Against Left Nationalism

Why Socialism Must Never Abandon its Internationalism

Throughout the history of socialism and communism, the Left has grappled with the National Question to varying degrees of success. Whilst in theory Marxism (particularly Classical Marxism) has been almost entirely united in its rejection of nationalism, in practise the Left has found itself regularly slipping into the trap of national chauvinism. This played a critical role in the collapse of the Left in the 20th century. If we are to be successful in the 21st, we must cut out the nationalist cancer that clings to the socialist movement. Whether it is openly imperialist nationalism (as many socialist parties adopted during WW1) or so-called “anti-imperialist” nationalism (seen in past Chinese, Vietnamese & Cuban liberation movements) this article will show the dangers and contradictions that lie within any “national socialism”, arguing that nationalism has been utilised as a political force by both proletarian and bourgeois forces, in the process proving itself too potent a poison for either class to safely wrestle with. Above all else, history shows that no matter how great the temptation, nationalism is a sleeping beast that must never be awoken.

“There is nothing more foolish and wrong than to regard modern revolutions as national occurrences, as events which have their full effect only within the borders of the state in question, and which exert only a more or less weak influence on the others, the ‘neighbouring states’, resulting from the ‘neighbouring situation’. Bourgeois society, capitalism, is an international world form of human society. There are not as many bourgeois societies and as many capitalisms as there are modern states or nations; there is only one international bourgeois society, only one capitalism…That is why all modern revolutions are actually international revolutions.”

- Rosa Luxemburg

Why Anti-Imperialism must not become Left Nationalism

The Russian Revolution of 1917 remains highly unique in that it is the only successful socialist revolution in history that has not relied on nationalist tendencies. It is also the only successful socialist revolution to occur within an imperial power. From the end of WW2, the coming successful socialist revolutions that would supposedly “shake the international capitalist class to its core” would remain wholly nationalistic in character, emerging out of the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements that were sweeping across the globe. It was in this way - through anti-colonial efforts - that the nationalist disease crept back into the socialist cradle and laid the seeds of what would come to torture the movement in the decades that followed.

Today it is commonly accepted amongst leftists that there is no inherent contradiction between Marxism and Nationalism, just as many on the Left have come to embrace Religion. In both cases Marxists have come to facilitate these immaterial illusions not because of theoretical compulsion or logical argument, but quite simply because it is the easy option. The Orthodox Marxist understanding of nationalism - as a social illusion utilised by the ruling class to distract from class struggle - was repeatedly revised throughout the 20th century and critiqued for its Eurocentrism. Whilst nationalism in the European continent had adopted a blatantly reactionary accent in the forms of fascism and imperialism, in the Global South dreams of national empowerment adopted a supposedly “progressive” persona under the banner of anti-imperialism. Members of the domestic bourgeoisie in colonial territories found themselves aligning with the revolutionary proletariat in an attempt to overthrow foreign bourgeois influence. Even at this early point fractures in this new “Left Nationalism” soon made themselves apparent. The first great experiment in left nationalism came in China where the Communist Party, (under pressure by the Stalinists) married itself to the Chinese nationalist movement, only to face slaughter and suppression as a result. The national bourgeoisie, whilst desperate to rid themselves of the colonial yoke, refused to entertain the ever expanding ambitions of the Chinese Left. Despite undergoing decades of civil war with the nationalist bloc, Mao and the communists would continue to pursue the policy of “Left Nationalism”, which would prove later to be the death sentence for Chinese socialism.

In both Cuba and Vietnam however, Left Nationalism, anti-imperialism and Marxism seemed to flourish as mutually beneficial partners, without the setbacks seen in China. It seemed that whilst the capitalist class could manipulate the facade of nationalism for its own interests, so too could the working class. Particularly in countries with large peasant populations like Vietnam, the nationalist myth proved a more effective and simple intoxicant than the philosophical complexities of scientific socialism. By adopting “anti-imperialist nationalism” the Vietnamese Left was able to grow exponentially, and eventually emerged victorious. In Cuba, a similar story can be found.

