this board is probably the most redpilled place when it comes to nationalism, you all know why it's shit and that it's meaningless. but still, you can't deny it's power.
the people consider themselves more divided by nationality than class, so it's a lot more effective to combine both than just dismiss the former and expect them to follow you. by uniting the workers under a flag, you've basically created hatred among the population for both the current capitalist establishment and the current capitalist bourgeoisie.
i mean, just look at trump tbh. thanks to his nationalist fear mongering, he rekt all of the establishment candidates without even trying or putting any effort at all into his campaign. nationalism during troubled times is the most effective glue to bind the people together.
personally i feel like there should be a combination of both trump's and bernie's policies, more particularly bernie's economics, fiscal and domestic policies with trump's immigration and foreign policies. (of course without the retarded wall or muslim database, but something similar that's more effective). this way, american workers will be benefiting the most, with less outsourcing and less immigrants, local workers would get some serious help with more jobs and more benefits.
what do you guys think, would a nationalist and economically leftist policy benefit the people? i want a genuine discussion, im not baiting if youre wondering. no one writes a paragraph this long to bait tbh
Nationalism is class collaboration, you can't combine it with socialism, they are opposites.
Samuel Campbell
why dont you think workers within a country can collaborate to overthrow it's bourgeoisie class and establish socialism for themselves?
Robert Lewis
because a dictatorship of the proletariat will turn into a dictatorship controlling the proletariat. haven't you read Animal Farm?
Ian Carter
isnt it possible to create a true dictatorship of the proletariat within a nation? and centralized planning isnt that bad, right? the USSR did develop to the second biggest world superpower in less than a century, centralized planning must be one of the reasons
Jackson Anderson
that was more due to conditions immediately following the second world war. with the exception of America, everywhere else in the world that previously had factories was either severely damaged or destroyed. the USSR quickly fell far, far behind other nations in terms of productive output and innovation
Brandon Wood
I'm going to bite because you at least went through the effort to write this rather well instead of just ">thinking you can have Socialism without Nationalism"
On the one hand you're actually somewhat correct in that Nationalism is useful subverting class and bringing people together against Capitalism doing this. However, I would argue that when you find the relatively low key instances of this in Socialist movements, its in moments like the rise of the Bolsheviks and the PRC. My point here isn't to play that spooky game of "Le Evil M-L's not muh true gommunism", it's to say that in moments where Nationalism bled into parts of the rhetoric or strategy of Socialist movements it was in the 20th Century failures that, in my opinion, shouldn't be try to be "Fixed" or "tweaked" for the 21st Century and thus it's a moot point to discuss the merit of Nationalism in any current Leftist strategy
Also to be a bit more specific to your post I'll go through a couple of your points I found particularly disagreeable.
I've already gone over this a bit above so here I'm adding that, this tends to be true more often than not but that is the importance of raising CLASS rather than NATIONAL consciousness. This isn't a crtique lobbied even just again you and your argument a lot of people on Holla Forums seem to have forgotten the importance of class consciousness, propaganda, agitation and so on. Revolutions are a gradual process and a lot of people both here and IRL leftism are trying to imagine a scenario in which full gommunism can be achieved within their lifetime or even in like 10 years, which is pretty implausible at this point.
I think you're point here is completely incorrect. He united ONE PIECE of the proletariat against another part of it and against the petit-bourgeois, thus dividing the nation even more than it was under either Bush or Obama. It's worth pointing out that America was already tending towards this and that Trump is more of a symptom than a cause (as with Sanders and a resurgent interest in Socialism, which was already happening before his campaign). Nationalism during troubled times is the most effective at dividing an already fractured masses against themselves even more m8, it's the political correctness of the Right (see Donald Trump's recent claim to open up libel laws to make it easier for him and his supporters to sue naysayers)
Also you need to remember that "the current capitalist bourgeoise" in the USA are largely liberals or are being aided by Liberals playing ball on their behalf in Washington. In America, and it seems to spreading to other parts of the world, Liberalism is conflated with Leftism as such, and people who support Nationalism in particular view it this way. Therefore it would probably be impossible to have a revolt against the Liberal elites without also provoking a huge wave of anti-leftist sentiment, which would obviously be contrary to the aims of socialism as Nationalism is anyway
Nolan Butler
...
