[Cromwell]

I have, for as long as I can remember, identified as a socialist. My grandfather, who died before I was born, left me with that legacy (he was a left-wing Labour councillor who actually brought my family down a class-level because of his views).

However, what has consistently put me off any actual Marxist/socialist organisation has been the sycophantic anti-nationalism of their members. I am a nationalist, in that I believe in the preservation of my nation's unique ethnic character.

However, after browsing the policies section of the Socialist Labour Party's website, I came across a peculiar definition of the term, internationalist:

We are an internationalist party which believes that countries have a sovereign right to determine their own destiny.

Well, I thought, if that's all internationalism means, then I should embrace the left-wing. But, that's not what it means, is it?

The average left-winger may mope on about the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, but when they are addressing the national question in white, and specifically European, countries they whine endlessly about the undefinable nature of culture and race and nation as meaningless "social constructs".

For the socialist members here, how do you square that circle? How can you support the right of a nation to self-determine whilst, simultaneously, rejected the very idea of a nation as objectively definable?

[quetzalcoatl]

As a self-identified socialist, I have nothing against a nation formulating and enforcing immigration policy. This is an inherent right of the nation state. Indeed as a socialist I recognize that immigration is an effective weapon in the elite's armamentarium - it has been, and continues to be, used to force down wages and destroy worker protections.

It is not acceptable, however, for the nation state to discriminate against particular ethnic groups who are citizens, either by naturalization or being children of illegal immigrants.

[Cromwell]

As a self-identified socialist, I have nothing against a nation formulating and enforcing immigration policy. This is an inherent right of the nation state. Indeed as a socialist I recognize that immigration is an effective weapon in the elite's armamentarium - it has been, and continues to be, used to force down wages and destroy worker protections.

It is not acceptable, however, for the nation state to discriminate against particular ethnic groups who are citizens, either by naturalization or being children of illegal immigrants.

I, very much, appreciate your point of view. How prolific is it, though? I know that I'm asking a hard question, and that you cannot know the thoughts and feelings of every socialist. But, I would feel uncomfortable around people who choose to parrot liberal propaganda and care more about social issues than economic issues.

Whilst I am fairly liberal, myself, I would rather live under a conservative, but socialist, government than a liberal, but capitalist, one.

[Dagoth Ur]

Most communists even respect the right of nations to determine their own destiny. Only two things to note here: 1. Nations that violate the self-determination of others are inherently shit and to be fought against even (or especially) by the native communists of the imperialist nation 2. All native communists aim to bring communism to their homeland, their families, and their future generations.

So to be clear while upholding the right to self-determination for all nations you have to remember we are still communists and want all nations to eventually come under our umbrella. It's ultimately our goal to unify humanity afterall.

[Coyote]

I have, for as long as I can remember, identified as a socialist. My grandfather, who died before I was born, left me with that legacy (he was a left-wing Labour councillor who actually brought my family down a class-level because of his views).

However, what has consistently put me off any actual Marxist/socialist organisation has been the sycophantic anti-nationalism of their members. I am a nationalist, in that I believe in the preservation of my nation's unique ethnic character.

However, after browsing the policies section of the Socialist Labour Party's website, I came across a peculiar definition of the term, internationalist:



Well, I thought, if that's all internationalism means, then I should embrace the left-wing. But, that's not what it means, is it?

The average left-winger may mope on about the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, but when they are addressing the national question in white, and specifically European, countries they whine endlessly about the undefinable nature of culture and race and nation as meaningless "social constructs".

For the socialist members here, how do you square that circle? How can you support the right of a nation to self-determine whilst, simultaneously, rejected the very idea of a nation as objectively definable?

Socialism never has a long life, but for it to have any chance at all, it needs a strong sense of nationalism, or something similar.

Socialism removes the pursuit of self-interest, and so, that drive must be replaced by something. National self-interest is an option. Racism is an option.

Anything that creates an "us vs. them" paradigm.

The collective good of mankind? Nah. Nobody cares about that.

[Coyote]

Most communists even respect the right of nations to determine their own destiny. Only two things to note here: 1. Nations that violate the self-determination of others are inherently shit and to be fought against even (or especially) by the native communists of the imperialist nation 2. All native communists aim to bring communism to their homeland, their families, and their future generations.

So to be clear while upholding the right to self-determination for all nations you have to remember we are still communists and want all nations to eventually come under our umbrella. It's ultimately our goal to unify humanity afterall.

And do you run your military by committee?

[BATIK]

Marxism is internationalist - it is based upon class struggle transcending nationalism, ethnocentrism, and religion, which are intellectual obstacles to class consciousness. The bourgeoisie has used bourgeois nationalism to divide the proletarian working classes.

Comrade Dagoth Ur put it quite well, but here's Lenin for some added clarity:

We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.... The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support. At the same time, we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness.... Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.

