#+title: is nationalism is a dead end?

With the birth of the [[file:20200611204207-soviet_union.org][Soviet Union]] in the beginning of the 20th century, the
question of [[file:20210620092008-left_nationalism.org][left nationalism]] was born: how should leftists think about race and
nationality and resolve that problem?

Personally, I think given the history of the 20th century, the [[file:20210522185858-anarchism.org][anarchists]] have
the right answer: left national projects are, for the most part, a dead end.
Although a left nationalist project may lead to some short term gains, all it
does in the long-run is empower the local bourgeoisie.

Breaking up imperial entities into nations makes sense to a certain extent
though: the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into several entities was the
correct short-term move. Similarly, it would make sense to create a [[file:20210526163919-palestine.org][Palestinian]]
nation distinct from [[file:20210526163915-israel.org][Israel]].

However, when the Soviet Union reified nationality, this ended up being simply a
long road to [[file:20210509122342-fascism.org][fascism]], as recent history has borne out.

Is the way out a creation of a new identity? Or simply the elimination of race
and nationality?