The internationalist left vs the nationalist left.

[Machjo]

Patriotism implies you would defend your nation and nationalism implies international imperialism. If nationalism comes out of a belief in moral superiority it can't help but be aggressive and imposing which is why I don't believe there is a "nationalist" left.

Nationalism has international implications.

Another question here: how do you define 'defending your nation'? A good example is the story of Hasegawa Teru (aka Green May). She had married a Chinese prior to the Japanese war of aggression against China. After her marriage, she'd settled in China, and then the war broke out. At first, she offered to help the Kuomintang against the Japanese, but they turned her down since they couldn't trust 'the enemy'. Later, she offered to help the Communist Party, and it chose to accept her in their ranks. She was offered a radio station allowing her to broadcast the truth of what was going on in China to her Japanese brethren in Japan over the radio waves in fluent Japanese. The Japanese Imperial Army counter-attacked through radio transmissions of their own portraying her to be a traitor to the nation.

On one occasion, when she met Zhou Enlai, he told her she was a true patriot, fighting not for Japan itself, but rather for its spirit (i.e. all that was good in the Japanese national character).So though she may have been a traitor to her nation, she was among the few Japanese who remained faithful to the spirit of her nation.

This too I believe can serve as a means of distinguishing the difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot does not fight for any nation, but rather simply for justice. And this faithfulness to justice stems precisely from his sense of patriotism. Because he loves his country so, he'd be willing to sacrifice it in exchange for a memory of a just nation. The nationalist, however, would never turn against his nation no matter how wrong it may be, no matter that he must turn against justice in the process. He'd rather sacrifice all justice for the nation to survive and thrive than to have but a memory of a nation sacrificed for justice.

So I disagree that a patriot would fight for his or any other nation. A patriot would fight for justice.

[eyeball]

So I disagree that a patriot would fight for his or any other nation. A patriot would fight for justice.

Nicely said.

Edited January 3, 2010 by eyeball

[Machjo]

Nicely said.

I could add to that that he'd fight for justice precisely because he loves his nation. He loves it so much that he'd willingly sacrifice his nation for a memory of a just nation, rather than save his nation in shame by sacrificing its justice.

He'd love his nation too much to allow it to continue existing through injustice.

This is the only way I can explain why Hasegawa Teru sided with the Chinese over her own people. It certainly was not out of self-interest. Here are a few other words of hers from her book 'En Ĉinio Batalanta' (In China Fighting):

"For us Esperantists, nationality is not absolute. It means only difference of language, custom, culture, skin colour, etc. We look upon ourselves as brothers in one great family, "mankind." For us this is no theory, it is a feeling. Externally, we are joined by a common language; internally, by a common feeling. We may love our own nation. But this love is not such as cannot coexist with love and respect for other nations."

--HASEGAWA Teru

En Ĉinio Batalanta

Though this is referring specifically to the Esperanto community, I think it can also apply more generally to a healthy sense of patriotism.

[Machjo]

Some may have noticed too that in my definitions, I referred to patriotism in relation to COUNTRY, and nationalism in relation to NATION. Country is not necessarily a political term. It simply refers to any particularly defined peace of land and the people living on it. Nation suggests a a group of people, wherever they may live, linked by race, ethnicity, language, or some other national characteristic. So based on those definitions, a partios loves all among whom he lives. And since country is can be loosely defined as any tract of land, it can even ecompass Earth. Nation cannot do that since by definition it is exclusive.

[Pliny]

Another question here: how do you define 'defending your nation'?

On one occasion, when she met Zhou Enlai, he told her she was a true patriot, fighting not for Japan itself, but rather for its spirit (i.e. all that was good in the Japanese national character).So though she may have been a traitor to her nation, she was among the few Japanese who remained faithful to the spirit of her nation.

I cannot see how anyone who is a traitor to their nation is a patriot. Zhou Enlai was a communist and communists are not nationalists. He was probably referring to her being a true patriot to the cause of communism.

Any way I do see patriotism, i.e., defending your nation, as including more of a cleaving to an ideal {Could be justice, as you say)that one believes in, and nationalism as more of a cultural than political thing. Putting Maple Leaves on the Canadarm would be more nationalistic and not necessarily patriotic.

[qote]

This too I believe can serve as a means of distinguishing the difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot does not fight for any nation, but rather simply for justice. And this faithfulness to justice stems precisely from his sense of patriotism. Because he loves his country so, he'd be willing to sacrifice it in exchange for a memory of a just nation. The nationalist, however, would never turn against his nation no matter how wrong it may be, no matter that he must turn against justice in the process. He'd rather sacrifice all justice for the nation to survive and thrive than to have but a memory of a nation sacrificed for justice.

