What's wrong with embracing the nationalists?

[Partizanac]

Once upon a time, in the early history of modern revolutions the ideas of justice and equality were unified with a sense of patriotism and collective national indentity. From Jacobins to Irish repulicans valued and the later still values their culture and sense of nationality.

The enemy that is the financial dominion of banksters and fraudsters of other types has only to gain from the divide between us. This split between nationalists and red revolutionaries in mainland Europe came about at the end of World War 1 where the reds rejected nationalism as a propaganda tool in the array of many from the ruling elite while the soldiers were persuaded that the reds in lure with jews and other "foreigners" lead to the central powers downfall.

Since then this bitter hatered has just intensified between the two groups.
It was detrimental in Germany where a more culturally cemented Iron Front and communist organization could have certainly swayed away many thousands or millions of workers that joined the ranks of the SA. Instead people only had to choose from a group that completely denied them their bonds with history or a group that wanted to enforce them at every turn.

In almost all cases where nationalist sentiments developed into full blown fascism and nazism it was the result of a desperate attempt by the ruling elite to sway the public away from other more progressive groups. Let's remember that Mussolini was a socialist at first. That the falange recieved much needed fanatical support from a far from fully uniform national syndicalist movement that may have been swayed to the left.


The revolutionary left has in generally been what I would like to call "insensensitive" to the feelings and de facto needs of others. It burned churches in Spain while it dececrated national monuments in Germany and forcefully collectivized property in China. Dare I say that had you not burned churches in Spain then Spain might have been the star of Europe today?

I understand that nationalist fervour has been used by kings and puppet leaders to inflame the working class of nations to wage war against each other while a tiny group saw profits sky-rocket. But that is not an excuse for abandoning nationalism in the true sense of the word. In the sense of what the french republic or the irish republic decares it to be.

Is not the final goal of communism a world of free and independent communities coming together in a huge council we can call the "world soviet?" Does this future not call for the establishment of a truly enigmatic, beautiful multicultured world of independent and distinct communities?
IS this not in a sense the foundation of ancient nationalism, although the nation in this case merely represents a geographical sub-federation of the great soviet world federation?


What I have read on this forum about nationalists and socialists comming together at rallies in Greece truly made me happy. The crisis has forced even the deepest of divides to start healing. Yet you sit here bickering about it?
Fools! The prospect of a unified front is what you should be yearning for.
Not a front split up into many parties, many groupings of working class, farmers and petit bourgeois calling themselves different things and arguing about everything.

The classical working class movement is far larger than these pseudo-fascist groups. It has the ability to influence them, not the other way around.
A direct confrontation, an enternal split can only fuel the divide and turn them into martyrs like it has done in the past.

[Tim Cornelis]

The enemy that is the financial dominion of banksters and fraudsters of other types has only to gain from the divide between us.

This is liberalism. The 'enemy' is not a particular bourgeois institution, but all bourgeois institutions. The idea that the banking sector is the enemy is permeated by all kinds of liberals, as well as far-right conspiracy theorists you find on RussiaToday's subscribers base.

EDIT:

Under capitalism nationalism divides. Under communism nationalism is an anachronism. There can be no nation-state in communism as there will be no political authority.


What I have read on this forum about nationalists and socialists comming together at rallies in Greece truly made me happy. The crisis has forced even the deepest of divides to start healing. Yet you sit here bickering about it?
Fools! The prospect of a unified front is what you should be yearning for.
Not a front split up into many parties, many groupings of working class, farmers and petit bourgeois calling themselves different things and arguing about everything.

Yes, you're right. We should form an alliance between the working class, petite-bourgeoisie, farmers, nazis, and communists. :rolleyes:

[erupt]

Whether or not I agree with you, humankind cannot rid itself of nationalism. If you were in Soviet Russia during the mid 1930's, most likely you were proud to be Russian, and you would probably double-take people that looked or sounded different.

However, I believe, the point of socialism is to learn we naturally segregate ourselves and do the opposite.

Historically, death penalties to nationalists haven't bothered me much, though. I learn atrocities from various sources (emigrants of post-World War II Europe, books, the Internet, etc.) and to me, the vast majority were of nationalist sentiment.

Your name is Serbo-Croat, I'm sure your familiar with the Ustashe; and the Chetniks, too! Allying with Germans against their fellow Partisan comrades, yet they called themselves nationalist. This makes no sense and shows how a lot of the entering members were most likely brain-washed.

[Revolutionair]

Whether or not I agree with you, humankind cannot rid itself of nationalism. If you were in Soviet Russia during the mid 1930's, most likely you were proud to be Russian, and you would probably double-take people that looked or sounded different.

Humankind can never get rid of: slavery, feudalism, asiatic mode of production, caste society, primitive communism, paganism in Europe, etc, etc.. All of the above once seemed to be very true, however reality is different.

Humans can and will liberate themselves from stupid shit like nationalism.


However, I believe, the point of socialism is to learn we naturally segregate ourselves and do the opposite.

While I am not completely up to date on the scientific discussion on this, I think it's not unreasonable to say that humans are social animals. Forming social groups is the exact opposite of "natural segregation". The size and behaviour of these groups differs between modes of production and social advancement. Under capitalism, these groups become power structures. A corporation is a group, corporations compete in capitalism. Outside of capitalism, a corporation has no meaning.

[Partizanac]

This is liberalism. The 'enemy' is not a particular bourgeois institution, but all bourgeois institutions. The idea that the banking sector is the enemy is permeated by all kinds of liberals, as well as far-right conspiracy theorists you find on RussiaToday's subscribers base.

EDIT:

Under capitalism nationalism divides. Under communism nationalism is an anachronism. There can be no nation-state in communism as there will be no political authority.



Yes, you're right. We should form an alliance between the working class, petite-bourgeois, farmers, nazis, and communists.


Re-read my post on the paragraph dealing with the nation in a world soviet. Also the enemy is certainly the small elite and not even all of them. The enemy is not the guy who owns the corner store on 10th street. The enemy cannot be an institution, an institution is the result of the actions and will of individuals and groups.

Nationalism was certainly a very profound element in Yugoslavia under Tito even though it wasn't called "nationalism". The national community of Yugoslavia was to be guarded against all and any attempts to subvert it from within and out.




We should form an alliance between the working class, petite-bourgeois, farmers, nazis, and communists.


Remove those. Yes.

[Deicide]

As well as far-right conspiracy theorists you find on RussiaToday's subscribers base.

Sorry for going off-topic OP.. But damn, It's hard to come across an RT youtube video without the comment section featuring ''IT'S THE ILLUMINATI!!!!!111'' or ''IT'S THE BILDERBERG GROUP!!!!!!!1'' or ''IT'S THE ZIONIST JEWS!!!1'' prominently.

[Revolutionair]

Also I would like to add that I am 100% supportive of the burning of churches if the Catholic church tries to go medieval on society. (which happened in Spain)

[Rooster]

Whether or not I agree with you, humankind cannot rid itself of nationalism.

Why not? Nations haven't always existed.


However, I believe, the point of socialism is to learn we naturally segregate ourselves and do the opposite.

No it isn't. The point of socialism is to advance humanity into maturity through recognising that there really isn't any real differences.

The rest of what you are posting is nonsense. Nationalists divide the world into nations. Communists divide the world into class and class transcends nation. Nationalism is a throw back to capitalism and even then with the age of imperialism, it's already becoming an anachronism.

[Revolutionair]

Sorry for going off-topic OP.. But damn, It's hard to come across an RT youtube video without the comment section featuring ''IT'S THE ILLUMINATI!!!!!111'' or ''IT'S THE BILDERBERG GROUP!!!!!!!1'' or ''IT'S THE ZIONIST JEWS!!!1'' prominently.

I assume a lot of are jokes. I replied to someone saying that, and he told me he was just trolling...

[Deicide]

I assume a lot of are jokes. I replied to someone saying that, and he told me he was just trolling...

Some of them are real guys though, mostly Alex Jones fan boys.

[Partizanac]

Also I would like to add that I am 100% supportive of the burning of churches if the Catholic church tries to go medieval on society. (which happened in Spain)


Your problem is that in 1936's Spain the majority of the population was religious. The considered the catholic church to be a central point of their life. If you go out and burn churches you alienate people from your movement and screw yourself and future generations of workers for 30 years with a reactionary dictatorship of clergy and fascists.

Same thing when you attack the nation and what it stands for.
Even if the concept of state is foreign to classical communist doctrine the nation and what it represents today has a central part in peoples lives.
Attacking it at point blank range without taking in defence the various aspects of it that have nothing to do with state control such as heritage, culture, collective community etc will be detrimental to the movement.

If the KKE in Greece today would declare war on the concept of Greece it would be destroyed. There is not 5% of ordinary Greek people who do not deeply cherish the concept of being "Greek". With Greek food, Greek culture, Greek philosophy and so forth.

Being insensitive to the needs of this public is not a good way to lead them on a new path.

[erupt]

Why not? Nations haven't always existed.

No it isn't. The point of socialism is to advance humanity into maturity through recognising that there really isn't any real differences.

The rest of what you are posting is nonsense. Nationalists divide the world into nations. Communists divide the world into class and class transcends nation. Nationalism is a throw back to capitalism and even then with the age of imperialism, it's already becoming an anachronism.
If the word is not "nation," there will be some other group, like Revolutionair said we humans put ourselves in, that has some name. Not all of us, but some. I do not proclaim, or even hint at this being positive in outcome.

In my summary definition of one of the things socialism stands for is "learning" and "recognising," in your words, that we are those social animals that tend to create groups of all sizes, and that if we create a large, coherent, and equal group, society would run smoothly. How could society "mature" without recognizing that the different groups are petty and counter-productive, and we must all work together?

[Partizanac]

Why not? Nations haven't always existed.



No it isn't. The point of socialism is to advance humanity into maturity through recognising that there really isn't any real differences.

The rest of what you are posting is nonsense. Nationalists divide the world into nations. Communists divide the world into class and class transcends nation. Nationalism is a throw back to capitalism and even then with the age of imperialism, it's already becoming an anachronism.


Communism does not divide people into classes. It has nothing to do with division into classes. The concept of class is a concept in itself.
Communism declares that there are no classes in a communist society.

But then what?