The Left, and the socialists in Cuba, Vietnam and China, were of course right to make anti-imperialism a central part of their programs. Imperialism, as the ‘highest stage of capitalism’ must be torn down by any leftist movement if it wants to be successful. Where Lenin and the Orthodox Marxists differed from Vietnam, Cuba and China however is that this anti-imperialism did not bleed into “left nationalism”. For the Russian Left the distinction between anti-imperialism and nationalism was natural; the long history of Tsarist imperialism meant that Russian national identity was historically attached to imperialism. For China, Cuba and Vietnam, national identity was identified with struggle, egalitarianism and anti-imperialism and as such, allowed for a much easier conflation between nationalism and anti-imperialism. This conflation - whilst at first glance harmless - is in fact wholly contradictory and became a ticking political time bomb for 20th century communism.

Why Nationalism Always Becomes Reactionary

If a communist movement promotes nationalism because national identity is tied to anti-imperialism then for nationalism to maintain its progressive character the movement must remain a constant victim to imperialist ambition. The moment that a “left nationalist” movement breaks the shackles of imperialism, this left nationalism loses all progressive characteristics and slips back into its old, reactionary state. In other words, the success of ‘anti-imperialist’ left nationalism theoretically is dependent on its constant defeat practically. This is blatantly obvious when comparing the “left nationalism” employed by Cuban Marxists with the “left nationalism” of Chinese Marxists. For the most part, Cuban nationalism remains a relatively progressive project - tied to the cause of internationalist solidarity and anti-imperialism. Cuban nationalism holds a socially progressive nature, with a focus on social justice and progression, rather than the traditional nationalist tendency towards traditionalism, ancestor worship and patriarchy. Cuban nationalism has maintained a (mostly) progressive character because of the constant Cuban victimisation that comes from the USA’s 60 year economic blockade, which has kept the Cuban national identity strictly attached to notions of struggle and oppression. As long as Cuba maintains its position as an acute victim of imperialism, it is possible (though not guaranteed) for Cuban nationalism to maintain a progressive character. Compare this with China; a country which underwent its “century of humiliation” before communist victory today stands relatively independent of western imperialism, yet now adheres to a wholly reactionary and chauvinistic nationalism. In China national identity is no longer tied to oppression, egalitarianism or resistance but rather the patriarchal notions of militarism, expansionism and domination. In the case of Cuba you have theoretical success and practical defeat, whilst in China we see the opposite - theoretical disaster alongside practical success. This juxtaposing dialectic between theory and praxis reveals the contradictory nature of “progressive” nationalism.

What Went Wrong in China?

In the 1940s Mao and the communists came to power on a nationalist, anti-imperialist and feminist program which rested on a class alliance between workers and peasants. Nationalism, in its capacity as a political unifier across class lines, proved invaluable as the Chinese communists attempted to balance the contradicting material interests of the town and the countryside. Over time however, the nationalist aspect of the Chinese program began to engulf all other elements of the communist mission in China. As the productive forces within China grew in strength and number, the nation began to look at the USSR with growing disdain, and, whilst the Sino-Soviet split was in part due to theoretical disagreements, both Chinese and Russian jingoism played a crucial role in exaggerating the conflict and dividing the world's two largest socialist experiments. It is also no coincidence that the disastrous Great Leap Forward began two years prior to the Sino-Soviet Split; as the economy deteriorated, nationalism, and the creation of a new external enemy, served as a handy distraction from deteriorating material conditions. Whilst historically (and currently) this tactic of nationalist distraction has been employed by the capitalist class, the Chinese Communists found it too tempting an option to ignore. This manipulation of nationalist sentiment is even more insidious than the capitalist variety, for it continues to masquerade as anti-imperialism, and utilises the very real memories of an imperialist western threat to bring itself to life.

