Revolutionary Nationalism?

Day 1,125, 09:58 • Published in Ireland United Kingdom • by Johnobrow

Previously I have written extensively about bourgeois-nationalism, the dominant ideology of the new world (http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/the-nation-of-the-commodity-bourgeois-nationalist-ideology-1471598/1/20), and the role nationalism plays in the gameplay of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class. What I haven't spoken about, and as far as I'm aware few others have spoken about, is the relationship of the oppressed classes and revolutionaries to nationalism.

"To be a nationalist is to hold that the nation is an important aspect, if not the most important aspect of society and that one should serve it. The difference between nations in eRepublik and real life is subtle, but significant. In real life the nation is, ultimately, imagined for it is neither a natural or permanent thing. The nation in real life was created and can consequently also be destroyed, degraded, deconstructed. Conversely in eRepublik the nation is a fundamental part of the game mechanics. One can neither create nor destroy the nation. A nation can be conquered by another but you cannot destroy all nations, the nation is a constant.

"Another difference is the lack of race or ethnicity in eRepublik. In real life many nations are built on a common racial heritage. In eRepublik this simply doesn’t exist. People are not born into a race and nationality from their parents. They are, however, commonly born into the ecountry that corresponds to their real life country and consequently to a degree a common national identity is born from the real life national identity, with language usually being the most major feature of this. Though eRepublik nations lack the established identity of real life nations they more than make up for this in their permanency and relevance."

The fact that the nation-state cannot be removed, it can only be conquered, is of crucial significance to the oppressed classes. The oppressed can only become liberated when they control that state given the irremovable powers the state possesses - the seizure of the power of the state should be one of several primary aims of all revolutionaries, without it they and the exploited classes cannot ultimately be free.

So consider the consequences of an occupation of one state by another. The seizure of the power of the state by another state does nothing to liberate the oppressed of the occupied state, or any for that matter, but does it in fact act as an obstacle to liberation? I would argue that it indeed does and grievously so. The only real power a citizen has to influence the government, and therefore who wields the power of the state, is their vote. In a conquered nation the power to vote is absolutely removed as the citizens do not have the nationality of the conquerer nation, but the conquered. The conquered are therefore more oppressed than ever. Which nationality they have and which nation it is that is occupying is of little significance, the fact that they no longer have the political power they once had is utterly debilitating and enslaving.

The sovereignty of every nation then is of serious importance to every true revolutionary. It is impossible for a class to liberate itself in a nation that is itself enslaved. The defence and only defence of all national borders is paramount. It is subaltern-nationalism that the revolutionary supports. There is a fundamental difference between the defence of a nation's borders and the expansion of its borders. Two different kinds of nationalism. Revolutionary subaltern-nationalism and imperialistic bourgeois-nationalism. One is liberating, the other is enslaving. Imperialism is the problem, anti-imperialism the solution.