Sebastian Morris
Do you want fascism, because this is how you get fascism.
Brandon Myers
so fascism is socialistic?
Aaron Morgan
Nationalism and socialism, friendo
Samuel Diaz
Please please please kill yourself
Easton Turner
But what about this le Nat.ion.al So.cia.lism is not socialistic meme I always hear about?
Brayden Jenkins
it failed from the start, but that's because of the lack of material conditions to establish socialism. if the same tactic was to be used in, say, denmark or the US, it would definitely succeed due to the amount of wealth those country have.
im not saying we shouldnt, thats why im saying combining nationalism and socialism, we use trump's tactic to unite the workers as the "proletariat of [insert country name here]", basically trump's tactic and some of his policies + bernie's passion and some of his policies.
Jonathan Moore
Yes but at least it was a good post.
Anyone with any knowledge of socialist economics would know that "Nat.ion.al soc.ial.ism" was anything but. You can't just combine words together to create a reality in reality.
You want to base your materialist and socialist politics on the spook of nation? Yeah it might have powerful history, but that doesn't mean it hasn't always wound up a complete dead end. A dead end with opposite values to socialism. The power you see in nationalism these days is entirely at odds to socialism, anyway, and you can't appeal to those nationalists while expecting to win them over with Bernie Sanders.
Jaxon Reed
and at the same time you call us leftoms purists lmao. Fuck this petit bourgeois bullshit, proletarian internationalism negates nationalism completely.
Jordan Torres
Nationalism is necessary to promote socialism in the United States. Not exclusionary nationalism, but the aesthetics of patriotism.
Unless socialism is wrapped in an American flag and associated with names like Hamilton and Roosevelt, our enemies will call us un-American and they will win.
Mason Murphy
Nationalism is the first step to fascism. Whenever the proletariat follows nationalists they get fucked over.by the national bourgeoise.
Socialists never co-opt nationalists. It's always the other way around - that's why decolonization ended with neocolonial and neoliberal states.
Ayden Ramirez
This. Even if you don't believe in nationalism as an ideology, you should still believe in it as a tactic. The second you tell a blue collar worker that his identity is meaningless he will reject you for a right-wing voice that appeals to and acknowledges his sense of identity.
Nationalism began life as a leftist ideology, fam.
Kevin Moore
It began as a bourgeois liberal ideology. It was only "left" in an 18th-century sense - nationalists were never socialist or anarchist, and the democratic rights and demolition of legal hierarchy they fought for at the time are in direct opposition to what nationalists typically fight for now.
Thomas Perry
You don't need to support nationalism as an ideology to respect it's tactical importance
Ryder Fisher
I consider myself anarchist and call my postcolonial anarchist and indigenist views sometimes 'nationalism'. I've gotten criticism from this and have realized postcolonial anarchism is the more accurate term for what I advocate and that actual national-anarchism is more stateless white nationalism than anything else. I don't see a problem with nationalism by default as it is a large movement and wide ideology. I don't dislike all forms of nationalism. Some I just don't mind and some I am for.
Answering the OP, yes, nationalism and patriotism are strong forces particularly in the lower middle classes. However, merely taking on the cause of nationalism just 'cause the masses like it is nothing but empty populism. You'd just see leftists abandoning the principles they're known for. Moreover, there are policies that are called nationalist and patriotic and are connected to nationalist and patriotic movements and yet are opposed by the left. Opposition to immigration and various socially conservative policies are some examples.
Some forms of nationalism can be unifying and others dividing. It depends on the context we're looking at. If the world's what's being considered, nationalism and nation-states are nothing but divisive. However, if we focus on a smaller area, it can unite people better in a more local setting.
So… what then? What would be that different? Elaborate.
The policy that benefits the people is a policy that benefits the people. Nationalism can do that. Socialism can do that. Liberalism can do that. Anarchism can do that. It's just about various isms claiming the successful thing that's invented for themselves. Sometimes you just don't want what's good for the people or more accurately what people want because that denies something from you.
Robert Kelly
One can attempt to use nationalism tactically, but it's a fool's gamble IMO. Time and time again we just end up getting used by nationalists.
Ryan Richardson
I think American exceptionalism could be used to win Americans over or at least ease some concerns about "socialism always failing".