Also read this essay: Nationalism, Self-Determination and Socialist Revolution

[Rich]

The bourgeoisie has used bourgeois nationalism to divide the proletarian working classes.

Nonsense nationalism has used all classes to further its ends and has divided all classes. Nationalist manipulation has been most extreme in the case of the Bourgeois, so the nationalists that created the first world war so turned the capitalists against each other that German capitalists were willing to support and finance Russian Bolsheviks. In the second world war nationalist manipulation led to British and American Capatalists massively subsidising Soviet Russia.

[Voluntarism]

Why do socialists even care about nationalism? Is a specific randomly defined geographic monopoly on resources more important than another? Is it simply for some sort of defence against the invasion of the darkness of external nonbelievers? Can people come and go from the geographic region they were born into?

[Julian]

Indeed

I think Lenin was in a minority amongst Socialists at the time. So for example Rosa Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on the National Question.

Its difficult for me to see what positive contribution Lenin's theory of national liberation made to Socialist thought

Personally I think that it is right that people to invest emotionally in Communities. That is essential to creating a socialism from the bottom up.
It is difficult to imagine a world where everyone worked for the overall betterment of humanity if that is not also a world of neighbourhoods and associations and community

However I think it is wrong to elevate some Communities above others where there is little or no basis for the attachment between individuals and the Community. Nations are prescribed Communities. We do not choose our country. We are born in a country. We may have obligations which no reasonable person would agree to. We may for example be obliged to fight for it (as many people still are)

One of the reasons we are told the Nation is "important" is that it provides a way of managing the movement of people. E.g we need Nations to limit immigration. However the two issues of Nation and movement are not necessarily linked. Even within Nations, the poor are limited where they can go by fences, hedges and walls. However the world's very rich can effectively travel anywhere in the world regardless of their place of birth.

Socialism does not necessarily mean unlimited right of all to locate and relocate as they desire. Socialism is not concerned with a free for all in production. It need not mean a free for all in terms people deciding where to live. It may mean agreeing to policies on movement of people which suit all and which are seen as fair by all. I expect however that it is only truely possible to achieve if all people have similar life chances. In a world of huge inequalities it is difficult to establish fairness between the rich and the poor and between people born in rich countries and people born in the poorest.

[Piccolo]

I can understand why some countries may want to maintain their unique ethnic character and I don’t think that socialism is necessarily a bar to that, although I suppose it might differ from country to country.

As an American, ethnic nationalism does not hold much attraction to me since the U.S. is an ethnically- diverse settler state, similar to other countries in the Western Hemisphere. However, I might be more interested in ethnic nationalism if I lived in a country in, say, Europe with an ancient, settled culture and population.

That being said, I personally lean toward the theory that socialism may be more likely to succeed in ethnically homogenous states as people feel more “kinship” between each other.

One of the major obstacles for socialism in the United States is the fear that it will economically benefit groups other than one’s own. White Americans constantly go on about how socialism is just a form of “welfare” and “reparations” for blacks and Hispanics. It is the idea that socialism means taking from my group to give to different people who I do not care for.

[DisobedientLiberty]

The issue I would take with you is not your idea of preserving a country's cultural identity. My issue is this:

I believe in the preservation of my nation's unique ethnic character.

That you associate culture with ethnicity. Ethnicity has no relation to culture. You can be culturally English as hell and be black or asian or whatever. The word is often over-used but to be honest the idea that Britain has an "ethnic character" sounds like racism to me. Race is essentially a social construct and culture is not and should not be divided along lines of ethnicity. The only difference between a white person and a black person is the colour of his skin. Race does not exist. Black people are not "like x" and white people "like y." I wouldn't deny the existence of distinct cultures and nations (though I would argue the concept of nationhood is changing in recent times) but I strongly object to your drawing of ethnic lines.

And, from a socialist perspective, it's difficult to reconcile the ideology with your belief in ethnic nationalism (ie. racism) Race has been a tool used by the bourgiousie to divide and oppress the lower classes, when in reality we're all one and the same. The closest party I know of to your beliefs is the British Nationalist Party. They're economically further left-wing than Labour but are very authoritarian especially in regards to race.

[Cromwell]

That you associate culture with ethnicity. Ethnicity has no relation to culture. You can be culturally English as hell and be black or asian or whatever. The word is often over-used but to be honest the idea that Britain has an "ethnic character" sounds like racism to me. Race is essentially a social construct and culture is not and should not be divided along lines of ethnicity. The only difference between a white person and a black person is the colour of his skin. Race does not exist. Black people are not "like x" and white people "like y." I wouldn't deny the existence of distinct cultures and nations (though I would argue the concept of nationhood is changing in recent times) but I strongly object to your drawing of ethnic lines.