As Mao began shaking hands with Nixon, the Chinese communists sacrificed much of their anti-imperialist program for American support for Chinese expansionism. In exchange for American support for the One China policy, China became America's lapdog in the region, invading Vietnam in support of the bloodthirsty and US backed Khmer Rouge, who the Vietnamese had decided to topple. As China has grown into a developed and powerful nation, Chinese national identity has become less and less tethered to old ideas of proletarian struggle and resistance, and become more associated with strength, domination and military might. The current regime in China has reincarnated the patriarchal and reactionary relics of Confucianism, and looks back on its imperial past with an ugly nostalgia. The Chinese state apparatus borrows from the American nationalist playbook, using its newfound economic might to squeeze and bully neighbouring countries. Notably, the Philippines Communist Party has condemned China for invading the country's territory with military vessels in the West Philippine Sea and intervening in the economic and political affairs of the Philippines. The Chinese constitution, which does not even grant the right to strike, does however state that it is the “duty of every citizen to educate the people in patriotism…and defend the motherland from aggression”. Women face the overwhelming responsibility for child bearing and remain trapped within the cage of family hierarchy, a system legitimised by the CPC’s “sacrifice for the nation” rhetoric and Confucianist renaissance. The gains which women saw after 1940 have been given up, sacrificed for the sake of a nationalist appetite that remains permanently unsatisfied. Today, jingoism is the ideological centre of the CPC, from which it draws its legitimacy and social power. The nationalist disease, which was so tempting and so easy to adopt in the 1940s, has come to rot the entire Chinese socialist project.

What the Russian Revolution shows is that anti-imperialism and left nationalism are two independent political entities, and that one does not necessitate the other. The CPC route was not inevitable or necessary for socialist victory in China (rather, it made long term defeat inevitable). The Bolsheviks sought to abolish the old, bourgeois concept of the nation state, and replace it with a unified union of Soviets, and they were successful. At the time this was accepted by communists the world over as an uncontroversial, obvious part of the Left program. The only group to denounce it were the imperialist social democrats of Europe, who were the first on the Left (but certainly not the last) to abandon socialist internationalism for jingoism and national fetishism. Today however, the abolition of the nation state is looked down upon as little more than a utopian fantasy by many so called leftists.

Proletarian Fetishism and the Idealisation of the Working Class

Fundamentally the Left Nationalist phenomenon is a symptom of a wider issue that confronts socialist forces; namely, the widespread weaponisation of proletarian fetishism and the idealisation of the working class. Modern day Russia stands out as a noteworthy example of this fallacy - whilst remaining a mafia-oligarchy with one of the most uneven income distributions on Earth, the Russian state and its minions will manipulate symbols of the working class - erecting expensive statues to Stalin or honouring “the Great Patriotic War” with grotesque military parades - manufacturing a false sense of proletarian empowerment and national unity. The rise of “National Bolshevism” in Russia and “MAGA Communism” in the US are just two 21st century pet Frankenstien’s born from the experiments in “progressive” Left Nationalism in the 20th century. This nationalist distraction tactic by the ruling class - employed by Russian capitalists, but also by their Chinese and North Korean state counterparts - is not only nefarious but more importantly blatantly anti-Marxist. It seeks to cloud the material oppression of the Chinese, Korean and Russian workers by hiding behind the immaterial facade of Left Nationalism. True Marxism does not seek to worship the proletarian aesthetic or the nation state - the goal of the Marxist is instead to burn at the altar the Enlightenment idea of the nation state, to liquidate class society - doing away with the proletariat along with the bourgeoisie. The defining characteristic of the proletariat is its oppression - as such to fetishise the working class is to make a fetish of oppression itself. It is to glorify and consolidate a transitional phase that every true Marxist wants to do away with as soon as circumstances allow. Attempts to create a proletarian culture as a counterpart to bourgeois culture fails to appreciate that unlike the bourgeoisie, the proletariat aims to dismantle its own authority and the dictatorship of classes, rather than consolidate and centralise power in its hands. By manipulating proletarian culture - in the forms of “progressive” nationalism, "revolutionary" ancestor worship etc, the working class self sabotages, concentrating support for the established order, even as the established order (the transitional phase) is fought against by the very same forces.

