Translated from: https://de.cba.media/683061
So, let's revisit the tiresome topic of nationalism – nationalism understood first and foremost as an individual, subjective feeling of belonging to a community, based on characteristics that certainly vary nowadays; but these are, in any case, contributed by the adherents of nationalism. Let's also start with the assertion that nationalism and patriotism are the same attitude towards one's beloved fatherland. "Patriotism" generally expresses a positive, approving stance towards this attitude, while "nationalism" conveys a negative or at least problematic one. Nationalism is often interpreted as an excessive form, as an excess of an otherwise desirable love of one's country, which by no means necessarily has to lead to the devaluation of other fatherlands – and that doesn't quite hold water. The argument for this lies in looking at the complexities of international relations and the question of how the fatherlands beloved by "their" patriots actually relate to one another. Do they pursue their national interests virtually in parallel and with indifference to one another – or do they engage in lively exchange , assert their interests in each other, make demands on others, experience disappointments as a result , and work their way towards fierce conflicts ?! The latter is, as is well known, the norm, and that is why the supposedly innocent love for the fatherland is the decisive source of hatred against everything that stands in the way of the beloved fatherland abroad.
I have been made aware on several occasions that among leftists, specifically Marxist-Leninists, the writings of Stalin and Lenin still enjoy a certain popularity; both are still considered authorities and are frequently quoted. Hence the reference to them.
“ A nation is a historically formed, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a community of language, territory, economic life, and the psychological character manifested in a community of culture. It goes without saying that the nation, like every historical phenomenon, is subject to the law of change; it has its history, its beginning, and its end . ” (Stalin: Marxism and the National Question).
Language
Okay, once historically formed and subject to change , that applies to everything. Otherwise, we're dealing with the perfectly ordinary bourgeois notion of a community that exists prior to and independently of politics and power, based on factors and elements that are partly unavoidable, and from which the power that creates them is simply ignored. Let's take it one step at a time: First, we have the "community of language," which isn't a community at all, because knowledge of a language doesn't create any common interest or shared purpose among those who merely speak German or English. One interpretation of this quote reads:
" One can certainly have a positive or negative attitude towards the state and capitalism. Linguistic and cultural influences, on the other hand, are hardly the result of an individual decision. And it makes little sense to demand a negative attitude towards the nation in this sense." (https://www.kommunistischepartei.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Spanidis-Standpunkt-gegen-den-Marxismus.pdf)
This is bourgeois nonsense in its purest form: "Linguistic imprinting" —yes, that's what the fanatics of "national identity" would like, that learning a language imprints one, shapes oneself, perhaps even defines oneself, just as a gold coin becomes a coin through minting. In the bourgeois conception of "imprinting," the ambiguity of thinking, formulating, and speaking in German is exploited without being addressed. Those who speak, think, and formulate in German simply use the German language to express their individual considerations, interests, objections—whatever they may be. Their conclusions about the state, capital, and nation are not thereby determined. For nationalists, however, "thinking in German" means viewing the world from a national perspective, through a national lens, thus knowing German interests, taking them as the starting point for their considerations, and judging the rest of the world according to the status and validity of German rights and claims. The idea of imprinting boils down to the notion that both should be identical – yes, that's what they would like. This is also the source of the demand that migrants acquire the language of their respective destination country. It's not about making communication and thus life easier for them, but about providing the prerequisite for newcomers to mentally integrate themselves into the mentality, the "psychological nature" of the new nation, to shed their old nationalism and adopt a new one.
economic area
The ultimate parroting of bourgeois platitudes consists, furthermore, in welcoming the “constitution and development of nations through the emergence of capitalist states (common territory and economic life)” (ibid.) as the creation of community , all things considered . Let's take it step by step: When people live somewhere, they, these people, certainly do not constitute a common territory—unless it is an association of large landowners. Territory is a product of Tsarist or real-socialist rule, which demarcates its territories from other political subjects. And Marxists , at least in the past, knew that a false notion of “community” arises in the midst of capitalist states only when the exploited imagine, or allow themselves to be persuaded, or however they manipulate their labor for the benefit of the capitalists as their contribution to a common endeavor, to a shared national cause. State-established and managed capitalism as a community – that is the achievement of the narrative of "nation," of the nationally understood "we." The entire absurdity of this interpretation can be summarized again as follows:
Landscape and culture
“ It is one thing to submit to the bourgeoisie and its state. It is quite another to have a positive emotional relationship with one's own (or another's) national culture, language, landscape, or the mentality of the local population. Being or wanting to be part of such an objectively existing community is not in itself problematic at all. Nor does it imply an exclusionary or derogatory attitude towards other communities.” (ibid.)