[Thirsty Crow]

Whether or not I agree with you, humankind cannot rid itself of nationalism.
Dogmatic assertion. Cannot be proven in any way.
Just to provide a different perspective, I, and some people I know, have managed to steer clear of the nationalist virus successfully, at the time when that was not really probable here where I live.
Why wouldn't more people, through their own development and the development of broader social and political struggles, be able to do the same? I think this is a real possibility, and that communists should foster internationalism in any way they can, be it during interventions into class struggle or their written propaganda.

Now with regard to the nationalists. To embrace nationalists is suicidal for communists who are not cloaked fascists and autarkists. The overall framework of the nation-state, with its complementary ideology, is a barrier to world revolution, and if communists have learnt anything from history, I hope it's the necessity for internationalism and the development of the social revolution accross and beyond borders. Moreover, due to he character of contemporary social life, where the existing standard of living, meager as it is, and the existing economic practices are based on international interaction in the form of "foreign" trade and investment, it is impossible to conceive of an isolated socialism. Socialism is international, as well as class struggle, or it is nothing.

And finally, nationalists uphold the existing social order. It's ludicrous to think that solidarity of ethnicity, language and culture wil lsomehow ameliorate exploitation and domination perpetrated by the ruling class - the capitalist class. To embrace nationalists is to embrace capitalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Humankind cannot rid itself of nationalism. If you were in Soviet Russia during the mid 1930's, most likely you were proud to be Russian, and you would probably double-take people that looked or sounded different.

Stalin avowedly stimulated patriotism and used it as a tool for control. So no wonder you would be a "proud Russian" in the 1930s. The USSR, however, was still a nation. There will be no nations and no borders in communism.

Nationalism, though, did not always exist. It is about loyalty. It arose out of the French revolution. In feudalism you swore loyalty to your monarch or lord, not your country, but when lords and monarchs disappeared due to the French revolution loyalty was redirected towards the nation-state. Similarly, when the nation-state disappears it is impossible to swear loyalty to it in the long-run, and therefore nationalism will disappear. Loyalty to the nation-state will be replaced by loyalty to the community, to society, to the world, and/or to the self.

Communism make nationalism nearly impossible, it is stupid from the very beginning. It is collective stockholm syndrome, it is (as one revleft poster said) an animal screaming how much he loves his cage.

If patriotism is "the last refuge of a scoundrel," it is not merely because evil deeds may be performed in the name of patriotism, but because patriotic fervor can obliterate moral distinctions altogether (Ralph B. Perry)

[Hexen]

Nationalism is a divide & conquer strategy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Communism does not divide people into classes. It has nothing to do with division into classes. The concept of class is a concept in itself.
Communism declares that there are no classes in a communist society.

But then what?
Communism as the existing movement within capitalist society reinforces and escalates the consequences of the division of society into classes.
But this solely means that the word is used in at least two ways, one denoting a definite political/social movement, the other a society different from the one we live in.

[Sasha]

O.p. restricted, thread moved to OI, ban in 3,2,1...

[Crux]

O.p. restricted, thread moved to OI, ban in 3,2,1...
I thought we didn't restrict stalinists?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

OP, youre wrong in on so many levels here. First, the modern ideology of nationalism, as we know it today, with its idea of citizenship and nationstate, is quite new (late 1700).
Collective identity have changed over the time, but its true that many people tend to feel extra for where they grew up. I feel very very strong for the small town i grew up in, while in the same time i dont have any special feelings for other cities or towns in the rest of "my country"

Put it like this. In the far north of northern Europe lives the sami people. They live as reindeer herders, and one day some blokes comes up to them and says; "Ok so this is Finland, this is Norway and this is Sweden." Depending on where they stod atm they had to obey a new different king, pay taxes an recognize a certain flag and so on. This is how made up the modern nationstates are. The thing that you compared the SA with something natural says a lot about youre way of analysing history.

When the spanish civil war brooke out, just around 20% of the population where chatolics and the chucrch/monastary burning where made by ordinary people who, finally, got to say what they wanted to the institution that opressed them for centuries.

An at last, just drop the idea of that socialism has always being a ideology for the elite and never understooden by the common working person. Its simply not true.

[Tim Cornelis]

Re-read my post on the paragraph dealing with the nation in a world soviet.

A nation-state necessitates political authority, something that does not exist in communism. Nations will not and cannot exist in communism. There will not be a "World Soviet" akin to the current UN. There will be no nations, no borders, no nationalities.


Also the enemy is certainly the small elite and not even all of them. The enemy is not the guy who owns the corner store on 10th street. The enemy cannot be an institution, an institution is the result of the actions and will of individuals and groups.

The "enemy" is private property, and one could argue, therefore, that whoever owns private property is our "enemy". This would thus include the whole of the petite-bourgeoisie.

"The enemy is not the guy who owns the corner store on 10th street."

If not, then you are just a liberal who is satisfied with a society based on small-scale ownership. You are not a socialist at all.

Southpark actually made a good spoof on this by accident I presume. In one episode Wal-Mart came to South Park. The people of South Park saw the collapse of small businesses and decried the shallow commercialism of Wal-Mart, and so they burned it to the ground. Eventually they destroyed it completely. They swore to go to small-businesses only from now on, an so they start shopping at Jim's Drugs. Jim's Drugs then grows in size and becomes a new supper-store like Wal-Mart, and so they burn it to the ground.

McDonald's, Nike, Puma, Microsoft all started out as petite-bourgeois shops and businesses. The petite-bourgeoisie aims at becoming member of the haute-bourgeoisie.


Nationalism was certainly a very profound element in Yugoslavia under Tito even though it wasn't called "nationalism". The national community of Yugoslavia was to be guarded against all and any attempts to subvert it from within and out.

And what has Yugoslavia have to do with this? Leninists frequently betray their proletarian internationalism. Yugoslavia also was not communist, unlike me.


Remove those. Yes.

You contradict yourself: "What I have read on this forum about nationalists and socialists comming together at rallies in Greece truly made me happy."

This refers to the Golden Dawn (Nazis) and KKE (communists) joining at a rally, but now you say that you want neither in your class collaborationist alliance? Why, if it made you so truly happy?

[Sasha]

I thought we didn't restrict stalinists?

If they advocate united fronts with fascists we do...

[Omsk]

This is classical 'national-communist' rhetoric originating from the thougts of many people,but in this case,from a novel author,a communist,than turned into a nationalist.The entire 'nationalism is positive' idea,the 'national awakening' element of the cultural myth that destroyed the bad basis of Yugoslavia,(The "brotherhood and unity" idea)

As i see Yugoslavia was drawn in all of this,i feel the urge to write a few lines,as i know what usually comes from debates in which Tito's "Yugoslav nationalism" was mentioned - It is nothing positive,nothing proggresive,its a myth,a paper kite that was obliterated by ultra-nationalism as soon as things went completely downhill.Yugoslavia,that entire society,that country,was built on weak ideas and without a true socialist basis,the organization,ideas,theory,leaders,it was all a big sharade,what happened to the good old 'comrades' from the SKJ?As soon as guns started destroying cities,they forgot about "Forward comrades,to socialism!For Tito!" and changed their songs to: "Long live free Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia/etc tec.Why do you think it happened?Why do you think nationalism destroyed that existing society so fast?(Not the country itself) - because there was no basis to Yugoslavia,it was a doomed idea,it was led by opportunists,carrierists.Do you think there were "Stalinists", "Trotskyists","Ortodox Marxist" or whatever, back there?Of course not.We are speaking about reality.Everyone who held a party card soon forgot about "brotherhood and unity" and concentrated on how could they profit from the conflict,if they were able to,and if not,how to save their own head.

The ignorance and apartness from reality of some people on this forum,is astonishing.

[Partizanac]

Why do you have such an almost manic need to classify people?
I see this in many of you and it saddens me deeply.
"Is he a stalinist?" "a fascist?" ..."titoist maybe?"
I've seen such stupid things on this forum like a person titling themselves a "pacifistic ecological heathen anarchist religious socialist" and almost all of you seem to have a need to be put into a neat little folder.

Not only as communists or socialists or social democrats or anarchist.
But then you have to divide this into several other parts.
It's insanity as I have never seen it anywhere else and that is why your movements are weak and why the working class has nobody to go to.

Well that and other things to.
Ah yes, now I am a restricted member. And my ideology is an opposing one.
If I who has been active in various progressive circles my whole life can't discuss concepts with you then you will NEVER get a conservative small peasant or some traditional catholic worker on your side. Never. Because you cannot unite people by dividing them and blaming them as revisionists or reactionaries simply because they do not agree with everything that you say - something that's impossible since you say different things. Where various discussions are more or less forbidden. Where faith is mocked and cultural heritage spat on.

I am for the sake of humanity trying to make you fucking understand this.
I am not perfect, I do not know all the answers. But this world is rapidly, very rapidly going down the drain and compared to 50 years ago you are nothing today. So the question is where the working class can go if you can't stand up for it? And the answer is probably to places we don't even want to imagine.

Sure, there are some positive new developments around the world to.
People are more socially active, they read independent news outlets, cooperative businesses are taking hold especially in the IT - sector, Venezuelans and Cubans are organizing communal gardens and Greek people are taking over some businesses. But compare that to near to the right wing authoritarian parties taking power in Hungary, Austria, Finland or the massive concentration of wealth that has been going on for a 100 years now. You haven't had a party in power or a successful revolt (forget revolution) in a good 30 years. Union membership is in decline. The Youth care not for your ramblings of 200 year old texts anymore, especially because you can't agree on anything even between yourselves.


I say to you; face reality, show compassion and be forgiving. Unite or fall.

[Conscript]

'Communists are irrelevant, unite with anti-communists, fools!'

[Ostrinski]

*Sigh* we've been over this. The nation-state as a political structure perpetuated by international capital etc etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's insanity as I have never seen it anywhere else and that is why your movements are weak and why the working class has nobody to go to. Well that and other things to.

The reason the revolutionary left is "weak" is because we classify people according to ideology.....................................lol


Ah yes, now I am a restricted member. And my ideology is an opposing one.
If I who has been active in various progressive circles my whole life can't discuss concepts with you then you will NEVER get a conservative small peasant or some traditional catholic worker on your side. Never.

If building a revolutionary movement entails compromising our basic principles, then what's the point? And we do not want conservatives in a revolutionary movement, makes sense don't it. Conservative, from to conserve, versus revolutionary, as in revolutionary change. Don't done mix together well.

Why would want to attract conservatives and "traditional" catholics (something I can only interpret to mean homophobic, misogynistic)?

We also won't be able to attract racists, nationalists, chauvinists, and fascists to the socialist movement, and that's rather the point innit?


