I have pondered why nations formed in the first place. My first thought was that nations are the result of the imperialistic conquering of tribes in ancient times. Now however, I believe this is simplistic. It is more likely that nations, identities, languages, cultures and separate human communities formed due to the lack of the capacity to globalize. The ability to travel did not exist the way it does today, societies were in different stages of economic development and religions were taken as literal truth. A Progressive Nationalist understands the effects and history of technological and economic development, as well as the natural consequences. As Marx concluded, new classes always arise.
If one accepts this view, it would seem to follow that one would accept the view that globalization is the logical conclusion of technology. After all, human beings were merely unable to globalize but now they are. However, it brings up the old saying; “Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should.” There is a difference between aligning workers towards a common goal against an exploiting class and accepting the capitalist mindset that a human being is only an individual with no communitarian ties. Capitalist internationalism is not the same thing as labor solidarity. As far as the matter of race goes, Marx had views that would be considered politically incorrect by today’s standards.
Marxist-Leninists believe in international working class collaboration, but once a nation becomes class conscious, it can use its identity in a progressive sense. Implicitly, the Cuban Revolution used progressive populist Nationalism to fight Batista, though Castro likes to downplay this. Stalin implicitly appealed to national identity with his “Socialism in one country” and he did have separate nations internal to USSR, including a Ukrainian state. In addition, the Polish, German, Romanian and Hungarian Communist regimes were not even part of USSR, though closely tied in alliances. If those examples are not blatant enough, then Mao, Solath Sar (“Pol Pot”) and Kim Jong Il made the implementation of national characteristics an explicit part of theory. Terms that suggests this include “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”, “the Khmer Rouge” and “Juche.” The theoretical writings behind all three examples elaborate on the extent to which each implied that Socialism must be tailored to intersect with Nationalism.
Most Marxists do not interpret internationalism in the way that Trotskyites do. Trotsky’s view of internationalism included the literal forced intermarrying of races and he called it eugenics. It included fighting for revolutions without considering the material conditions on the ground. This is not a class conscious analysis. The typical Marxist line is merely a call for collaboration between workers against the exploiting class. Trotsky went off in a different and unmarxist direction because he was less concerned about protecting the working class and was more concerned with unraveling the fabric of existing communities. While we can acknowledge that Trotsky was a great war leader and an articulate writer, he was an opportunist and a Menshevik (and originally rejected revolution), he weakened the Soviet Union by dividing it and had he taken power he would have destroyed it. His warped and twisted interpretation of internationalism served as a perfect caricature of “evil Jew” to allow Hitler to take power and threaten the survival of individuals of Jewish descent, Slavic descent and the Soviet Union.
Progressive Nationalists, or Marxists who believe in the synthesis between a class conscious analysis and a positive national identity, must be enemies of Trotskyism and Hitlerism simultaneously. They must also seek to view the world scientifically and economically, but understand the value and utility of human communities. Nazism, Trotskyism and primitive Nationalism cannot be seen as compatible with class conscious and progressive Nationalism. Even though Italian Fascism is less crude than the other ideologies, it too has irreconcilable differences. Religious fundamentalists may sometimes fight for progressive causes, but religious fundamentalism itself is not compatible with thought that is anti-imperialist and economically/technologically progressive. A progressive Nationalist realizes that nations go through different stages of development like economies do and believes that future stages of the nation should be woven in class conscious fabric. Progressive Nationalists oppose the exploitative class wherever it is, even if the time for revolution is inopportune (such as the Middle East and America). Progressive Nationalists recognize their nation as a string of dominos against imperialism and perhaps can be considered pan-Nationalists. This is a mode of thought that rejects both nation wrecking ideology and reactionary ideology.
Because antisemitism seems to be the bread and butter of most reactionary ideologues, it needs to be picked apart in this important theoretical post. A surprisingly high number of people attack globalism as a Jewish conspiracy, often caused by “genetic programming.” In truly bizarre fashion, today’s internet dissidents go further than Hitler and do not only label Jews a race but a non-White race. They allege that Jews (who they view as non-Whites) lead Whites to globalization. A class conscious analysis of economics rejects the idea of blaming Jews as the cause of globalization. The desire to globalize society is a result of the uneven development of capitalism.
Historically, the fact that Judaism, Christianity and Islam exist in Europe and the fact that paganism existed in Egypt and predated Judaism in the Near East is evidence that the Mediterranean Sea was not the major demarcation point separating the races. Instead, the Ural Mountains and Sahara Desert were those points. While people lacked the ability to travel worldwide, it should be noted that empires crossed the Mediterranean Sea all the time and fought each other. When Carleton Coon defined his Mediterranean race, he attributed membership to every side of the sea and considered northern Europeans Nordics to be “depigmented Mediterraneans.” The point is that it did not take any special globalization to bring Judaism, Christianity and Islam from the Middle East to North Africa and Europe. Christianity, Judaism and Islam stem from the teachings of Abraham and Moses. Variations of this creed extended throughout all three Caucasian regions. Paganism also existed in all three continents, from Egypt to Rome to Russia. As a matter of a fact, Abraham fought against Jewish Pagans. Jews did not plunder Europe in recent history as antisemitic mythology alleges, but Europe derives its Caucasian origins from the Near East. Most importantly, Jews are not the cause of globalization, though the effects of nazism have lead Jews to embrace reaction-oriented ideas such as extreme free market capitalism, open boarders and a form of Zionism that is not progressive Nationalism.