Socialism and Nationalism in Comparison

Socialism and Nationalism in Comparison

In trying to create a systematic, analytical comparison between socialism and nationalism, one is immediately struck with a very basic difference of type. Though both socialism and nationalism are defined as ideologies, socialism is essentially economic and sociological in nature while nationalism is essentially cultural and political in nature. In a nutshell, socialism is the belief that because of inequality in the distribution of capital and the existence of hierarchal class structures, it is necessary for industry to be regulated for the sake of their workers -- either by a democratically run state, or though direct control by the workers. These ideas extend outward somewhat to how society ought to be formed in order to support such a reengineering of the social system. Nationalism, on the other hand, is (to give a rough summary) the belief that one's own nation and culture, without any theoretical changes applied, is unique and superior to that of others and using this understanding to support political action to preserve, defend, or propagate one's culture or nation. There is obviously some difference of type here, even considering that these descriptions are incomplete and only prototypical. This difference lies in the fact that the ideologies address different sorts of central ideas. So, in comparing the two, one risks contrasting unlike areas in which comparison is unfounded. There is a significant difference, for example, between believe that the economic status-quo (with a few minor changes) is ideal and superior and believing that the cultural status quo is the superior ideal (excluding the undesirable) -- it would be inappropriate, then, without further explanation to compare nationalism and socialism by claiming that the former embraced the status quo and the later rebelled against it, as this would be inaccurate. So it is necessary in creating a systematic analysis of the comparison of these two that there be some awareness of the fact that certain elements will be not quite comparable, and will therefore be analyzed in their extremities. In this analysis, it will be seen that nationalism focuses on ethnicity and nationality (with or without the race aspect), as the central characteristic of the individual and as the primary source of loyalty for the group. Socialism, on the other hand, focuses on economic class as the central characteristic of the individual and as the primary social bond. Due to these differences, the two schools of thought have different opinions on what makes a government legitimate, how democracy should function within the state, the meaning and residence of power, and the basic definition of the nation. Though both tend to place the individual's interest as secondary to the needs of the whole unit, and hence can tend towards totalitarianism, both are capable of including intrinsically democratic or possible even egalitarian reasoning.

Nationalism, despite being more political in some ways, is somewhat less likely to question the legitimacy of a national government than is socialism. This is not to say that nationalism does not present strong viewpoints about what makes a government valid, only that the majority of governments today are already set up on a nationalistic basis, which is to say that they consider the needs of their own nation to be supreme over the needs of others and will make economic or military war to advance or defend those needs so far as doing so is feasible. Most governments of nations which currently exist govern precisely because they are nationalistic, and the more they are challenged the more nationalistic they become.

The way in which rampant nationalism guides nations today is evident in the history of Bush's war on Terror. A great deal of documentation indicates that this war was fought largely for social and economic gain for the nation, and it was justified through rampant nationalism in the media. Through the use of rhetoric elevating the socio-cultural traditions of America and its apple-pie, and the simultaneous equation of terrorism, human rights violations and some vague threats of "mass destruction" emanating from a specified Islamic countries, the people of the states united behind the war effort to subdue Iraq. According to a conservative website, "America's war with terror is unique in our history in that its people are directly involved. The high degree of their emotional involvement...The nationalistic feelings of the American people pose... opportunities for the Bush Administration in the war on terror." (Holsinger) Similar trends were seen in Italy or Japan during the early stages of the most recent World War. So nationalistic tendencies can be used to critique foreign governments which oppose the nation, and they can be used to defend the validity of an otherwise indefensible government. Part of the definition of nationalism is that it focuses on "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other," (Farlex) which has historically often led to jingoistic wars. Another part of the definition is that "nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals" (Farlex), which has also been a trait of America post-9/11. Of course, this discussion of Bush's War of Terror is becoming slightly side-tracked, but it does serve to prove a vitally important point, which is that the dominant form of government today is the nationalistic government.

So if nationalism is the dominant form of government, one would not expect nationalism to generally be attempting to critique the government. To some degree this is not true. There are places in the world where nations are not accurately described in the political arrangement -- for example, the nation of Palestine is being controlled by Israel, Iraq by America, and the nation of Tibet by China. In these cases, nationalism could be used to question the legitimacy of the government. The argument then would suggest that a legitimate government is one which governs its "own" people -- e.g. those people who are within its own original or socio-culturally similar. A government which forces itself on others would then be immoral and such.