And, from a socialist perspective, it's difficult to reconcile the ideology with your belief in ethnic nationalism (ie. racism) Race has been a tool used by the bourgiousie to divide and oppress the lower classes, when in reality we're all one and the same. The closest party I know of to your beliefs is the British Nationalist Party. They're economically further left-wing than Labour but are very authoritarian especially in regards to race.

You've got that backwards. Race is a biological reality and culture is the social construct. Anyway, I'm not interested in a 100% ethnically pure state, but you have to acknowledge that if you replaced the ethnic English with, let's say, Pakistanis our culture would be changed irrevocably over night. Small scale immigration, of whatever race, is culturally sustainable because it can be assimilated but mass immigration, especially when combined with multicultural policies and the natural tendency of immigrants to cluster together along ethnic lines, is not.

Anyway, no, the British National Party is a joke; it's a corrupt organisation and its policies are inconsistent. I don't get the feeling that their left-wing economic views are the main priority. For me, socialism is the top priority.

[Dagoth Ur]

Race has been disproven (as a genetic factor) by the Human Genome Project. It's more like a subset of culture.

[DisobedientLiberty]

You've got that backwards. Race is a biological reality and culture is the social construct. Anyway, I'm not interested in a 100% ethnically pure state, but you have to acknowledge that if you replaced the ethnic English with, let's say, Pakistanis our culture would be changed irrevocably over night. Small scale immigration, of whatever race, is culturally sustainable because it can be assimilated but mass immigration, especially when combined with multicultural policies and the natural tendency of immigrants to cluster together along ethnic lines, is not.

Yes, the culture would definitely change, but not because of the colour of their skin but from the culture that they will bring with them. The English are not English because of their "race" but because of the culture of the society in which they grew up in. If they had been born somewhere else then it would change in a different way. It's not ethnic it's cultural.

[Ombrageux]

The left's making of pseudo-selflesness (and its corrolary pseudo-cosmopolitanism) its be-all-end-all and its marker of tribal affiliation and status (because that's what it is), is a huge problem. It makes leftists more sectarian than rightists (they close themselves off to "impure" allies and are very easy for plutocratic media-political elites to manipulate via political correctness) and it leads to fuzzy thinking in general because it denies that self-interest (individual and "community") is an integral part of human nature; it can't simply be moralistically denied, it has to be recognized, managed and its negative consequences attenuated.

It is quite evident that that any concept of democratic citizenship rapidly leads to that of national self-determination (Who are "the People"? What is our territory?) and that globalist pseudo-cosmopolitanism is not compatible with traditional democracy. (Because a democratic polity can only effectively self-govern if there is some regulation of the border between itself and the rest of the world.) It is also clear that even social justice rapidly leads to the national question (you can have a functioning welfare regime or you can have unlimited immigration from poor countries, but you can't have both; it is also well documented that a degree of ethnic homogeneity makes it easier to "sell" a welfare state politically because there is more spontaneous solidarity between citizens).

I have seen very little spontaneous constructive engagement on this issue from leftists, some are absolutely dogmatic, but others are at least willing to discuss. It is not all that uncommon for those of the Old School, non-communist centre-left (Michael Lind, Emmanuel) to transition naturally to nation-statism and anti-neoliberalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

To me, it seems that there is a certain amount of confusion about the difference between a nation and a state. It's probably a Euro-centric thing, where nation states are the norm, but the rest of the world has states with far more than one nation in them.

The idea of completely doing away with these borders and remaking them according to national lines is logical and simple, but unrealistic. Not only is there a certain amount of conservatism and blind social inertia maintaining these borders, but the constant flow of migrants makes it even less likely to occur as time goes on. Nationalists are then caught in what I call Rei's dilemma: you must close the borders in order to seize control of the state apparatus, but you have to seize control of the state apparatus in order to close the borders.

So, the question becomes: how do we organise for national self-determination in today's modern world?

To answer that question, it makes sense to look at those groups with the most experience doing just that: indigenous nationhood movements. And many of these movements advocate legal pluralism, allowing different nations within a state to have separate legal systems. Thus, each nation would be able to control the "state" apparatus within their national framework, and be able to organise with the other nations in the state to determine the direction and laws of the state itself.

[Cromwell]

Race has been disproven (as a genetic factor) by the Human Genome Project. It's more like a subset of culture.

What does that even mean? There are genetic differences associated with race; you can tell races apart on the basis of their DNA.

[Cromwell]

Yes, the culture would definitely change, but not because of the colour of their skin but from the culture that they will bring with them. The English are not English because of their "race" but because of the culture of the society in which they grew up in. If they had been born somewhere else then it would change in a different way. It's not ethnic it's cultural.

We're talking past each other. I accept all that but the fact remains, that mass immigration from non-English sources is damaging to our cultural development. I believe that culture should be allowed to develop organically. In real terms, that demands limited immigration.