Because you cannot unite people by dividing them and blaming them as revisionists or reactionaries simply because they do not agree with everything that you say - something that's impossible since you say different things. Where various discussions are more or less forbidden. Where faith is mocked and cultural heritage spat on.

We are not interested in liberal pluralism. If you want to be a communist there is some basic principles you need to subscribe to, these include anti-capitalism, internationalism, market abolitionism, and valuing emancipation of labour, and people in general.


I am for the sake of humanity trying to make you fucking understand this.
I am not perfect, I do not know all the answers. But this world is rapidly, very rapidly going down the drain and compared to 50 years ago you are nothing today. So the question is where the working class can go if you can't stand up for it? And the answer is probably to places we don't even want to imagine.

So because we are nothing we should compromise are principles to the degree that... nothing remains of them?


Sure, there are some positive new developments around the world to.
People are more socially active, they read independent news outlets, cooperative businesses are taking hold especially in the IT - sector, Venezuelans and Cubans are organizing communal gardens and Greek people are taking over some businesses. But compare that to near to the right wing authoritarian parties taking power in Hungary, Austria, Finland or the massive concentration of wealth that has been going on for a 100 years now. You haven't had a party in power or a successful revolt (forget revolution) in a good 30 years. Union membership is in decline. The Youth care not for your ramblings of 200 year old texts anymore, especially because you can't agree on anything even between yourselves.

We agree on one thing though: socialism/communism.



I say to you; face reality, show compassion and be forgiving. Unite or fall.

Translation: face reality, abandon your principles and consequently unite with all kinds of non-communist, reformist, and reactionary elements.

[Partizanac]

A nation-state necessitates political authority, something that does not exist in communism. Nations will not and cannot exist in communism. There will not be a "World Soviet" akin to the current UN. There will be no nations, no borders, no nationalities.

So what will be? You ramble like an anarchist when he tries to define a independent, self-governing community.

What is a nation to you?
Will a community of people who reject alcohol among their children be allowed to reject those who drink it? Is you definition of state that which has a massive, unelected bureaucracy? Cause then we may agree.

But if you declare that there will be no distinct entities, no federative council,no treaties between communities, etc then you must explain yourself.
Regardless my point has always been about today and the fact that people cherish much of their national and even regional and communal identities. Some like in Dithmarschen have an ancient egalitarian history and would certainly not fancy forgetting about it and merging it with everyone else's creating a bland soup of nothing. There is that community of mankind but there is also the community of family and everything inbetween.


The "enemy" is private property, and one could argue, therefore, that whoever owns private property is our "enemy". This would thus include the whole of the petite-bourgeoisie.

You talk like George W Bush.
The enemy is not a concept, a word, an idea. You do not wage war against private property. Your goal is the abolishment of it. Such as the goal may be the abolishment of terror. But waging war against it? sigh.


"The enemy is not the guy who owns the corner store on 10th street."

If not, then you are just a liberal who is satisfied with a society based on small-scale ownership. You are not a socialist at all.

You're an enemy of mine if you ever attack my neighbor who owns the corner store. He's a nice guy and if you break his windows I'll break your bones. You'll never have a revolution this way.



Southpark actually made a good spoof on this by accident I presume. In one episode Wal-Mart came to South Park. The people of South Park saw the collapse of small businesses and decried the shallow commercialism of Wal-Mart, and so they burned it to the ground. Eventually they destroyed it completely. They swore to go to small-businesses only from now on, an so they start shopping at Jim's Drugs. Jim's Drugs then grows in size and becomes a new supper-store like Wal-Mart, and so they burn it to the ground.

South Park is created and owned by a bunch of neo-liberal pro-capitalists


McDonald's, Nike, Puma, Microsoft all started out as petite-bourgeois shops and businesses. The petite-bourgeoisie aims at becoming member of the haute-bourgeoisie.

The system is setup so that you either progress or get destroyed.
The goal is the change of the system.
The enemy is the small group of people who want this system.




This refers to the Golden Dawn (Nazis) and KKE (communists) joining at a rally, but now you say that you want neither in your class collaborationist alliance? Why, if it made you so truly happy?

I want people in my alliance. Not ideologies.

[Partizanac]

OP, youre wrong in on so many levels here. First, the modern ideology of nationalism, as we know it today, with its idea of citizenship and nationstate, is quite new (late 1700).
Collective identity have changed over the time, but its true that many people tend to feel extra for where they grew up. I feel very very strong for the small town i grew up in, while in the same time i dont have any special feelings for other cities or towns in the rest of "my country"

Put it like this. In the far north of northern Europe lives the sami people. They live as reindeer herders, and one day some blokes comes up to them and says; "Ok so this is Finland, this is Norway and this is Sweden." Depending on where they stod atm they had to obey a new different king, pay taxes an recognize a certain flag and so on. This is how made up the modern nationstates are. The thing that you compared the SA with something natural says a lot about youre way of analysing history.


You're right about the Sami People but not about the concept of the nation-state and citizenship; that originated in Babylonia or Greece depending on how you want to see it. Maybe even earlier. The Sami People may not have had a concept of nation-states because there was few of them and they were nomadic. But they certainly had and still have distinct Sami communities that follow different traditions, wear different clothes, speak differently and so on. Upon this they had the overlapping and broader base of the Sami indentity as a whole. I'm not sure what to call this but a national indentity.
But don't grab me for "picking" the wrong word here.

All I mean by saying nationalists or nation is those people who reject the abolishment of self-determinism. Self-determinism is something the Sami people are fighting for today. I would call the Sami today nationalists, not because the "civilized" worlds culture has forced upon them a concept of state. But because they are fighting to be able to decide their own laws, rules, boundaries, culture and language for themselves.

[Tim Cornelis]

So what will be? You ramble like an anarchist when he tries to define a[n] independent, self-governing community.

What is a nation to you?
Will a community of people who reject alcohol among their children be allowed to reject those who drink it? Is you definition of state that which has a massive, unelected bureaucracy? Cause then we may agree.

But if you declare that there will be no distinct entities, no federative council,no treaties between communities, etc then you must explain yourself.

A nation is a geographical territory marked by borders controlled by a sovereign state. A state is a centralised body with a monopoly on violence and is the manifestation of class hegemony by a ruling class.

Why would it be difficult for an anarchist to define a self-governing community? A self-governing community is a community of freely associated residents of, what will most likely be, the size of a neighbourhood who, by means of participation in popular assemblies and consensus democracy, will govern the collective affairs of their community (neighbourhood in this case).


Regardless my point has always been about today and the fact that people cherish much of their national and even regional and communal identities. Some like in Dithmarschen have an ancient egalitarian history and would certainly not fancy forgetting about it and merging it with everyone else's creating a bland soup of nothing. There is that community of mankind but there is also the community of family and everything inbetween.

Culture =/= nation

Nationalism calls for the preservation of the nation-state; communism calls for its negation. They are irreconcilable.


You talk like George W Bush.
The enemy is not a concept, a word, an idea. You do not wage war against private property. Your goal is the abolishment of it. Such as the goal may be the abolishment of terror. But waging war against it? sigh.

lol, what the fuck? I adopted your rhetoric of enemy (hence the continual use of quotation marks). And I did not mention "waging war", which is more the sophism of an insurrectionary anarchist anyway.


You're an enemy of mine if you ever attack my neighbor who owns the corner store. He's a nice guy and if you break his windows I'll break your bones. You'll never have a revolution this way.

Attacking? Yeah I will lynch him because he owns a store :rolleyes: Like I said, I am against private property, not those who own them (although it could be said, as many here do, that this makes them the enemy). It was actually you who said the enemy is people, and not the institution. So by your logic, not mine, I should attack your neighbour.

Personally I think breaking windows and other black bloc associated tactics are stupid.


if you break his windows I'll break your bones.

:rolleyes:

Policing the bourgeoisie, and you wonder why you are restricted?


South Park is created and owned by a bunch of neo-liberal pro-capitalists

How is that relevant here? It was an analogy. Moreover I said they accidentally made that point.


ac·ci·den·tal (ks-dntl)
adj.
1. Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.


The system is setup so that you either progress or get destroyed.
The goal is the change of the system.
The enemy is the small group of people who want this system.

You either progress or be destroyed, so let's align with people who call for the opposite of progress, hooray for logic!

The goal is to change the system, so let's align with people who want to mostly retain it, hooray for logic!

The enemy is the small group of people who want this system, so let's align with them!


I want people in my alliance. Not ideologies.

Impossible. If you get a bunch of apolitical people they will do absolutely nothing.


I'm not sure what to call this but a national indentity.

It is not a national identity as it exists regardless of nation. It is a cultural identity.


All I mean by saying nationalists or nation is those people who reject the abolishment of self-determinism. Self-determinism is something the Sami people are fighting for today. I would call the Sami today nationalists, not because the "civilized" worlds culture has forced upon them a concept of state. But because they are fighting to be able to decide their own laws, rules, boundaries, culture and language for themselves.

National liberation has nothing to do with "self-determination". The "self-determination" you speak of is the self-determination for those who rule the country, as only they have actual decision-making power.

"they are fighting to be able to decide their own laws, rules, boundaries, culture and language for themselves."

No, they are fighting for an elite of their own ethnicity to decide laws for them and to impose on them, not themselves. National self-determination boils down to the self-determination of the national elite over the people. National liberation is the localisation of tyranny. Is it so much better to be tortured, murdered, oppressed, subdued if it happens at the command of someone of your own ethnicity?

Nationalism is fucking stupid!

[Omsk]

Could you describe us your political views in a number of sentences?

[Partizanac]

A nation is a geographical territory marked by borders controlled by a sovereign state. A state is a centralised body with a monopoly on violence and is the manifestation of class hegemony by a ruling class.

Why would it be difficult for an anarchist to define a self-governing community? A self-governing community is a community of freely associated residents of, what will most likely be, the size of a neighbourhood who, by means of participation in popular assemblies and consensus democracy, will govern the collective affairs of their community (neighbourhood in this case).

You make no sense. You're fighting windmills here Don Quixote!
So the thing I suggested: A nation is a sub-federation of the world soviet and made up out of self-governing, distinct communities is bad.
But a world of "self-governing communities of freely associated residents participating in (larger) popular assemblies that govern their collective affairs" is good?

Also you seem to not want to touch what happens in a broader sense. Cities today have hundreds if not thousands of "neighborhoods", cities in themselves are today connected and dependent upon various road and infrastructure networks going through regions and nations. How will these communities work together? How will they at the same time protect each others distinctiveness ? Do you not realize that we are just calling the same thing with a different name?




