How Nationalism was Employed by the Liberal, Communist and Fascist Movements

The precise definition of nationalism is contentious, as is the case with most ideologies.

Most people understand nationalism to be an ideological movement for the autonomy, unity, and identity of a population. Through this viewpoint, nationalism includes features like nation formation, national consciousness, language, symbolism, and sociopolitical movements.

Issues of ideology and ethnicity are central to discussions regarding nationalism. It is often considered the antithesis to globalisation, as it recalls ethno-histories and politicised culture to solidify community identity.

However, nationalism as an ideology is difficult to place on the political spectrum, as historically it has been employed in seemingly dissimilar political movements.

Nowadays nationalism is often linked to right-wing ideologies such as fascism, but nationalism in different contexts may mean different things.

Elements like ancestry and soil are found in liberal definitions of the nation, not just fascist ones. Nationalism has also been evident in movements like Bolshevism and liberal nation-building.

Firstly, it is important to note that if we were to understand nationalism in its literal sense, it would require the subordination of other loyalties and identities to the nation, treating it as the supreme allegiance.

The modernist school of thought views nationalism as inherently demanding that national interests take precedence over all other forms of identity and loyalty (Millard, 2014).

However, in practical terms, everyday expressions of national allegiance do not necessarily imply an overriding supremacy of national identity over other attachments.

Secondly, since definitions of nationalism tend to vary, this can cause challenges in understanding its nuanced nature.

A Shift in Understanding

In the 20th century, nationalism shifted from being viewed positively to having negative connotations.

It is the ideology that was once applauded for the role it played in decolonisation in Africa and Asia (Hürsoy, 2010). Nowadays, it is often seen as a source of conflict, wars, and the persecution of minorities.

The Liberal Movement

Liberalism and nationalism emerged in Europe after the French Revolution, and they continue to shape political developments to this day.

Liberalism, characterised by individualism, recognises individuals as having fundamental value and claims to moral and political self-determination.

Contemporary liberal theorists debate the compatibility of liberalism and nationalism.

Some liberal philosophers see nationalism as a threat to liberalism, while others, like John Stuart Mill and Max Weber, acknowledge the importance of national identity.

Meanwhile, Locke and Kant’s individualistic liberalism prioritises political authority and
legitimacy, subordinating national identity to individual rights.

Hume and Smith’s social theory approach to liberalism views liberty as emerging from societal norms and practices, with the government playing a neutral role in maintaining natural liberty (Kelly, 2015).

In 1946, Hans Kohn created a classification that distinguished between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism (Dar, 2022).

Civic nationalism is associated with Western Europe and the USA, and is described to be rational, progressive, inclusive, and individualistic.

On the other hand, ethnic nationalism, associated with Central/Eastern Europe and the Global South, is described to be cultural, exclusive, and collectivist.

While civic nationalism emphasises individual rights and self-determination, ethnic nationalism focuses on cultural identity and collective solidarity.

By this dichotomy, nationalism is presented as compatible with and supportive of liberal values.

Some would argue that nationalism is necessary for democracy, social justice, and national unity. By this view, it can foster social trust, prevent civil wars, and support economic development.

In Liberal Nationalism, Tamir (1993) viewed liberalism as needing nationalism to motivate individuals and bind them to a political community.

Liberalism was seen as a partner to nationalism, tasked with protecting against xenophobia and minority rights violations.

By the 1990s, many scholars agreed that nationalism shifted from a liberal principle to a chauvinistic, right-wing ideology. Therefore, nationalism is nowadays often discussed in its relation to fascism.

Fascism

It is widely accepted that a central element in defining fascism is its emphasis on nationalism and the nation.

Fascism, characterised by aggressive warfare and militarism, is often seen as a radicalisation of European nationalisms, particularly from the 19th century.

Early historians linked fascism to a form of nationalism that contained seeds of conflict and exclusion, and even credited nationalism for directly influencing the rise of fascism (Núñez Seixas, 2014).

Fascism views the nation as an organic entity because it aims to mobilise the masses against class or liberal individualism. Furthermore, it does not separate the nation from the state; both are intertwined.

