Patriotic people [Archive]

ComradeMan

14th December 2009, 10:58

But Zionism is fine, right? What does that make virulent Islamophobia?

Who said that? You obviously haven't a clue about the points raised and therefore it's easy to take polarised views by pigeonholing things into categories that can easily be attacked that way. I never said Zionism is fine. I said that it is difficult to deny the Jewish people some right to self-determination which is usually extolled as a basic right for all other peoples. The devil is in the detail. I no more said that a Jewish State has the right to exist at the cost of the rights of others than I said that Jewish people did not have a right to self-determination. Think about it, it requires more than a simple yes-no answer.
Islamophobia has nothing to do with the matter here.

RedSonRising

14th December 2009, 12:53

That was a good laugh :laugh:

While the video is humorous and more than slightly lame, I think that the sentiment expressed by these conservatives outlines a way in which the right-wing minded sections of the working class can identify with a socialist movement. There are a majority of right wingers who will never be swayed, however these quasi-libertarian patriots have more in common with us than they will ever know unless we reach out to them. If you take out the "liberalism is evil blah" stuff, calling the treasury crooks and complaining about the government stealing money from their children is anything but pro-establishment- there just has to be an introduction to the element of the bourgeoisie to their rage. I think that in order to achieve significant popular support, through a party coalition or whatever it may be in the United States, we need to identify with people who are hostile to class politics and frame our goals in a way that just on some level sympathizes with their traditional beliefs. Obviously revolutionary politics are supposed to transform societal political views into more scientific and progressive ones, not cater to "gun-nuts" per se, but I see hope in some angry tea-party people and futility in the abandonment of the reactionary proletariat.

anticap

14th December 2009, 14:09

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

"Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot consider themselves nobler, better, grander, more intelligent than those living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others." --Emma Goldman

"Education authorities ... sacrifice the children to what they consider the good of the State by teaching them 'patriotism,' i.e., a willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons." --Bertrand Russell

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Göring

Искра

14th December 2009, 14:17

I don't want to be "nasty" but aren't anti-revisionists patriots :)
Look at all those USSR and China propaganda stuff :rolleyes:

Dimentio

14th December 2009, 14:21

Move to Chit-Chat

RHIZOMES

14th December 2009, 14:58

Move to Chit-Chat

it's already there!

manic expression

14th December 2009, 15:26

Who said that? You obviously haven't a clue about the points raised and therefore it's easy to take polarised views by pigeonholing things into categories that can easily be attacked that way. I never said Zionism is fine. I said that it is difficult to deny the Jewish people some right to self-determination which is usually extolled as a basic right for all other peoples. The devil is in the detail. I no more said that a Jewish State has the right to exist at the cost of the rights of others than I said that Jewish people did not have a right to self-determination. Think about it, it requires more than a simple yes-no answer.
Islamophobia has nothing to do with the matter here.

You might as well justify the Armenian genocide on the grounds of Turkish self-determination, or the Rwandan genocide on the grounds of Hutu self-determination; those arguments would make about as much sense as supporting the Zionist state on the grounds of Jewish self-determination.

Further, the devil might be in the detail, but I'd say the devil is also in the fact that Israel is an artificial state, created by imperialists to aid imperialism. Israel does not meet any rational definition of a "nation", and therefore the argument of national self-determination has absolutely no relevance here.

I don't want to be "nasty" but aren't anti-revisionists patriots :)
Look at all those USSR and China propaganda stuff :rolleyes:

This is an interesting question that I've been considering over the past few days. "Patriotism" is something that has multiple meanings in multiple contexts. In the Enlightenment, a "patriot" was someone who promoted the ideals of liberty and so on, and opposition to one's country could be seen as "patriotism" under this meaning. Expressing a love for one's country or nation, that is to say showing respect for the traditions, the struggles, the history and the possibilities of one's nation, is not inherently right-wing, and can be truly revolutionary (especially in nations in which those things are explicitly denied and outlawed by imperialism, such as Puerto Rico).

