[Marxism] "Traditional" and "Modern" Racism

[Joonas Laine]

Recently I came across a piece of news from Sweden, where the Metal 
Worker's Union's branch chairpersons was asked whether members of the 
xenophobic-nationalist party Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats, 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverigedemokraterna>) should be kicked out 
of the union. The poll result was that 49% support their expulsion. When 
asked, whether members of the said party should be allowed to hold an 
elected position in the union, 98% said "no".

Interesting figures. The point of this mail, however, is the focus on 
the variety of racism that Sverigedemokraterna represent. Besides 
subscribing to the normal petty-bourgeois conservative stuff (pro-small 
business, heterosexual family, "national independence" etc), in their 
program they condemn every form of racism and (naturally!) 
totalitarianism, and argue that every nation has a right to determine 
its own fate.

In practice this means, of course, that in addition to all indigenous 
peoples and oppressed nations, also the people of imperialist nations 
have a right to "self-determination". One state, one nation etc.

There's also an english language section on the party's website 
<http://www.sverigedemokraterna.se>.

What I would like to ask is about the history of this ideology of a kind 
of liberal racism that denies racism in form but, when practiced by 
citizens of an imperialist country, it is de facto directed against 
immigrants from poor countries, representing cultures that are "too 
different" and thus "can't assimilate" into the nation, whose purity and 
coherence is an important goal of the movement.

As opposed to the kind of "traditional" racism that hinges on "fixed" 
qualities like race, blood heritage or the like, and also on explicit 
hierachies (of races etc.), this "modern" form of racism can sound very 
deceptive to untrained ears because it's so liberal.. every nation has 
the same rights (whether imperialist or oppressed), people from other 
nations are equal to us (we just don't want them here), and it's not 
because we think others are less worthy that we don't want them here; 
it's just that our nation - like any other nation - has the right to 
preserve itself as a coherent entity, without interference from "too 
different" cultures (in practice muslims, africans, russians etc.)

There is an organisation in Finland, too, with the same kind of program 
(Suomen Sisu, <http://www.suomensisu.org/index.php?lang=en>), exhibiting 
the same variety of liberal racism, that focuses on "national culture" 
and the need to preserve it against "too different" cultures; e.g. 
Scandinavian cooperation is seen as good because the cultures are so 
similar etc.

Does this orientation - that at least formally separates itself from the 
more vulgar kind of nazi style macho racism - have e.g. such ideologues 
that the movement of this variety would look up to as its "source" or 
origin..? I would be interested in the ideological history of this approach.