Culture =/= nation

Nationalism calls for the preservation of the nation-state; communism calls for its negation. They are irreconcilable.

So you do not want a neighborhood that doesn't like alcohol to be able to kick out people who drink it? And in a broader sense you do not want a neighborhoods with distinct cultures in this world? You object to the very notion of culture? I don't want to say who else has uttered such nonsense but you certainly won't like to be associated with them.



[QUOTE]Attacking? Yeah I will lynch him because he owns a store :rolleyes: Like I said, I am against private property, not those who own them (although it could be said, as many here do, that this makes them the enemy). It was actually you who said the enemy is people, and not the institution. So by your logic, not mine, I should attack your neighbour.
Exacly. The enemy are people. Not private property.
The enemy is the tiny group of individuals that want a system that provides the means to endless accumulation of private property. The goal is to change the system so that such tings are no longer encouraged. One way is to legislate away private property. But I agree in a sense, this is semantics.




:rolleyes:


Policing the bourgeoisie, and you wonder why you are restricted?
First you say you wouldn't break his windows then you object when I say I'd break your bones if you did? So you're sitting on the fence?



How is that relevant here? It was an analogy. Moreover I said they accidentally made that point.


It's relevant because they used it to advocate FOR unrestricted capitalism.
Even in America this was impossible in the past, there were concepts of land tax and how much land each individual could own. It made impossible such trans-continental ownership. Corporations and "Corporate Trusts" were once very heavily regulated to the point were they in most cases were forbidden.
There were also parties advocating municipal ownership such as the municipal ownership league and strict localized ownership. You take up an analogy that is twisted in favor of what you stand against the most to prove to bash on possible allies that by the system are forced to grow.



You either progress or be destroyed, so let's align with people who call for the opposite of progress, hooray for logic!
Yay. Let's call for the opposition of individual progress. Now you're getting it.





Impossible. If you get a bunch of apolitical people they will do absolutely nothing.
Sigh

[Partizanac]

National liberation has nothing to do with "self-determination". The "self-determination" you speak of is the self-determination for those who rule the country, as only they have actual decision-making power.

"they are fighting to be able to decide their own laws, rules, boundaries, culture and language for themselves."

No, they are fighting for an elite of their own ethnicity to decide laws for them and to impose on them, not themselves. National self-determination boils down to the self-determination of the national elite over the people. National liberation is the localisation of tyranny. Is it so much better to be tortured, murdered, oppressed, subdued if it happens at the command of someone of your own ethnicity?

Nationalism is fucking stupid!


You honestly sound like a fanatic.
So you believe in democratic assemblies but reject the ability of these democratic assemblies to regulate national and cultural affairs?

You claim the following:
The Sami people are not the ones demanding the above mentioned things: It is their elite leadership (the reindeer supermind?).
The Sami people are better of if they are absorbed into the "communist" non-federative federation of independent but not culturally distinct (although also not culturally homogeneous) neighborhood communities living in perfect harmony with each other where everyone talk a different language and do what every they want on each others non-privately owned property?

[Franz Fanonipants]

strategic culture-nat'lism against imperialism/capitalism is something i am not opposed to. at the same time i don't necessarily know if our culture-nationalist buddies are gonna be anahuac moonbats or way cooler and more like the bpp.

anyways this is all to say i am flexible.

e: this is specifically about culture-nationalism and not like state nationalism because whatever on that one

[Tim Cornelis]

You make no sense. You're fighting windmills here Don Quixote!
So the thing I suggested: A nation is a sub-federation of the world soviet and made up out of self-governing, distinct communities is bad.
But a world of "self-governing communities of freely associated residents participating in (larger) popular assemblies that govern their collective affairs" is good?

Except that "A nation is a geographical territory marked by borders controlled by a sovereign state. A state is a centralised body with a monopoly on violence and is the manifestation of class hegemony by a ruling class", which is irreconcilable with self-governing communities.


Also you seem to not want to touch what happens in a broader sense. Cities today have hundreds if not thousands of "neighborhoods", cities in themselves are today connected and dependent upon various road and infrastructure networks going through regions and nations. How will these communities work together? How will they at the same time protect each others distinctiveness ? Do you not realize that we are just calling the same thing with a different name?

It is not that I did not want to touch upon that issue, it is that it did not came up so far. Federalism is obviously the answer, and no a federation of communities is not a nation!


So you do not want a neighborhood that doesn't like alcohol to be able to kick out people who drink it? And in a broader sense you do not want a neighborhoods with distinct cultures in this world? You object to the very notion of culture? I don't want to say who else has uttered such nonsense but you certainly won't like to be associated with them.


Again, culture =/= nation. Distinct cultures has absolutely nothing to do with "national identities".

"So you do not want a neighborhood that doesn't like alcohol to be able to kick out people who drink it?"

What does that have to do with anything, firstly. Secondly, no, because that does not regard the collective affairs of the community, but the personal affairs of the individual.


Exacly. The enemy are people. Not private property
The enemy is the tiny group of individuals that want a system that provides the means to endless accumulation of private property. The goal is to change the system so that such tings are no longer encouraged. One way is to legislate away private property. But I agree in a sense, this is semantics.

Another means is, of course, to expropriate the private property of your neighbour. But I'm afraid you will break my bones :(



First you say you wouldn't break his windows then you object when I say I'd break your bones if you did? So you're sitting on the fence?

Yes, because you're policing the bourgeoisie. I don't agree with the black bloc, but that does not mean I--as you imply I should--will assist the cops in preventing this. I neither agree with policing the bourgeoisie nor with senseless "rebellion".


It's relevant because they used it to advocate FOR unrestricted capitalism.

It is relevant for their political views, but not an analogy I (not them) use in an internet discussion.

Just like say, quoting shakespear to your advantage, does not mean his personal political views matter for that particular quote.


Yay. Let's call for the opposition of individual progress. Now you're getting it.

Communism = progress. Communist movement = that which will bring about this progression. If you do not agree with this, fine, but don't expect sympathy on a predominately communist forum.


You honestly sound like a fanatic.
So you believe in democratic assemblies but reject the ability of these democratic assemblies to regulate national and cultural affairs?

You claim the following:
The Sami people are not the ones demanding the above mentioned things: It is their elite leadership (the reindeer supermind?).
The Sami people are better of if they are absorbed into the "communist" non-federative federation of independent but not culturally distinct (although also not culturally homogeneous) neighborhood communities living in perfect harmony with each other where everyone talk a different language and do what every they want on each others non-privately owned property?

There is no such thing as "national affairs" in communism!!

You cannot govern that which does not exist you stupid monkey, which is exactly what you keep telling me.

You keep on conflating culture with nation, nation with culture. And you keep not comprehending the simplest things.

Let me boil this down for you:

If any ethnicity demands national self-determination, say the Catalan people want a Catalan national government, then the Catalan people demand that a Catalan elite will rule over them. It's not rocket science.

[Partizanac]

Alright let's boil things down here.
I think that you're getting upset because I am using the word nationalist.
It's the same every time I discuss with people like you. One can't use "sensitive" words.

Now listen.
When I say take in nationalists I mean people who support distinct cultures and self-determinism. They are called nationalists today because that's what we have today: A world of cultures based in nations, regions and communes.

If you do not want to call the third step a "nation" in a world-communist federation then don't. But getting so upset about it is wrong. Feel free to come up with a *new* word for it. What is the third step going to be called? Can I talk about regions in any positive sense? Communes I can I guess since we have the Paris commune.



Also I'd like to discuss the example of the Alcohol proposal a bit.
It certainly is in the interest of a culturally distinct community.

Maybe they do not want drunkards around them?
Maybe they don't want to pay (read work) for the costs associated with alcohol abuse?
Maybe they don't care for the sort of culture it breeds among young.


Or maybe they do want to relax with a beer sometimes.
Maybe they do feel alcohol and other drugs open up the senses and let you be more social.
Maybe they feel it's up to every individual.

But a distinct, independent community with a citizen assembly should certainly be able to legislate about this.

[Tim Cornelis]

Alright let's boil things down here.
I think that you're getting upset because I am using the word nationalist.
It's the same every time I discuss with people like you. One can't use "sensitive" words.

Wrong. The reason I get angry is not because of the words you use. I discuss with nationalists all the time, and often these disucssions are mature and non-animose. I'm "upset" at stupidity. Which is entails things like saying "popular assemblies governing national affairs in a world without national affairs".




You have your semantics all wrong. Nationalists are those who want to preserve, defend, build, or expand a nation-state. A nation-state can include a homogeneous culture, pluralistic culture, or multiculturalism, it has nothing to do with culture.

[QUOTE]If you do not want to call the third step a "nation" in a world-communist federation then don't. But getting so upset about it is wrong. Feel free to come up with a *new* world for it. What is the third step going to be called? Can I talk about regions in any positive sense? Communes I can I guess since we have the Paris commune.

Nationalism is about saying "my nation is better than yours" or "my nation is more precious because I was born in it". If you are going to level region against region, commune against commune by saying "this commune/region is better for no other reason than that I was born there" then you are wrong.

In communism there will be no nation-state. You may refer to a region as "nation" because of a lack of another word, but arguing in favour of nationalism, alliances with nationalists, etc. is another issue.

We would than have:

1. neighbourhood
2. commune/municipality
3. "nation"
4. Region
5. Continent
6. World

The difference being that this "nation" does not represent a nation-state but a geographical orientation point for no other purpose than practical ones.


Maybe they do not want drunkards around them?

Alcohol does not necessarily imply drunkards. And if they don't like drunkards, then they are allowed to disincentivise public intoxication by calling a family member to pick them up, for example.


Maybe they don't want to pay (read work) for the costs associated with alcohol abuse?

Alcohol consumption does not necessarily imply alcohol abuse.


Maybe they don't care for the sort of culture it breeds among young.

Which is a personal choice, not a collective. Collective decision-making must only affect collective affairs, that is to say, the public sphere, e.g. infrastructure, public transportation, public parks, etc. not personal consumption.


But a distinct, independent community with a citizen assembly should certainly be able to legislate about this.

They should only be able to decide on the public sphere, anything else is tyranny of the majority.