Can I be a revolutionary and still be proud of American art or the struggles of American progressives down the years? John Brown, Eugene V Debs, Paul Robeson, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Thaddeus Stevens and so many others...all part of the American experience. Is it wrong to recognize this and be proud to carry on their cause?

Os Cangaceiros

14th December 2009, 15:36

Can I be a revolutionary and still be proud of American art or the struggles of American progressives down the years? John Brown, Eugene V Debs, Paul Robeson, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Thaddeus Stevens and so many others...all part of the American experience. Is it wrong to recognize this and be proud to carry on their cause?

Appreciating culture and/or a nation's history =/= "patriotism"

manic expression

14th December 2009, 15:44

Appreciating culture and/or a nation's history =/= "patriotism"
According to what definition of patriotism? It's a relative term, is it not? Also, that's just part of it: promoting the progress of a nation against reactionaries can be seen as a form of patriotism, wouldn't you agree?

More Fire for the People

14th December 2009, 15:49

Jewish self-determination =/= Zionism

Luisrah

14th December 2009, 16:02

We can look at patriotism in many different ways.

If my patriotism makes me want to make my country better, without making other countries worse, than in that case, the more patriotic I am, the better!

Yehuda Stern

14th December 2009, 16:04

Jewish self-determination =/= Zionism Wrong. The idea that Jews are a separate people and therefore can and should have the right for self-determination is what defines Zionism.

That song is incredibly funny, by the way. Second worst hip hop song I've ever heard.

Devrim

14th December 2009, 16:07

You might as well justify the Armenian genocide on the grounds of Turkish self-determination, or the Rwandan genocide on the grounds of Hutu self-determination; those arguments would make about as much sense as supporting the Zionist state on the grounds of Jewish self-determination.

The Bolsheviks did support the Turkish national movement on exactly the grounds of national self-determination. This was shortly after the massacres of Armenians, which many from the national movement had been involved in, and shortly before the mass ethnic cleansing, commonly know as population transfer, that happened after the nationalist victory. Oh, it was also at the same time as they were murdering communists.

Devrim

anticap

14th December 2009, 16:10

Manic, the distinction you draw is valid, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. Mao also drew valid distinctions (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch18.htm). But when most people think of "patriotism" they envision flag-waving xenophobes: the notion that people born on a different patch of earth are somehow inferior, or that it's the abstract concept of nationality that is admirable rather than the people. Patriotism can be a powerful motivator for good, of course.

RHIZOMES

14th December 2009, 16:32

That song is incredibly funny, by the way. Second worst hip hop song I've ever heard.

Do I dare ask what the first one is?

Os Cangaceiros

14th December 2009, 16:38

According to what definition of patriotism? It's a relative term, is it not? Also, that's just part of it: promoting the progress of a nation against reactionaries can be seen as a form of patriotism, wouldn't you agree?

Well, I think patriotism is being loyal to your nation at the expense of your class...essentially a watered-down version of nationalism. That's how I see it...maybe you see it differently, though.

Yehuda Stern

14th December 2009, 16:56

Do I dare ask what the first one is?

Sadly, it's an Israeli song. Otherwise I would've posted it here already. The lyrics are so incredibly bad that it's hard to believe that the "artist" actually tried writing something good.

manic expression

14th December 2009, 20:58

I still haven't seen the video yet, the discussions going on are interesting enough...if I post in here another time I'll make an on-topic comment for a change ;)

The Bolsheviks did support the Turkish national movement on exactly the grounds of national self-determination. This was shortly after the massacres of Armenians, which many from the national movement had been involved in, and shortly before the mass ethnic cleansing, commonly know as population transfer, that happened after the nationalist victory. Oh, it was also at the same time as they were murdering communists.

Yes, I'm aware of that, and I think it was an unfortunate error, although we have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight; the fog of war at the time was immense, so it's hard to fault the Bolsheviks too much when it comes to supporting the Kemalists. After all, Ataturk did a good job of (falsely, of course) portraying himself as a revolutionary to communists in order to get additional support. Further, we mustn't lose sight of the situation at the time: the main pressing question at the moment was whether or not Turkey would exist, or instead be cut up and portioned off to different imperialist powers (as per the Treaty of Sevres, etc.). That's worth bearing in mind when considering this issue. Nevertheless, I still think it was an error.

