define nation, nationalism, national liberation movement

Nation: Anything that can be used to malign platformism
Nationalism: Anything NEFAC, ZACF, FdCA or the WSM like
National Liberation Movement: Wayne "The Hammer" Price taking a crap

i think its a bit naive to bellieve that nationalism does not entail a desire for, and an identifaction with, a state

the nationalism of nations without states, have one principal aim, to acheive a state to wrap their nation in

the nationalism of nations with states look to the power of the state to protect, propogate and perpetuate the nation, and they realise that without the organised power of the state they wouldn't be able to do this

also a third category of states without nations, they still use the state to try and create a nation to give legitmacy to the state itself, britain at the moment is an example of this, as are most african states, and you can see the beginning of it in the EU as well

i'd be surprised at any marxist/communist who sees nationalism as anything other than a political project to either obtain a state, or a harness the power of a state to throw behind the nation

it's not exactly a coincidence that nationalism & the growth of the modern state appeared and grew up at the same time, post 1789 (with a few exceptions like england prior to this period)

i agree with john though about not making a distinction about the nationalism of nations who have their own state and that of those who don't, the power at disposal is obviously a lot more in the former than the latter, but the end game and goals are the same in both case, both strive to gel together a cross class cultural collective through either the use of existing state power, or achieveing state power to do so

fair enough if you think the world would be marinally better with a lot of little states rather than a few big ones, then support the nationalism or national lliberation movements of nations who seek their own states, but don't think it achieves anything other than that

btw on a pedant side point, the correct definition of a nation-state is one where the nation is conterminious (don't know if i've used the right word there) with the state, so in reality none really exist, maybe iceland or japan but that's about it, so an oxy-moron really

i think i misread what john posted actually, so i probably do disagree with him in a way

he says nationalism only has an identifcation with a nation (and not a state), which is fair enough if you leave it at that, but as noted above, in reality the only way a nation in the modern age is realistically able to strengthen itself, propogate itself and its myth or origin etc... is by harnassing the power of the modern state behind it to do so, to use the state organs to distil the idea & imagery of the nation into people, fair enough this could be done to a much lesser degree without the power of the modern state, but nationalsts are no fools and realise that they need a state to keep their nation going, so on that basis nationalism is well and truly tied to the identification with, and desire for, a state. at least certainly the type of nationalism that we've seen since the birth of capitalism (which as we all know nationalism was it's midwwife), any that are not, imo, are not actually nationalist/nationalism, as once you strip nationalism of it's political project, it's not nationalism anymore

my opinion fwiw: i find it so fuckin' tiresome that i've been here for nearly 2 years and still the exact same number of individuals support nationalism. state or not, 'communism' structly entails that people do not latch onto the struggle of nations. cos imo, 'communism' includes a strict theory on how to make communism more effective. i'm almost tired of hearing stateless collectivists trying to gain graeter social significance by equating themselves to a philosopher that didn't even like anarchists (probably like). imo, fwiw.

cheers.

Admin - multiple off-topic posts in a row deleted.

I'd like to point out that so far we've only got thugarchist's definition to go on. Everybody 'kay with that?

Let's remember, the thread isn't entitled "waffle on about shit and insert some words that are constructed from the word root of nation."

For as far as I see it, every time that somebody points out that they think it's okay for people to resist brutal militarised repression against them by the global ruling class they have a fair chance of being denounced as a nationalist around here. It'd be nice to know what is meant by this.

Yeah. No ones going to agree on what it is so everyone might as well accuse one another of being nationalists up front and get it over with. Shit. Apparently nationalism doesn't even have anything to do with nations!

fucking hell, do you police conversations in real life as strictly as this

i'd say a nation is a human collectivity which shares some of the following

conscious of forming a community, elements of a shared culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory with historic links to it, having a common past, shared historical memories, common ancestry myth, and sharing a common project for the future, claims a right to rule itself, some measure of solidarity

so in all, it brings in psychological, cultural, terrotorial, political and historical elements, all of which can either be seen as actually existing and real, or created by political elites for their own agenda

i'd say nationalism is a name for the political principle which aims to either gain state power to perpetuate & propogate the elements of the nation mentioned above, or to harness/use existing state structure to do so

at the risk of being castigated by gurrier again, i'd add that nationalism creates nations, not the other way around, this quote from gellner pretty much sums it up for me

i'd also add that although most marxists believe, correctly, that nations are constructed from above by elites, in order to understand them they have to be analysed from below in terms of peoples popular beliefs, sentiments, hopes, fears and longings as regardless of the whether a nation is constructed/artificial or not, it's the popular participation of the mass public itself within the nation that makes the nation (pretty much exactly the same as religion btw)

this view, for me is summed up also in these two quotes about wales

What are you talking about? I never said anything approaching that. You even quoted what I said, which was:

I corrected the word without there because I accidentally put it twice, instead of "with," but it should be clear anyway.

I was stating the obvious, which is you can be a nationalist for a nation without its own state, like an English nationalist, a Basque nationalist, etc.

I posted the dictionary definition of nationalism, which i think is perfectly adequate.

By that definition, some members of NEFAC, WSM, etc. are clearly nationalist, because they support national liberation. MJ you tried to come up with a new definition, but it was one that didn't make sense.

