Gandhi, Castro, and the Vietcong Were All 'Right Wing'?

Chapter 5.3: Beating everyone with the 'nationalism' stick

Why this book | Title Page | Table of Contents
Preface | Introduction
PART 1
Chapter 1 (1.1) (1.2) | Chapter 2 (2.1) (2.2) (2.3) | Chapter 3 (3.1) (3.2) (3.3) (3.4) (3.5) (3.6)
PART 2
Chapter 4 (4.1) (4.2) (4.3) (4.4) (4.5) | Chapter 5 (5.1) (5.2) (5.3) | Chapter 6
PART 3
Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Chapter 13 | Chapter 14
PART 4
Chapter 15 | Chapter 16 | Chapter 17 |
PART 5
Chapter 18 | Chapter 19 | Chapter 20 | Conclusion
Appendix | Works Cited

---

5.3
Metrics of calumny

• Nationalism

  • Problem #1
    Some movements of the left were also nationalist. 

    • State communism

    • The French Revolution

    • Nineteenth Century Europe

    • American Progressives

  • Problem #2:
    Not all classical liberals are nationalists

---

Metrics of calumny

The above characteristics are not much help in any effort to justify the calumnious Marxist continuum. So how do they forge a similarity between today’s right and the fascists and Nazis?

They begin by ignoring libertarians entirely—setting aside the vast array of issues that conservatives and libertarians generally share in common. Then they imply or explicitly claim that certain characteristics are shared in common by conservatives and Nazis, and are not manifested by the left. The most common of these are nationalism, racism, military conquest, valorization of martial glory, authoritarian oppression, and an emphasis on certain social issues.

If we can demonstrate that these characteristics…

1. Are not exclusive to the right (that they are or can be manifested by the left, or by other non-right ideologies); or

2. Are not permanent or primary characteristics of the right;

then there is nothing left to support this depiction of the political spectrum, and it must fall apart.

Nationalism

Degree of nationalism is not particularly useful as the unit of measure for a primary political spectrum. If we treat that as the most important metric by which to judge political movements, we’re going to end up with a spectrum that does not really tell us much. But let us set that aside and consider this unit on its merits. 

A spectrum that places communism to the far left and fascism to the far right almost starts to seem like it might make sense if we define the unit of measure as  something like degree of nationalism. Marxism and most manifestations of state socialism were doctrinally internationalist in approach. The goal was global socialist revolution: “Workers of the world, unite!”

Fascism and Nazism, by contrast, were nationalist in both doctrine and approach. Fascism was socialism applied on a national level: a national people (or “race,” in the case of the Germans) united for a common purpose. 

And yet…

Problem #1

Some movements of the left were also nationalist. 

A number of movements that were clearly on the left (in the ways we currently understand the left) have also been nationalist, or manifested nationalist traits, approaches, and motivations: 

State communism

As we have previously discussed, by the end of the nineteenth century, the internationalist thrust of Marxist philosophy had run headlong into reality. This forced most real-world applications of Marxism to be internationalist in doctrine and rhetoric, but largely nationalist in style and practice.

The Vietcong were both communist and nationalist. So were Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. And for a time, Marshal Tito’s unique brand of communist nationalism held together the fractious countries of the Balkans.

Upgrade today to continue reading, get access to other paid content, and support the Freedom Scale.