Definitions of fascism and related authoritarian ideologies, such as Francoism and Salazarism, share a common element of extreme nationalism.

Leadership, particularly the charisma of figures like Mussolini and Hitler, plays a crucial role in fascism’s absorption of extreme nationalism (Yao et al., 2023).

This leads to a strengthening of dictatorship, with the leader in question becoming the sole spokesperson for the nation.

Fascism transforms extreme nationalism into institutionalised control, leading to the establishment of police states.

Police institutions are thus manipulated to serve fascism’s ideological goals, often merging extreme nationalist sentiments with state authority.

Communism

It is a common misconception that communism and nationalism are wholly antagonistic and mutually exclusive.

It is also a common misconception that nationalism in Eastern Europe was oppressed before 1989, emerging triumphant after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

These myths stem from self-identifying nationalists dismissing communists as unpatriotic.

Reality was in fact different.

From 1945, communist parties presented themselves as heirs to national traditions and guardians of national interests.

The concept of ‘socialist patriotism’ was promoted, showing loyalty to their state of workers and peasants.

National symbols like anthems and flags were gradually accepted by communists from the 1930s onwards, and then became commonly used by Eastern European communists up to 1989.

Communists worldwide sought national legitimacy, ingrained in communist theory and practice.

Communist regimes often fanned national sentiments or used them for legitimacy, as seen in the Polish anti-Semitic surge of 1968 (Mevius, 2009).

From an academic perspective, no comprehensive works argue that communism and nationalism are contradictory.

Marx and Lenin’s views on nationalism allowed for national sentiment under certain conditions.

The literature before 1989 focused on theoretical Marxism and liberation movements, as well as Stalin’s oppression of minorities.

Then, the literature after 1989 shifted to analyses of the national legitimacy of communist parties outside the Soviet Union, studies on the German Democratic Republic, and broader research on communist national identity and policies.

In an article examining nationalism within the Bolshevik and Chinese Communist Party revolutions, Zhou (2019) argued that the relationship between nationalism and communism varies.

Sometimes nationalism includes communism, whereas other times it is subordinate. Chinese nationalism was strong and inclusive, integrating the CCP and the KMT.

However, Russian nationalism was weaker and more exclusive, failing to integrate broader social strata.

Conclusion

Despite being associated with conflict and exclusion, nationalism has been crucial to the development of national identities and liberation movements, even though it is viewed negatively in modern discourse.

The contrast between civic and ethnic nationalism highlights the different ways that the ideology may be expressed and emphasises how it might enforce collectivism and cultural homogeneity or encourage inclusivity and individual rights.

Nationalism can adapt to a variety of political circumstances, from authoritarian governments to liberal nation-building, as historical and contemporary examples show.

This flexibility highlights the ideology’s continuous significance and its potential to shape international political dynamics.

Therefore, it is essential to grasp nationalism in all of its manifestations and historical settings in order to appreciate its influence on both historical and contemporary political developments.

Bibliography

Dar, A.M. (2022) ‘Revisiting key debates in the study of nationalism’, Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 9(1).

Hürsoy, S. (2010) ‘Rethinking nationalism: The hazy concept in international relations’, Alternatif Politika, 2(2), pp. 151-174.

Kelly, P. (2015) ‘Liberalism and nationalism’, in Wall, S. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mevius, M. (2009) ‘Reappraising Communism and Nationalism’, Nationalities Papers, 37(4), pp. 377-400.

Millard, G. (2014) ‘The jealous god: A problem in the definition of nationalism’, Ethnicities, 14(1), pp. 3-24.

Núñez Seixas, X.M. (2014) Some thoughts on fascism and the nation. Documento de trabajo 2014/03. Curso 2013-2014. Madrid: Instituto Universitario de Investigación Ortega y Gasset.

Tamir, Y. (1993) Liberal Nationalism. Princeton University Press.

Yao, B., Tao, J., and Wang, Z. (2023) ‘Comparative study of fascism and ultra-nationalism: Concept and case’, Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 2(1), pp. 34-47.

Zhou, L. (2019) ‘Nationalism and Communism as foes and friends: Comparing the Bolshevik and Chinese revolutionaries’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie: European Journal of Sociology, 60(3), pp. 313-350.