I've been wondering whether nationalism is inherently a left-wing or a right-wing ideology.
Historically, the answer doesn't seem obvious. During the French Revolution, nationalism was largely associated with the Left. It challenged monarchy, aristocratic privilege, and the old dynastic order by arguing that sovereignty belonged to the nation rather than to a king. In that context, nationalism was a revolutionary and emancipatory force.
Today, though, the picture seems much more complicated.
In many countries, nationalism is primarily associated with the Right: conservative movements, anti-immigration politics, cultural traditionalism, or ethnic conceptions of the nation. Examples could include much of the contemporary European far right or various forms of right-wing populism.
At the same time, there are clearly left-wing nationalist movements. Irish republicanism is probably one of the best-known examples, where nationalism has often been intertwined with socialism, anti-colonialism, and labor politics. Similar patterns can be found in other anti-colonial or national liberation movements.
What's even more interesting is that the same national movement can contain both right-wing and left-wing currents.
Ukraine seems like a good example. There is an explicitly right-wing nationalist current, represented by groups such as Azov and similar organizations, emphasizing military traditions, conservative values, and ethnic nationalism.
But there is also a distinctly left-leaning current of Ukrainian nationalism, often represented by younger activists and parts of civil society. Their understanding of national identity is frequently combined with feminism, LGBTQ rights, decolonial theory, and other progressive ideas. Ukrainian feminism, for example, draws on a long tradition of influential women writers and intellectuals, while decolonial studies have become increasingly important in interpreting Ukraine's relationship with the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
Am I missing something here, or is nationalism better understood as a politically neutral framework that can be adopted by both the left and the right?
I think it depends on the relation to the imperial core. Ukraine is a good example, their "national struggle" is happening within the context of NATO expansion, so it has taken on many aspects of nationalism that are useful for the empire: racism, militaristic jingoism, Orientalism, ethnonationalism, etc. Ukraine can't seriously maintain anything but a right-wing nationalism because, from its core, it is a struggle for imperial expansion. Any left-wing nationalism will whither without the the material base to support it. In the long term there is no future for anything other than right-wing nationalism in Ukraine, it exists solely for the benefit of Westerners.
Israel is Ukraine's only future. They wore the skin of a """progressive""", labor oriented nationalism for decades while colonizing Palestine. Labor Zionism could not survive in the long-term, though, and the longer Israel survives the more right-wing it will become.
First of all, the fact that a national movement takes place in the context of NATO expansion does not automatically mean that the movement itself is defined by NATO interests. That would be like judging the nature of a phenomenon exclusively by the circumstances in which it emerged while ignoring its own internal logic, demands, and the goals of the people participating in it.
Second, I literally gave an example of an alternative form of nationalism existing within Ukrainian society one that is left-wing, and more importantly, actually mainstream among many younger activists and parts of civil society. It is also, in many ways, an extremely progressive form of nationalism, combining national identity with feminism, decolonial studies, and other progressive ideas. But it seems you ignored this because you approached the topic through your own theoretical framework rather than through the actual context of Ukrainian society. That's fine, but it does make the analysis rather incomplete.
Third, the comparison with Israel is interesting, and I think there are some aspects worth discussing, but I have to ask: who exactly is Ukraine colonizing? Russia? That would certainly be a surprising interpretation of the situation.
What honestly saddens me is that this seems to come from a very simplified assumption: if the Western world supports Ukraine, then Ukraine itself must somehow become a reactionary or imperial project. But political movements are not defined only by who supports them internationally.
Well you forgot that Ukraine's national project is about heroism of their nazis instead of their progressive history. I'm not interested in theoretical nationalism, just the one that really exists, and I have yet to see any evidence of this other one having any influence which doesn't completely fit into the imperialist system which the nazi one also wants to achieve
Well, let's look at the Syrian example. Rojava, too, could be said to be a left-wing nationalism. Where did that lead them?
They were able to carve out a space for their project in the civil war because it was useful for imperial interests in fighting against the Syrian government and useful as a propaganda tool for getting popular support in the core for the destruction of Syrian sovereignty. Once they were no longer useful most of their territory was captured and subsequently ceded. It still exists in a much reduced form, but there's no reason to be optimistic about the future of their project. They served their purpose, now they are discarded.
It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.
That's the other possible future for Ukrainian progressives. Either they wither away and move to the right like labor Zionists, or they'll be defeated like Rojava, but either way left-wing nationalism can not be sustained because the material base for their existence relies on support from the empire. They aren't rooted in the material base of the struggle itself, they're just a prop.
It's the empire that seeks to colonize Russia; Ukraine is an extension of the empire. It's similar in Israel. While Israel has its own colonial ambitions for its Greater Israel project, it's a forward base for imperial expansion into that part of West Asia.
Israel has just been around long enough to develop its own ambitions. The Banderite regime in Ukraine likely won't last as long.
Don't talk down to me, this little jab was completely unnecessary.
I think you misunderstood what she said.
It's not that Ukraine has no left-nationalism, it's that the left-nationalists do not have the base material support that the right-nationalists have. If that continues to be the case, then the tendency will be for the right-nationalism to over take and eclipse the left-nationalism. That might not happen, but it is significantly likely. This doesn't even have to be about international support - within Ukraine itself, the right-nationalists have a strong presence in the military and support from politicians. I'm not too current on the present state of Ukraine, but I haven't heard of anything remotely similar for their left-nationalists.