Pro-American Socialism?

[thriller]

I talk to people at my school and around my community about socialism and it's importance. Since I live in a progressive city, not many people are totally freaked out by socialism, but also don't seem to have an accurate understanding of it either.
Many people, when I'm talking to them, point to European countries such as Sweden and Norway as "socialist". Obviously, I interject and give examples of how they are still capitalist (maybe not PURE capitalist) economies. The reason why I bring up the "Scandinavian example" here is because a lot of people I talk to about wanting "European socialism" are not anti-American. They feel the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are good for society and needed. So here is my question:
Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government? Can one be pro-American and pro-socialist?
I don't see how this possible, but as always, I could be wrong.
Any tips on how to talk to people about ending the U.S. system without freaking the other person out would be great, thanks.

[ed miliband]

We're all "pro-American" in the sense that we are for the American working class. In any other sense? No.

[Rooster]

Give them a copy of Atlas Shrugged. They'll get so bored with it that the only alternative would be for them to become socialist.

Seriously though, I'm not sure how you could tie in American nationalism with socialist ideas of internationalism and the removal of the class and capitalist system. Just explain to them that it's a game of us and them, working people against the big corporate fat cats.

[craigd89]

Give them a copy of Atlas Shrugged. They'll get so bored with it that the only alternative would be for them to become socialist.

Seriously though, I'm not sure how you could tie in American nationalism with socialist ideas of internationalism and the removal of the class and capitalist system. Just explain to them that it's a game of us and them, working people against the big corporate fat cats.I see nothing wrong with being patriotic and socialist...

[Jimmie Higgins]

I talk to people at my school and around my community about socialism and it's importance. Since I live in a progressive city, not many people are totally freaked out by socialism, but also don't seem to have an accurate understanding of it either.
Many people, when I'm talking to them, point to European countries such as Sweden and Norway as "socialist". Obviously, I interject and give examples of how they are still capitalist (maybe not PURE capitalist) economies. The reason why I bring up the "Scandinavian example" here is because a lot of people I talk to about wanting "European socialism" are not anti-American. They feel the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are good for society and needed. So here is my question:
Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government? Can one be pro-American and pro-socialist?
I don't see how this possible, but as always, I could be wrong.
Any tips on how to talk to people about ending the U.S. system without freaking the other person out would be great, thanks.

Semi idol-worship of certain US institutions and documents is pretty typical of US liberals. Frankly from my perspective, the Declaration of Independence is a good historical document, but it has no bearing on the US Government so it's kind of a non-issue. It will probably be kept safe by the revolutionary working class and put in a history museum along with artifacts from other bourgeois revolutions.

The Constitution is the one that liberals have illusions in and a quick way to put the Bill of Rights into context is when they ask if we'll still have that is to ask them if they think a Bill of Rights that didn't recognize rights for Blacks, Women, and people without land-ownership is really worth preserving as law?

For a more detailed picture, I'd recommend checking out what Howard Zinn has to say about the Constitution in "A People's History of the US". He says despite the claims of it's right-protection powers and so on, it's actually pretty reactionary and the Bill of Rights was basically to try and get popular support for a slew of things that the rich merchants and landowners wanted:


Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.


Zinn argues that because of both trade problems and a series of farmer-rebellions, the ruling class needed to figure out a better way to rule and that is the source of the US Constitution:


In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that representative government was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes. These disputes came from "the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." The problem, he said, was how to control the factional struggles that came from inequalities in wealth. Minority factions could be controlled, he said, by the principle that decisions would be by vote of the majority.

So the real problem, according to Madison, was a majority faction, and here the solution was offered by the Constitution, to have "an extensive republic," that is, a large nation ranging over thirteen states, for then "it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.... The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."


When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.

Zinn gives evidence for this by going through the Bill of Rights and showing how the "popular" elements are always questioned and never full put into place (freedom of speech, for example - how do Red Scares, McCarthyism, the Patriot Act, Sedition Act and so on fit into that) whereas the economic aspects of the Constitution are never up for debate in the Supreme Court.


The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest hiding behind innocence. Passed in 1791 by Congress, it provided that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . ." Yet, seven years after the First Amendment became part of the Constitution, Congress passed a law very clearly abridging the freedom of speech.