[Partizanac]

strategic culture-nat'lism against imperialism/capitalism is something i am not opposed to. at the same time i don't necessarily know if our culture-nationalist buddies are gonna be anahuac moonbats or way cooler and more like the bpp.

anyways this is all to say i am flexible.

e: this is specifically about culture-nationalism and not like state nationalism because whatever on that one


Then you're more flexible than me. But thank god for that I guess.
I don't know about the BPP but aren't they of racist association? (At least after a short google). Cultural Nationalism is directly opposed to racism. So are the states established upon it (France, Ireland). And parties representing it on the left (Sinn Fein, PSUV).

And even if your goal is no state; damn it we live in a certain reality now.
Still you shouldn't compromise any principles you believe are good!

It's just that the definition of state and of any other organized form of community is quite blurry to most (including myself and even apparently those that argue with me here) that you shouldn't get upset over such things to much. :thumbup1:

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't know about the BPP but aren't they of racist association?


categorically no.

[Partizanac]

Wrong. The reason I get angry is not because of the words you use. I discuss with nationalists all the time, and often these disucssions are mature and non-animose. I'm "upset" at stupidity. Which is entails things like saying "popular assemblies governing national affairs in a world without national affairs".

[QUOTE[Now listen.
When I say take in nationalists I mean people who support distinct cultures and self-determinism. They are called nationalists today because that's what we have today: A world of cultures based in nations, regions and communes.

You have your semantics all wrong. Nationalists are those who want to preserve, defend, build, or expand a nation-state. A nation-state can include a homogeneous culture, pluralistic culture, or multiculturalism, it has nothing to do with culture.



Nationalism is about saying "my nation is better than yours" or "my nation is more precious because I was born in it". If you are going to level region against region, commune against commune by saying "this commune/region is better for no other reason than that I was born there" then you are wrong.

In communism there will be no nation-state. You may refer to a region as "nation" because of a lack of another word, but arguing in favour of nationalism, alliances with nationalists, etc. is another issue.

We would than have:

1. neighbourhood
2. commune/municipality
3. "nation"
4. Region
5. Continent
6. World

The difference being that this "nation" does not represent a nation-state but a geographical orientation point for no other purpose than practical ones.



Alcohol does not necessarily imply drunkards. And if they don't like drunkards, then they are allowed to disincentivise public intoxication by calling a family member to pick them up, for example.



Alcohol consumption does not necessarily imply alcohol abuse.



Which is a personal choice, not a collective. Collective decision-making must only affect collective affairs, that is to say, the public sphere, e.g. infrastructure, public transportation, public parks, etc. not personal consumption.



They should only be able to decide on the public sphere, anything else is tyranny of the majority.
[/QUOTE]
Alright first of all.
Let's get some things straight here.
The nation state is the reality we live in.
Thusly those that support the various things you and I have mentioned but that you do not define as nationalist are STILL called nationalists. Because the "third" step is de facto "nations", even if that to you means the bourgeois nation-state.

If you have a better word then damnit: Say it. But you do not.
Secondly we've gone way off-track from the topic here.

We are deep into semantics here and you are getting upset over that.
Not my "stupidity". I've been called much but stupid is a rarity bestowed upon me only from the rarest forms of idiots. So let's not go there.
We are simply stuck on the definition here.



Now I'll give you this. Many "nationalists" also support the growth of the state, some even support it in its imperialist ambitions. Some go so far as to call for the re-establishment of kings and other forms of tyranny.

But the majority are passionate about THEIR self-determinism, their culture, their heritage and most importantly their community. They identify this community as being part of the state and if you weren't so stubborn you could give them a clap on the back and say: Look, you don't need no damn king or president to have your flag or keep your culture. Join us!.


But you don't. And I understand it's hard because of the long and bitter hate. But it's necessary. So please do it.



About the alcohol:

It's an interesting point to discuss. Who says that alcohol is not a cultural issue? Why do you say that it is merely an individual issue? Do you not believe in the relativity of freedoms? Are the effects of alcohol not proven?

[Thirsty Crow]

I say to you; face reality, show compassion and be forgiving. Unite or fall.
By face reality you mean make comromises becuase workers' could fail, by show compassion you mean support those who would gladly drive a knife through their neighbour's neck, and by forgiving of course you mean let's drop any notion of history and the role played by fascists and nationalists.

Cute rhetoric, along the cries of why people try to label you. I didn't do that, and yet it seems as if my initial response doesn't merit a reply. Well, I can deal with a pragmatic sympathizer of nationalists remaining silent. No harm done here.

[Partizanac]

A response has been given in every regard except one.

Nationalism itself will not as you say ease exploitation.
But having both capitalist and nationalist opposition to deal with will make it harder to ease it.

[#FF0000]

A response has been given in every regard except one.

Nationalism itself will not as you say ease exploitation.
But having both capitalist and nationalist opposition to deal with will make it harder to ease it.

Yeah this has been the excuse of every group that ever kowtow'd to nationalist butchers, and every single time it has ended in communist bodies dumped into rivers.

[Partizanac]

Which group may that be?
Also we are not to kowtow to them. They are to us.
If they come to rallies in support of worker management or free healthcare, welcome them!

We do not come to theirs when they hail some old king or embrace a dictator.

[NewSocialist]

WTF is this shit, another troll from the "Socialist" Phailanx?" (http://www.socialistphalanx.com) Go back and play with you little National "Communist" buddies over there OK? Your Nationalist propaganda isn't going to work on true Communists. Seriously dude, you can fuck off with your Nationalist bullshit.

[hatzel]

"Socialist" Phailanx?" (http://www.socialistphalanx.com)

Why would you link to it? Are you plugging it over here or something? I'm instantly suspicious because I'm just that kind of guy and I can think of no reason to link to a site other than in the hope that people will then go to it...

Please stop trying to drive people from this forum to that forum (EDIT: let's remember that this is far from the first time you've done this, which does little to reduce my suspicion), irrespective of what your exact intentions are in doing so.

[Yuppie Grinder]

OP says that nationalism can not be done away with, which is a very foolish thing to say. The nation-state is an artificial social construct unique to the economic epoch of capital. In feudal times and before, there were not nations in the modern sense. In a post-capitalist society, why would something unique to this barbaric epoch that has divided the common people of the world for so long and sent them off to war with each other for hundreds of years continue to exist? That wouldn't make any sense, and besides that it'd be unjust.

About those Spanish revolutionaries setting fire to churches and Chinese peasants seizing farmland, if you were one of the people and for ages your kind had been oppressed by the land owners and clergy, given the chance to free yourself you would by any means necessary. It's not the sort of thing that should have to be excused. Those actions were plainly just.

Using Jacobin as an example of a patriotic revolutionary isn't a very good argument since he was a liberal, not that the french revolution was a bad thing or unnecessary.

Nationalism is dogs being proud of their cages.

[Partizanac]

If you want to learn from a developing discussion read post #40 and contemplate previous posts as well. If you are looking for rep+ repeat what has already been said again. Doesn't mean I will answer you.

The definition of nationalism has already been defined as I meant it when I posted.


edit: Ask yourself why priests in Nicaragua joined with the revolutionaries while churches were burned in Spain.
Adopted the principles of the Nicaraguan revolutionaries. They succeeded despite opposition from a super power.

Chinese peasants were PROMISED land by Mao, it was forcefully collectivized (and not operated within a democratic communist framework) later in the great leap forward. He stole it from them.

[The Young Pioneer]

Partizanac, I'm curious (and maybe you can actually answer this, I'm not asking sarcastically)- Where in history has nationalism proved to be a good thing? TIA.

[NewSocialist]

Why would you link to it? Are you plugging it over here or something? I'm instantly suspicious because I'm just that kind of guy and I can think of no reason to link to a site other than in the hope that people will then go to it...

Please stop trying to drive people from this forum to that forum, irrespective of what your exact intentions are in doing so.

:rolleyes: are you for real? I linked to it for 2 reasons. a. so people would know why I think he's a troll from that site, in case they have no idea what it is and b. so that even if he isn't a troll he can go there instead of trying to spread his Fascism here.

[eric922]

Chinese communists tried your strategy by allying with the Kuomintang and guess what happened. The communists were slaughtered.

[hatzel]

:rolleyes: are you for real? I linked to it for 2 reasons. a. so people would know why I think he's a troll from that site, in case they have no idea what it is and b. so that even if he isn't a troll he can go there instead of trying to spread his Fascism here.

...by that I assume you mean to say that my suspicions were well-founded and you are in fact actively trying to recruit users for that forum? (Your own words) Is that why you continuously make posts on this forum telling members here that their views belong there instead and encouraging them to sign up there? If you hate the forum even half as much as you claim to, stop advertising it on here and stop trying to increase their membership and hit count. Just shut up about it, it's some shitty and insignificant little forum in a sea of shitty and insignificant little forums, and your dedication to giving it a position of prominence on this (considerably larger) forum, constantly blabbering on about it, just stinks of poorly-masked attempts to generate a bit of free publicity on an obviously larger and more visited socialist forum. Whether that is your intention or not (though by your own admission your intentions were a. to make sure people who didn't know what it was would know what it was ie advertising; and b. to suggest that if the op isn't already a member they should sign up ie recruitment), it is precisely what you're doing, so stop it.

[NewSocialist]

...by that I assume you mean to say that my suspicions were well-founded and you are in fact actively trying to recruit users for that forum? (Your own words) Is that why you continuously make posts on this forum telling members here that their views belong there instead and encouraging them to sign up there? If you hate the forum even half as much as you claim to, stop advertising it on here and stop trying to increase their membership and hit count. Just shut up about it, it's some shitty and insignificant little forum in a sea of shitty and insignificant little forums, and your dedication to giving it a position of prominence on this (considerably larger) forum, constantly blabbering on about it, just stinks of poorly-masked attempts to generate a bit of free publicity on an obviously larger and more visited socialist forum. Whether that is your intention or not (though by your own admission your intentions were a. to make sure people who didn't know what it was would know what it was ie advertising; and b. to suggest that if the op isn't already a member they should sign up ie recruitment), it is precisely what you're doing, so stop it.

You're being paranoiac about me. I'm a anti fascist and when I see people on here spreading the doctrine of Nationalism or Racism I instantly think they are Hitler worshiping types OR Nazbols from sites like the Scumfront or Phailanx. I would prefer if Fascists stayed on there own boards and I support a no platform policy. I also think its really important for Left wingers to be aware of the groups that exist under the umbrella of Socialism that are groups promoting reactionary ideologies so they don't get bamboozled and so they can prevent other people from getting bamboozled by them too. It has NOTHING to do with trying to promote shitty little boards in a positive light its about making awareness of threats. Using your logic the One Peoples Project is HELPING Fascism by letting people know what shitty little neo nazis are up to. and if you think these people can't be a threat just look at the so called "Communist" party of Russia and the racism and Nationalism they spread in the name of Communism. don't underestimate reactionaries.

