Nationalism as a counter-revolutionary tool

The world today is so clear cut out for us that we don't seem to question the rudimentary aspects of our identities, although we have been aware and conscious of social constructs like race and gender and class for quite some times. However, that of nationality is still not poked at greatly. The social construction of nationality seems, in a way, quite harmless to us since we don't come into contact with it on a daily basis as we do with race, gender and/or class.

Similar to the idea of geographical luck, the social construct of nationality is crucial to understand as it has played a fundamental role in the shaping of history (world dynamics). 

What, then, is nationalism? It is an ideology which promotes the idea of a nation state that has entire autonomy over a group of people with shared race, culture, language, etc. (and sometimes even pride of the historical past). The inherent belief in the supremacy of one's nation state is a crucial pillar, and with this belief comes the expectation that the national interests (every time some says "national interest" it basically means the capitalists interests) should be the top priority of the citizens.

EMERGENCE OF NATIONALISM
The French revolution was the first time nationalism became a prominent ideology that catalyzed change in the social structure of (French) society.

It is imperative first to understand the context of the French revolution in 1789, since the seeds for this revolution had been planted centuries before. France an empire based on a feudal system where the aristocracy (landowners) controlled the society: they sucked all of the surplus created by the working class, which consisted of the bourgeoisie, workers, and peasants. The luxurious life enjoyed by the aristocrats came at the expense of the exploitation of the French working class. Peasants and workers had to pay many different kinds of taxes to sustain the feudalist class. Within the working class the bourgeoisie was the strongest because in urban areas, their industries and commerce were prosperous. Based on transaction value, France was only second to England, and they also had monopoly over colonial products. Moreover, banks started to appear in great numbers, and capital was accumulating in large companies like the Indian Society and the Fire Insurance Society, etc. All of this prosperity from the bourgeoise class gave them more power. The working class was also formed during this period. Workers would protest against wages not being sufficient, but was not grounded in class consciousness (still believed they belong to the third class Tiers Etat) aka part of the bourgeois class. The bourgeoisie on the contrary, was very aware of the class contradictions. These contradictions, the lazy monarchs and aristocrats living a life of luxury versus the overworked workers and peasants living like animals, became more acute and visible over time, reaching a climax in the year 1789. The bourgeoisie, with power and ability to see these contradictions, led the revolution to overthrew the monarchy and feudal regime, establishing a bourgeois republic (nation state).

Replacing the feudal economy, they established a capitalist economy based on the exploitation of the working class's labor. The bourgeois revolution abolished feudal privileges and conquered "freedom" to expand industry and take the initiative in the economy. Speaking about the 1843 revolution in France, Lenin wrote: "In France in 1789, the relationship was to overthrow the aristocracy and autocratic politics, .. . "In 1848, the relationship was that the proletariat wanted to overthrow the bourgeoisie, .. " 
Nationalism, as an ideology of a nation state governed by the people (elected) and not by a divine ruler, was well suited for the emerging dominant class (bourgeoisie) to use as a tool to eradicate the now obsolete social order and create a new one more vested in their interests. This obviously did nothing to liberate the workers and peasants from the exploitation faced under the feudal system, just transferring this power to the capitalists.

Looking back at the French revolution of 1789, it is crucial that we do not use this to push forth the support for a democratic front, or a united front under some sort of revolutionary nationalism since it would mean a front with the reactionary bourgeoisie.

MORE ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONALITY OF NATIONALISM
In his work State and Revolution, Lenin explained the mechanism of nationalism. He stated how the notion of a country meant clear national boundaries to separate one nation state from the other. This division of land consequently divides people into marked territories. Closed areas accessible to now only certain groups of people mean greater control over who gets to use what resources. This turns problematic when some countries do not have certain resources or want other resources not available within their geographical borders. In a capitalist society this competition/race between nation states heightens, spilling into wars where the working class gets sacrificed (imperialism comes out of this competition as well). Nationalism is the tool that the ruling class uses to persuade the people of the necessity of wars and imperialistic endeavours (this serves to resolve two problems the ruling class faces at once: effectively pacify uprisings/revolts from hungry workers and peasants due to emphasis on a common foreign enemy, and stealing more resources).