There was a legal basis for this, one known to legal experts, but not to the ordinary American, who would read the First Amendment and feel confident that he or she was protected in the exercise of free speech. That basis has been explained by historian Leonard Levy. Levy points out that it was generally understood (not in the population, but in higher circles) that, despite the First Amendment, the British common law of "seditious libel" still ruled in America. This meant that while the government could not exercise "prior restraint"-that is, prevent an utterance or publication in advance-it could legally punish the speaker or writer afterward. Thus, Congress has a convenient legal basis for the laws it has enacted since that time, making certain kinds of speech a crime. And, since punishment after the fact is an excellent deterrent to the exercise of free expression, the claim of "no prior restraint" itself is destroyed. This leaves the First Amendment much less than the stone wall of protection it seems at first glance.



One of these tax laws was the Whiskey tax, which especially hurt small farmers who raised grain that they converted into whiskey and then sold. In 1794 the farmers of western Pennsylvania took up arms and rebelled against the collection of this tax. Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton led the troops to put them down. We see then, in the first years of the Constitution, that some of its provisions-even those paraded most flamboyantly (like the First Amendment)-might be treated lightly. Others (like the power to tax) would be powerfully enforced.

[bailey_187]

theres some socialists who say the US constitution or whatever document should have new parts added about workers control/public ownership

theres one member here who's name starts with mike i think, IIRC he advocates such. hopefully he will come to the thread

[Jimmie Higgins]

theres some socialists who say the US constitution or whatever document should have new parts added about workers control/public ownership

theres one member here who's name starts with mike i think, IIRC he advocates such. hopefully he will come to the threadYeah I'd be interested to hear the argument about that.

I don't know - from my perspective, it's not a holy document - if workers want to create a new Bill of Rights I think that'd be fine and might be really good: it could keep the rights that people do want from the Bill of Rights such as a more unequivocal freedom of speech and add the new rights we'd need to have guaranteed like the right to strike and right to basic necessities like food, home, etc.

In my view, the constitution and Bill of Rights were created for a specific historical circumstance by specific sets of people and the interests they represented. A society built on a new basis and run cooperatively and democratically in production and governance would have different needs and different priorities than those of a handful of slave-owners, merchants, and lawyers from 230 years ago.

[thriller]

Semi idol-worship of certain US institutions and documents is pretty typical of US liberals. Frankly from my perspective, the Declaration of Independence is a good historical document, but it has no bearing on the US Government so it's kind of a non-issue. It will probably be kept safe by the revolutionary working class and put in a history museum along with artifacts from other bourgeois revolutions.


While I disagree with the Declaration of Independence being worth preserving, thanks for the Zinn recommendation.

[FreeFocus]

I saw a few months ago Democracy Now! had a special in 2000 with some people from the WWP I believe. They spoke of a farmers-workers coalition coming to power and the first plan of action being a new Constitution.

To answer the OP, no. Buying into American mythology is antithetical towards the project of human liberation.

[skizzy]

I wouldn't consider my self anti american. I don't dislike anyone for their personal beliefs. I just wish people would re-evaluate where they stand on things and not just buy in to the system we have currently. I dislike how the country is ran, but I hope for the best.

[DuracellBunny97]

Socialism is to the bennefit of everyone, so anyone who wants socialism for america, is a pro-american socialist, because you want to better America. I hardly think the likes of Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky are overtly anti-American, even though they may not like the condition America is in.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the case can be made for invoking and popularize specific socialistic figures as "American heroes" each time American socialists try to promote their version(s) of socialism.

Invoke the likes of Daniel De Leon and Eugene Debs, for example, but I'm sure there are other "heroes" from the days before the Civil War to more reformist-oriented pacifists like Einstein and MLK Jr.

[TC]

So here is my question:
Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government? Can one be pro-American and pro-socialist?

Perhaps the more meaningful question is - can one be pro-American without wanting the destruction of the U.S. government.

The U.S. Constitution requires equal protection, prevents unwarranted searches, requires due process, freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, vests declare war powers in congress not the president, was not designed for the vast executive authority and agencies of the White House or the use of the Commander in Chief clause to justify unreviewable dictatorial powers during undeclared "war" times...

...none of this is currently being enforced.

The U.S. constitution is a a left-liberal document that protects both capitalist property rights with elements like the takings clause, and egalitarian concerns like in the 14th amendment...

It is not really compatible with either the U.S. government or a socialist government.