Socialism, on the other hand, has been less often the sole-dominant form of government. There have of course been a number of totalitarian or nationalist governments which have claimed to be socialist (such as the Nazis in Germany, or for that matter the so-called communist China, where "the government insists that it is a socialist government... [even though] Very few outside China would support this claim." (Wikipedia) However, most socialists suggest that there have seldom, if ever, been true socialist states. "Whether these [past] states were socialist or not was (and is) disputed, with the large majority of today's socialists...contending that they were not socialist...There are also some who dispute whether it is appropriate to refer to any state, past, present, future, or hypothetical as "socialist," preferring to reserve that word for an economy or even a society, but not a state." (Wikipedia) as these words indicate, the socialist perspective has a tendency towards critiquing the very existence of nations and governments. Generally speaking, socialism suggests that nations are the product of corrupt capitalist systems, "according to Marx, eventually the state would 'wither away' and the 'socialist' society will be replaced by a classless 'communist' society. In holding this classless non-state as the ultimate goal, Marx expressed an ideal not far from that of anarchism." (Wikipedia) Socialism focuses on the exploitative nature of capitalism and of the state, and it is the idea of this exploitation that leaves the state open to critique.

The theory of exploitation brings the question around to the meaning and residence of power. According to socialist theory, power is held (albeit unjustly) by the capitalist class, those who own the means of production and propaganda and through their wealth control the economy and the government. However, the capitalist class is expendable, for only the working class has the actual power to create capital and to create product. If the working class (proletariat) were to take into their hands that power, and unite in solidarity, they could wield the power of their productivity so as to improve the lives of proletariat everywhere. So there are two sorts of power -- the actual power of the capitalists and the potential power of the proletariat. In an ideal socialist situation, the proletariat has the power to determine what decisions will be made regarding the places at which they work, the communities in which they live, and the rules which govern business and government. "Political democracy is an indispensable element of a socialist society," reads the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist International Because socialism focuses on the rights of the working proletariat class, it is generally considered to need to be democratic.

It is considered deeply unfortunate by socialists that in past socialist revolutions outside or internal forces have so warped the original goals and ideals of the revolution that absolute democratic freedom was not maintained. In many cases egalitarian and democratic beginnings failed to continue in this fashion, in part because the capitalist and nationalist forces external to the revolution worked against it, and partly because a socialist society is more fragile than a nationalistic one. For example, in the early days of the Russian Revolution there was a very high standard of democracy which those fighting the revolution created.

In the early days soviet democracy prevailed, land and factories were turned over to peasant and worker soviets, the debt was canceled, the banks, trusts and cartels were nationalized... [it was] democratic to the core, in which the police and standing army were to be replaced by the armed people." (weissman) This was changed not by an internal failure, but because European and American forces both sent armies and provided military and monetary support to counterrevolutionaries within Russia.

The Civil War, brought on by the world bourgeoisie... [with] fourteen invading armies and the White 'contras' of the day... brought the end to soviet democracy.... [partly because] the advanced revolutionary workers had been killed in the Civil War; Bolshevism now governed a mass of war-weary, semiliterate peasants in a world in which the revolutionary advance had been halted."

Weissman)

As these paragraphs have discussed, the essence of socialism is in the solidarity of the working class and power to the working class. The working class cuts across all national borders, and is only strong when it is united. The Russian revolution became isolated and was eventually destroyed by Stalinism specifically because, many believe, it was not able to become international and the essence of socialism is international. "They adopted a state of siege stance." (Weissman)

If socialism is about the solidarity of the working class, nationalism is about the solidarity of the regionally or ethnically related group. Nationalism is, briefly, the idea that similarity of culture is the most essential and important social bond. Power, then, comes from being part of a wider group which has power. Nationalists generally do not promote any sort of economic class welfare, and chose to leave the economic class system intact, though they may attempt to assure that the lower classes are adequately supported to make the entire structure stronger. Power, in the nationalist position, is in the nation itself, in the state -- in fact, power is in being a uniform part of a cohesive whole which is strong enough to be dominant over some space. An argument offered by John Breuilly defines nationalism as follows, and the implications for power should be relatively obvious:

nationalist argument is a political doctrine built upon three basic assertions: a. There exists a nation with an explicit and peculiar character. b. The interests and values of this nation take priority over all other interests and values. c. The nation must be as independent as possible. This usually requires at least the attainment of political sovereignty." Power, then, is being funneled into the political sovereignty of the group, which is supposedly deserving of it because it's values take priority over all other values.

Historically, power in what would be considered "ideal" nationalist states tends to be more centralized than in similarly "ideal" socialist states, which is to say that nationalist theory is more accepting of authoritarian approaches to power, and has an instinct to suggest that the power and authority of the nation/state/group should over ride and make unimportant the minority. There are numerous examples of this tendency, many of which would tend to fall into the "fascist" category. (All fascism is nationalistic, but not all nationalism is fascism) as Mussolini once wrote, "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans.... If classical liberalism spells individualism,... Fascism spells government."