Lenin wrote:
"Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language, with all obstacles to the development of that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated. Therein is the economic foundation of national movements. Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unity and unimpeded development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its various classes and, lastly, for the establishment of a close connection between the market and each and every proprietor, big or little, and between seller and buyer."

Furthermore, the presence of advanced technologies made it more expensive to control lower class, so the ruling class benefits by giving some freedom to the lower class. For instance  the industrial revolution required a more skilled class of labour, and the growth of unskilled labour made this unprofitable.
A nation state was built to accommodate these needs of the capitalists: a common language and education system to form an equal and mobile workforce, but still with that sense of loyalty to a defined geography to maintain a local workforce and market. 

Nationalism then is the tool used by the bourgeoisie to betray the class struggle waged by the proletariat. 

NATIONALISM AS A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY TOOL
The bourgeoisie recognizes that as a class, they do not possess enough man-power to overthrow the caste above them. They need the help of the working class. To appease the working class to join, they collaborate with the peasants and workers, rally with them, as if they want the same things as the working class. This as a consequence creates an illusion of cross class solidarity. This is the problem. There is no such thing as cross class solidarity. Cross class solidarity is the basis for nationalism, since nationalism is the uniting of an entire country on the basis of nationality (regardless of gender and class, and other social categories). This means solidarity between the rich and poor, the oppressor and the oppressed. Many, if not all bourgeois revolutions use this idea of cross class solidarity/nationalism (although the latter is most used in contexts of national independence against imperialists) to overthrow a common enemy (whether domestic or foreign) and establish a new order. 

Nationalism, thus, is the tool used by the bourgeoisie to betray the class struggle waged by the proletariat.

 
NATIONALISM IN THE CONTEXT OF ANTI-COLONIAL RESISTANCE
In the context of decolonization and national liberation, in many colonized countries, political entities build emancipatory forces behind the idea of nationalism. This, as have been dissected above, will never truly liberate the workers aka the majority of the country since it disregards the class antagonism existing within their societies. What they want, behind the banner of national unity, is not just broad national independence, but more specifically national independence to allow the native bourgeoisie to exploit the people instead of the imperialists. Therefore, national liberation and decolonization struggles must be built upon the notion of class struggle, fighting against both the foreign and domestic enemies, to give power to the workers (not just vaguely the people). 
An example of an often celebrated and idealized struggle was the Vietnamese liberation from the French, and US, led by the Viet Minh under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh. Ho, in November 1945 (after the August Revolution where the Viet Minh took over control from the Japanese, just to welcome the return of the French a few months later) ordered the complete liquidation of the lndochinese Communist Party. The Central Committee statement said that “in order to complete the Party’s task...a national union conceived without distinction of class and parties is an indispensable factor” and that this step was being taken to show that Communists “are always disposed to put the interests of the country above that of classes, and to give up the interests of the Party to serve those of the Vietnamese people”. What did Ho mean by "the interests of the country"? If the interests of the country is not that of the majority, of the working class and peasantry, then it could only be the interests of the native bourgeois class. This manifested in the aftermath of the August revolution most evidently, where the Viet Minh crushed all revolts and uprisings by the People's Committees (similar to soviets) in South Vietnam following the surrender of the Japanese fascists. After (discreetly) taking over all administrative seats in the South following power vacuum left behind, they pushed for further repression of struggles waged by the workers and peasantry, even banning peasants stealing private land from feudalists in the countryside, with anyone conducting or encouraging this behaviour thrown into jail. If the goal of the Viet Minh is to liberate Vietnam (and specifically the South) from the strangling grasp of imperialist powers (French and Japanese) then why did they go out of their way to repress and punish other revolutionary groups (many made up of workers themselves) who had the very same goal? Because it was not about liberating Vietnam to free the working class and peasantry from exploitation, but to replace the colonizers with the Viet Minh, giving them the authority to rule over the Vietnamese people. 

To reiterate, national liberation against imperialists is a step in the right direction, but the fight must not stop there, since to stop there is to let the bourgeoisie to continue dominating over working people. And the fact that many anti-imperialist struggles are grounded in nationalistic language and agendas speaks to how easily the nationalistic rhetoric gets utilized. It needs to be further emphasized and stressed that nationalism is a counter-revolutionary tool. No nationalist revolutions have ever successfully liberated the working class. This means that all revolutions, including the ones fighting for national autonomy, must be rooted in class struggle for them to be truly liberating.