[9]

We're all "pro-American" in the sense that we are for the American working class.
But there is no "American working class". You know, "workers have no country" and all that. There is certainly an American capitalist class, however, and that is what "pro-American" generally refers to.



Seriously though, I'm not sure how you could tie in American nationalism with socialist ideas of internationalism and the removal of the class and capitalist system.

You can't.

[Ocean Seal]

I talk to people at my school and around my community about socialism and it's importance. Since I live in a progressive city, not many people are totally freaked out by socialism, but also don't seem to have an accurate understanding of it either.
Many people, when I'm talking to them, point to European countries such as Sweden and Norway as "socialist". Obviously, I interject and give examples of how they are still capitalist (maybe not PURE capitalist) economies. The reason why I bring up the "Scandinavian example" here is because a lot of people I talk to about wanting "European socialism" are not anti-American. They feel the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are good for society and needed. So here is my question:
Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government? Can one be pro-American and pro-socialist?
I don't see how this possible, but as always, I could be wrong.
Any tips on how to talk to people about ending the U.S. system without freaking the other person out would be great, thanks.
I don't see any problem with keeping the US constitution, in part because we are allowed to amend it beyond recognition :laugh:.

[Kléber]

We communists are the real heirs to the 1776 struggle against feudalism and foreign domination, and the revolutionary 1861 struggle against slavery. Since then, capitalism ceased to be a progressive revolutionary system and became a reactionary imperialist system. The bourgeois USA abandoned its position as one of the most revolutionary nations and became one of the most reactionary: spreading war, exploitation, misery, imperialism, fundamentalism and bigotry around the globe. This present imperialist monstrosity they call a "democracy" is a disgrace to the flag which fluttered over revolutionary battalions that long ago smashed the monarchist and slaveowner armies. The US Army which once saluted Washington and Lincoln now flies around the world, hunting down and murdering new Washingtons and Lincolns. As for the Constitution, if it can't be amended to suit the proletariat then it should torn up, or put away in a museum. The important point is that a socialist revolution might supersede such a document, not because Jefferson protected liberties we seek to abolish, but because we seek to create an even freer and better society than the bourgeois founders of the US could possibly have imagined.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

The American government as it is is something that must be abolished. It is absolutely anti-working class(and hypocritical) to say you support their struggles, but also wish to uphold the government which slaughters their fellow workers all over the world for profits which fall into the pockets of the American Capitialist class(the enemies of the workers you claim to support). It is fucking lunatic to wave the American flag(a flag waved in support of the slaughter of the natives at one point) and yet say you want to fight for the people it oppresses every day.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have little to nothing to do with thr American government, and even if they did, we would not be a Socialist country.

craigd, if you live in America especially, it is absolutely contradictory to be patriotic and support the nation. Supporting it's workers is not patriotic, it's pro-working class(who are no different than workers in other countries and are international). Supporting this nation and its flag and what they stand for/have done(Capitalism and protection of Private Property and genocide/slavery of natives and minorities) is NOT something any true Communist should do.

[FreeFocus]

We communists are the real heirs to the 1776 struggle against feudalism and foreign domination, and the revolutionary 1861 struggle against slavery. Since then, capitalism ceased to be a progressive revolutionary system and became a reactionary imperialist system. The bourgeois USA abandoned its position as one of the most revolutionary nations and became one of the most reactionary: spreading war, exploitation, misery, imperialism, fundamentalism and bigotry around the globe. This present imperialist monstrosity they call a "democracy" is a disgrace to the flag which fluttered over revolutionary battalions that long ago smashed the monarchist and slaveowner armies. The US Army which once saluted Washington and Lincoln now flies around the world, hunting down and murdering new Washingtons and Lincolns. As for the Constitution, if it can't be amended to suit the proletariat then it should torn up, or put away in a museum. The important point is that a socialist revolution might supersede such a document, not because Jefferson protected liberties we seek to abolish, but because we seek to create an even freer and better society than the bourgeois founders of the US could possibly have imagined.

This is some real (in my opinion, dystopic) romanticization about American history. I guess this is what a "Pro-American socialism" sounds like, where we exalt Washington (a slaveowner, Indian killer and aristocrat/capitalist) and Lincoln (another Indian killer and capitalist) and talking about carrying on their revolutions. :rolleyes:

We can establish socialism without buying into American exceptionalism.

