You know, I get into arguments with people on a near-daily basis about nationalism because
I’m an Irish Republican, which relies on a certain amount of nationalism – and apparently
nationalism is always a very, very bad and bold, and backward, and reactionary thing.
But is nationalism always so terrible and regressive?
Is it conversely a perfect panacea of progressivism?
Or does it differ depending on the context in which it’s used?
Is there a difference between the nationalism of the rich in imperial countries like the
U.K. and the U.S., and the nationalism of the working class in colonised countries fighting
for freedom and self-determination?
What is a Nation?
Right, before we can talk about nationalism, we need to know exactly what it is we’re
talking about.
What is a nation?
A lot of people on the left in particular struggle with this question because they’re
attached to idealist notions of “No borders, no nations” – and, despite genuinely good
intentions, that can have disastrous consequences for nations of people that are oppressed,
exploited, and under attack from imperialism – like, say, the Palestinians, or indigenous
groups in the Americas.
So let’s look at the historical definition of the term:
“A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the
basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested
in a common culture.”
That’s it.
That’s all there is to it.
Note that it’s not necessarily a country, though some kind of common territory is a
part of it.
Also note that race is nowhere mentioned.
Now that we know what a nation is, we can move on to understanding nationalism.
Nationalism or Internationalism?
People often create a dichotomy between, on one hand, nationalism – which at its most
basic level is just supporting the interests of a particular nation – and, on the other,
internationalism – supporting the interests of nations working together co-operatively:
they contrast the two, pigeonholing people into one or the other.
However, in many contexts, nationalism is a pre-requisite for internationalism.
When you’ve had your homes, your culture, your language, your art, your music – everything
that you’ve held dear – systematically destroyed for decades or centuries (such as
in the case of the Irish nation and many others under British colonialism), you’re not yet
in a strong enough position to fully extend the hand of internationalist support (even
if you want to).
This is where nationalism can help to strengthen a downtrodden people against the forces of
imperialism.
Friedrich Engels fully understood this in 1882 when he wrote that “An international
movement of the proletariat [or working class] is possible only among independent nations.”
[…] “I hold the view that there are two nations in Europe which do not only have the
right but the duty to be nationalistic before they become internationalists: the Irish and
the Poles.
They are internationalists of the best kind if they are very nationalistic.”
(Engels, Nationalism, Internationalism and the Polish Question, 1882 – Cheers, Caelliox)
We can, of course, extend that beyond the boundaries of Europe to all countries around
the globe that are under the boot of imperialism.
And this was well understood in China in the 1930s, too, when they knew that they would
need both nationalism and internationalism if their liberation struggle was to be successful;
“We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland
against the aggressors."
[…] For only by fighting in defense of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and
achieve national liberation.
And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and
other working people to achieve their own emancipation.”
Similar ideas were expressed by others all over the world fighting for the liberation
of oppressed nations such as Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong in Vietnam, as well as Huey
Newton and the Black Panther Party in the U.S.A.
Bourgeois Nationalism Now, I’ve been fairly positive about nationalism
so far, but we also need to ensure that we always examine the class-character of nationalisms.
The nationalisms described so far have been working-class, or proletarian, nationalism.
Proletarian nationalism, particularly in the context of a colonised country under the boot
of imperialism, is generally a positive, progressive force.
It understands the position of the global working class against the global ruling class,
or bourgeoisie.
Examples of this can be seen in the solidarity expressed between the Irish Republican movement
and the Palestinian Liberation movement.
We understand that this is one struggle against imperialism, and so international solidarity
is a key component to the nationalism of oppressed nations.
That being said, there is also a ruling-class, or bourgeois, nationalism – that can rear
its head even in colonised countries.
This is a narrow nationalism that seeks to obscure class divisions in a society, instead
encouraging rich and poor to unite around a shared national identity.
Of course, this is completely incorrect and only serves the interests of the rich and
powerful.
The working classes of oppressed nations all over the world have far more in common with
each other than they do with their national ruling classes.
The socio-economic interests of, for example, the Irish proletariat and the Irish bourgeoisie
are diametrically opposed – but the bourgeois nationalists deceitfully try to hide that
reality and rally us behind their own interests.
If you’re from an imperialist country like the U.S., the U.K, or France in particular,
then this chauvinistic, narrow, bourgeois nationalism which seeks to support one nation
at the expense of all others is probably the first thing you think of when you hear the
word “nationalism” – which is why many people in imperial core countries will jump
to the conclusion that all nationalism is bad.
Which, as we’ve seen, it’s not.
We just need to make sure our nationalism is always nested within a clear, consistent,
concrete class-based analysis.
James Connolly knew this only too well when he wrote in 1897 that, “If you remove the
English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about
the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.
England would still rule you.
She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers,
through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted
in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.
England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical
homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed.
Nationalism without Socialism – without a reorganisation of society on the basis of
a broader and more developed form of that common property which underlay the social
structure of Ancient Erin - is only national recreancy.”
Connolly knew that the true liberation of our people could only be realised in the establishment
of a 32-County Socialist Republic of Ireland – and that this would be best achieved through
a synthesis of socialism and proletarian nationalism.
That is to say, Socialist Republicanism - the application of Marxism-Leninism to the Irish
context.
For more on that topic, there’s a full video on “Irish Socialist Republicanism” on
this channel that you can have a look at if you’re curious.
Hopefully this video has helped to clarify the different possible class characters of
nationalism which will ultimately determine whether or not they’re helpful for the international
proletarian liberation struggle.
Thanks for watching this video.
Thanks especially to Michaela Schmid, Rare Hero, William Leetch, Luke Anokhin, and the
rest of my Patrons.
If you have a dollar or two to spare per month, please consider donating on Patreon to help
support this work.
If you’re not in a position to do that, then please like, subscribe, hit that bell
notification button, and share these videos around.
Cheers everyone, slán go fóill.