Is nationalism responsible for the rise of communism?

[Beet]

Yes. Without the nationalist war fervor of Europe in 1914 (including Serbian nationalism) and the resulting conflict, the communists would never have taken over Russia. The tsar would have gradually reformed the country and probably be overthrown in a single revolution during the Great Depression, which establishes a constitutional democracy. Without the war issue, there is no reason for a second 'red' revolution. Marx would have been just another obscure 19th century economic philosopher.

The Nazis would also have never have taken over Germany. The Social Democrats would have eventually reformed the Empire into a constitutional monarchy.

[Gustaf]

Not at all certain. Communism was a strong presence in Europe before WWI and it is not at all certain that the transformation would have been peaceful all the way. Considering how the Czar behaved and how Russia was ruled it is easy to imagine a collapse of some sort even without the war.

Also, the premise that no war breaks out at all seems too far-fetched to be interesting. It's hard to imagine the Europe at the time without the nationalist sentiments that actually existed. (NOTE: I'm not saying it isn't realistic, that is not the point.)

[Beet]

Not at all certain. Communism was a strong presence in Europe before WWI and it is not at all certain that the transformation would have been peaceful all the way. Considering how the Czar behaved and how Russia was ruled it is easy to imagine a collapse of some sort even without the war.

Disagree. Communism was not a strong presence in Europe or anywhere else except as a fringe, intellectual movement. If anything it was in sharp decline by the 1900s, as social democrats and trade unionists began to more successfully represent the proletarians within the existing political order. This necessitated a radical reconfiguration of Marxist theory by thinkers such as Lenin, who then redefined the entire European population as a sort of imperial burgeoise living off of an expansionist, imperialistic capitalism. The real proletarians, in the new revised theory, were in the third world. Clearly, the revolution Marx predicted had failed; the working class conditions were improving and not declining, and the entire movement was fading away.

Then all of a sudden comes WWI. All of central and eastern Europe are thrown into a crisis. The old order completely demolishes itself in three years. Russia convulses under a liberal revolution, but the weak government is unable to resolve the war issue or end the chaos. Perfect timing for the Germans to transport the pacifist intellectual, Lenin, to Russia to impose his tragic intellectual "revolution" on the chaos, with his main promise being to end the war. When the government, the church, the civil society, and pretty much every pillar of traditional society throws the nation into the mass-homidical self-destruction that is war, a vacuum is created. When a vacuum is created, strange things come in and fill it. In this case, it was Marxism, and absurd intellectual dream more fitting for the 1840s than the 1910s. It never would have come close to happening without the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true. Still, one wonders what the course of history might have been like if some sort of diplomatic arbitrating strategy had worked out between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and the "danger" presented by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire had not been allowed to lead to a wider war. The rest of the European map was much more stable, and it's possible to see a much more peaceful 20th century.

[dazzleman]

Indirectly.

Excessive nationalism was a strong contributing factor to World War I, and the conditions created by the war made communism seem more attractive.

Still, I wouldn't necessarily say that nationalism and communism go well together.  Philosophically, communism presented itself as a worldwide movement, and the communist parties in countries around the world were generally controlled by Moscow, and its members put allegiance to a foreign power over allegiance to their own country.

So in that sense, the communist movement ended up being anti-nationalist in effect, though it was simply used by the Soviet Union as a way to further Russian aggression.

At bottom, communism is advanced by stupidity.  Only stupid people could really be infatuated with communism and believe in it.

[Gustaf]

Not at all certain. Communism was a strong presence in Europe before WWI and it is not at all certain that the transformation would have been peaceful all the way. Considering how the Czar behaved and how Russia was ruled it is easy to imagine a collapse of some sort even without the war.

Disagree. Communism was not a strong presence in Europe or anywhere else except as a fringe, intellectual movement. If anything it was in sharp decline by the 1900s, as social democrats and trade unionists began to more successfully represent the proletarians within the existing political order. This necessitated a radical reconfiguration of Marxist theory by thinkers such as Lenin, who then redefined the entire European population as a sort of imperial burgeoise living off of an expansionist, imperialistic capitalism. The real proletarians, in the new revised theory, were in the third world. Clearly, the revolution Marx predicted had failed; the working class conditions were improving and not declining, and the entire movement was fading away.

Then all of a sudden comes WWI. All of central and eastern Europe are thrown into a crisis. The old order completely demolishes itself in three years. Russia convulses under a liberal revolution, but the weak government is unable to resolve the war issue or end the chaos. Perfect timing for the Germans to transport the pacifist intellectual, Lenin, to Russia to impose his tragic intellectual "revolution" on the chaos, with his main promise being to end the war. When the government, the church, the civil society, and pretty much every pillar of traditional society throws the nation into the mass-homidical self-destruction that is war, a vacuum is created. When a vacuum is created, strange things come in and fill it. In this case, it was Marxism, and absurd intellectual dream more fitting for the 1840s than the 1910s. It never would have come close to happening without the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true. Still, one wonders what the course of history might have been like if some sort of diplomatic arbitrating strategy had worked out between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and the "danger" presented by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire had not been allowed to lead to a wider war. The rest of the European map was much more stable, and it's possible to see a much more peaceful 20th century.

I agree that instability was a premise for Communism. My point is that a) instability could have come about in some countries, such as Russia, anyway, and b) it's hard to see nationalism and other such destabilizing factors just disappear. Even if we suppose that there is no out-break of war between the European powers you still have over-sized empired like Russia and Austria-Hungary, just waiting to collapse. It's hard to see them dissolve peacefully. (and tha tis just one example)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It should be noted that almost all European Communist parties were founded in the years after 1918; usually out of the Left of existing Socialist parties (but not always; the CPGB was created from a merger of various small leftwing parties, notably the BSP).

I might randomly go through this thread and say things.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's true that Russia out of all the European countries was the least developed, reformed, and stable. But instability doesn't just happen randomly, and Russian society in 1914 was strong enough to beat back the Central Powers for nearly three years in full-scale war. So it was healthier than one might think. Remember the 1905 uprisings also occured in the backdrop of defeat in the smaller scale Russo-Japanese conflict. Without WWI or something like it, and depending on the admittedly dim wisdom of Nicholas II and his successor(s), it might well have transformed into a constitutional monarchy as well; and if a revolution did happen it would almost certainly have led to a liberal democracy and not Bolshevism.

By the way, the same thing goes for China- in 1937, the Nationalists under Chaing-Kai Shek were firmly in control of the country. The communists were a relatively small guerilla band. Without WWII, the Nationalists would have eventually defeated the communists, implemented land reform, and then become a multi-party democracy later on. It was the war, again, and the destruction of the society caused by the war, that opened up a vacuum of authority in which communism became attractive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, I'm not saying nationalism could have just easily disappeared from Europe in 1914-- that would require a looking glass so that Europeans then could have the wisdom that Europeans have now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While in theory Communism is an idealistic internationalistic utopic political philosophy, in reality all of the successful self-imposed communist regimes have relied on a heavy dose of nationalism and/or xenophobia.  20th Century Communism was thus in practice just one flavor of 20th Century Nationalism.