[gorillafuck]

There is no such thing as "national affairs" in communism!!

You cannot govern that which does not exist you stupid monkey, which is exactly what you keep telling me.calling people monkeys = bad idea.

[Revolution starts with U]

:thumbup1:Ya. We're apes! ...monkies have tails.

[Thirsty Crow]

A response has been given in every regard except one.

Nationalism itself will not as you say ease exploitation.
But having both capitalist and nationalist opposition to deal with will make it harder to ease it.
Bullshit.
Capitalist opposition is nationalist opposition. And I didn't say nationalism won't ease exploitation, I said they don't intend to abolish it, which means that you're effectively calling for reformism and an abandonment of our opposition to world capitalism.

And in fact you didn't respond to anything. Why allying with butchers who have on numerous occasions shown willingness to physically destroy workers' organization and communist organizations? Why should we drop the revolutionary programme? Do you think there is possibility for permanent reforms in this historical period?



If they come to rallies in support of worker management or free healthcare, welcome them!

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Ever heard of the simple notion of co-optation?

[Partizanac]

Partizanac, I'm curious (and maybe you can actually answer this, I'm not asking sarcastically)- Where in history has nationalism proved to be a good thing? TIA.


Aye I will answer.
"Nationalism" or what ever you wish to call it spurred the French to rally from all classes and backgrounds in the defense of their new republic when Austria and Germany and its monarchies attacked it.

It helped the Italians during the 18th century to find new meaning and to re-unite in the face of possible invasion and aristocratic uppheaval during the 18th century with the withdrawl of Napoleon.

In Ireland the sense of national indentity helped people overcome both class barriers and in the beginning even religious barriers. The concept of Irish republicanism unified the people in their anti-capitalist, leftist struggle against the imperialism of the british crown.

In Venezuela today it is being used by Hugo Chavez to remind the people of their common heritage and history of national liberation. That community and culture are more important than selfish exploits. Simon Bolivar is used time and time again as a *national* hero.

In the Soviet Union, still suffering from deep divisions between the left and the rigt of the communist party and the division between communists and the still unconvinced nationalism was used to espound to the greater Soviet and/or Russian concept and the threat every individual was standing before, every community, every culture if Hitlers racist imperialism took over.


Also please revisit my earlier posts. My point is that the general working class was torn into two absolutist positions (or none) at the end of the first world war.
Either the ultra-conservative national-state position or the more or less globalist anti-nationalist position. The early revolutionaries of this period didn't fight for internationalism or self-determinism, frankly it seemed they wanted a one-world without self-determinism. In the sense some of the "multiculturalist" do today (but with wage-dumping and capitalism). In a few places before and after this the positive form of "nationalism" or collectivism with indentity managed to gain a foothold.
And some of those examples I have now presented and hope for more of them although the Soviet one clearly just played in the hands of a dictator of red blood instead of blue.

[Partizanac]

Bullshit.
Capitalist opposition is nationalist opposition. And I didn't say nationalism won't ease exploitation, I said they don't intend to abolish it, which means that you're effectively calling for reformism and an abandonment of our opposition to world capitalism.

And in fact you didn't respond to anything. Why allying with butchers who have on numerous occasions shown willingness to physically destroy workers' organization and communist organizations? Why should we drop the revolutionary programme? Do you think there is possibility for permanent reforms in this historical period?


You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Ever heard of the simple notion of co-optation?

I can excuse a fool being ignorant of history.
But the fact that you keep ignoring that I have time and time again explained to you my definition of nationalism, the commonly understood definition among the common man who most certainly is not a steadfast capitalist doesn't dignify a reply.

[#FF0000]

.
"Nationalism" or what ever you wish to call it spurred the French to rally from all classes and backgrounds in the defense of their new republic when Austria and Germany and its monarchies attacked it...

In Ireland the sense of national indentity helped people overcome both class barriers...

Excellent reasons to throw nationalism away. And the other examples, Venezuela, Russia, and Ireland are as well.


In the sense some of the "multiculturalist" do today (but with wage-dumping and capitalism). In a few places before and after this the positive form of "nationalism" or collectivism with indentity managed to gain a foothold.

Ohhh boy. I can't wait to hear you expand on your thoughts on mulitculturalism.


I can excuse a fool being ignorant of history.

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahah

oh god oh god i fpdasdsafgjghahsahashhahahahahahhaa

[Partizanac]

So you don't think that small positive changes or less negative circumstances are worth struggling for? Yes, what happend in Ireland and in Venezuela is worth jack shit? Your sort of people wouldn't have achieved anything and are achieving nothing because you are so stubborn and secterian. And without people like Hugo Chavez or groups like Sinn Feinn the world would be a far worse place than it is.

When will you wake up and actually help the working class? Those people who work 3 jobs and have nobody but that fucking imaginary figure God to go to because you do not provide a viable, working alternative.

Seriously how the fuck can you sit there and spew shit like "it's all bad because the nationstate is evil or what ever your end point is" in the face of the poor, struggling venezuelans who thanks to Chavez today have a home and running water and a say in their local community?

[Partizanac]

I don't think I'm getting through to the most of you so I'll stop.
Plus I'm starting to say some things that I don't mean out of anger.

See you.

[#FF0000]

So you don't think that small positive changes or less negative circumstances are worth struggling for?

No. I just think going for small positive changes while taking massive steps backwards by aligning with people who have slit our throats throughout history (nationalists, liberals, etc.) is a stupid idea.


When will you wake up and actually help the working class? Those people who work 3 jobs and have nobody but that fucking imaginary figure God to go to because you do not provide a viable, working alternative.

Communists do provide a viable, working alternative though, or at least advocate building a viable, working alternative -- whereas folks like you insist that we do not because we don't sacrifice everything we know is true in favor of short-term goals.


Seriously how the fuck can you sit there and spew shit like "it's all bad because the nationstate is evil or what ever your end point is" in the face of the poor, struggling venezuelans who thanks to Chavez today have a home and running water and a say in their local community?

See above, dogg. I'm not going to say having a home and running water is a bad thing -- it's certainly an improvement on not having water and a home -- i'm just saying we shouldn't sacrifice ourselves and our goals for stupid lesser-evilism and we shouldn't settle for any bougie motherfucker no matter how much red he's draped in.

[Partizanac]

Alright. Good Luck with all of that.

[Thirsty Crow]

I can excuse a fool being ignorant of history. Not quite so. Such fools would get people killed when advocating alliances with nationalists. This is inexcusable.
But the fact that you keep ignoring that I have time and time again explained to you my definition of nationalism, the commonly understood definition among the common man who most certainly is not a steadfast capitalist doesn't dignify a reply.[/QUOTE]
I don't really care for your musings and speculations on what ordinay people think of nationalism (of course that they would agreee with you, since this is a common procedure for people who put forward idiosyncratic definitions which have very little to do with reality). Nationalism is reactionary in that it does not, in any form, uphold the abolition of global capitalism by the global working class. But uf you really want to, I'll go over one of the points raised in OP which shows just what you're politics are (folks, prepare to have lots of fun).



The enemy that is the financial dominion of banksters and fraudsters of other types has only to gain from the divide between us. This split between nationalists and red revolutionaries in mainland Europe came about at the end of World War 1 where the reds rejected nationalism as a propaganda tool in the array of many from the ruling elite while the soldiers were persuaded that the reds in lure with jews and other "foreigners" lead to the central powers downfall.
The enemy isn't the financial dominion of banksteres and fraudsters. It's capital as a social relation of production - global capitalism. This rhetoric, coupled by your advocacy of support for nationalists, bring all sorts of nasty shit like fascism and national bolshevism to mind. But okay, you're a delicate flower and feel bad when people try to label you. That's alrgiht. The point, however, stands. It's not the international financial Jewry, oh ooops, sorry, I meant to say international financial elite, that is the sole enemy. It's the global capitalist class.

And with regard to the "split", here you show yourself for a fool that you are. The entire history of the Second International could be written from the perspective of the struggle between intransigient Marxism, in htis case virulently attacking any concessions to nationalist sentiments, and opportunists, revisionists, and reformists, who managed to rally workers' behind their respective bourgeoisies - and get them slaughtered. But the point is that you're probably willfully (iif not, then out of ignorance) leaving out the long fight against these currents and their concessions to nationalism. As if it took good 4 years of carnage for those stupid reds to understand what's going on - and then they are to be faulted for breaking the bonds with our brethren the nationalists, who by some miraculuous twist of fate have had, and will have tried to send us to our deaths.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit, but let's move on.

Oh yes, and there's more bits of wisdom, especially on the insensitivities towards national sentiments (and religious ones too):


The revolutionary left has in generally been what I would like to call "insensensitive" to the feelings and de facto needs of others. It burned churches in Spain while it dececrated national monuments in Germany and forcefully collectivized property in China. Dare I say that had you not burned churches in Spain then Spain might have been the star of Europe today?
YOu can dare and say it, but then you'd be a total idiot.
Do you really wish to claim that church burnings were the downfall of the Republic? Really? Without even bothering to learn something about the historical role of the Catholic Church in Spain at the time? Or do you suppose that the Church has, at every point in time, precisely the same role, to offer salvation? What heap of idiocy posing as being sensitive to people's feelings.


IS this not in a sense the foundation of ancient nationalism, although the nation in this case merely represents a geographical sub-federation of the great soviet world federation?
Is this your definition of nationalism? Arguing that the notion of the world soviet finds its echo in bourgeois nationalism?
No, this is not in any way the foundation of "ancient" nationalism. This foundations is political oppression and capitalist exploitation. One cannot disentangle the formation of nations from the formation of a unified "internal" market fostering capitalist relations of production and the formaiton of the state which regulates social life (by regulates I first of all mean that it disciplines the dominated and exploited, first through its schools and other ideological apparatuses, then by the actions of the repressive apparatus). Nationalism will always be tied to specific loyalty preventing the formation of broader ties, in this case, also preventing the working class to fight for its own interest - against its own national bourgeoisie, against its own national state. If you really think that modern nationalism has something to do with the old bourgeois nationalism formed at the time of the Revolution, that equality and fraternity are still its watchwords, then you're living on some other planet or have been vaccinateed against sanity.


