National Flags

[Susurrus]

Will they have a place in the new society, if only for a geographical purpose?


Also, I've noticed that in the US the socialists used to fly US flags as well as red ones, something that continues in rallies in other places in the world. Is this appropriate, if only to intrigue curious conservatives and give us a chance to explain ourselves to them?

[thefinalmarch]

Will they have a place in the new society, if only for a geographical purpose?
What geographical purpose do they even serve today? Do I actually need to see a national flag to be reminded of what country I'm visiting, or which I reside in?

The answer is no. The only practical purpose they serve is that of a toilet paper substitute.

[Veovis]

Also, I've noticed that in the US the socialists used to fly US flags as well as red ones, something that continues in rallies in other places in the world. Is this appropriate, if only to intrigue curious conservatives and give us a chance to explain ourselves to them?

In the U.S. you don't get anywhere if you don't outwardly show patriotism. Remember the flap a few years ago because Obama was caught without a U.S. flag lapel pin?

[Mac]

Well, I rather like flags, I'm not sure why.

[Susurrus]

I feel there's no real reason not to, the flag is representative of a culture, and the red flag is a symbol of internationalism. The two are not contradictory.

[danyboy27]

i hate nationalism but flags or symbols can be quite useful to simplify logistics and communications.

[Dogs On Acid]

National flags are inherently... Nationalist.

We don't need 'em.

[bietan jarrai]

It serves to represent the country in a simple way; when you see a country's flag you are instantly reminded of it; so I see nothing wrong in using flags to symbolise a cause, a nation or a country.

[Dogs On Acid]

It serves to represent the country in a simple way; when you see a country's flag you are instantly reminded of it; so I see nothing wrong in using flags to symbolise a cause, a nation or a country.

As there are no nations or countries in communism, we don't need them. Causes... sure.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see any problem with using formerly national flags as cultural signifiers, rather than as symbols of particular political formations. A lot don't even have explicitly political connotations now- for every Scottish flag you see being flown in advocacy of a Scottish nation-state, you'll see half a dozen more being flown in advocacy of gettish pished while wearing a plaid skirt.

[bietan jarrai]

As there are no nations or countries in communism, we don't need them. Causes... sure.
I see nothing wrong with patriotism (particularly left-wing patriotism), maybe in a more independentist line of thinking, and I guess the use of a national flag is useful in just that (in a modern society), to represent your country.

[DeBon]

mmm.. undecided.

[Dogs On Acid]

I see nothing wrong with patriotism (particularly left-wing patriotism), maybe in a more independentist line of thinking, and I guess the use of a national flag is useful in just that (in a modern society), to represent your country.

Because our Communist Party is patriotic? Patriotism is not only dangerously slippery to Nationalism, but also creates mild Xenophobia when things aren't so good.

The Portuguese Communist Party's slogans of patriotism are just a method of attracting more Portuguese workers.

I'd much rather they promoted Cultural slogans.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

They just represent a characterizement which one country has.They are also used for countries to be identified easier.

[bietan jarrai]

Because our Communist Party is patriotic? Patriotism is not only dangerously slippery to Nationalism, but also creates mild Xenophobia when things aren't so good.

The Portuguese Communist Party's slogans of patriotism are just a method of attracting more Portuguese workers.

I'd much rather they promoted Cultural slogans.

No, the Communist Party's "slogans" on patriotism are referring to the fact that the past governments and the one we have now are putting our country's and our people's sovereignty behind the interests of the EU and the filthy neo-liberals. Also, see nationalism in Galicia or in the Basque Country. There's nothing xenophobic about it. There's nothing xenophobic about defending national independence and sovereignty. And this language has been used by the Communist Party for a long time. It's not patriotic as in "God bless Portugal, fuck the rest of the world", but "These guys are putting the interests of our country and our people behind the interests of the bank system and the capitalists".

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Will they have a place in the new society, if only for a geographical purpose?


Also, I've noticed that in the US the socialists used to fly US flags as well as red ones, something that continues in rallies in other places in the world. Is this appropriate, if only to intrigue curious conservatives and give us a chance to explain ourselves to them?