[synthesis]

I talk to people at my school and around my community about socialism and it's importance. Since I live in a progressive city, not many people are totally freaked out by socialism, but also don't seem to have an accurate understanding of it either.
Many people, when I'm talking to them, point to European countries such as Sweden and Norway as "socialist". Obviously, I interject and give examples of how they are still capitalist (maybe not PURE capitalist) economies. The reason why I bring up the "Scandinavian example" here is because a lot of people I talk to about wanting "European socialism" are not anti-American. They feel the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are good for society and needed. So here is my question:
Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government? Can one be pro-American and pro-socialist?
I don't see how this possible, but as always, I could be wrong.
Any tips on how to talk to people about ending the U.S. system without freaking the other person out would be great, thanks.

I think the best (i.e. most efficient and least counter-productive) way to go about this is to invoke many famous Americans who were or became at least somewhat sympathetic to some definition of socialism, such as those listed by Die Neue Zeit; learn a couple quotes or ideas espoused by MLK or Einstein towards the end of their lives. There's a good list of Americans sympathetic to socialism I used to have bookmarked awhile back; I'll post it here if I can find it.

Also...


Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government?

Unfortunately, no. You don't have to bring this up right away, however.

[Kléber]

The American government as it is is something that must be abolished. It is absolutely anti-working class(and hypocritical) to say you support their struggles, but also wish to uphold the government which slaughters their fellow workers all over the world for profits which fall into the pockets of the American Capitialist class(the enemies of the workers you claim to support).
Is this directed at me? Today, a socialist revolution will indeed require that the bourgeois imperialist government of the US be utterly smashed and replaced with a new power based on the revolutionary-democratic organizations of the working class.

That does not mean we must abandon the anti-colonial traditions of the American Revolution to American neocolonialism; on the contrary, we say to the teabaggers and Christian fundamentalists: we are the real revolutionaries! You are not Washingtons and Paines for a new era, you are just a bunch of paranoid, racist has-beens!

Nor should we surrender the legacy of the revolutionary struggle against slavery in the US Civil War to today's bourgeois liberal weaklings, who claim the political heritage of Lincoln and Garrison while selling us down the river into a new dark age of industrial slavery at the hands of the same international finance aristocracy which once funded and armed the Confederacy.


This is some real (in my opinion, dystopic) romanticization about American history. I guess this is what a "Pro-American socialism" sounds like, where we exalt Washington (a slaveowner, Indian killer and aristocrat/capitalist) and Lincoln (another Indian killer and capitalist) and talking about carrying on their revolutions. :rolleyes:
As for the slaveowner part, that's a good point but the American bourgeois revolution was incomplete until the abolition of slavery. Under Washington it did however abolish feudal titles and privileges so calling him an aristocrat is irrelevant.

You are very right about US massacres of indigenous communities, however. Even in its brightest, revolutionary phase, the bourgeoisie's hands were drenched in the blood of colonized and enslaved peoples. Capitalism was nevertheless a more productive and rational economic system than feudalism and slavery.


We can establish socialism without buying into American exceptionalism.
I don't see what is exceptional about it. I don't think Lincoln was any more revolutionary than Cromwell, Robespierre, Louverture or Juárez.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the case can be made for invoking and popularize specific socialistic figures as "American heroes" each time American socialists try to promote their version(s) of socialism.

Invoke the likes of Daniel De Leon and Eugene Debs, for example, but I'm sure there are other "heroes" from the days before the Civil War to more reformist-oriented pacifists like Einstein and MLK Jr.

Yeah I think highlighting the struggles and history of the US radical movement is a great way to counter some of the popular assumptions of radical politics in the US. The 8 hour day, the IWW, Debs, the Panthers all counter the idea that radical politics are somehow "alien" to the "American character".

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Is this directed at me? Today, a socialist revolution will indeed require that the bourgeois imperialist government of the US be utterly smashed and replaced with a new power based on the revolutionary-democratic organizations of the working class.

That does not mean we must abandon the anti-colonial traditions of the American Revolution to American neocolonialism; on the contrary, we say to the teabaggers and Christian fundamentalists: we are the real revolutionaries! You are not Washingtons and Paines for a new era, you are just a bunch of paranoid, racist has-beens!