Manic, the distinction you draw is valid, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. Mao also drew valid distinctions (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch18.htm). But when most people think of "patriotism" they envision flag-waving xenophobes: the notion that people born on a different patch of earth are somehow inferior, or that it's the abstract concept of nationality that is admirable rather than the people. Patriotism can be a powerful motivator for good, of course.I agree, and I hope that revolutionary socialists can change the commonly accepted meaning of "patriotism" to the latter, far away from the former.

Wrong. The idea that Jews are a separate people and therefore can and should have the right for self-determination is what defines Zionism.

Excuse me for indulging in this tangential point: Perhaps that's true on a theoretical level, but what defines Zionism, at least to me, is the fascistic actions of its adherents over the course of its existence. Again, the anti-Tutsi butchers may have said that their ideas were based on the idea that Hutus are a separate people and therefore can and should have the right for self-determination, but that's not exactly what their purpose was.

More Fire for the People

14th December 2009, 21:08

Wrong. The idea that Jews are a separate people and therefore can and should have the right for self-determination is what defines Zionism.

That song is incredibly funny, by the way. Second worst hip hop song I've ever heard.
Jewish self-determination means that the group of folks called Jews aren't harassed into definitions of their humanity by people who would rather steal it. Self-determination does not mean there should be a Jewish state in Palestine nor does it mean that Jews are superior to other residents in Palestine.

Axle

14th December 2009, 21:36

I'm kind of hit by the weirdness of that song...how many "patriots" are really gonna be digging a rap song? A few at best?

And those lyrics are just fucking pro, too. Seriously, way to bring back "Throw your hands in the air like you just don't care"...is it 1989 again?

Pogue

14th December 2009, 21:40

England, England, uber alles...

no? :blushing:

The Red Next Door

15th December 2009, 04:34

IT TIME FOR A CONSERVI**** TUPAC2 :laugh:

Sendo

15th December 2009, 06:12

the colonial outfits remind me of the good old days before slavery was abolished, before universal suffrage, before divorce rights, before integration, before health standards, before civil rights, before unleaded gasoline, before the chinese and mexicans and a-rabs came and took my job.

The USA has become like pre-WW2 Europe. Seriously. Economic disaster, a weak left, moderate governments, and rising, business-supported middle class nationalists bordering on fascism. Just get some Stormtroopers to accompany the tea party and the Fourth Reich can begin.

Robocommie

15th December 2009, 06:23

I don't think there's anything wrong with being proud of being from a particular country or culture, it's okay to be proud of being French, proud of being Italian or Chinese, or American, and it's okay to be proud to be a part of that cultural legacy, like for Americans, Elvis Presley and Walt Whitman and James Baldwin and Eugene Debs and all. I think that's all okay, just so long as you don't think your culture and your country are better than others, because then it becomes chauvinist and you start justifying things like imperialist wars, hardcore competition for resources instead of looking for cooperative solutions, and other non-socialist things.

Devrim

15th December 2009, 10:42

Yes, I'm aware of that, and I think it was an unfortunate error, although we have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight; the fog of war at the time was immense, so it's hard to fault the Bolsheviks too much when it comes to supporting the Kemalists. After all, Ataturk did a good job of (falsely, of course) portraying himself as a revolutionary to communists in order to get additional support. Further, we mustn't lose sight of the situation at the time: the main pressing question at the moment was whether or not Turkey would exist, or instead be cut up and portioned off to different imperialist powers (as per the Treaty of Sevres, etc.). That's worth bearing in mind when considering this issue. Nevertheless, I still think it was an error.

The most pressing question at the time was not one of whether Turkey would exist, but one of world revolution.

The policy of the Comintern on national liberation led to disaster in the revolutionary period. This article goes into details: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html

If it was a 'mistake' it was one that continued in Russian foreign policy. In the 1922 Treaty of Rapell, the Soviet state agreed to supply arms to the Germans, which were later used to shoot down communists and workers. This despite the fact that the German state already had a proven track record of murdering communists.