I have also wondered about the use of bourgeois-national flags being used or flown by workers during demonstrations and class stuggle. Admittedly I do wave my Iraqi flag but this is done in large part as an demonstration of solidarity with my people and my class as well as being a giant middle finger to Western imperialism. I get the sense that it is silly and perhaps inappropriate but I'm not sure. I think a point could be made that the workingclass are demonstrating that this is our country and we're trying to better our class in said country but I think X bourgeois-national flag should be abandoned outright post-revolution and a new one should be created to represent the new order crushing the old.

[Zealot]

If, in a new society, we were able to reform what a flag represents then it would be ok I guess.

Patriotism has a dangerous tendency to fall into nationalism which is pretty much what it is imo.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

If, in a new society, we were able to reform what a flag represents then it would be ok I guess.

Patriotism has a dangerous tendency to fall into nationalism which is pretty much what it is imo.

I think a distinction should be made here between genuine patriotism and aesthetic illustration.

[Luc]

I think a distinction should be made here between genuine patriotism and aesthetic illustration.

What do you mean by "aesthetic illustration"?:confused:

[ColonelCossack]

I think they're fine for geographical reasons; but that's just my opinion.

[Q]

The socialist world will probably more or less have these flags:

http://www.telesalesmagic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/BeijingRedFlags.JPG

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

What do you mean by "aesthetic illustration"?:confused:

Symbolic illsutration of an idea or position.

For example, the use of a flag not connected to any genuine sense of patriotism but used to express the idea that the proletariat of a given nation are apart of said nation, it is their country (not belonging to the bourgeois) and so forth. Nothing to do with national pride, culture or any sort of thing connected with patriotism.

[Luc]

I'd say no.

Geographically I think they are pointless as nations aren't based on geographical features and if they are changed to do so the flags would be off. Basically the flags represent arbitrary and invisible lines on the map and therefore are aribitrary themselves.

Also when they are symbols of patriotism and nationalism they are anti-international and backward so for patriotism; I say no to.

aesthetic illustration I agree with though. Thanks Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

[Kamos]

Nah, screw the national flags.

[Psy]

I'd say no.

Geographically I think they are pointless as nations aren't based on geographical features and if they are changed to do so the flags would be off. Basically the flags represent arbitrary and invisible lines on the map and therefore are aribitrary themselves.

What about to show jurisdictions of worker authorities? So people can easily tell which worker governmental body is responsible for that area.

[Luc]

What about to show jurisdictions of worker authorities? So people can easily tell which worker governmental body is responsible for that area.

Thats a good point but I don't think we would have the same sizes of nation-states now for the future fedrations or w/e will happen.

In more clearer terms one federation (or worker governmental body) could comprise of the eastcoast of the U.S.A and the eastcoast of Canada therefore breaking the old national borders that corispond to national flags.

I guess we'll just have to see how things end up:lol:

[Tim Cornelis]

I see nothing wrong with patriotism (particularly left-wing patriotism), maybe in a more independentist line of thinking, and I guess the use of a national flag is useful in just that (in a modern society), to represent your country.

Left-wing patriotism is ridiculous. The left ought to be internationalist. I thought this was elementary stuff here, apparently not.

[manic expression]

Left-wing patriotism is ridiculous. The left ought to be internationalist. I thought this was elementary stuff here, apparently not.
One can't be internationalist unless one recognizes and respects distinct nations...including one's own.

[Luc]

One can't be internationalist unless one recognizes and respects distinct nations...including one's own.

What do you mean by "distinct nations"?

[manic expression]

What do you mean by "distinct nations"?
Generally, this (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1):

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

[Luc]

Generally, this (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1):

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

ah, thank you.

now, what do you mean by "respect" and "recognize"? Sorry I should of put this in the other post:lol:

[manic expression]

ah, thank you.

now, what do you mean by "respect" and "recognize"? Sorry I should of put this in the other post:lol:
:) No problem...by that I mean the identification of one nation as its own nation and not another (the "recognize" part) and the defense of the right of nations to self-determination (the "respect" part).