Nor should we surrender the legacy of the revolutionary struggle against slavery in the US Civil War to today's bourgeois liberal weaklings, who claim the political heritage of Lincoln and Garrison while selling us down the river into a new dark age of industrial slavery at the hands of the same international finance aristocracy which once funded and armed the Confederacy.
My post was not aimed at you, but I could see where you would think that.

Yes, the American Reolution of 1776 was progressive for its time, and, indeed, a necessary revolution in the process of history to lead to Socialism. However, we are definitely not new Lincolns or Washingtons.

Our revolution, like theirs, is to demolish the former society. We cannot do this if we hold on to ''traditions'' which uphold slaveowners, racists, classists and sexists as historical heroes(no matter how progressive they were for their time). Yes, the break from Monarchism and the abolition of slavery were great steps forward, but now it's time to relinquish the new oppessions created by these so-called heroes. We can no longer uphold them as idols, but must see them and those who carry on their banners as obstacles in the way of the new oppressed classes.

Also, wasn't Lincoln racist as fuck? I can't provide links because I am currently on a not-so-smart phone, but I remember reading this somewhere. Or am I getting him mixed up with someone else? Anyways, from what I understand, he wanted America to be African-less. He didn't particularly like the slaves he freed. If someone has links or can correct me if I am mistaken that'd be great.

My point is, just because both they and us were/are revolutionary for our respectful times doesn't mean we should be seen in the same light at them. We should be seen as something completely new, which simply holds on to the progress created by the previous revolution only so much as is actually progressive in our times and destroying the rest(the majority) of their now-rightly-deemed oppressive ideas.

[Rocky Rococo]

Helen Keller, and Honus Wagner.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There was a thread on this general subject recently. I posted my thoughts there: http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-cult-personality-t138822/index.html

[craigd89]

The American government as it is is something that must be abolished. It is absolutely anti-working class(and hypocritical) to say you support their struggles, but also wish to uphold the government which slaughters their fellow workers all over the world for profits which fall into the pockets of the American Capitialist class(the enemies of the workers you claim to support). It is fucking lunatic to wave the American flag(a flag waved in support of the slaughter of the natives at one point) and yet say you want to fight for the people it oppresses every day.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have little to nothing to do with thr American government, and even if they did, we would not be a Socialist country.

craigd, if you live in America especially, it is absolutely contradictory to be patriotic and support the nation. Supporting it's workers is not patriotic, it's pro-working class(who are no different than workers in other countries and are international). Supporting this nation and its flag and what they stand for/have done(Capitalism and protection of Private Property and genocide/slavery of natives and minorities) is NOT something any true Communist should do.

Just because I call consider myself an American and I like living in America doesn't mean I view myself as better or superior to the french worker, korean worker, chinese worker, south african worker, russian worker, etc.. since we are all on or should be on the same side....plus anti-american rhetoric and flag burning makes it harder to attract most working class americans....

[FreeFocus]

Just because I call consider myself an American and I like living in America doesn't mean I view myself as better or superior to the french worker, korean worker, chinese worker, south african worker, russian worker, etc.. since we are all on or should be on the same side....plus anti-american rhetoric and flag burning makes it harder to attract most working class americans....

Anti-racist rhetoric makes it harder to attract most working class racists. lol wut? That line of argument would be silly, as is your's. Whose mentality has to change, the mentality of someone who supports imperialism, or the mentality of someone criticizing and fighting these things? I think it's the former.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Just because I call consider myself an American and I like living in America doesn't mean I view myself as better or superior to the french worker, korean worker, chinese worker, south african worker, russian worker, etc.. since we are all on or should be on the same side....plus anti-american rhetoric and flag burning makes it harder to attract most working class americans....
What makes an American worker different than a worker in another country? Just the name? If so, why even bother to categorize yourself as such? Are you proud to be an American?

And refer to the post by FreeFocus for the other half of what you said.

[Meridian]

Many people, when I'm talking to them, point to European countries such as Sweden and Norway as "socialist". Obviously, I interject and give examples of how they are still capitalist (maybe not PURE capitalist) economies.
If there are 'pure' capitalist countries, Sweden and Norway are among them. Capitalism requires a state to protect the interest of the upper class.