These are n't two different things, but one and the same – namely, a positive emotional relationship to subordination to the bourgeoisie and its state, possibly anchored in the name of such peripheral aspects as language, culture – and seriously, even because of the landscape ?! If you enjoy spending time in a pleasant area, is a "positive emotional relationship" to the other components of a state supposed to arise as a quasi-natural consequence? Well, I've also been abroad – there are certainly landscapes there! And is that supposed to make you an Italian or Spanish nationalist? Or to which "such objective community" are you supposed to align yourself if you enjoy swimming somewhere, and why at all? In other words, which landscapes are supposed to predestine an individual to be a supporter of which nation must be determined before every trip – otherwise, you wouldn't even know for which and how many states you should develop friendly feelings. This is precisely the core of the nationalist narrative: one is supposedly drawn to or shaped into a supporter of a state by circumstances that are essentially unavoidable and apolitical, by completely innocent sympathy for quite charming phenomena ! As the height of absurdity, they even assure us that such harmless sympathy does not lead to " any exclusionary or derogatory attitude towards other communities." But that is exactly what can happen – it depends on the relationship between these "communities," on how friendly or hostile the respective states, as the subjects of their "objectively existing communities," interact with one another . Nationalists are therefore able to take the hostilities of "their" state very personally and develop the corresponding feelings of hatred against the friends of another culture, language, landscape, or mentality, without ever having met any of these people in person .
How does this Marxism-Leninism manage to harmonize its defiant penchant for the nation with its notions of class antagonism and exploitation? One approach goes like this:
Class society – merely a goal or demand
“ Of course, the interests of the classes within a nation are diametrically opposed. For the workers of a country, the capitalists of that same country are not just any opponents, but their immediate and greatest adversaries. Therefore, a general interest of the nation is impossible,” even though “bourgeois nationalism adopts precisely this ‘common good’ as the real objective of bourgeois politics. The boundary with nationalism lies precisely where the imaginary common good of the nation, which is in reality the interest of the ruling class, is declared the overriding goal. … For the nation-state is based on capital accumulation, which is why the subordination of all opposing class interests to this goal is indeed an obvious and frequent demand of bourgeois politics.” (ibid.)
The rather unsuccessful attempt at a scam, to use a good Viennese expression, consists in relativizing a hard fact—namely, the subordination of all interests to the requirements of capital accumulation in a capitalist nation—to a mere "target , " a "goal ," a "frequent demand of bourgeois politics" —thus essentially trivializing it into an open question ! Subordination in a "national state based on capital accumulation"! Surely that shouldn't be the case ! Another variation of the same idea:
" For the bourgeoisie, the commonality of language, culture, etc., is ultimately nothing more than an ideological instrument to effect the subordination of the entire society to a fictitious 'interest of the nation,' which can be nothing other than the interest of the state as the ideal collective capitalist, that is, the interest of capital. In the everyday consciousness of the proletariat and other social strata, however, the nation is something quite different, namely a diffuse mixture of various elements, by no means all of which are reactionary. The reactionary side of the concept of nation, because it is exclusive and aims at a truce between the classes, is often, but by no means always, present or even predominant." (ibid.)
Okay, so the bourgeoisie is enthusiastic about the idea of a "community" based on language and culture because, in the actually existing community, its interests are paramount, interests that are served by the subordination of the proletariat. The proletariat's everyday understanding of the nation, however, is characterized by an indeterminate jumble in which the nation doesn't even appear: a "diffuse mixture," not entirely reactionary—so, once again, an open question. Again: the harmonizing incorporation of the classes into a national "we" is not necessary! And national unity certainly doesn't have to be reactionary! I'll spare you today the discussion of the "progressive elements of the nation, such as the collective struggle against national oppression"—that would be a different topic; instead, here's another example of the progressive side of nationalism:
The football party: Against capitalist isolation
" Even the sense of community inherent in national sentiment is not solely reactionary. For the coming together of people of the same nationality, as happens, for example, at major sporting events, can certainly have a positive character in light of capitalist isolation and individualization – whether the boss and the chancellor are included in the football party and whether the fans of the opposing national team are bullied, that remains to be seen. Capitalist culture offers numerous points of reference for reactionary tendencies here, but class-conscious proletarian forces can still exert their influence." (ibid.)
That's when things get a bit strained and childish. What common ground exists is irrelevant; the main thing is that one thing—any one thing—overcomes "capitalist isolation" and thus has a "positive character," even the explicitly "top-down" orchestrated displays of national community spirit within the framework of sporting, peaceful competition between nations: That the "coming together of people of the same nationality at major sporting events" unites these people in precisely this national, cross-class characteristic—that should n't be the case—why not ? Because— by " class- conscious proletarian forces exerting their influence!" —the German Chancellor and the German CEO might be excluded from the nationalist party? Are we all out of our minds? It's well known that fans of the " opposing national team" are often vilified simply because they are, after all, the fans of the opposing national team – and that really should n't be happening... A fascinating vision: From the football stadium, under communist leadership – because "communists usually place themselves at the forefront of the national liberation struggle" – the disappointed fans, after a crushing defeat, are led, overcoming their isolation, to the Chancellery to demand the dismissal of the national coach!?
Comments
Post a Comment