[Tim Cornelis]

Generally, this (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1):

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

How nonsensical. A "nation" is not a "community", a community is a society of directly interacting people. A school can be a community, everyone knows everyone. My language is of nothing but practical use, I do not have a "common economic life" with every resident of my country, only with my family and co-workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_communities

Nationalism is a surrogate for the absence of a real interactive participatory community based on solidarity.

Furthermore, I don't see how it follows from this definition that one has to respect "distinct nations" before being able to be an internationalist. I recognize there are distinct nations and I recognise they need to go. Patriotism and socialism/communism are not compatible.

From this it follows that flags serve no purpose.

The purpose urine serves to a monkey marking his territory is the same as what a flag is to nation. Animalistic, primitive and obsolete.

EDIT:


"the defense of the right of nations to self-determination (the "respect" part)."

Nations do not "self-determine", elites do.

[Luc]

:) No problem...by that I mean the identification of one nation as its own nation and not another (the "recognize" part) and the defense of the right of nations to self-determination (the "respect" part).

thanks for answering!:)

I agree with recogizing nations based on that definition given by comrade File Cabinet (some parts I'm a bit ify on) but I disagree with national self-determination as I don't think a Community could possibly be that big also, soemtimes nations are arbitrary i.e., the U.S.A., Canada, and the UK. We share a common hsitory, language, culture, territory (Canada and the U.S.A atleast), economic life.

But, we remain divided into nation-states (I assume post revolutionary it would just be nations) and within these so-called nations there are many different minorities with their languages, cultures etcetera. Do we consider these people apart from the nation?

Expanding on that should we consider China Town or Little Italy nations because they (the people in them) have a common terriorty, language, culture, economic life?:confused:

[Q]

Expanding on that should we consider China Town or Little Italy nations because they (the people in them) have a common terriorty, language, culture, economic life?:confused:

Zing!

This hits exactly the nail on the head regarding my issue with the Stalin definition. I believe the "checkbox" definition is too rigid, too formalistic. Crucially in understanding what a nation is, is the self-conception of the people constituting itself as one. So, a nation may or may not exist based on a common culture, language, etc. Social factors, history, etc all play a part.

Also Stalin's "checkbox" definition is problematic regarding the future: How are we supposed to overcome nations in communism if we (presumably) still have a diversity of language and culture? This circle cannot be squared with Stalin's concept. It can only be understood within the context of awareness. I.e. the awareness of having a common identity based on culture, language, history, etc can come, but it can also be superseeded by a new identity.

This new identity, a class identity, can only be constructed in the long term on the basis of equality, voluntary unity and respect for each others cultures. This is also why Lenin supported the right of self-determination up to and including independence; not because he propagated disunity, but because only with that freedom could the "prisonhouse of nations" that the Tsarist empire was, remain united under working class rule. And to a large extent this succeeded (that is, besides the Baltic states and Finland, which became independant shortly after the revolution).

In a more modern context, pan-Arab national identity is progressive because it sets out to unite the vast Arabian world, with its 20+ states and 300 million people living in it. As the capitalist class (most famously under Nasser) completely failed in this task, it is up to the working class to complete it, therefore giving this identity a working class content. Nation questions undoubtedly play a part in this issue, but like Lenin we should defend that right of self-determination up to and including independence, but at the same time propagating for the greatest possible unity of the working class, i.e. against disunity if we can. National ruptures are always a concession, never to be desired by communists. And even if the concession is made, we should always propagate the unity, as equals, of both nations.

[manic expression]

thanks for answering!:)

I agree with recogizing nations based on that definition given by comrade File Cabinet (some parts I'm a bit ify on) but I disagree with national self-determination as I don't think a Community could possibly be that big also, soemtimes nations are arbitrary i.e., the U.S.A., Canada, and the UK. We share a common hsitory, language, culture, territory (Canada and the U.S.A atleast), economic life.
Well, don't forget the definition...if we apply it, then the USA isn't just one nation. Blacks, for instance, are a distinct nation because they have an historical experience (the Middle Passage, chattle slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) and common culture that are both distinct, as well as an historically pivotal geographical region (the so-called "Black Belt" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_%28U.S._region%29) that was so important in the formation of the Black identity). Indian peoples, as another example, are a no-brainer...they are clearly formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. They have their own languages, their own cultures (art-forms, etc.) and so on and so forth.