[Alishah]

I talk to people at my school and around my community about socialism and it's importance. Since I live in a progressive city, not many people are totally freaked out by socialism, but also don't seem to have an accurate understanding of it either.
Many people, when I'm talking to them, point to European countries such as Sweden and Norway as "socialist". Obviously, I interject and give examples of how they are still capitalist (maybe not PURE capitalist) economies. The reason why I bring up the "Scandinavian example" here is because a lot of people I talk to about wanting "European socialism" are not anti-American. They feel the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution are good for society and needed. So here is my question:
Is it possible to want socialism, but not the destruction of the U.S. government? Can one be pro-American and pro-socialist?
I don't see how this possible, but as always, I could be wrong.
Any tips on how to talk to people about ending the U.S. system without freaking the other person out would be great, thanks.

IMHO, I think you should read blogs/books regarding socialism as their are vary degrees of socialism, just like their are different sects in a religion. (I know its my first post but just wanted to share this with u as the whole situation about socialism is very complicated)

[craigd89]

Anti-racist rhetoric makes it harder to attract most working class racists. lol wut? That line of argument would be silly, as is your's. Whose mentality has to change, the mentality of someone who supports imperialism, or the mentality of someone criticizing and fighting these things? I think it's the former.?? I forgot all americans are racist??? What does anti-american have to do with anti-racism? So if you call yourself an american you automatically support every action your government takes??? I'm not into all the silly flag burning its counter-productive.. and leftists can use patriotism to their advantage to attract the working class right-wingers who are either too stupid or oblivious to why things are the way they are. How do you plan on igniting a worldwide workers revolution when the workers in your own country aren't even class conscious.

[craigd89]

What makes an American worker different than a worker in another country? Just the name? If so, why even bother to categorize yourself as such? Are you proud to be an American?

And refer to the post by FreeFocus for the other half of what you said.What makes a french worker different then a english workers?.. they have their own language, culture, and traditions.. I think its silly to say in a a socialist or communist society somehow all these different cultures will disappear.. Just because the German worker might be proud to be German or the Chinese worker might be proud to be Chinese does not mean they do not view each other as equals. I don't understand why patriotism and capitalism automatically go hand in hand...considering capitalists could care less about any culture including their own..their culture is money and profit.

[jinx92]

What makes a french worker different then a english workers?.. they have their own language, culture, and traditions.. I think its silly to say in a a socialist or communist society somehow all these different cultures will disappear.. Just because the German worker might be proud to be German or the Chinese worker might be proud to be Chinese does not mean they do not view each other as equals. I don't understand why patriotism and capitalism automatically go hand in hand...considering capitalists could care less about any culture including their own..their culture is money and profit.

Culture is a product of the societal conditions of a particular people. Cultures will change, and maybe even merge, in a marxist world, because the conditions would radically change and be more similar between different parts of the world. The only union I see between patriotism and socialism is national liberation movements.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

?? I forgot all americans are racist??? What does anti-american have to do with anti-racism? So if you call yourself an american you automatically support every action your government takes??? I'm not into all the silly flag burning its counter-productive.. and leftists can use patriotism to their advantage to attract the working class right-wingers who are either too stupid or oblivious to why things are the way they are. How do you plan on igniting a worldwide workers revolution when the workers in your own country aren't even class conscious.
I think the point FreeFocus is trying to make is, if it's okay to use patriotism as a way to get the American working class to join us, couldn't one argue that using racism is a good way to attract the working class racists? Patriotism is not something that can go hand-in-hand with internationalism either. Many middle-American working class people are homophobic. Should we tell them we agree or just sweep that issue under the rug?



What makes a french worker different then a english workers?.. they have their own language, culture, and traditions.. I think its silly to say in a a socialist or communist society somehow all these different cultures will disappear.. Just because the German worker might be proud to be German or the Chinese worker might be proud to be Chinese does not mean they do not view each other as equals. I don't understand why patriotism and capitalism automatically go hand in hand...considering capitalists could care less about any culture including their own..their culture is money and profit.
Yes, those traditions will disappear. Using one's nationality to define oneself is something that will by all means go away.

If we keep the patriotism among the workers, what do you think they will do when it comes down to war and they have to choose between supporting the international working class as a whole or their nation which they are so proud to be a part of?

[ZeroNowhere]

theres some socialists who say the US constitution or whatever document should have new parts added about workers control/public ownership

theres one member here who's name starts with mike i think, IIRC he advocates such. hopefully he will come to the thread
You're probably referring to Mike Lepore (username: mikelepore)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, that's his buddy Dave Searles (similar username).