A debate on patriotism

Patriotism and the left’s knee-jerk reaction

By Liam Fields

Is it possible for a Communist or an Internationalist to embrace patriotism? This question has long been debated within our movement. We often associate patriotism with an aggressive nationalism of imperial nations and rightly reject its proto-fascist nature. Given this, it’s unsurprising that much of the left now rejects patriotism altogether to prevent the ceding of ground to the nationalist right.

However, we must recognise that the patriotism of the coloniser and the colonised are distinct historical forces. On a basic level, patriotism should be understood as the consciousness of and affinity with a cultural heritage. Various patriotisms have emerged across history and have been realised as the products of diverse lineages and cultures.

As leftists, we cannot deny that relationship with land is an inevitable outcome of our historical consciousness. Our task, then, is to construct a new mythology, one that is distinct from the narratives of “Kings” and empires. It should be a mythology that celebrates the Diggers, the Luddites, and the Chartists. A narrative that includes the 1926 general strike, Cable Street, and the Winter of Discontent. This is our connection to the land of these isles. We should not just reflect on this lineage, but take pride in it!

This patriotism is not just compatible with “internationalism” but inherently intertwined with it. When we recognise the international nature of our movements and the oppression they faced, the fight for land justice and against enclosure in the UK becomes inseparable from the resistance to colonial borders. In short, we need to put forward a patriotism that does not seek affinity with an imperial past but forms a class-conscious patriotism on our lineages of resistance.

Why patriotism can’t be saved

By Ian Meadows

Patriotism: nationalism’s moderate, sophisticated sibling. While still viewed with suspicion by the left, it isn’t outright rejected — unlike the way nationalism tends to be.

Rejecting nationalism is reasonable. It’s aggressive, exclusive, easily corrupt — and its historical links to imperialism and colonialism certainly don’t help. Patriotism, on the other hand, boils down to a “love for one’s country”, or a special concern for its well-being and citizens. This concern doesn’t need to be exclusive, and can be invoked in much less controversial ways, like rooting for your country in a sport or in canonising a national literature.

But patriotism doesn’t simply emerge. It’s constructed, negotiated and reactionary. What makes something “truly” patriotic is often a product of circumstances on top of mythologisation. Think of terrorist attacks, or a war. Suddenly, patriotism can be ascribed to fairly aggressive demands for security and ultimately justify imperialist exploits or, equally, the source of moral scrutiny and protest.

Ultimately, patriotism puts us in conversation with our compatriots and our state — which is important! National interest needs to feel both personal and collective if the state can evoke certain duties and sacrifice from us. It’s easier to accept my day-to-day rations if I know both my neighbour and the citizen farthest from me have to make sacrifices too — all in the name of my country.

While patriotism certainly can and has been used as a tool by the left (e.g. Podemos in Spain), it’s naive to try to reform it.

In embracing new mythologies, we may accidentally stabilise corruptable platforms. For example, we might want to celebrate resistance and mass mobilisation as part of our new patriotism. Whenever the French pull a classic French riot, people celebrate it as part of the unique French identity, inspiring pride. But you can imagine that spirit being easily appropriated by January-6th-style insurrectionists to justify violence in the name of reactionary politics.

Patriotism is performative as much as it is emotional. Expressing love or pride for one’s country, history and/or fellow people really can come in any form. And “true” patriotism will always be a matter of discourse.

This isn’t just true of the imperial core. Fanon warns us of the kind of nationalism that allows colonised elites to replace oppressors with indigenous ones.

Nation-states were European imports to African colonies, and the same historical force used to legitimise and mobilise resistance upholds the borders and states established by colonisers.

We live in a world where the working class have no nation but are divided by borders. Patriotism legitimises nation-states, who uphold capitalism, and reinforces these oppressive borders barring us from uniting.

In such a world, class-conscious patriotism is an oxymoron. The fact that it’s viewed so positively is precisely what makes it insidious. Patriotism is not the path to internationalism, but an obstacle, and we must continue to challenge it.