Devrim

manic expression

15th December 2009, 11:27

Just watched the video. This has to be a joke. It just has to. If it isn't...then...:laugh::laugh::laugh: He has the flow of an aborted fetus. Someone please get him on a stage with a real MC, doesn't even have to be a political rapper...it'll be one for the ages. :laugh:

The most pressing question at the time was not one of whether Turkey would exist, but one of world revolution.

The policy of the Comintern on national liberation led to disaster in the revolutionary period. This article goes into details: http://en.internationalism.org/ir/066_natlib_01.html

If it was a 'mistake' it was one that continued in Russian foreign policy. In the 1922 Treaty of Rapell, the Soviet state agreed to supply arms to the Germans, which were later used to shoot down communists and workers. This despite the fact that the German state already had a proven track record of murdering communists.

Once again, the issue is whether or not we recognize nationality and the importance of the national question at all. In opposition to Karl Marx's clearest statements, ultra-lefts do not. That is fine, I suppose, and if harping about "world revolution", as if you're the only one to have figured that out already, is any consolation for going against the Manifesto then you're more than welcome.

In 1922 the Soviet Union was on the brink of complete exhaustion, if not collapse, and was not in the condition to be puritanical about anything. The USSR had barely any industry left from the little industry that existed before the Revolution, and just as importantly the German Revolution had been defeated and you know this as well as I do. If you want to make believe and think 1919-1922 never happened, and that Germany was frozen in time as Berlin and Munich established revolutionary governments, then that's your prerogative. By the way, I find your manufactured concern for communists, most of whom you would likely consider "bourgeois" due to your position on the national question, to be suspect at best.

Hoggy_RS

15th December 2009, 12:43

Leftism is whack yo, conservatism is for gangstas fool.

Devrim

15th December 2009, 14:55

In 1922 the Soviet Union was on the brink of complete exhaustion, if not collapse, and was not in the condition to be puritanical about anything. The USSR had barely any industry left from the little industry that existed before the Revolution, and just as importantly the German Revolution had been defeated and you know this as well as I do. If you want to make believe and think 1919-1922 never happened, and that Germany was frozen in time as Berlin and Munich established revolutionary governments, then that's your prerogative. By the way, I find your manufactured concern for communists, most of whom you would likely consider "bourgeois" due to your position on the national question, to be suspect at best.

The German revolution had been defeated by 1922, but that doesn't mean that revolutionaries should supply the state with arms to murder communists and workers.

Also though it may be true that this is clear in hindsight. I don't think that people realised at the time.

I don't think that the concern is at all 'manufactured' as you put it. We have certainly never said that individual communist militants are 'bourgeois'. We have said that political organisations are bourgeois, but that is certainl ynot the way we described the KPD in 1922, opportunist, yes, but not bourgeois. Even with that said, a party like the US democrat Party is an obviously bourgeois party. I don't think concern with US workers who were members of that party and murdered by the police during a strike would be 'manufactured'. Ironically though, I wouldn't have been surprised if the majority of German communists in the early 1920s had agreed with our position, which is derived from Luxemborg's. When the KAPD was expelled in 1920, it took according to hostile writers, at least half of the party with it.

Once again, the issue is whether or not we recognize nationality and the importance of the national question at all. In opposition to Karl Marx's clearest statements, ultra-lefts do not. That is fine, I suppose, and if harping about "world revolution", as if you're the only one to have figured that out already, is any consolation for going against the Manifesto then you're more than welcome.

In 1920, the world revolution didn't seem like it was an impossibility. People believed it to be a very possible thing. There was a class movement in Turkey, and it was opposed to the national movement. To me it is clear which one communists should have been supporting.

Devrim

manic expression

15th December 2009, 15:26

The German revolution had been defeated by 1922, but that doesn't mean that revolutionaries should supply the state with arms to murder communists and workers.