So from that, we can see that the USA is a country but not a single nation...it is a multi-national country, much like Canada and the UK.


But, we remain divided into nation-states (I assume post revolutionary it would just be nations) and within these so-called nations there are many different minorities with their languages, cultures etcetera. Do we consider these people apart from the nation?First, you are precisely right, the revolution will eliminate states but not nations*. Second, we consider those minorities their own distinct nations, and as progressives we promote the self-determination of these peoples.

* On edit, to quote Marx in the Manifesto, "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."


Expanding on that should we consider China Town or Little Italy nations because they (the people in them) have a common terriorty, language, culture, economic life?:confused:Good point...those are immigrant communities, which aren't nations onto themselves but communities that include one or many nationalities living in another country. NYC's Chinatown, at least for most of the 20th Century, was composed primarily of Cantonese (IIRC), and so we can count it at least partially as a Cantonese community living in the United States. The same goes for, say, El Salvadorean or Hmong communities.

[manic expression]

How nonsensical. A "nation" is not a "community", a community is a society of directly interacting people. A school can be a community, everyone knows everyone. My language is of nothing but practical use, I do not have a "common economic life" with every resident of my country, only with my family and co-workers.
That's not a reliable definition. I didn't know everyone in my high school or middle school or elementary school. In my last job I didn't know everyone working there.

Language is not merely of practical use, to say as much basically ignores what language does for us on a daily basis. Do you listen to songs with lyrics? Do you read literature or poetry? Yes? Well then it's not just practical, it's also artistic. If it can be artistic, then it's also cultural. If it can be cultural, then it is part of one's identity.


Furthermore, I don't see how it follows from this definition that one has to respect "distinct nations" before being able to be an internationalist.Break down that last word: there's "inter" and then "national" then "ist". "Inter" means something between various entities (as opposed to "intra", which means inside one entity). "National" means that which pertains to nations. "Ist" is easy, it signifies a certain tendency. Thus, internationalism doesn't mean you want to get rid of nations, it means you stand with the people of all nations, and so internationalism is predicated on nationality.


The purpose urine serves to a monkey marking his territory is the same as what a flag is to nation. Animalistic, primitive and obsolete.Taking that quite errant allusion, urine among animals marks territory because it smells differently than another animal's urine, because one animal is not the same as the next...it says "I'm not that monkey, I'm me". Well, national flags serve this same purpose, they show where we come from, what our experiences are. This is something that will not disappear when the working class will, in Marx's words, constitute itself the nation.

[Luc]

[QUOTE=manic expression;2223269]Well, don't forget the definition...if we apply it, then the USA isn't just one nation. Blacks, for instance, are a distinct nation because they have an historical experience (the Middle Passage, chattle slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) and common culture that are both distinct, as well as an historically pivotal geographical region (the so-called "Black Belt" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_%28U.S._region%29) that was so important in the formation of the Black identity). Indian peoples, as another example, are a no-brainer...they are clearly formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. They have their own languages, their own cultures (art-forms, etc.) and so on and so forth.

So from that, we can see that the USA is a country but not a single nation...it is a multi-national country, much like Canada and the UK.

"Indian" (sic) as in the First Nations or Indian as in from India?:confused:
But I don't see a point in creating these "identities", does it not only divide us for arbirtrary reasons? Is there not one nation, the Homo Sapien nation?

[QUOTE=manic expression;2223269] Second, we consider those minorities their own distinct nations, and as progressives we promote the self-determination of these peoples.

But are white people in the "black belt" apart of the nation and are black people not in the "black belt" not apart of this nation?

damn, sorry I'm not good with quoting

[manic expression]

"Indian" (sic) as in the First Nations or Indian as in from India?:confused:
As in First Nations.


