Category: General

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Ethnic Nationalism and the Gods of Blood and Soil

Bob Claude |

I am insisting on nationalism against internationalism.

Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Sen. Albert Beveridge

Theodore Roosevelt lived during the last great era of European nation-building of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He saw Germany and Italy transformed from small city-states and kingdoms into strong unified states, while the Austrian – Hungarian Empire was broken apart by ethnic tensions. These movements were driven by the most basic form of nationalism – the concept that peoples with the same ethnic heritage and common geography should constitute a distinct and separate nation-state within those geographic boundaries. He then saw how the resulting national unity created powerful and successful states, though sometimes with tragic consequences.

Ethnic nationalism continued to be a primary driver of international relations through the 20th century and past the millennium. The nations of the Global South freed from colonialism after World War II cherished their own past history and native lands and are committed to building their national sovereignty and economic power (see this previous post).  Russian expansionism is based on a combination of pan-Slavic identity, religious superiority, and a sense of victimhood. Chinese nationalism has always rested on the inherent superiority of the Han Chinese based on their millennia of history and now the ideological call of Maoist communism. In his book “When China Rules the World”, longtime China expert Martin Jacques described the myth of Han Chinese superiority and maintained that the Chinese may very well be the most racist people in the world. Even the vaunted European Union is beginning to fracture due to nationalist movements within its membership.

History has illustrated the benefits and dangers of ethnic nationalism. It prioritizes national unity and a sense of community over short- term efficiency, thus making those nations more resilient in the face of domestic and foreign challenges (see this post on the importance of resilience). Its call to community service promotes selflessness over personal economic equality. This sense of community, however, is often confined to the primary ethnic group and can quickly descend into claims of racial superiority. Excluded minorities often fall back on the own national histories, resulting in internal division, mass emigration, or civil war and thus destroying the solidarity nationalism is supposed to foster. Racial nationalism also can lead to fascist expansionism. The most notorious example is still that of Nazi Germany, whose call to “Blood and Soil” was used to justify some of the worst brutality in history.

Roosevelt’s American nationalism sprung from love of his land and the history of its people, tested by the Civil War and its call to save the Union. His love of the American landscape spurred his drive for conservation. The man who invited Booker T. Washington to dine with him at the White House, appointed the first Jewish cabinet member and fought for direct presidential primaries demonstrated by his actions that our history of democracy and human rights was his paramount value. Unfortunately, this love of America sometimes expressed itself in a belief in Anglo-Saxon or “English” racial superiority.  In his book “The Winning of the West”, he wrote that the pioneering of the American West was part of the triumphant spread of “the English-speaking peoples “and ranked it with the rise of Germanic and other races. This reflected a common belief among the elite of his time that racial characteristics shaped history, which itself may have been inspired by the nationalist movements of Europe.

Nevertheless, ethnic nationalism is the most common national ideology in the world and thus a reality Americans must deal with. The sense of community and national resilience it creates gives those nations real power that supports their sovereignty and unity. However, in a multi-ethnic nation like the US, this form of nationalism is more likely to be divisive than unifying.  TR knew this and became the champion of a nationalism tailored to our unique American history and values.

Next in the series: Progressive Nationalism and the Goals of Community and Opportunity

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Socialist Globalism and the God of Equality

Bob Claude |

Source; Library of Congress

When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, they were reacting to the wave of globalization that came with the industrial revolution of the 19th century. The cartoon above from the British magazine Puck graphically showed the toxic political results of the resulting despair. It shows a boar of corporate greed sowing the seeds of the socialism that Marx & Engels advocated. Their response was a radical form of equality that believed “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It closed with the famous phrase “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains”.

Thus, socialism began with a cry to abandon national identity for international class identity and struggle. The Socialist Internationale was organized as a cross-border movement of similar political parties in various European nations. As resistance to its goals stiffened, the movement turned ugly with the rise of the anarchists, whose tactics of assassination and violence eventually reached the U.S.. Theodore Roosevelt never forgot he became President due to the bullet of the anarchist who assassinated President McKinley. It sparked his own commitment to fighting corporate greed and concentration and the exploitation it created, but within a free market system.

In the end, the nineteenth century call for international worker solidarity perished in the trenches of World War I as each nation’s proletariat willingly marched to war not against the rich, but against opposing enemy nations. The pull of national identity proved to be more powerful than class identity.  The Soviet and Chinese Communist attempts to build a globalist socialist movement resulted in further oppression and eventually adopted nationalist themes to spur their people to defend themselves from foreign foes. While western European socialist parties saw limited success in the interwar period, the U.S. turned to a conservative isolationism and during the New Deal of FDR, a brief progressive nationalism.

