mazovianfreak

[mazovianfreak]

"Stolen Land": A Critique of Nationalism and Its Implications

Introduction

The authentic proletarian philosophy and analysis has been decimated in recent years in the strive for a justification of nationalism. These so-called "Marxists" do not show themselves to be defenders of 'pure' internationalism — a fundamentality of Marxism — but rather present themselves as a reaction against it.

This has thus manifested a new sort of nationalism, a "left"-nationalism. This nationalism presents itself as a pure evolution of the seed of the "people's will", rather than presenting itself as the proletarian liberation. It has thereby perverted itself by expressing itself with terms such as "stolen land"; these terms may only be justified through a capitalist lens.

Stolen Land: Nationalism's Expression

Terms such as 'stolen land', 'stolen culture', and 'theft of our nation' are expressed through the capitalist media. It does not even mention international solidarity; rather it presents an expression of pure nationalism. This has perverted the true internationalism that has been purposefully built within the Marxist sphere. Capitalist weaponization of terms, the very media machine that capitalism has developed, has made itself permeate society; even the most radical individuals and groups have done away with this international solidarity.

Not only can we see this in current conflicts, but, it shows itself as a conversion of Marxist tendencies. Tendencies such as "patriotic Marxism" shows that the Marxist sphere has fundamentally changed. Marxism has become a new expression for the bourgeoisie — Marxism has become a bourgeois ideology.

Terms such as "stolen land" avoids any meaningful contention with the capitalist system. It, in its very essence, deprives the land of being an object of utilization of the common entity.

Firstly, it presents a false idea of what is our contention; our contention lies not with any justifiable property. Rather, it lies in property relations and resource allocation. We see the production relations clearly expressed in the statement, as it provides a subject and an object within the sentence. It clearly tells us that they own the land and that another took it from them. This does not clearly express the situation of colonialism. Colonialism is fundamentally about capitalist property relations, about the expropriation of land. I concede that "stolen" may be a satisfactory term when the discussion does not need to be precise.

Secondly, it engenders a sense of nationalist commendation; a kind of patriotic sentiment directed towards one's own "land," "nation," and "people," rather than conveying an internationalist proletarian sentiment. It not only suggests a sense of belonging to a particular territory associated with a specific group—such as Palestine for Palestinians, America for Americans, and Cuba for Cubans—but it also conveys the essence of a historical affiliation; an affiliation rooted in the past that is implicitly expected to be revitalized.

This aspiration, this hopeful yearning for the revitalization of a nation long departed, serves to remind us of nothing so much as the tenets of fascist expressionism! The desire for the revitalization of a bygone civilization is predominantly evident within the fascist movement. This sentiment is distinctly articulated within fascist rhetoric, more so than in any other ideological sphere. Recently, however, it has begun to emerge within the so-called "Marxist" discourse, exemplified by phrases such as "America for Native Americans." (I have encountered this precise phrase on only one occasion; however, I observe that others appear to concur.)

Thirdly, it envisions a community of individuals defined by their ethnic, national, or cultural affiliations. Nevertheless, this perspective entirely overlooks any form of material class analysis, thereby rendering itself devoid of such an approach. It not only positions ethnic, national, or cultural distinctions as foundational elements, but it also conveniently neglects to acknowledge that the various communities are intrinsically intertwined in their quest for emancipation from the capitalist system. Our emphasis is not to be placed on isolated domains; rather, it resides in the class struggle and the opposition to capitalist property relations.

Fourthly, it reaffirms the notion of capitalist expropriation by cultivating a misleading sense of belonging to 'land.' A sense of belonging to the legal capitalist property relations rather than to class. While there are indeed hardships resulting from colonialism, our opposition to it does not solely stem from the ownership of that particular territory; rather, it is rooted in the very nature of capitalism itself.

Towards Internationalism

The fundamental nature of national identity necessitates the involvement of the populace. A longing for belonging to a conceptual identity emerges within us; we yearn for a sense of community. This phenomenon is not a recent occurrence; rather, it is a long-standing and historical process that requires the cultivation of a national identity. It is, however appealing it may appear, a manifestation of bourgeois society.

It is imperative that we remain steadfast in our original class analysis, the analysis that has illuminated the concept of capitalism for us. Instead, we should endeavour to fortify the notion of international proletarian solidarity. The sole authentic liberation resides in a departure from the capitalist structure of society; it necessitates a movement that transcends borders and national distinctions.