I don't think I'm getting through to the most of you so I'll stop.
Plus I'm starting to say some things that I don't mean out of anger.

See you.
That's because we're not idiots and realize that you're wonderful alliance idea could get us killed. You'd be surprised how often fools come here with their newly found wisdom of "hey you need to ally with X becuase nothing gets done without compromise". You're nothing new, but you are excpetionally irritating, that I'll give you.
I suggest you search out a bunch of Strasserites and national bolsheviks, there you'll find your equals.

[Zbigniew]

Whether or not I agree with you, humankind cannot rid itself of nationalism.
Why not? Nations haven't always existed.

It could be said that nationalism is an evolution of tribalism, so in a way concept of nations has always existed under the different name (tribe) but with similar principles, i.e. loyalty.

[Thirsty Crow]

It could be said that nationalism is an evolution of tribalism, so in a way concept of nations has always existed under the different name (tribe) but with similar principles, i.e. loyalty.
If you were to conclude that, then you'd be effectively equating social life in tribal societies and in modern (capitalist) nations. That would be wrong on many levels.
Nationalism, first of all, is nothing like an evolution of tribalism (by the way, can you point me to some foundational tribalist texts, where the ideology is expounded?) since political ideologies are not only historical products of earlier ones, but also the products of the concrete social and economic situation. Thus, in order to smash the power of the crown, representing the interests of the feudal aristocracy, who prevented the domination of the bourgeoisie, nationalism and its cousin patriotism were very useful as tools. And, as can be clear from this short excurse into historical origins of nationalism, it is all to tied up with the formation and maintenance of national capital (for instance, one component of the nationalist project, common langauge, found itself facing barriers even in 19th century France in certain rural areas where standard French was barely understood - which draws directly on the difference between earlier localist manifestations of people's sense of allegiance, connected to the feudal mode of swearing loyalty to the lord, with the new nationalist doctrine and reality).

It's not enought that we're talking about loyalty in one sense or another, in both instances. What is at stake here is the need to recognize the fundamental differences between the social and political roles, functions of different kinds of manifestations of this same thing. And this would be eclipsed if you concluded that nationalism is somehow just an evolution of tribalism.

[CommunityBeliever]

What's wrong with embracing the nationalists?

Embracing nationalists is essentially pointless because the development of capitalist globalisation is already eliminating nationalism. This is described in chapter 2 of the communist manifesto: "national differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto"

[Partizanac]

Indeed. And from what I understand and hope "we" or you do not want this bland soup of lost people that are constantly moving around, having no attachment to any community or loyalty to anyone but themselves. Climbing over each others head up an endlessly long ladder that's being thrown deeper and deeper into a bottomless pit of ever worsening despair by the people who have already managed to climb out.Capitalism and those few who truly support its wicked institutions wish nothing more than for the collapse of national identity along with every other form of meaningful identity.

This is precisely the reason to embrace my definition of nationalism/tribalism/communalism/what ever your heart pleases to call it and embrace those people who today call themselves nationalists in at the very least the rallies and questions that you all agree on. Not to mention to try an welcome and educated as many people as possible in at least the basics. To welcome both religious people as well as social democrats or even those liberals and conservatives who are beginning to stand uneasy on their position.

There are certain things a vast majority of the populace could agree upon if only they would see beyond each others differences.

[Thirsty Crow]

This is precisely the reason to embrace my definition of nationalism/tribalism/communalism/what ever your heart pleases to call it and embrace those people who today call themselves nationalists in at the very least the rallies and questions that you all agree on. Not to mention to try an welcome and educated as many people as possible in at least the basics. To welcome both religious people as well as social democrats or even those liberals and conservatives who are beginning to stand uneasy on their position.
How about providing some evidence that these people who call themselves nationalists actually share the same definition with you? You know, without that, your entire thesis falls to pieces, and you haven't provided any evidence so far, and what's worse, you've simultaneously been swamped by arguments against the notion that nationalists are somehow opposed to global capitalism.
Religious people are to an extent welcomed. For istance, the organization I had been working with, along other political organizations, does not bar religious people from admission, provided they do not base their politcs on it. This forum is also an example.
Social democrats, liberals, and conservatives who are becoming uneasy with their opinions will find out that communists can be open and put forward their positions clearly, if they really wish an honest debate. But such debate cannot, should not include communists compromising their politics for the sake of attracting more and more people. Indeed, we don't think political organizations will make the revolution, although there is an important role for them to do so, but rather the working class itself, organized in their own structures for struggle like strike committees and neighbourhood committees (which are most of the time non-permanent structures) and soviets as potential permanent structures.


There are certain things a vast majority of the populace could agree upon if only they would see beyond each others differences.
And nationalism, far from being eliminated by "globaliization" as CommunityBeliever states, is a huge obstacle in this project. It is esentially aimed at establishing a homogenous nation as a body of loyalty, this without workers being conscious of it, necessarily supporting the inter-imperialist rivalries, resulting in striving for more power, more influnce, more wealth for one's own nation.
All of this is based not on my own fanatasies, but rather on concrete analysis of contemporary social and political conflicts, as well as historical ones, and I would love it if you could refute this notion of nationalism and provide some evidence which support your definition.

[Zbigniew]

If you were to conclude that, then you'd be effectively equating social life in tribal societies and in modern (capitalist) nations...

I don't think I would be equating them by saying what I said. I said that concept of nations is an evolved concept of a tribe, so I am not putting them on equal terms. To me it seems like nations are an upgraded versions of tribes, like Windows 95 to a Windows XP, so to speak :D.

What does concept of nation and tribe have in common is a belief in a real or percieved kinship between a certain group, a sense of loyalty which is derived from that kinship, or from some other factors, and a social structure based on class. But most important thing why they both exist(ed) is to create a sense of belonging to a certain group, that is their purpose.




It's not enought that we're talking about loyalty in one sense or another, in both instances. What is at stake here is the need to recognize the fundamental differences between the social and political roles, functions of different kinds of manifestations of this same thing. And this would be eclipsed if you concluded that nationalism is somehow just an evolution of tribalism.

And what are so radically different social and political concepts nations have, and tribes didn't had, that are important in forming a sense of a belonging to a certain group?
Nations have authority, tribes had authority. Nations have classes, tribes had classes. Nations have myths about their origin, tribes had myths.

[dodger]

What's wrong with embracing the nationalists?


What's wrong with Nationalists embracing Internationalism?

[RGacky3]

What's wrong with Nationalists embracing Internationalism?

Nothing, but you can only control what you do, and the influence you have, and thus your only responsible for that.

[Partizanac]

What's wrong with Nationalists embracing Internationalism?

Internationalism is a position only a nationalist can have as it requires this sub-geographical entity called nation. Whether capitalist or socialist or something else. With such elements as self-determination and cultural identity present.

And certainly I do not call for any intimate collaboration between nationalist who do not embrace internationalism. It is my firm opinion though that the majority of people in this world are nationalists and that the majority of these are also internationalists and that more fanatical elements should only be invited to participate in events that there is common ground on. Not as some people try to put words in my mouth; that anyone compromises principles.

[dodger]

Thank you for clarifying your position.Partizanac.

[Revolution starts with U]

Internationalism is a position only a nationalist can have as it requires this sub-geographical entity called nation. Whether capitalist or socialist or something else. With such elements as self-determination and cultural identity present.

And certainly I do not call for any intimate collaboration between nationalist who do not embrace internationalism. It is my firm opinion though that the majority of people in this world are nationalists and that the majority of these are also internationalists and that more fanatical elements should only be invited to participate in events that there is common ground on. Not as some people try to put words in my mouth; that anyone compromises principles.

Nations have almost nothing to do with geography. Any geographical aspects are more of an effect of naitonalism, not a cause. Jews around the world are a nation, Isreal is a "nation-state."

There's a big difference between the nationalism of "proud to be american," and "America is the greatest country in the world," tho both are equally as ignorant.

[Partizanac]

Can you read?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I don't think I would be equating them by saying what I said. I said that concept of nations is an evolved concept of a tribe, so I am not putting them on equal terms. To me it seems like nations are an upgraded versions of tribes, like Windows 95 to a Windows XP, so to speak :D.

What does concept of nation and tribe have in common is a belief in a real or percieved kinship between a certain group, a sense of loyalty which is derived from that kinship, or from some other factors, and a social structure based on class. But most important thing why they both exist(ed) is to create a sense of belonging to a certain group, that is their purpose.


And what are so radically different social and political concepts nations have, and tribes didn't had, that are important in forming a sense of a belonging to a certain group?
Nations have authority, tribes had authority. Nations have classes, tribes had classes. Nations have myths about their origin, tribes had myths.

While the phenomenology of "groupism" might be a driving force in both cases, it is a shallow analysis and actually conflates and minimizes the monumental differences between tribes and modern nation states. I mean if you want to get reductive we can say that Carbon Monoxide has carbon and oxygen and so does Carbon Dioxide. They are basically similar, no? Well, not so much, especially if you are in a small space with a lot of either present.

[RGacky3]

Internationalism is a position only a nationalist can have as it requires this sub-geographical entity called nation. Whether capitalist or socialist or something else. With such elements as self-determination and cultural identity present.


Your making rediculous arguments based on semantics which are meaningless.

Its funny that almost half or more of right wingers arguments are just semantics games.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think I would be equating them by saying what I said. I said that concept of nations is an evolved concept of a tribe, so I am not putting them on equal terms. To me it seems like nations are an upgraded versions of tribes, like Windows 95 to a Windows XP, so to speak :D.

What does concept of nation and tribe have in common is a belief in a real or percieved kinship between a certain group, a sense of loyalty which is derived from that kinship, or from some other factors, and a social structure based on class. But most important thing why they both exist(ed) is to create a sense of belonging to a certain group, that is their purpose.The notion of perceived kinship and a sense of loyalty are common characteristics to all social formations. That's the point, that arguing that the concept of a nation is an evolution of tribalism is just a banality which doesn't, and cannot, distingusih between the ideological roles of the two, which are very much different, stemming from the fact that they resulted from the development of essentially different modes of production and consequently different social formations.