I see that you failed to comprehend any of what I have so far written. When the world revolves around your personal preferences, I'll let you know. Until then, socialist revolutions must be pragmatic before puritanical; what, do you really think the German bourgeoisie would have had trouble getting weapons from another source? Are you really that misled?

I don't think that the concern is at all 'manufactured' as you put it. We have certainly never said that individual communist militants are 'bourgeois'.You call communists here "bourgeois" all the time, communists who essentially share the same views as many members and leaders of the German Revolution.

Ironically though, I wouldn't have been surprised if the majority of German communists in the early 1920s had agreed with our position, which is derived from Luxemborg's. When the KAPD was expelled in 1920, it took according to hostile writers, at least half of the party with it.You can pretend that Luxemburg was a left-communist all you like, even when you can scarcely define when your tendency began, but the fact of the matter is that Luxemburg was an ally of Lenin in the 2nd International, and the two leaders were very much in the same camp before, during and after WWI.

In 1920, the world revolution didn't seem like it was an impossibility. People believed it to be a very possible thing. There was a class movement in Turkey, and it was opposed to the national movement. To me it is clear which one communists should have been supporting.World revolution is a possible thing today, but that doesn't mean that the immediate questions of the day shouldn't be engaged and answered. What you're doing is saying that since world revolution is possible, we shouldn't care about imperialist ambitions, we shouldn't worry ourselves with the pressing issues of the day, we shouldn't fret over national self-determination for anyone and we most assuredly shouldn't bother with anything less than world revolution. That is no way to further the cause of revolution. Once again, we see that your "focus" is so specific as to be meaningless.

Every war has individual battles, and every battle has a multitude of maneuvers and marches and strategic concerns that set the stage before the first rifle is loaded, and every battle has specific and distinguishable actions and phases that come to define it, and that's all before we talk about issues such as manpower and material. My point? If you refuse to look at class war as an actual war, you won't understand its nuances whatsoever.

Devrim

15th December 2009, 18:12

You call communists here "bourgeois" all the time, communists who essentially share the same views as many members and leaders of the German Revolution.

Please find an example. I call organisations and ideas bourgeois. I don't use it about individuals on here because I don't think it would have any meaning. I am not saying that I have never done it. People make typos, but I doubt it.

You can pretend that Luxemburg was a left-communist all you like, even when you can scarcely define when your tendency began, but the fact of the matter is that Luxemburg was an ally of Lenin in the 2nd International, and the two leaders were very much in the same camp before, during and after WWI.

Again you seem to be under some misimpression because I don't claim that Luxemburg was a left communist. I don't really see what you point is here. Luxemburg was opposed to Lenin's position on national liberation and his theories on imperialism. She was allied to him in the 2nd international, but then so were all of the people who later became left communists. Read Lenin's comments on Karl Horner (Pannokeok) or Bordiga from that period. The majority of the German party in 1920 were left communists though and that's why they were expelled. Also Luxemburg's ideas on the national question were quite widespread in what remained of the German party. I don't think it is an exaggeration to presume that the majority of German communists had a similar view to ours on the national question in 1920.

World revolution is a possible thing today, but that doesn't mean that the immediate questions of the day shouldn't be engaged and answered.

World revolution is possible today, but not imenantly as it was in 1920. The question then was were you for the revolution or against it. The nationalist movement in Turkey was against it, which they showed by persecuting and murdering communists with guns supplied by Moscow.

What you're doing is saying that since world revolution is possible, we shouldn't care about imperialist ambitions, we shouldn't worry ourselves with the pressing issues of the day, we shouldn't fret over national self-determination for anyone and we most assuredly shouldn't bother with anything less than world revolution.

But supporting the Kemalists basically played into the imperialists hands as as soon as they had what they wanted they switched their allegiance to the Western powers, and as we all know ended up as staunch backers of NATO, and incidentally a barbaric power oppressing their own national minorities.

Devrim

manic expression

15th December 2009, 18:21

Please find an example. I call organisations and ideas bourgeois. I don't use it about individuals on here because I don't think it would have any meaning. I am not saying that I have never done it. People make typos, but I doubt it.