Modern socialist globalism is no longer the province of some small Western political parties, but is now officially advocated by the foreign policy of the majority of the Global South that still sees itself as victims of colonialism (see this previous post). In the US, the call to class identity is joined to similar calls to ethnic and gender loyalty fueled by a strange combination of victim psychology and guilt. They consider themselves victims of oppression by the rich while also being guilty of oppressing other nations simply by being American. In foreign policy, this leads to either liberal interventionism to forcibly spread “freedom” or subordinating legitimate national interests to other nations as a way of appeasing the god of equality. Domestically it creates a destructive race to the bottom as risk-taking declines and social jealousies feed on themselves.

TR spent his political career fighting not only the boar of corporate greed, but also the siren song of victim psychology.  He called Americans to remember their heritage as leaders of a new social experiment.  This was the basis of his nationalism.  As we move to explore the nationalist response to globalism, we will first consider another, more basic form of national identity and how it can go wrong as well.

Next; Ethnic Nationalism and the Gods of Blood and Soil

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Corporate Globalism and the God of Efficiency

Bob Claude |

We all have heard of Adam Smith and his theory of the invisible hand of the free market. Few know the name of David Ricardo, a nineteenth century British economist who developed the theory of comparative advantage that is the basis of the current system of international trade. It has since morphed from a mere economic theory to an ideology used to justify corporate and elitist power. It’s fixation on efficiency has shamelessly fueled inequality and ignores its own weaknesses in explaining the real world of today’s economy.

Ricardo’s theory posited that countries should specialize in producing goods in which they have a comparative advantage in either labor, capital or land costs. The classic example is a difference in labor costs. If a country could produce a good at a lower cost because of lower wages, then other countries should trade with that country for good and concentrate on producing others. When countries specialize based on comparative advantage, global production increases, leading to more efficient resource allocation and lower consumer prices.

Comparative advantage formed the basis of the growth of international trade over the last decades of the 20th century. However, it remained only an economic theory until New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman began championing the process in a series of books that quickly became the gospel of corporate globalism. In his book “The World is Flat”, Friedman regaled his readers with how Asians were lifting themselves out of poverty by performing low wage jobs in the new “flat” world of free trade. At the same time, he unwittingly demonstrated the dangers of this trend when he told the story of New London, Connecticut, and its transformation in the new world. An economy once based on shipbuilding and defense work declined to become a gambling mecca with a small elite pharmaceutical research center. Friedman celebrated this decline in an eerie echo of Ayn Rand when he wrote

Change is hardest on those caught by surprise. Change is hardest on those who have difficulty changing too. But change is natural; change is not new; change is important. Work gets done where it can be done most effectively and efficiently. That ultimately helps the New Londons, New Bedfords and New Yorks of this world even more than it helps the Bangalores and Shenzhens.

Here are the tenets of corporate globalism for all to see,  The American Dream, national strength, and family income security are all offered in sacrifice to the god of corporate efficiency and income. Indeed, Friedman said it should be a primary goal of public policy to foster this trend and improve the lives of everyone around the world, despite the impact on its own citizens and national security. 

In the process, Friedman and corporate globalists glossed over the real world weaknesses of this socioeconomic model. First, it assumes markets are in perfect competition and there are no trade barriers, a practical impossibility in a world distorted by the mercantilism of Chinese and other countries. Comparative advantage also assumes that externalities such as environmental pollution are confined to the country that elects to endure them. Carbon emissions know no such boundaries and so developing countries and China can power their economies with coal while exporting the climate costs to the rest of the world. 

A more recent economic theory highlights the real hypocrisy of corporate globalism.  Known as the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, it admits that comparative advantage increases national wealth and efficiency but shows that the benefits of this wealth flow mainly to holders of capital and land at the expense of labor, especially in developed countries.  Hence, corporate elites have an economic incentive to promote international trade at the expense of wage earners.  They then can exploit national differences in taxation and regulation to further enrich themselves.   

As Theodore Roosevelt pointed out, corporate greed and power can be as much of a threat to freedom as the government. In a world of multinational corporations often subsidized by foreign states, it is an even bigger threat.  National governments are often a more effective check on this power than the imperfect market of international trade. In the late nineteenth century, contemporaries of Ricardo (and Roosevelt) tried to address these problems with globalist methods that, in the end, failed and ended up creating new methods of exploitation instead.  

Next: Socialist globalism and the god of equality