So I disagree that a patriot would fight for his or any other nation. A patriot would fight for justice.

I agree, a patriot would fight for justice or a cause, an ideal.

To have a clear concept of the difference I will have to reference some dictionaries.

I think in casual conversation they often confused as one another or sometimes considered the same thing. My concept right now is that patriot is the more solidly idealistic term and nationalism is more of just a differentiation and defining of what constitutes a nation within certain geographic boundaries and is more fluid. In other words the boundaries and that which defines the nation may change but it is still considered that nation. Some may have held a sense of nationalism in the member countries of the USSR but there would be more of a sense of patriotism to the State, the ideal of Communism.

[Pliny]

Some may have noticed too that in my definitions, I referred to patriotism in relation to COUNTRY, and nationalism in relation to NATION. Country is not necessarily a political term. It simply refers to any particularly defined peace of land and the people living on it. Nation suggests a a group of people, wherever they may live, linked by race, ethnicity, language, or some other national characteristic. So based on those definitions, a partios loves all among whom he lives. And since country is can be loosely defined as any tract of land, it can even ecompass Earth. Nation cannot do that since by definition it is exclusive.

I just read this after my last post and I agree.

but it gets confusing when you say things like an American patriot or Canadian patriot.

Then one is talking more about the person who cleaves to the American ideal or Canadian ideal and resists change to that ideal. Patriotism seems more about the conceptual fundamentals of a nation whereas nationalism is more superficially about the culture, symbols, ethnicity. Nationalism can change but patriotism is about maintaining the status quo. So I guess patriotism would be the more conservative term and nationalism the more liberal. I believe that is in keeping with your idea that nationalism is more about moral superiority and patriotism a love of country.

Liberals do think of themselves actually as being morally superior and consider the right has such an idiotic sense of morals.

[Machjo]

I just read this after my last post and I agree.

but it gets confusing when you say things like an American patriot or Canadian patriot.

Then one is talking more about the person who cleaves to the American ideal or Canadian ideal and resists change to that ideal. Patriotism seems more about the conceptual fundamentals of a nation whereas nationalism is more superficially about the culture, symbols, ethnicity. Nationalism can change but patriotism is about maintaining the status quo. So I guess patriotism would be the more conservative term and nationalism the more liberal. I believe that is in keeping with your idea that nationalism is more about moral superiority and patriotism a love of country.

Liberals do think of themselves actually as being morally superior and consider the right has such an idiotic sense of morals.

I agree to some degree. I'd tend to view nationalism as being more political as it tries to define a particular group as an entity separate from others but with a clear organizational structure within itself, such as a political state. I tend to view patriotism as being devoid of this political context in that it simply is a love of a place and the people living there. In that sense, patriotism is not linked to any particular ideology, be it left or right, whereas nationalism likely is, though that could be a right or left leaning nationalism, depending on the person.

To go back to the example of Hasegawa Teru: at first, even though she herself was a member of leftist organizations in Japan, she was more than willing to work with the right-leaning Nationalist Party (aka Kuomintang), since her sense of patriotism could simply see that what her country was doing to China was wrong and so she could put aside ideological limitations for the sake of a just cause, and thus was willing to work with a right-leaning party if it served that just cause. A nationalist could not easily have done that, since his focus would have been the aggrandizement of the nation, which in her case would have been Japan.

Now here I could see a nationalist finding himself in a tough spot. For example, a left-leaning nationalist who should have perceived the Japanese national ideal to be left-leaning would likely have found himself in a tough spot. His sense of nationalism would make it difficult for him to fight on the Chinese side, yet his understanding of it being left leaning would also have made it difficult to fight on the Japanese side. He'd likely find himself in a bind. A patriot is more likely to look beyond that. Another example is George Orwell. Though he was left-leaning himself, this still didn't stop him from being just as critical of the left as he was of the right whenever he saw the left deviate from justice.

[Pliny]

I agree to some degree. I'd tend to view nationalism as being more political as it tries to define a particular group as an entity separate from others but with a clear organizational structure within itself, such as a political state. I tend to view patriotism as being devoid of this political context in that it simply is a love of a place and the people living there. In that sense, patriotism is not linked to any particular ideology, be it left or right, whereas nationalism likely is, though that could be a right or left leaning nationalism, depending on the person.

To go back to the example of Hasegawa Teru: at first, even though she herself was a member of leftist organizations in Japan, she was more than willing to work with the right-leaning Nationalist Party (aka Kuomintang), since her sense of patriotism could simply see that what her country was doing to China was wrong and so she could put aside ideological limitations for the sake of a just cause, and thus was willing to work with a right-leaning party if it served that just cause. A nationalist could not easily have done that, since his focus would have been the aggrandizement of the nation, which in her case would have been Japan.