And what are so radically different social and political concepts nations have, and tribes didn't had, that are important in forming a sense of a belonging to a certain group?
Nations have authority, tribes had authority. Nations have classes, tribes had classes. Nations have myths about their origin, tribes had myths.
You keep focusing on "concepts" whereas you should be looking at material practice, or in other words, how does a society produce.
It's true, allegiance to a king, as well as regionalist or even localist loyalties are based on class, the same with nationalism. But the crucial thing here is which class is the dominant in society (and on which basis does this class dominate in society), and to see just how ideologies serve the interests of this class.
Thus nationalism, as I've stated before (and you didn't bother to refute that point), appears as a necessary tool in both the consolidation of a geographically and culturally specific bourgoeisie and the establishment of a unified internal market (the elimination of "internal" customs and dues paid to local lords). Anothe rof its functions was to reinforce the formation of a national conscript army, whereas earlier rulers relied on mercenaries and the establishment of the conditions for its ideological hegemony (the example I provided with the formation of unified standard language, upon which the modern school system is built). In short, nationalism is necessitated by the development of capitalism and its consequence, the formation of the capitalist state.
All of this is radically different from the social life of a tribe, and also from the social and political life of what is commonly called feudalism. To focus on the most broad, most general common characteristics here means neglecting the specificities which carry an immense political weight.

[Partizanac]

Your making rediculous arguments based on semantics which are meaningless.

Its funny that almost half or more of right wingers arguments are just semantics games.


Right.

[dodger]

Nothing, but you can only control what you do, and the influence you have, and thus your only responsible for that.

From where I am sitting, it might well be a good thing. As a start. Where else might we begin? I am wary of empty calls of Internationalism. Internationalism begins at home, if nobody said that , they certainly should have.

[Zbigniew]

The notion of perceived kinship and a sense of loyalty are common characteristics to all social formations. That's the point, that arguing that the concept of a nation is an evolution of tribalism is just a banality which doesn't, and cannot, distingusih between the ideological roles of the two, which are very much different, stemming from the fact that they resulted from the development of essentially different modes of production and consequently different social formations.


That is why I did not intend to equate nation and tribe, just to say I see them somewhat related.



Thus nationalism, as I've stated before (and you didn't bother to refute that point), appears as a necessary tool in both the consolidation of a geographically and culturally specific bourgoeisie and the establishment of a unified internal market (the elimination of "internal" customs and dues paid to local lords).


I did not refute it because I agree with it.



Anothe rof its functions was to reinforce the formation of a national conscript army, whereas earlier rulers relied on mercenaries and the establishment of the conditions for its ideological hegemony (the example I provided with the formation of unified standard language, upon which the modern school system is built).


There were tribal conscript armies (levies) as well, for example Roman tribe used exclusivly tribal conscript armies for war all up to 2 century BC, from where on it got professionalised. Tribes from Gaul also levied their Celtic tribal peaseants which made up the bulk of their forces in wars with Rome.
Mercanaries were always used, Napoleon used a lot of non-French troops in his wars, and today nations like USA use mercenaries in Afghanistan.



In short, nationalism is necessitated by the development of capitalism and its consequence, the formation of the capitalist state.


And yet the Roman tribe lived in a something we could call a proto-capitalist state, and it was not a nation.



All of this is radically different from the social life of a tribe, and also from the social and political life of what is commonly called feudalism. To focus on the most broad, most general common characteristics here means neglecting the specificities which carry an immense political weight.

I did not mean to neglect the specific character they obviously have, I meant to show what is similar about them, and to explain why I see them as such. There are differences, most important the one you mentioned, the different modes of production from which different social structures emerge.

[Partizanac]

So what do you call an union of tribes/communities united in a common purpose, identity, heritage and what not that occupy a certain part of the world and have a government or council on a level higher than local and regional?:laugh:

Or are we going to start talking about tribes in tribes now?

[Revolution starts with U]

The first part is a nation, regardless of geography. The second part is a state.

[Partizanac]

Yes and no. Without the second part it doesn't exist. Now this council or government can be a state or a federation. Usually the communist and anarchist concept calls for a federation while the monarchist and liberal-democratic concepts call for a state.

I actually thought about this be fore posting it but I'm pretty sure it's like this.



One thing I have contemplated and must admit is that in an ideal situation one could call oneself an internationalist and not be a nationalist. But this is really pushing it.

By calling oneself an internationalist national socialist (not nazi) one could perhaps denote ones support for the concept of nations while renouncing the concept of inter-national struggle and emphasizing international cooperation instead.

But really, which internationalist wants to call themselves a national socialist?



edit: Oh how lovely. 6 thanks, reasonable answers even from critics and then an anonymous cowardly tard writes this: Fuck your nationalist neo-fascism bullshit.

Always the most insecure closet-fascists that scream the loudest with their heads in a hood.

[l'Enfermé]

Nothing, as long as it's in the interest of class struggle. Usually it's not, so that answers the question. Nationalism is a bourgeois concept after all, that instills false consciousness in workers. The nation was the result of collapse of feudalism, it itself vanishes with the collapse of capitalism.

How can you be an internationalist and a nationalist? Can you be a fascist and an anti-fascist at the same time?

[l'Enfermé]

Nothing, as long as it's in the interest of class struggle. Usually it's not, so that answers the question. Nationalism is a bourgeois concept after all, that instills false consciousness in workers. The nation was the result of collapse of feudalism, it itself vanishes with the collapse of capitalism.

How can you be an internationalist and a nationalist? Can you be a fascist and an anti-fascist at the same time? Did you invent your own, unique, definition for nationalism? This seems to be the norm for the restricted members of this forum, inventing new and absurd definitions for words and concepts.

[Partizanac]

Dude that depends on what you are.
Some internationalists seem to at heart be globalist, working for internationalism that in the end will obliterate the nation through transnationalism. Some internationalists are working for the strengthening of cooperation, trade and cultural and scientific exchange between nations and are as such "nationalist".


This thread has really lost its purpose though. Which was that you people should try to co-operate with the majority of the worlds working class where ever possible and not be so stubborn.

I think it should be closed

[dodger]

Dude that depends on what you are.
Some internationalists seem to at heart be globalist, working for internationalism that in the end will obliterate the nation through transnationalism. Some internationalists are working for the strengthening of cooperation, trade and cultural and scientific exchange between nations and are as such "nationalist".


This thread has really lost its purpose though. Which was that you people should try to co-operate with the majority of the worlds working class where ever possible and not be so stubborn.

I think it should be closed

Partizanac, since the older capitalist countries have a overwhelming number of its citizens working class, can it not be said the working class is the nation? Do you not think that Internationalism must always begin at home, the struggle here. All else being empty rhetoric. I am British, working class, utterly opposed to the undemocratic EU. For national sovereignty. I cannot help but note the issue has been taken up by the labour movement.63% of our citizens refused to take part in EU elections. Those who did voted for sceptics and even BNP candidates. Apologies if I missed it but which country are you from?

[Thirsty Crow]

There were tribal conscript armies (levies) as well, for example Roman tribe used exclusivly tribal conscript armies for war all up to 2 century BC, from where on it got professionalised. Tribes from Gaul also levied their Celtic tribal peaseants which made up the bulk of their forces in wars with Rome.
Mercanaries were always used, Napoleon used a lot of non-French troops in his wars, and today nations like USA use mercenaries in Afghanistan.You're using the term "tribal" in a very idiosyncratic manner. Roman Republic/Empire can hardly be taken to stand for a tribal society (as far as I know, the term is used to denote pre-agricultural societies, but you could extend it the way you did perhaps to societies such as Gaul).
But again, the point is not to draw ahistorical comparisons. What matters in this case is the transitions from what we call feudalism to capitalism.


And yet the Roman tribe lived in a something we could call a proto-capitalist state, and it was not a nation.Absolutely not the case. How could we call the Roman state apparatus a "proto-capitalist state" when labour wasn't organized as wage labour and capital was not the dominant relation of production? If anything, you could call European absolutist monarchies "proto-capitalist" states, but extending this to slaveholding societies of antiquity is not only wrong factually (again, it disregards very important specificities and differences), but it also implies that capitalism is natural and everpresent insofar as there were capitalist-like tendencies in all of human societies, just that earlier ones didn't manage to tear down the obstacles to the free development of capital. That is a teleological position from the view of capital, and I can't conceive of just why communists should defend it.


I did not mean to neglect the specific character they obviously have, I meant to show what is similar about them, and to explain why I see them as such. There are differences, most important the one you mentioned, the different modes of production from which different social structures emerge.
Well yes, it's just that these common characteristics are so general that they can't explain anything (the point here which needs to be explained is that nationalism is inherently reactionary)


Dude that depends on what you are.
Some internationalists seem to at heart be globalist, working for internationalism that in the end will obliterate the nation through transnationalism. Some internationalists are working for the strengthening of cooperation, trade and cultural and scientific exchange between nations and are as such "nationalist".

That's one big bullshit.
You don't get to define, in a silly and confused manner, what an ideology stands for, how a term is used, you do realize this? You do realize that migration and "cultural exchange" (you advocating the former as part of "nationalism") are phenomena which a great majority of nationalists denounce as leading exactly to what you oppose, to the so called obliteraiton of the nation?
And transnationalism? Do you really think that you'll make a point by throwing around fancy terms?

[Zbigniew]

You're using the term "tribal" in a very idiosyncratic manner. Roman Republic/Empire can hardly be taken to stand for a tribal society (as far as I know, the term is used to denote pre-agricultural societies, but you could extend it the way you did perhaps to societies such as Gaul).
But again, the point is not to draw ahistorical comparisons. What matters in this case is the transitions from what we call feudalism to capitalism.


The society of early Rome is a tribal society, note that I did not mention Empire, I said up to 2 century BC.



Absolutely not the case. How could we call the Roman state apparatus a "proto-capitalist state" when labour wasn't organized as wage labour and capital was not the dominant relation of production? If anything, you could call European absolutist monarchies "proto-capitalist" states, but extending this to slaveholding societies of antiquity is not only wrong factually (again, it disregards very important specificities and differences), but it also implies that capitalism is natural and everpresent insofar as there were capitalist-like tendencies in all of human societies, just that earlier ones didn't manage to tear down the obstacles to the free development of capital.

The Romans did not have any large number of slave labour prior to their victory in Punic wars, so in early Rome slaves were not used as primary workers. Free peasants did that job, the plebians. The Empire is a whole different beast from that of early Rome.

I always thought there were both capitalist like and communist like tendencies in ancient societies. For example early christianity is also somewhat similar to communism.



That is a teleological position from the view of capital, and I can't conceive of just why communists should defend it.


Zašto?

[l'Enfermé]

A good analysis of class struggle in the Roman Republic.

http://www.marxist.com/class-struggles-roman-republic-one.htm