the same. Why 2 different words then? When I talk about "socialism", I'm talking about modern socialism, the socialism that's practiced in the real world today. There's not a SINGLE country which is socialist, by that wikipedia definition (if you read the article completely you'll see there are several definitions of socialism, the marxist one you cited isn't the only one).
So yes, I'm talking about social democracy, because that's the only socialism practiced today. If you're talking about a society where everything is collectively owned, you're talking about communism.

People have many different points of view on the difference between socialism and communism. For me socialism is the stage on the way to communism, it is a broad term including anarchists, libertarian communists and even authoritarian stalinists (even though the latter is a reactionary force). Communism is what is obtained by a successful socialist society. There is of course broad diversity between all the people calling themselves socialists and communists and they can quickly become confusing terms. You are correct in that there aren't really many countries practicing collective ownership today, but that does not mean that social-democracy is the same as socialism. As mentioned before, socialism is a means of achieving communism through revolutionizing the current forms of ownership and production.