Their nationalism is a narrow and closed “order”—Our homeland is the world

~ PM ~

We have been surrounded by nationalist rhetoric for far too long, but there are periods, particularly when the economy or political power declines, when nationalism is presented as a given (the bourgeoisie needs it). This is aided by bourgeois media outlets, funded by economic powers, which are surprisingly close to tyrannical thinking. As for public media, they follow the editorial line set by these other outlets.

But nationalism kills. It kills intelligence, it kills solidarity, it kills critical thinking. It also kills in real life…

Nationalism thrives on interclassism, on the idea that we are united in the nation, against “the others.” No internal economic, political, or social struggles, because otherwise we would be anti-nation, against unity, therefore against order, therefore against the State. On the other hand, they have no problem with external conflicts with other nations that these nationalist pretenders would like to dominate with the help of hysterical populations.

Nationalism, which is the replacement (or accompaniment) of God/King by the nation, is an absolutist ideology. It is no wonder that reactionary theists/royalists/monarchists (and I include Leninists in this) seized upon it during the 19th and 20th centuries. Nor is it surprising that later, left-wing Bolsheviks and right-wing fascists did the same.

Is it surprising that centrist liberals also use it? No, it’s their offspring. When the economy falters, they need this nationalist ideological support to ensure “order, order, order.” They are prepared to continue institutional violence without restraint.

Can we conceive of things without a nation? Yes and no. The etymology of “nation” comes from “to be born,” so if you are born somewhere on Earth, you belong to that somewhere (whose borders are merely decisions made by states). It would seem that one must pledge allegiance to this somewhere. But the key question is whether you are confined to a communitarian, identity-based, essentialist “somewhere,” or whether you are open to this somewhere and, indeed, to the world as an Earthling.

For example, it’s not the same thing to say that I am “French,” or “Breton,” or “from Finistère,” or “from the land.” We, anarchists, are “from the land” before belonging to a local community… We can defend the dignity of a local culture/community while being critical of harmful/naive aspects of that culture/community, even if it is mythical.

Because it’s not just one’s birthplace that matters; the social question is paramount. We are indeed in support of the oppressed/exploited, not the oppressors/exploiters. This doesn’t preclude a critical view of both the oppressed/exploited and the oppressors/exploiters. For private landowners, wherever they may be, are despicable, as is the acceptance of these relations of domination by the oppressed/exploited.

The abolition of classes and social hierarchy is a prerequisite for unconditional support. This is what nationalists (just like theists or capitalists) fear: that the population will be divided on social issues and take part in their social emancipation.

However, obviously, just as we are all born somewhere, that’s a fact… we also have basic needs (food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) that require a social response.

For example, when you have little or nothing to eat, the nation isn’t the answer to this social question; it’s “why do others have enough to eat and I don’t?” or “why do others have a well-paid job and I have very little, even though I also contribute to a useful production need?” This raises the question of private property, a source of social injustice for several hundred years.

Nationalists, on capitalist steroids, will individualize the problem and say that in the face of the work society, everyone has their chance, that where there is a will there is a way, that there would be equality of opportunity and that if not there is charity… vast swindle of this hierarchical society which does not want life to be livable for everyone, that only certain privileged people can access exceptional comfort, and that others are on the contrary in exceptional discomfort.

For the moment, it is the nation that makes up the collection of believers useful to capitalism; it could become a divine entity again in certain regions, and perhaps later it will be nature? In all this spectacular mess, it matters little what ideological tool is used so that the private property of capitalism remains sacrosanct.

Nationalists out!

Private landlords out! 

Machine translation