Now here I could see a nationalist finding himself in a tough spot. For example, a left-leaning nationalist who should have perceived the Japanese national ideal to be left-leaning would likely have found himself in a tough spot. His sense of nationalism would make it difficult for him to fight on the Chinese side, yet his understanding of it being left leaning would also have made it difficult to fight on the Japanese side. He'd likely find himself in a bind. A patriot is more likely to look beyond that. Another example is George Orwell. Though he was left-leaning himself, this still didn't stop him from being just as critical of the left as he was of the right whenever he saw the left deviate from justice.

I know nothing of Hasegawa Teru except what you have outlined here but I get the idea she was for a totalitarian socialist state and whether it was nationalist or the international form, i.e., communism, didn't make much difference to her. In that sense, the Orwell link makes a definitive distinction in that patriotism is more passive and like a cleaving to a country or nation whereas nationalism is about forwarding the nation and imposing it upon others above anything else and at any cost.

I wanted to add that although Orwell was left-leaning it was in the "classical" liberal sense and not the modern sense. I label myself a classical liberal.

Classical liberalism shifted from the left to conservatism in the 1930's. The communists and socialists slowly took over the left-wing. The national socialists became the extreme right wing socialists, the fascists and nazis.

FDR was a left-leaning socialist. The classical liberals not being about socialism but small government had nowhere to go but to conservatism and conservatism slowly moved toward becoming the ideology of small government in the thirties and the transition was completed in the early fifties. Traditionally conservatism was about maintaining the state as a strong influence in society as it was under the English monarchy and liberalism was about freeing society from unnecessary intervention by government in the lives of the citizens - that was considered progressive at the time. I would say that Washington and Jefferson were classical liberals, along with Andrew Jackson, and Alexander Hamilton was a conservative. He wanted a national bank and for government to be a very active participant in people's lives.

Liberalism remained on the left until the 1930's when it gradually shifted to the right and became conservative with the idea to stem the tide of the growing global embracement of socialism. As I said the transition was complete in the fifties with William F. Buckley leading the new conservative movement.

Many Classical liberals never realized the shift occurred until they found themselves being called conservatives.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Pliny

[Machjo]

I know nothing of Hasegawa Teru except what you have outlined here but I get the idea she was for a totalitarian socialist state and whether it was nationalist or the international form, i.e., communism, didn't make much difference to her.

Then you're quite ignorant of China's history. The Japanese attacked China at a bad time for China, since China was undergoing a civil war of tis own. When japan attacked China, the Communist Party offered to work with the Kuomintang, while the Kuomintang chose to fight a two-front war between Japan and the Communist Party. Other smaller parties ended up forming an alliance with the Communist Party since it seemed more co-operative than the Kuomintang. When fighting on the front, the Kuomintang would divide its resources to fight Japan and the Communist Party at the same time, so when the Communist Party retreated from the front, it could get public support for that act since the Kuomntang seemed more interested in politics than saving the country. Hasegawa offered to work with the Kuomintang first because it controlled Shanghai at the time, but it refused to accept a Jpaanese collaborator. So later, when the Japanese took Shanghai and she retreated North, she contacted the Communist Party and it took her in its ranks. Regardless of what the Communist Party had become since controlling the country, at that particular time in history, the Communist Party was far more reasonable than the Kuomintang. This might be a reason the Kuomintang lost. It burnt all its bridges. So that side of it has little to do with ideology.

[Michael Hardner]

I cannot see how anyone who is a traitor to their nation is a patriot. Zhou Enlai was a communist and communists are not nationalists. He was probably referring to her being a true patriot to the cause of communism.

That would mean Franco, who did a coup d'état and defeated the Marxist government was a traitor because he used fascists to help him win the Spanish Civil War.

It's a tricky question, and it comes down to the 'my country right or wrong' sentiment. Does someone who believe that or disbelieve it espouse patriotism ?

To go back to the example of Hasegawa Teru: at first, even though she herself was a member of leftist organizations in Japan, she was more than willing to work with the right-leaning Nationalist Party (aka Kuomintang), since her sense of patriotism could simply see that what her country was doing to China was wrong and so she could put aside ideological limitations for the sake of a just cause, and thus was willing to work with a right-leaning party if it served that just cause. A nationalist could not easily have done that, since his focus would have been the aggrandizement of the nation, which in her case would have been Japan.

I think you're confusing things by saying a patriot fights for justice. Teru wasn't unpatriotic simply by speaking against the government's policies.

[Machjo]

Teru wasn't unpatriotic simply by speaking against the government's policies.

When did I suggest she was. If anything, I was suggesting that her stance against her government was born out of a patriotic sentiment, a desire to better her country morally, which in this case involved fighting the Japanese Imperial Army.