You said "we", and thus I said "you" in the plural: Leo just called my perspective "bourgeois" on the Ocalan thread.

Again you seem to be under some misimpression because I don't claim that Luxemburg was a left communist. I don't really see what you point is here. Luxemburg was opposed to Lenin's position on national liberation and his theories on imperialism. She was allied to him in the 2nd international, but then so were all of the people who later became left communists. Read Lenin's comments on Karl Horner (Pannokeok) or Bordiga from that period. The majority of the German party in 1920 were left communists though and that's why they were expelled. Also Luxemburg's ideas on the national question were quite widespread in what remained of the German party. I don't think it is an exaggeration to presume that the majority of German communists had a similar view to ours on the national question in 1920.

Ironically though, I wouldn't have been surprised if the majority of German communists in the early 1920s had agreed with our position, which is derived from Luxemborg's.

Disagreement on the national question does not a tendency make, and it doesn't make left-communism the inheritor of Luxemburg's legacy: her legacy was forged in the conflicts within the 2nd International and the German Revolution, and Lenin was her ally in both.

World revolution is possible today, but not imenantly as it was in 1920. The question then was were you for the revolution or against it. The nationalist movement in Turkey was against it, which they showed by persecuting and murdering communists with guns supplied by Moscow.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't change the fact that when it came to Turkey, the most pressing and immediate concern WAS the existence of Turkey itself, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of wishful thinking. Again, wars are made of battles, and battles are made of maneuvers, while maneuvers are affected by a number of other factors.

But supporting the Kemalists basically played into the imperialists hands as as soon as they had what they wanted they switched their allegiance to the Western powers, and as we all know ended up as staunch backers of NATO, and incidentally a barbaric power oppressing their own national minorities.

I've touched on this thoroughly before, especially in my first post.

Devrim

15th December 2009, 20:03

Please find an example. I call organisations and ideas bourgeois. I don't use it about individuals on here because I don't think it would have any meaning. I am not saying that I have never done it. People make typos, but I doubt it.You said "we", and thus I said "you" in the plural: Leo just called my perspective "bourgeois" on the Ocalan thread.

I don't think that it was that difficult a sentence to understand. Of course workers can have bourgeois perspectives. That doesn't make them bourgeois themselves. The dominant ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class. As I said I don't think we call communists on here bourgeois.

Disagreement on the national question does not a tendency make, and it doesn't make left-communism the inheritor of Luxemburg's legacy: her legacy was forged in the conflicts within the 2nd International and the German Revolution, and Lenin was her ally in both.

Along with all of what later became the left communists. I don't even get your point here. Of course we don't claim to be the 'inheritors of some legacy' or other. The left communists position on national liberation though is based on Luxemburg's work.

World revolution is possible today, but not imenantly as it was in 1920. The question then was were you for the revolution or against it. The nationalist movement in Turkey was against it, which they showed by persecuting and murdering communists with guns supplied by Moscow.Perhaps not, but it doesn't change the fact that when it came to Turkey, the most pressing and immediate concern WAS the existence of Turkey itself, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of wishful thinking.

I really don't understand why the existence of Turkey was 'the most pressing and immediate concern' to the working class. I can understand why it was to the Turkish nationalists, but not to the working class.

Why, for example, was the existance of a Kurdish or Armenian state not 'the most pressing and immediate concern'? What we ended up with was massacres of up to 360,000 Greeks and ethnic cleansing of about 1,500,000. Added to this should be the the brutal crushing of three large scale Kurdish rebellions and the following ethnic cleansing in the 1920s and 1930s, the Saikh Said Rebellion in 1925 the Ararat revolt in 1930 and the Dersim Revolt in 1938.

Of course one could argue that these events couldn't have been foreseen. However, this argument would stand up a little more if the Turkish nationalists hadn't just massacred up to 1,500,000 Armenians and up to 750,000 Assyrians.

So please explain to us why Turkish national rights, and let's be clear, this included the 'right' to massacre non-Turks, were more important than those of the Armenians and Kurds, whose national rights, ironically enough, you are supporting now.

Devrim