But I don't see a point in creating these "identities", does it not only divide us for arbirtrary reasons? Is there not one nation, the Homo Sapien nation?
The identities are already created, and they were certainly not invented arbitrarily. For instance, it's not someone woke up one morning and decided to make Wales different from England...it's a circumstance carved into the present by hundreds of years of history.


But are white people in the "black belt" apart of the nation and are black people not in the "black belt" not apart of this nation?
It's more of a general area in which the core experiences and cultural aspects first developed. We can't draw a line with a pencil and say "this is exactly where the nation ends" because it doesn't work like that, as with so many other instances, peoples overlap.


damn, sorry I'm not good with quoting
Haha, don't worry about it, it messes me up too.

[Zealot]

Sorry but some of the definitions of "nation" here are just going to lead to a Yugoslavia-style split and fuel nationalist sentiments. I hope to see the day where nations, states and borders are done away with altogether.

[Luc]

"As in First Nations."

thanks, but for someone talking about recognizing nations you use the wrong name for the wrong people

just messing with you:D

"The identities are already created, and they were certainly not invented arbitrarily. For instance, it's not someone woke up one morning and decided to make Wales different from England...it's a circumstance carved into the present by hundreds of years of history."

Yeah your right, the reasons for their creation aren't aribitrary.:lol: What I should of said and will say now is:

Is not the continuation of these identities arbitrary? (post revolutionary of course)

"It's more of a general area in which the core experiences and cultural aspects first developed. We can't draw a line with a pencil and say "this is exactly where the nation ends" because it doesn't work like that, as with so many other instances, peoples overlap."

This is what I was hoping we'd come across to.:) How is it (the nation) sapose to be a self-determining community if it is spread apart? They might not even know that others exist, they (the people in the nation) may not work together or live together and they may not affect eachother. They also may not have common interests and back to comrade file cabinet's definition they might not even have the same economic life!:scared:

(to anyone) I would like to go back to the original bit about national flags...

As manic expression has shown the current so-called nations are not nations but countries of mult-nations therefore, their current "national" flags are useless.

Also are we to create even more flags to designate the many nations within the current "nation"-states? How many more walls and flags are we to put up in the name of "nationhood" must we continue to look at eachother as "black", "british", "east-asian", "sub-saharan african", "first nation", "north african arab", "middle eastern arab" etc. instead of smashing down all walls, burning all flags and calling our neighbours "Human" under the red flag. Are we to turn the earth from it's already horendous status as a puzzle to a jigsaw puzzle?!:(

[Psy]

Thats a good point but I don't think we would have the same sizes of nation-states now for the future fedrations or w/e will happen.

In more clearer terms one federation (or worker governmental body) could comprise of the eastcoast of the U.S.A and the eastcoast of Canada therefore breaking the old national borders that corispond to national flags.

I guess we'll just have to see how things end up:lol:

I can overlapping boundaries as communities on the fringes of regions go with one or the other larger regional body, and as regional bodies prioritize where to focus their energies.

[Luc]

I can overlapping boundaries as communities on the fringes of regions go with one or the other larger regional body, and as regional bodies prioritize where to focus their energies.

How do we decide the boundaries of the larger regional bodies, are they the old nation-state borders? I guess it would make sense for that point.

[Psy]

How do we decide the boundaries of the larger regional bodies, are they the old nation-state borders? I guess it would make sense for that point.
Think of them as a voluntary alliance of local communities that is planning on a larger scale for production and distribution within a region.

[Luc]

Think of them as a voluntary alliance of local communities that is planning on a larger scale for production and distribution within a region.

Well I am all for that:thumbup:

But they are no longer nations and (I'm assuming) they vary in size, the old national flags would be precisly that: old and outdated.:confused:

You know like when the U.S.A changes it's flag as it (offically) get more territory.

Perhaps you are saying we make new flags for these new "alliances"? I am sorta neutral to that as they are no longer national.