Why Internationalism is More Important than Ever

It is rather ironic that the international character of socialism has over time been fashioned as unrealistic and anti-scientific when in fact it has never been more utopian or foolish for a left program to advocate the autarkic “socialism in one country” alternative. In terms of their influence and sovereignty, nation states have never been as irrelevant as they are today. Control of them now means very little when confronted by the power of international markets, financial institutions and TNCs. Even in the 19th and 20th centuries, writers like Marx and Luxemburg had already realised the importance of the global aspect of capitalism. In Luxemburg’s vital book “The Accumulation of Capital” she details how capitalism expands beyond national borders and engages upon the violent process of primitive accumulation - absorbing non-capitalist indigenous modes of production into the wider imperialist-capitalist apparatus. In short, she explains how any analysis of capitalism is incomplete when it is remains within the confines of national borders - capital transcends these socially constructed and immaterial national borders. Post globalisation, this has become a truism - how could we seek to understand and abolish the system of wage slavery in China or the US without understanding and combating the interconnected system of capital elsewhere across the world? And yet still there are so called “revolutionaries” who argue for a "socialist" nation state, existing in some mystical wonderland where international trade does not exist and the national economy can simply be severed from its international partners.

Ultimately, China and the DPRK represent the two final destinations of the left nationalist program. On one side you have China, with its sweatshops and SEZs, surrendering any worker freedom to the whims of the international market. On the other you have Kim’s hermit kingdom, entirely isolated from its international brothers and sisters, slavishly committed to the poverty cult of autarky and jingoistic militarism. Neither state of affairs is of appeal to the working class and neither is remotely socialistic. Instead, both are a surrender to the respective wings of Reaction - in China to economic reaction and in the DPRK to social reaction.

It must be understood that, whilst the working class gaining control of a nation state is an absolute victory for the international proletariat, it does not create “socialism” in that country. It is primarily a change in political, rather than economic conditions, in the same way that the growth of a communist party is a political victory over an economic one. Long gone are the days when worker victory and control of a nation state means the power to transform economic conditions. The power to do this now lies elsewhere - in the tech companies that now effectively own our digital "commons", in the international banks and the financial institutions. When worker controlled nation states overstep and attempt to exercise too strict authority over their own material conditions, they are simply disciplined by these authorities of the capitalist class, as both Venezuela and Greece can attest to.

With the control of the nation state, the best the working class can hope for is to apply pressure on those bodies where authority truly lies and use the institutions of state power to heighten class consciousness not just domestically but internationally as well. The 21st century worker nation state functions in many respects how the 20th century workers’ party once did - not directly as the vehicle for material change, but rather a platform to apply pressure, galvanise and organise sympathisers and as the springboard to control of the means of production. Today, if we are serious about creating a socialism that will abolish wage slavery, create a high standard of living and economic prosperity, it is a simple fact that control of more than a nation state is required. Can a nation state abolish the IMF? Can a nation state liquidate the stock exchange? Can a nation state dismantle Google? Capitalism is an international affliction, and requires an international cure. The means of production, whilst always possessing an international element to varying degrees, today is primarily international in character. As such how could the state alone (a national political force) ever be the solution? This is why the predominant notion today - of socialism via nation state - has never been more out of touch with reality. Left Nationalism was wrong in 1923 but it is incredibly more so today, in a time when capital has never been so interconnected and international.

In conclusion, Nationalism is a fundamentally anti-marxist conception which anti-colonial Marxists appropriated in the 20th century to further genuine revolutionary goals. Whilst temporarily successful, nationalism over time operated as a theoretical fifth column, drifting away from the Marxist’s artificial attachment to material conditions and back to its natural regressive historical role. Today, left nationalism is not just the highly dangerous ideological weapon it was in the 20th century, but also completely impotent and outdated as a guiding principle for socialist economy. The days of Stalinist autarky are long gone and they aren't coming back - it's time the Left recognised as such.