Patriotism v. Nationalism: Keeping Workers Inside the Box
Two weeks into the war in Iraq, MFD contributor Randy Fullerton reflected on the divisions that Nationalism, thinly disguised as Patriotism, has been creating within the community of workers. We must understand the definitions and discern the differences between the two if we really want to engage the future, he said. Then he asked leading US dissident Noam Chomsky what he thought.
Another world is possible and we are participants in the exploration of the possibilities of a better, more just world.
I see lines being drawn here in the U.S., as well as in the global community. This war seems to be breaking apart many of the alliances workers were building prior to the coalition's engagement. Increases in solidarity over the last few years seem to be falling away as people take sides on this horrible situation in Iraq. Patriotism is being used as a tool to measure the worth of individuals. I am deeply concerned as I see people pushed into a corner by a sudden hatred of dissent by brothers and sisters who just a few days ago were allies. I am not sure if "patriotism" or "nationalism" are good things in this day and time and both terms may need to fall away as global ties increase. But I would like your opinion on this situation as it exists now and if in fact there is a future for working people's alliances throughout the world as long as patriotism or nationalism remain as tools of loyalty and pride?
I've always believed dissent was a very patriotic act in which the citizens of the U.S. participated. To really care for the people and the country places a great deal of responsibility on the citizens' shoulders as they strive for a better country and a more equitable and peaceful world. Should dissenters because of their convictions, be labeled as unpatriotic? Couldn't dissenters say the same thing about the war advocates who refuse to think for themselves and are blinded by the flag? I have always thought of myself as patriotic and I am a Vietnam Vet, and yet when I voice my concerns and opinions, I have fingers pointed at me and am accused of being a traitor!
The war in Iraq began with what the armchair generals in Washington were calling "Shock and Awe". People were led to believe the coalition forces would march through the country of Iraq in a technological fashion the world had never before witnessed, liberating the inhabitants in their wake. As I write this, we are into day twelve of the liberation, and more troops are being sent into areas once said to have been in coalition control, but now the opposite seems true. Support for this endeavor was never overwhelming, and what little global support it had is lessening daily as the world literally is 'shocked' at the deaths, both military and civilian, and people watch in 'awe' as rather than refugees leaving Iraq, there seem to be more and more people from the neighboring countries entering Iraq! As the war lingers on, the support for the coalition forces are waning, and support for Iraq is definitely increasing.
Throughout the past 57 years, there have been 67 military interventions and now the war in Iraq makes it 68. In these 57 years, there have been 45 governments overthrown and over 12 million people killed. Anyone who doesn't believe the U.S. should be waging a war in Iraq is being labeled unpatriotic. I think a distinction should be made between "Patriotism" and "Nationalism"! Patriotism is a virtue; when you really care about your country in relationship to others. Nationalism is when you believe it's "My country, right or wrong!" Knee-jerk flag-waving, especially when combined with a disdain or outright hatred for dissent isn't patriotism, it's nationalism. And it's dangerous.
The slogan "Love it, or leave it" has been recited many times and has become a mainstay of many patriots who are angered by any voice of dissent. Nationalism holds the belief that the country is good and can do no wrong. As long as the country is lead by humans, and humans have the tendency of being fallible, it's only logical the country and its policies can't be right all the time. The fact that the governing body is not always right is actually what makes the country so great. What did I just say? "The fallibility of the country is what makes it great!" I know, some of you are thinking, has he lost his mind and what the heck is he talking about? Well, I'm saying America is great because it is flawed just like any other country around the globe. The one thing that separates America from many of the other flawed countries is the fact we have one important thing, and this is "Dissent"!
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th President of The United States (1901-1909)
When war advocates encourage and defend the Federal Government and they do it under the cloak of "Patriotism", I have to ask, "Is it for the love of their country and its people or simply loyalty and support for the central government which motivates them?" If they advocate war out of loyalty for the governmental hierarchy, then I would call that "Nationalism" and not "Patriotism"! The Constitution and its principles are where patriots' beliefs are rooted, as a nation that follows the rules of law and not the rules of men. The statement made by President Bush, "you are with us or against us" has left no room for neutrality, and puts a large segment of the world on the defensive against U.S. aggression and unfortunately has segregated the people of the U.S. The dissenters of the current government's doctrine are looked upon as traitors.
The nature of "Nationalism" is such that it serves the ruling class. It attempts to fill us with misinterpreted patriotic feelings and asks the people to do certain things in order to help their country. It can ask we give up our rights or to go to war to protect the high values our civilization holds. Such demands on the working people only deteriorate our quality of life and the only ones who benefit are the governments, politicians and businesses. Working people must learn the distinction between nationalism and patriotism and not be fooled by the patriotic tricks posed by the suppressors of social justice. Working people must unite and break out of the box that places borders between them and pulls them apart. Working people must work together as "internationalists" in order to utilize the power of the combined numbers of oppressed people throughout the world. Another world is possible and we are participants in the exploration of the possibilities of a better, more just world.
We as a country need to re-evaluate our role in world policies and make a commitment to the creation of a just and equitable world. If our country's addiction to profits could be curtailed and we could start democratizing the global economy, perhaps we could at least slow the race to the bottom brought about by globalization. If our country were to set an example of a nation that is for peace, other nations may follow suit. By letting ourselves be led by blind nationalist emotion, we place ourselves into a horrible struggle which will only lead to more innocent deaths and economic disaster which will place an even greater burden on an already over-burdened society made up of working people.
Instead of thinking 'nationally', we should be thinking 'rationally' about the causes of terrorism and work with the global community in an effort to solve these problems. The struggle for a non-violent, more just, equitable, and peaceful world will require our country to become more of a global partner instead of a global bully.
Fullerton sent his commentary along with the questions he posed to well-known American dissident, Noam Chomsky, via the online forum at Z Magazine. Chomsky replied:
This doesn't really call for response. I'd suggest, if you haven't done so, that you read Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism," which makes many of the same points. By "nationalism" he refers to Nazism, Communism, British jingoism, and a wide range of other irrational and fanatic commitments. He distinguishes sharply between "nationalism" and "patriotism." Nationalism is "the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests." He regards it as reprehensible and an extreme danger. Patriotism, on the other hand, is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life," a non-aggressive and sensible human emotion, whether or not one agrees with it in particular cases. In the former Soviet Union, dissidents were patriots but not nationalists, in his terms, which I think are similar to yours. Of course they were bitterly condemned as "unpatriotic" by the commissars. Those you are referring to are copying their Stalinist counterparts. One finds the same phenomenon everywhere, though the degree of fanatic dedication to some power system varies. It's all through American history too, and what you are describing is by no means the most virulent and destructive form it has taken. Have a look, some time, and at the extraordinary fanaticism whipped up by Woodrow Wilson's propaganda campaigns, with the fervent participation of leading intellectuals, intended to drive a population that wanted to have no part in Europe's internal wars to jingoists who wanted to destroy all things German.
Opposition to the current invasion - called "liberation" in the US-UK propaganda system -- has been and remains enormous, without historical precedent. Adopting Orwell's terms, and yours if I grasp what you are saying, that enormous and principled opposition provides a solid base for proceeding patriotically to overcome the nationalist extremism that has already turned the country into a pariah state with a leadership that is feared and loathed throughout the world, and if unconstrained from within, may well drive towards terrible catastrophes.
- Noam Chomsky
What do you think? Are working people kept powerless and confused by a web of "ism's", ideological packages presented to us as either/or, take it or leave it, either you're with us or you're against us? Is there something beyond "ism"?