Re: Re: nationalism

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     That is for a usage in English.  I believe that the
term nationalism, or certainly the concept, came out
of France and particularly out of the Napoleonic
era, although I am not able to provide a specific
reference on this.  Sorry.  France is the home of
many "isms," including "communism."
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, November 20, 2000 6:44 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:4678] Re: nationalism


>Jim D. writes:
>
>>Yoshie quotes the late Jim Blaut as saying: >The nature of
>>colonialism is such that producing classes suffer along with
>>whatever young or incipient bourgeoisie may exist. Therefore the
>>national liberation movements in colonies and semi-colonies are
>>profoundly different from the national movements of  earlier
>>oppressed nations such as those in non-colonial portions of the
>>Tsarist empire. It is not innately a bourgeois struggle against
>>feudal forces for the creation of a classical bourgeois state. It is
>>a multi-class struggle directed primarily against imperialism.<
>>
>>According to Hobsbawm's excellent little book on Western European
>>nationalism, nationalism has always been a multi-class struggle.
>>Nationalism is _always_ a force which "holds the nation together"
>>allowing different groups to transcend class antagonism. (That's not
>>a quote from EH, BTW.) Of course, some nationalists are more
>>powerful than others in deciding the actions of their movements.
>>These are capitalists and those who organize political machines...
>
>No so fast!  You have to finish reading the quoted passage to the
>_end_ of its last sentence.  Sure, all nationalisms are cross-class
>affairs, but Jim B. was emphasizing the specificity of anti-colonial
>& anti-neo-colonial nationalisms as multi-class struggles _directed
>primarily against imperialism_.  In contrast, West European
>nationalisms, in the main (though not always -- e.g., Irish
>nationalism), have been multi-class struggles to create & maintain
>capitalist empires (see Robert Brenner's _Merchants and Revolution_,
>for instance).  A big difference, in my opinion!
>
>Now, we live in a post-Soviet era, after the heydays of anti-colonial
>& anti-neo-colonial struggles, so nationalisms have become even more
>politically complex & ambiguous than before.
>
>>BTW, is it true that Edward Bellamy (author of LOOKING BACKWARD)
>>coined the world "nationalism" (and "nationalization" of industry)?
>>There's an example of someone who wanted to transcend class
>>antagonism to set up a kind of paternalistic (and patriarchal)
>>socialism.
>
>Interesting if it's true, but it's not.  According to the OED, the
>first entry goes to a theological meaning:
>
>1. Theol. The doctrine that certain nations (as contrasted with
>individuals) are the object of divine election.
>1836 G. S. FABER Prim. Doctr. Election (1842) 189 The several
>doctrinal systems, usually denominated Arminianism and Nationalism
>and Calvinism.
>
>Bellamy was born in 1850 & died in 1898.  And Bellamy's _Looking
>Backward_ was first published in 1888, no?  So he can't claim credit
>for coinage.  That said, his was Christian socialism of sorts,
>heavily inflected with the idea of patriotism, so his meaning may
>have been very close to the original meaning of nationalism.
>
>Yoshie
>
>