[Michael Hardner]

When did I suggest she was. If anything, I was suggesting that her stance against her government was born out of a patriotic sentiment, a desire to better her country morally, which in this case involved fighting the Japanese Imperial Army.

You didn't suggest that she was - her critics did. But your assertion that it's tied to justice is murky. She believed what she was doing was good for Japan, therefore not a traitor IMO.

[Oleg Bach]

And that's unfortunate that the nationalist left can no longer discuss the issue rationally with the internationalist left without becoming either insulting, threatening, or outright violent. I'm not saying you personally, but just generally with my interactions in forums such as Rabble.ca for example. It really is a shame since we normally associate nationalism with the right, and yet it's now permeated the left too.

The blurring and rapid vacilation between the left and the right blinds all of mankind. Those that exploit us and abuse humanity have no regards to for the left and right - imagine walking down the street looking left and right as fast as you can - you are going to become road kill. If a person is wise and mature they would not pay heed to the theatrics of politics that has always been by design to befuddle the mind of man. This blurrish vacilation inflicted on us is as old as time itself. Look right down the middle and use your logic and trust in your own perception - it's either good for you or bad for you - and it does not matter which hand slaps you in the face.

[Pliny]

Then you're quite ignorant of China's history.

Quite.

The Japanese attacked China at a bad time for China, since China was undergoing a civil war of tis own. When japan attacked China, the Communist Party offered to work with the Kuomintang, while the Kuomintang chose to fight a two-front war between Japan and the Communist Party. Other smaller parties ended up forming an alliance with the Communist Party since it seemed more co-operative than the Kuomintang. When fighting on the front, the Kuomintang would divide its resources to fight Japan and the Communist Party at the same time, so when the Communist Party retreated from the front, it could get public support for that act since the Kuomntang seemed more interested in politics than saving the country. Hasegawa offered to work with the Kuomintang first because it controlled Shanghai at the time, but it refused to accept a Jpaanese collaborator. So later, when the Japanese took Shanghai and she retreated North, she contacted the Communist Party and it took her in its ranks. Regardless of what the Communist Party had become since controlling the country, at that particular time in history, the Communist Party was far more reasonable than the Kuomintang. This might be a reason the Kuomintang lost. It burnt all its bridges. So that side of it has little to do with ideology.

The Communist party was a revolutionary party. Totalitarian socialism sounds pretty good. In the rest of the world the socialist experiment was also occurring in Russia.

"The Communist party was more reasonable than the Kuomintang." ??? Tens of millions dead. I think it was something to do about ideology.

The Kuomintang were patriotic in my view defending the country against Japan and the Communist party. The Communists were ideologues, the workers party, for the people.

I don't think the Communist party would have been interested in anything but totalitarian socialism. It was a popular concept at the time. Even though tens of millions had to die in the revolution.

Can Communism appear more accommodating, of course. Praise the State and you're in.

Communism is dead today politically. Some people cling to it but politically it's gone because there is no taste for revolutionary war when the same goal can be achieved over time through economic means. The socialists know it and promote big govenrmnet while the right wing builds government to fight the socialists. They both lose.

[Pliny]

That would mean Franco, who did a coup d'état and defeated the Marxist government was a traitor because he used fascists to help him win the Spanish Civil War.

He was a nationalist using George Orwell's description - anything for the cause. His cause wasn't to defend the status quo which is what patriotism is more about - a defense.

It's a tricky question, and it comes down to the 'my country right or wrong' sentiment. Does someone who believe that or disbelieve it espouse patriotism ?

Orwell would tell you it is patriotism. Nationalism is about bringing change at any cost because one believes the change is better than the status quo.

[quote}

I think you're confusing things by saying a patriot fights for justice. Teru wasn't unpatriotic simply by speaking against the government's policies.

As you say it i's a tricky question but if patriotism is about defending one's country and it holds justice as high then it is a part of patriotism. He may view communism or totalitarian socialism as unjust.

[Pliny]

The blurring and rapid vacilation between the left and the right blinds all of mankind. Those that exploit us and abuse humanity have no regards to for the left and right - imagine walking down the street looking left and right as fast as you can - you are going to become road kill. If a person is wise and mature they would not pay heed to the theatrics of politics that has always been by design to befuddle the mind of man. This blurrish vacilation inflicted on us is as old as time itself. Look right down the middle and use your logic and trust in your own perception - it's either good for you or bad for you - and it does not matter which hand slaps you in the face.

The simple action of putting both right and left on the same side of the political spectrum resolves the conflict. They are after all in their extremes totalitarian states with the differences being how the state approaches engineering the society and who is engineering it. The spectrum should go form no government to total government then it is just a matter of how much government we want.