Genuine internationalism stems from equal footing and the right to self-determination of all communities of people, or all “nations.” To quote the relevant bit from Stalin, “a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture.” When I say that the self-determination of all nations is critical for internationalism, I mean this in a similar reason for why I support the working class. I am not opposed to the individuals within them, it’s a recognition of the struggle for national liberation, such as the ongoing struggle for self-determination in Palestine.
In Marxist philosophy, there are primary and secondary contradictions. Combatting secondary contradictions that rest on the primary contradiction also combats the primary contradiction. The struggle for national liberation is like the struggle for women’s liberation, for queer liberation: secondary contradictions that rest upon the primary contradiction of class struggle. They are all inter-linked, and as such when we fight for self-determination against colonialism, we also fight capitalism at the same time. Nationalism switches from being progressive to being reactionary when it is used to justify support for colonizers and imperialists.
I call myself a Marxist-Leninist because I am an internationalist, a follower of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Stalin did not invent the national question, he did work on it that Lenin acknowledged as correct, and whose views they sharpened against each other. The nation was not invented by Stalin, it was understood by Marx in his support of Ireland and Poland against colonialism, refined by Lenin in his support for self-determination of all peoples, and further codified and studied by Stalin, who was a national minority within the Russian Empire himself as a Georgian.
So, in essense, Stalin did not invent anything new, he merely extended and theorized upon Lenin’s advancements. It is for the same reason that we do not always tack on any individual theorist as an “-ism,” for example Marxist-Leninists appreciate Mao’s contributions, but do not believe them to represent a universal or new advancement upon Marxism-Leninism.
Nationalism switches from being progressive to being reactionary when it is used to justify support for colonizers and imperialists.
Which indeed can happen and has. National groups who were once oppressed can simply become the oppressor. Begin their own colonization and imperialism using historical ethnic grievance as justification. You have brought up an example of one.
One reason nationalism is not like the other forms of identity, gender/sex or LGBT, is that of the capacity to mutate in this way. The idea of, say, people within the LGBT forming some kind of imperial force against straight cis people is absurd for a reason.
Further, for my own personal critique being an atheist, those other examples do not have united religious or spiritual associations. I do not want the religious unifying as a practical matter as a leftist and anti-theist.
It’s quite possible for formerly oppressed people to become oppressors along the lines of queer supremacy, matriarchy, etc. These ideas are only ridiculous in the context of the present state of things, class society set up to where queer folk and women are oppressed. The working class will become the new oppressor class over the capitalist class, and this will be a good thing.
Understanding the right of nations to self-determination does not mean blind acceptance of any nationalism. This is a reductive take. Nationalism is not simply “my people are superior,” it’s the struggle for self-determination, for sovereignty from colonialism and imperialism. This, again, finds its basis in Marx, advanced by Lenin and Stalin but at heart Marx.
For genuine internationalism, there must be no colonialism. We must fight colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism so that all nations may be free of oppression by other nations, as a necessary step towards eradicating capitalism and establishing socialism.
Genuine internationalism stems from equal footing and the right to self-determination of all communities of people, or all “nations.” To quote the relevant bit from Stalin, “a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture.” When I say that the self-determination of all nations is critical for internationalism, I mean this in a similar reason for why I support the working class. I am not opposed to the individuals within them, it’s a recognition of the struggle for national liberation, such as the ongoing struggle for self-determination in Palestine.
In Marxist philosophy, there are primary and secondary contradictions. Combatting secondary contradictions that rest on the primary contradiction also combats the primary contradiction. The struggle for national liberation is like the struggle for women’s liberation, for queer liberation: secondary contradictions that rest upon the primary contradiction of class struggle. They are all inter-linked, and as such when we fight for self-determination against colonialism, we also fight capitalism at the same time. Nationalism switches from being progressive to being reactionary when it is used to justify support for colonizers and imperialists.
I call myself a Marxist-Leninist because I am an internationalist, a follower of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Stalin did not invent the national question, he did work on it that Lenin acknowledged as correct, and whose views they sharpened against each other. The nation was not invented by Stalin, it was understood by Marx in his support of Ireland and Poland against colonialism, refined by Lenin in his support for self-determination of all peoples, and further codified and studied by Stalin, who was a national minority within the Russian Empire himself as a Georgian.
So, in essense, Stalin did not invent anything new, he merely extended and theorized upon Lenin’s advancements. It is for the same reason that we do not always tack on any individual theorist as an “-ism,” for example Marxist-Leninists appreciate Mao’s contributions, but do not believe them to represent a universal or new advancement upon Marxism-Leninism.
Which indeed can happen and has. National groups who were once oppressed can simply become the oppressor. Begin their own colonization and imperialism using historical ethnic grievance as justification. You have brought up an example of one.
One reason nationalism is not like the other forms of identity, gender/sex or LGBT, is that of the capacity to mutate in this way. The idea of, say, people within the LGBT forming some kind of imperial force against straight cis people is absurd for a reason.
Further, for my own personal critique being an atheist, those other examples do not have united religious or spiritual associations. I do not want the religious unifying as a practical matter as a leftist and anti-theist.
It’s quite possible for formerly oppressed people to become oppressors along the lines of queer supremacy, matriarchy, etc. These ideas are only ridiculous in the context of the present state of things, class society set up to where queer folk and women are oppressed. The working class will become the new oppressor class over the capitalist class, and this will be a good thing.
Understanding the right of nations to self-determination does not mean blind acceptance of any nationalism. This is a reductive take. Nationalism is not simply “my people are superior,” it’s the struggle for self-determination, for sovereignty from colonialism and imperialism. This, again, finds its basis in Marx, advanced by Lenin and Stalin but at heart Marx.
For genuine internationalism, there must be no colonialism. We must fight colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism so that all nations may be free of oppression by other nations, as a necessary step towards eradicating capitalism and establishing socialism.