[The Man]

I think the Communist world shouldn't have flags depending on geographical location, but the world should unite under one flag:

http://askmissa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/red-flag.jpg

[Bostana]

In the U.S. you don't get anywhere if you don't outwardly show patriotism. Remember the flap a few years ago because Obama was caught without a U.S. flag lapel pin?

I remember that, my brother and I were yelling at the T.V.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think the Communist world shouldn't have flags depending on geographical location, but the world should unite under one flag:

http://askmissa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/red-flag.jpg
You realise that it's fairly common practice for sub-national entities to have flags, don't you?

[Bostana]

How About this flag?

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=133816&stc=1&d=130012186

[Psy]

Well I am all for that:thumbup:

But they are no longer nations and (I'm assuming) they vary in size, the old national flags would be precisly that: old and outdated.:confused:

You know like when the U.S.A changes it's flag as it (offically) get more territory.

Perhaps you are saying we make new flags for these new "alliances"? I am sorta neutral to that as they are no longer national.
You mean there will be no more old bourgeois state flags. A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.

Under global communism there will still be nations they'd probably have flags yet nations probably won't play much in politics as global communism matures.

[Susurrus]

How About this flag?

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=133816&stc=1&d=130012186

The CPUSA Logo needs to be changed.

[Luc]

[QUOTE=Psy;2223732]You mean there will be no more old bourgeois state flags. A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.

First sentance: oh I see now, that clears it up thanks!:)

Second sentence: That definition is simliar to Stalins of which Q in post #35 adresses the problem with it very well (alot better than me so I recomend re-reading it).

Under global communism there will still be nations they'd probably have flags yet nations probably won't play much in politics as global communism matures.
just testing how to multi-quote nothing I disagree with here:thumbup1:
edit: failed again lol

[Sam_b]

The Portuguese Communist Party's slogans of patriotism are just a method of attracting more Portuguese workers.


So you're openly admitting that your party is opportunist?

[Savage]

Blacks, for instance, are a distinct nation because they have an historical experience (the Middle Passage, chattle slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) and common culture that are both distinct, as well as an historically pivotal geographical region (the so-called "Black Belt" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_%28U.S._region%29) that was so important in the formation of the Black identity)

Aren't 'whites' then also a distinct nation, with historical experience and common culture? If you support the 'self-determination' of the 'black nation', then what about the 'white nation'?

[Psy]

Aren't 'whites' then also a distinct nation, with historical experience and common culture? If you support the 'self-determination' of the 'black nation', then what about the 'white nation'?
What is a white person? It is basically a catchall term as within what we consider 'white' is a wide variety of different nationalities. As used by Ayran nationalists it is totally fictitious, pointing to a so called Ayran race from the non existent island nation of Atlantis.

[manic expression]

Aren't 'whites' then also a distinct nation, with historical experience and common culture? If you support the 'self-determination' of the 'black nation', then what about the 'white nation'?
No, it doesn't work like that. I think "American" is a nationality, but it doesn't revolve around "whiteness". This is largely because, as Psy points out, "white" is essentially impossible to define. To wit, for a long time Irish and Italian (IIRC) immigrants were seen as non-white, and yet in the last 60 years that's been reversed completely.

If "white" was the nationality, then the US and Quebec would be the same nationality...except we know simply from cultural and linguistic factors that this isn't true.

[Savage]

I don't disagree with you that 'white' is impossible to define, but isn't the same true of 'blacks' as you said before? How are 'blacks' a distinct nation?

[manic expression]

I don't disagree with you that 'white' is impossible to define, but isn't the same true of 'blacks' as you said before? How are 'blacks' a distinct nation?
Well, in the same way "white Americans" don't share nationality with Quebecois, Blacks don't automatically share nationality with anyone who is of African descent. It's not about skin color (a lot of Blacks are quite light-skinned, so much so that "passing" as white was/is possible). For instance, a recent immigrant from Senegal or Guyana isn't necessarily part of the Black nation, as the Black nation is the product of the historical experience of the Middle Passage, chattle slavery, Reconstruction and its aftermath. Indeed, someone from Trinidad & Tobago for example will remind people that they're not "African American" as such. However, because of the economic and social circumstances that such immigrants find themselves in, as well as the experience of modern-day racism and the like, people may become part of the Black nation even if their great great grandparents weren't slaves or freedmen in 19th Century-America. A prominent example of this would be the Notorious BIG, who was born to Jamaican parents.

