Nationalism and Military Readiness
Nationalism and Military Readiness
We, the Germans
The identity “German” is becoming modern again.
After several decades of restraint, because lessons had been learned from the consequences of nationalism, or at least awareness of them, it is now acceptable again to be “patriotic.”
It is logical to be proud of “your” country, because this country and its sovereignty are the source of the life that is lived.
The belonging to the people, that is, the political entity formed by the same sovereignty in a particular spot on Earth, is completely independent of the sovereignty itself.
Especially for self-proclaimed patriots, political sovereignty is often wrong and dishonest (which they are not wrong about, but for the wrong reasons).
The nation and its people are thus independent of the sovereignty that actually makes their existence possible.
For modern bourgeois patriotism, which does not subordinate itself to monarchy or a leader, sovereignty is entirely irrelevant.
It can happen that “one” can be proud again to be German during rare glimpses into sovereignty – but essentially, patriotism and the feeling of national belonging are completely independent of those in power.
This rise in national pride, patriotism, nationalism, or simply “We” is not just a byproduct of a strong economic location; it is an absolute necessity for the internal success of an imperialist state – especially in times of crisis.
The bourgeois state, which has distanced itself from its ugly form of fascism, needs the national sentiment to assert itself in global competition.
The contradiction between the people and the ruling class, which would pose serious problems for the capital owners if uncovered, is only masked by the national feeling and its subsequent alienation from material reality.
You may, as a patriot, be dissatisfied with the rulers, and you may indeed feel the contradiction between rule and people, but you do not recognize it as a consequence of bourgeois rule itself – instead, you see it as stemming from who is currently leading.
Because they want what is best for “their” people, for “us” – thus, the next bourgeois government will also be legitimized through elections – perhaps a more patriotic one, so that “we” can be proud again.
If “we” were to lose the sense of belonging to the nation, the bourgeois state would have lost its legitimacy.
To prevent exactly that, the bourgeois state is aware of numerous means to bring disillusioned citizens back into the ideological construct of “we“.
This can be via references to the situations of other nations and times to dismiss any system critique (“We are doing well”), or by humanizing the rulers through social media posts and interviews, making us believe that “they” are just like “us“.
If the bourgeois state faces a crisis—military, political, or economic—it does not need to worry about its existence as long as the conscious or unconscious subordination of citizens to the nation persists.
The deep crisis Germany is in, which everyone can feel, also brings political disillusionment and rejection – but always in the context of the bourgeois state, not the capitalist state as a whole.
Patriotism is good for the bourgeois state, except when patriots overdo it and spoil Germany’s image as an economic hub.
Who are “We“?
States with a religious and spiritual foundation have it easier – when Modi talks about “patriotism and Hinduism are inseparable“, or Netanyahu talks about Israel as the chosen people, it becomes easier to define the “We“. – “We” the Hindus, “We” the chosen ones.
But even bourgeois Germany, as well as the rest of the Western world, finds it easy to create an identity for their people.
The identity of Germans and pride in being German arises no differently than in völkisch (now discredited) patriotism – solely from belonging to an ideological construct: Germany.
The “We“, which Peter Decker aptly describes as the “simplest form of modern nationalism,” relies on even less than in religious-founded states – namely, on nothing at all.
When considering a nation objectively as a community of language, territory, economy, and culture, we (Marxists) can clearly state that none of these features are controlled by the people themselves.
In global competition, the bourgeois state depends on the “We” of the individual to generate pride during annual GDP growth and to prevent questioning the system – because “We” are living in the best possible system.
The “We” dulls awareness of the suffering worldwide, which makes “our” capital dominance possible – “We” are “We”, “They” are “They”.
Although it is clear that a German employee shares more with a Congolese worker than with a German CEO, the “We” conceals class differences into a large contradictory mess, in which even the working class confesses to the existing system.
“The capital owners need the nation for their profit interests, to create an internal market and expand it against the competition of capital owners in other countries. They promote in the population tendencies of national arrogance and chauvinist militarism“
Defense Minister Pistorius now speaks of “We must become war-ready” – “We” must be war-ready against “Them” – “Them” are the opponents of German capital exports, German armament profits, and value opponents.
With military readiness and a sense of threat, Pistorius unites the divided “We” in a manner of internal peace.
The pacifist masses are in agreement: arms deliveries, rearmament, dying – of course, for peace.
Here, the part-time worker stands alongside the bosses of Rheinmetall: horizontal, vertical – no matter! Main thing: “We”.