- 07 Nov 2015 19:43
#14617129
I've been thinking about this for a while now. First of all, I want to declare that I'm most certainly biased regarding this topic; for I am irrevocably cosmopolitan and a staunch internationalist. Because of that, among many things I see nationalism as one of the primary reasons while a considerable amount of communist states became alienated from their revolutionary roots and became something different. (And of course there was the choking bureucracy, oppression of dissent, and such things, but this is off topic now.)
The most obvious example is of course the Soviet Union. While the first generation of revolutionaries were internationalist, Stalin's socialism in one country (as I see it) slowly drove the USSR to nationalism. Replacing The Internationale with the State Anthem of the Soviet Union is for example was one symbolic step, but also the fact that the propaganda during the war against Hitler was more about defending the Motherland than about defending socialism. (The term Great Patriotic War summarizes this very good.) The rise of nationalism and Russian imperialist ethos in the late days of the USSR was clearly and inspiration for Alexander Dugin and the National Bolsheviks, which I think clearly marks how these tendencies corrupt the left.
But there are other examples how nationalism distorts socialism. Consider Romania. The government of Gheorghiu-Dej granted autonomy to the Hungarian minority in the country. That was the only time in history when Transylvanian Hungarians had autonomy in Romania. Later, the more nationalistic Ceaușescu persecuted them, autonomy became a phenomenon of the past and even the use of Hungarian language was not advised if one wanted to get along with official bodies. Later, after 1989, it became obvious that this chauvinist attitude only strengthened both Hungarian and Romanian nationalism and tensions between them.
However, the most spectacular example is probably Yugoslavia. Under Tito, despite all of its flaws, the Yugoslav state was a token of peace in the Balkans, but when Milosevic came to power, and nationalist voices became more popular, the country, an example of relatively successful cooperation between different nations was torn apart so swiftly and violently that it shocked the international community.
And all these examples are just of communist regimes of the Eastern Bloc. There are plenty of other, related examples of how nationalistic tendencies corrupt socialist ideas and (while it is a matter of debate if this is good or bad) turn them into something else. Perón, the Strasserites, the aforementioned Nazbol ideology, National Anarchists, while all being a different kind of mixture of nationalism and socialism (or social policies mimicking socialism) they are all corrupting the radical left.
This is my opinion, but let me know what do you think.
The most obvious example is of course the Soviet Union. While the first generation of revolutionaries were internationalist, Stalin's socialism in one country (as I see it) slowly drove the USSR to nationalism. Replacing The Internationale with the State Anthem of the Soviet Union is for example was one symbolic step, but also the fact that the propaganda during the war against Hitler was more about defending the Motherland than about defending socialism. (The term Great Patriotic War summarizes this very good.) The rise of nationalism and Russian imperialist ethos in the late days of the USSR was clearly and inspiration for Alexander Dugin and the National Bolsheviks, which I think clearly marks how these tendencies corrupt the left.
But there are other examples how nationalism distorts socialism. Consider Romania. The government of Gheorghiu-Dej granted autonomy to the Hungarian minority in the country. That was the only time in history when Transylvanian Hungarians had autonomy in Romania. Later, the more nationalistic Ceaușescu persecuted them, autonomy became a phenomenon of the past and even the use of Hungarian language was not advised if one wanted to get along with official bodies. Later, after 1989, it became obvious that this chauvinist attitude only strengthened both Hungarian and Romanian nationalism and tensions between them.
However, the most spectacular example is probably Yugoslavia. Under Tito, despite all of its flaws, the Yugoslav state was a token of peace in the Balkans, but when Milosevic came to power, and nationalist voices became more popular, the country, an example of relatively successful cooperation between different nations was torn apart so swiftly and violently that it shocked the international community.
And all these examples are just of communist regimes of the Eastern Bloc. There are plenty of other, related examples of how nationalistic tendencies corrupt socialist ideas and (while it is a matter of debate if this is good or bad) turn them into something else. Perón, the Strasserites, the aforementioned Nazbol ideology, National Anarchists, while all being a different kind of mixture of nationalism and socialism (or social policies mimicking socialism) they are all corrupting the radical left.
This is my opinion, but let me know what do you think.
"Life is made too easy. Mankind's moral fibre is giving way under the softening influence of luxury." - Johan Huizinga