[Savage]

ok so when you refer to the 'Black Nation' you are only referring to African Americans and no other persons that may be defined as 'black'? This seems to make the term 'black' pretty defunct, just like the term 'white'.

[manic expression]

ok so when you refer to the 'Black Nation' you are only referring to African Americans and no other persons that may be defined as 'black'? This seems to make the term 'black' pretty defunct, just like the term 'white'.
Right, although the popular conception of "African American" is contradictory because it could be extended to recent African immigrants and it could not be.

You bring up a good point, but notice how I always capitalize "Black" in order to distinguish it as a nationality and not a skin color.

[Tim Cornelis]

You mean there will be no more old bourgeois state flags. A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.

Under global communism there will still be nations they'd probably have flags yet nations probably won't play much in politics as global communism matures.

So my family and I form a nation? We speak the same language, share culture, ethnicity, economic life, descent and history.

[Bostana]

The CPUSA Logo needs to be changed.

Most Communist party's of different country's have different versions to the Hammer and Sickle

[Susurrus]

Most Communist party's of different country's have different versions to the Hammer and Sickle

Yeah, but the CPUSA is to communist revolution what water is to gasoline.

[Psy]

So my family and I form a nation? We speak the same language, share culture, ethnicity, economic life, descent and history.
That is how feudalism worked just limited to the families of nobility, the first national flags were the the family crest of the ruling nobility of the land. What happened was smaller nationalities were assimilated into that nationality of the ruling class. So under feudalism your families nationality was that of your lord and his nationality was that of his king with some exceptions like when a warlord used the power of the army to make the head of the army the head of the state and nation.

Under bourgeois society family lines no longer are the root of nationality, only state sovereignty gives birth to nationality from the point of view of bourgeois society thus why wars of independence tend to be extremely nationalistic, as they want nationhood and bourgeois society dictates to get nationhood you need statehood.

How communism views this is an entirely different, communism has no desire to make a monoculture thus nations will still exists in communism and since our long term goal is the phasing out of statehood that means the roots of nationality would have to shift away from state sovereignty.

[Luc]

Sorry guys I've been studying my notes from last year and school starts in less than a week so I gotta leave this conversation as I won't have access to a computer much making prolonged covnversations like these hard. Have to focus on studying last year, this year, and my Communist studies.

I'm horrible at balancing stuff:lol: still working on that...

Cheers!

[Dogs On Acid]

So you're openly admitting that your party is opportunist?

Yes.

[Desperado]

So my family and I form a nation? We speak the same language, share culture, ethnicity, economic life, descent and history.

Ultimately, yes, on a smaller scale. Though nations tend to be big enough for unique languages.


every people and the smallest folk-unit has its own character, its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling, thinking, and acting; and it is this idiosyncrasy that constitutes the essence of nationality

[Per Levy]

Originally Posted by Bakunin
every people and the smallest folk-unit has its own character, its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling, thinking, and acting; and it is this idiosyncrasy that constitutes the essence of nationality

so acording to bakunin, i as a human being feel, think and act like a german because i happen to be born germany? am i getting thise right?

[Desperado]

so acording to bakunin, i as a human being feel, think and act like a german because i happen to be born germany? am i getting thise right?


Not necessarily. Germany is defined by the shared idiosyncrasies of Germans who identify as such. Why you share said idiosyncrasies could be because of your upbringing (following birth), though there are other possible reasons.

[scarletghoul]

whats wrong with flags? its just a symbol to represent a community of people. i think theyre cool as long as they have good ideas for patterns, unlike most european countries which just have coloured stripes lol

[bietan jarrai]

So you're openly admitting that your party is opportunist?

It isn't. Calling for national sovereignty has been the party's line for a long time as the right-wing governments hand over our country to the EU.