In any case the semantics don't matter - I think that national liberation struggles are anti-working class, whether you call them "nationalist" or not. And like I said most of the world who aren't in NEFAC or the WSM do.

i wouldn't say patriotism is the same as nationalism, there's no necessary political content inherent in patriotism

Err no for at least two reasons
1. No member of the WSM supports national liberation - we don't use that formulation - this has been pointed out many times already
2. One member of NEFAC uses the formulation of critically supporting national liberation movement which is similar enough to what you claim to get away with. However this is not the same as what your dictionary calls nationalism. Desire and support are not the same word and particularly in this context are not interchangable. As an example a straight man can support the desire of two gay men to have sex without prosecution without that therefore meaning he desires to have sex with a man himself.

Basically - and as usual - your method is the dishonest one of simplfying what one person wrote to remove a good chunk of its political nuance, and then making a chain of false this equals this linkages.

As I've told you before you would be much better served addressing your own English nationalism then pursuing witch hunts against anarchists elsewhere on such false premises. Its particularly rich to have an English nationalist like yourself spending so much time accusing Irish anarchists of being nationalist - in particular as unlike yourself we have put considerable effort into critiquing the nationalism of our own 'nation'. Go do the same.

Ha ha amazing! I was wondering when your "big nation nationalism" formulation would turn into just calling people English nationalists. Is Devrim an English nationalist too? Or is he a Turkish nationalist?

No as you well know I have actually posted saying I don't consider Devrim to be a nationalist. I do consider you to be an English nationalist and I have told you why at length a couple of times. The very idea you seem unable to accept that big nation nationalists exist is a further demonstration of your own nationalism - nationalism appears to be something confined to small nations in your mind.

There is nothing new here - I've said all this to you on a few occasions already. Don't try and hide behind Devrim or anyone else on this - I'm talking about your views.

i'm pretty sure John.'s aware of the BNP, for example

The BNP? Mais ouis!

Before you seemed to just call me a "big nation nationalist" in order to make your claim look slightly less preposterous.

I'm not trying to hide behind anyone Joe, there's no need to when you're talking such absolute bollocks. Seriously I bet even everyone else in the WSM will think you're talking shite on this. Except gurrier, but who listens to him anyway.

John.'s secret shoes

my witty and incisive abolishing of gurrier has been removed

anyway: he is into scientism n that.

if admins still think i am posting off topic today i suggest that they explain the concept more fully. i don't have this problem on urban/anywhere tbh. i will work on multiple posts tho.

I think its quite revealing that much of the proletarian camp is incapable of recognising the nationalists in their own ranks. Suddenly when it comes to big nation nationalists apparently its impossible to be a nationalist unless your a skin fascist type. I actually used English rather than British nationalist to try and minimise this but up it pops all the same.

Ha ha

Anyway John willing to at least acknowledge that your attempt to pass off 'critical support' as meaning the same as 'desire 'was less than honest?

so let me get this straight, John. calling sectarian death squads in iraq 'murdering bastards' makes him definitely an english nationalist. you calling for a united ireland in no way opens you to charges of nationalism. genius

Except that neither of the words you try putting in my mouth above were accurate as you obviously know. I find it interesting that you feel unable to defend his actual position.

Its funny Joeblack. Flint and I were just talking about this on the phone last night. It does seem that the strident reductionism of folks like john sets up a defacto Anglo or Western beligerence (i won't call it nationalism). Its really disturbing to watch it unfold from a working class commitment into the vulgarities like the dismissal of queer issues, women, minority languages, third world struggles, and racism. Its like watching a beautiful man draw an ugly painting...

As far as nationalism and nationstates. Here in the US there are many nationalist struggles which aren't neccesarily tied into nation states, yet are clearly national liberation struggles. The Mohawks are the obvious example. I refuse to call open councils of grandmothers a State. I think we should look at examples like the Mohawks, because they force us to transgress categories of national liberation which have become reified into rhetorical devices for dead ideologies. whether trotskyite or ultra-left in their uselessness.

No, I called people who blow up pubs full of workers 'murdering bastards', and that's why I'm an English nationalist.

Your fumbling about 'critical support' vs 'desire' is irrelevant.

you did clearly just call him an english nationalist, did you not? that's one of them. the other - i'm pretty sure the WSM calls for an end to partition does it not? if so, that looks like two out of two.

what is his actual position (according to you)? i don't remember following that thread very closely so enlighten me ...

edit: ^ my mistake on who were the 'murdering bastards', like i say don't remember following that thread too closely

revolutionrugger: do you think that not supporting a progressive social movement is inherently ugly? even if the oppression gets sorted out by the implementation of communism?

Right, so you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with MJ then.

So you managed to dig out half the equation. Of course this half doesn't explain why I would call you an English nationalist, care to also inform people of the other half so they can make their own judgement?

In case its not clear I'm not claiming everyone of the witch hunters is some sort of nationalist. I think Johns arguments reveal that he is - a couple of the others have also come out with some pretty dodge defences of aspects of English nationalism but his was by far the clearest. I'm amazed he is still daft enough to try and defend his position after all this time.

The British Army has been on ceasefire for a decade, disarmed and mostly disbanded? Because if it hasn't you've got a pretty good answer to that question.