Pan-Nationalism and Marxism

[jaycm610]

Here's an idea I had about pan-nationalism and Marxism. I feel the two are very compatible, and wrote a short piece about the two so that my ideas on the subject would be well organized. I wanted to se what you all think about this idea and welcome all feedback.

Marxist ideology and philosophy is, and always has been, internationalist. Towards different races and ethnicities, it has always held a policy of anti-racism and equality. We shall explore how these two integral parts of Marxist theory are compatible with pan-nationalism, or world nationalism, and how a pan-nationalistic outlook could correct some of the problems that are blundering the path of socialism in this world today.

This quote is taken from the website, www.pan-nationalism.org :

" ...Pan-nationalism suggests that no nationalist can afford to work only for his or her own tribe, but must realize that all tribes are joined in the same quest.... Our enemy is not each other. Our enemy is the system of "modern society" that exploits us. Our goal is to re-structure modern society to keep its good aspects (technology) and weed out its destructive aspects. This is achieved by putting culture before commerce in every nation on earth, and our method of reaching this is Pan-Nationalism."

This concept,  is totally compatible with international socialism, as pan-nationalism celebrates the diversity of humanity on a global scale, does not advocate a racist nationalism, and can foster respect and cooperation between all races, while at the same time respecting racial differences and in fact celebrating them. While Pan-nationalism, in and of itself, is not revolutionary and thus seeks to create a nation-state for each ethnic group, its fundamental premise of cooperation between different racial and ethnic groups while celebrating them is of fundamental interest to the Marxist in this age.

This is what communism needs, because communism in it's present day form, especially in America, often takes an attitude that is anti European American. While it is true that European Americans in the past have been responsible for many racial injustices, such as slavery, many communists refuse to recognize the double standard that is developing against European Americans, a double standard which takes pride in Zionist, black nationalism, hispanic nationalism, asian nationism, etc. This is largely the result of a backlash against injustices that were carried out by many whites in the past. The American population and the American government sought to withdraw from the ignorant, inhumane ideology of White Supremacy that ravaged America, but upon doing that, created a backlash which fostered a "reverse discrimination," which works against white Americans and the worldwide struggle for political and social equality, and which is further opposed to true Marxist ideology. Racial nationalisms are opposed to communist ideology, so as communists we all must be opposed to this double standard. Likewise, a pan-nationalistic outlook, which celebrates each different race and ethnic group, seeking to preserve each of these repective groups without forstering hostility, but in fact cooperation based on workers solidarity, is essential for Marxism to hold true to it's principles. A pan-nationalism, as such, is fully compatible with international socialism, as pan-nationalism is a "international nationalism," as much of a contradiction it may seem.

The following is the "Black Child's Pledge" of the Black Panther Party. It was made avaliable thanks to www.marxists.org :


"I pledge allegiance to my Black People.
I pledge to develop my mind and body to the greatest extent possible.
I will learn all that I can in order to give my best to my People in their struggle for liberation.
I will keep myself physically fit, building a strong body free from drugs and other substances which weaken me and make me less capable of protecting myself, my family and my Black brothers and sisters.
I will unselfishly share my knowledge and understanding with them in order to bring about change more quickly.
I will discipline myself to direct my energies thoughtfully and constructively rather than wasting them in idle hatred.
I will train myself never to hurt or allow others to harm my Black brothers and sisters for I recognize that we need every Black Man, Woman, and Child to be physically, mentally and psychologically strong.
These principles I pledge to practice daily and to teach them to others in order to unite my People."


The Black Panther's as we know, professed to be a Maoist party. However, another one of their tenets was black nationalism, which is an exlusive racial nationalism, and is not compatible with Maoism. The first line, "I pledge allegiance to my Black People," shows their racial nationalism. Marxist doctrine calls for the workingmen of all countries to unite, so exclusive racial nationalism in any and all forms is opposed to marxism. However, the injustices that were happening to blacks on a daily basis are also in conflict with marxist doctrine, and also opposed to the pan-nationalist world outlook, which is fully compatible with Marxism.


The following quote is taken from Karl Marx's work, "On the Jewish Question," which was made available thanks to www.marxists.org :


"The German Jews desire emancipation. What kind of emancipation do they desire? Civic, political emancipation.

Bruno Bauer replies to them: No one in Germany is politically emancipated. We ourselves are not free. How are we to free you? You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule."


This attitude towards the Jews of this time in Germany exemplies the problem of exclusive ethnic nationalism. We must keep in mind that Karl Marx is Jewish, but, fully embracing the philosophy of communism, is opposed to this Jewish ethnic nationalism. Likewise, we must take a pan-nationalistic approach, excluding no peoples of any distinct ethnic, racial, national, or religious backgroud, celebrating all these peoples, without wishing to abolish any of these differences, but seeking to preserve them, for the course of human development, in accordance with the laws of nature, has dictated these differnces to exist.



 

[Christopher Hill]

My concern is that Pan-Nationalism has no scientific basis, while Marxism is a science. There is also the fact that while Marxists and Pan-Nationalists might be united on some points, their ambitions are likely divergent at some point. For example: Can Pan-Nationalists agree that their ambitions are impossible under capitalism? Would they attempt to force different ethnicities out of the "lands of other nations" and possibly lead to inter-racial violence? There are many issues with trying to mix Marxism with any unscientific ideology, and I personally don't think it should be done in the first place.

[condor]

Rubbish, the only thing scientific about Marxism is its economic analysis. Everything else has no scientific character whatsoever, and is based on a .

Science studies what is impossible to alter immediately. Since societies organisation can be changed, it is pointless analysing what will disappear very quickly. A more accurate statement would be Marxism is more scientific than German idealism but that's not saying very much. It has no scientific strategy to which professions it works within, its choice and use of language and vocabulary, or how the education of its members. All these are carried out on a "make it up as you go along" currency of thought. To pompously proclaim Marxism a science is evidenceless bollocks.

Scientific philosophy is impossible without scientific language. Since Marxists think imagination is an add-on to theory, rather than the opposite, they cannot invent words to express the complexity and subtlety of nature, so rely instead on regurgitating Greek, the language of philosophers who think that something is true because it has beauty. The statement "everything moves" shows how little they understand language. Quite obviously, in any practical sense (rather than persepective-less sophistry), not everything moves. They believe there is some external force of history whereas the only progressive force on earth is human ingenuity and invention itself.

The claim that Marxism is a science is even more hilarious when not one Marxist you meet has ever carried out 1 scientific poll, experiment, or sociological study in their lifetime, outside of school. They calculate people's emotions and thoughts by though experiments rather than discovering them through sociology. They are coruscating thinkers, not scientists.

Even more pompously they believe anyone who disagrees with them is attacking Marxism from a right-wing or functionalist perspective or holds the same views as Karl Popper on science. They offer endless proclamations of their science yet cannot offer one iota of proof to their statements.

If dialectics were true every wife-beater would have been attacked by his victim, every capitalist country would have seen a revolutionary situation occur. This has not occurred in Canada, America, or Israel. If something is not true in all instances then it is not science because it cannot be replicated. The only reason capitalism produces crises is that is cannot expand. It is only through luck that capitalism was too weak to colonise and terraform Mars. We see that it relies on the weakness of its enemies and not on any reliable objective principle.

Communism is only possible under the right material conditions but they cannot pinpoint what these are, or say to within 50 years when they occurred. For them, there are only 2 systems: communism or capitalism. Whereas, it is possible to have a long period of socialism where workers elect people they can trust to administer the civil service aspects of life while they decide the content. They have no concept of how much leisure time is required for full democracy, because they only analyse things at their most inefficient then proclaim as a model for all else.

And worst of all, because they think they are scientific and therefore right, they will succeed. Whereas history has nothing to do with being right but being powerful. There is no point being right when nobody listens to you, because do not trust those who speak in overlong jargon and have not led one trade union movement to improve their lives.

They are idealists who believe firstly in the analytical method: Marxism, and secondly in the political content: communism so that thet must call themselves revolutionary Marxists to distinguish themselves from mere academics.

They believe that criticising capitalism will somehow give them the imagination to release the full creative power of human beings once they reach communist society. And most insulting of all, they cannot realise that any theories that supplant Marxism will be inherently implicit, and not need to ploddingly explain and understand every theme that comes their way.

What is important is this
1 being accurate
2 being heard
3 knowing which people to attract
4 being scientific

Most unscientific theories analysing what they are continually changing and thus have no obvious general explanations but instead rely on technique. The idea of one meta-narrative, Marxism, explaining everything is absurd as no meta-narratives: post-modernism. The real meaning of everything being in flux is that there are no answers to the state of existence, because no such thing exists. Every single piece of speech is only true within a particular perspective.

1 The character of things, their abilities and so on
2 How things flow: poetry, rhyme, rhythm, deja vu
3 How things come coagulate
4 The nature of things from their habits
5 How things emerge out of struggle
6 Mystery and where things jump to
7 Existence in continuous contest