Patriotic Socialists

[Babeufist]

I know this has been covered a number of times but I'm just curious how people feel about socialists who are "patriotic".

i.e. Woody Guthrie, wrote about loving America, wrote this land is your land, which is obviously a socialist song, but at the same time is patriotic and describes his affinity for the land he lives in, and clearly, that he loves. Or the Angelic Upstarts and thier song "England", they're SWP members, and open Marxists but they love the country, or at least, thier interpretation of the ideas behind it.

Whats up with this?

I can't lie, I do feel some affinity for the American tradition of independence and anti-authoritarian ideals, and it is a beautiful country. I am definitely an internationalist but I will admit, that when I take a ride through the rural areas around my town its beautiful, and I do get inspired when I read about some of the American traditions. (though they were mainly just ideals and never put into practice)


*I couldn't decide where to put this...maybe learning?
I agree with cmoney.
I know many patriotic Socialists/Communists.
Do you know Lenin's work "On the National Pride of the Great Russians" www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm) ? Also Marx and Engels wrote:

"The proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word". (The Communist Manifesto).
In fact all the patriotism has Jacobin i.e. left-wing origins.

patriotism is clearly recognized as a feeling directed toward nations (political-legal entities), not one's "culture" or "roots"
It is not true. In the 19. century there was no Polish "political-legal entity" but there were Polish patriots who loves the culture and countrymen. There was even the phenomenon of the anti-statist patriotism of Abramowski (so-called "Cooperative Republic" - nation as cooperation of free cooperatives and associations).

[The Douche]

I wrote that?

Anyways, patriotism kind of relies on a national myth, which is usually more bullshit than anything else.

The US doesn't have a greater tradition of anti-authoritarianism or strong independent spirit than any other place, really. I think some people on the left might make appeals to patriotism, but its foolish.


Patriotism played a progressive role at some point in history, but its all used up nowadays, and there is not really much substance to many national myths. (England's St. George was a Turk, being a good example)

[Agathor]

There are two very different types of patriots: there are the national supremacists (USA #1) who are likely jingoistic, ignorant and deeply deluded, and there are the George Orwell types, who love their home country in the same way that most love their parents. The latter is completely harmless and natural.

My opinion is that a country is too large and complicated to regard with one simple emotion, whether love or hatred. However I certainly feel at home in the country I grew up in and around the sort of people I grew up with. George Orwell wrote that the reason fascism beat socialism in Italy, Spain and Germany was that the facists were willing to exploit this instinct while the socialists tried to ignore it.

[Ayatollah]

I can see what you're saying . but there is a rather ironic aspect to Woodie Guthrie's great song - in that the entire land was of course nicked from the Native American peoples by us Europeans. I'm not just saying this as a "NYA, NYA" jibe -- it does illustrate the shortcomings of a lot of "patriotism" - once viewed in a wider context .

Having said that it does strike me, certainly in the UK, and most of Europe, that the super rich and the "political class" - including NuLabours leadership, are nowadays so divorced from self identification with any specific nation state - (the "austerity" voodoo economics of the post 2008 Crash have more in common with a last looting round before the super rich and their political creatures bugger off to "the land of the rich" - No, I don't know where that is , and they don't either... but the ACT as if such a place exists) - that as the Welfare state is dismantled in the next few years entire sections of former Tory voters will suddenly see themselves as having interests in common with ordinary working people rather than the Tory Toffs . This could provide a groundswell for a "popular front" movement against the destruction of the gains of 1945 - well beyond the usual few Trots, and militant trades unionists. I notice a group of doctors are already organising to stand against Coalition MP's in elections on the single "save the NHS" platform

Such a "popular front" movement could have traction - not yet admittedly - but give it a year or two more of privatisation, wage and pension cuts, and destruction of welfare/health provision. Might have to break with the instinct to have some "Leftie" name though - something more like "The Democratic Resistance Movement" might have more widespread appeal. If the Left DOESN't reach out to the increasingly disgruntled middle classes through a broad popular front we can be sure the fascists will.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Loving aspects of the place you live does not make you a patriot. I love the Lake District, I love the park near my house, I love the city I live near and the city I go to university in. I love fish and chips and cricket, and when Frank Lampard does something good I get excited. That doesn't make me a patriot.

Patriotism is believing, inanely, that your country - or something it/its people do/are - is better than other countries purely by the project of being your country. That is silly and dangerous: it's nationalism.

Nothing nationalistic about appreciating some things regarding your own country, just as you can appreciate the beauty, the culture etc. in other countries.

[manic expression]

I disagree with the above post, because patriotism comes in many forms. "BEING A PATRIOT (TM)" has in our time been warped into something very narrow and stupid, when it is hardly the case and patriotism can be as simple as loving where you're from or even just wanting it to be a better place; I think it is especially this last instinct that forms the basis of all patriotism. If you ask me, progressives are uniformly patriots, even if they do not call themselves so.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How is wanting the place you're live to be a better place patriotic? As long as your analysis is based in materialism and logic, rather than emotive 'come on Britain we love you'-style ideas, then what is wrong with appreciating the natural beauty of one country? It's not a zero sum game...I can appreciate the geography and culture of several different countries at once, you know!

[The Douche]

Liking the landscape of your town is not patriotism.

[Rooster]

Patriotism, to me, crosses class lines. Like a mix of nostalgia and jingoism. I don't think real Marxists should deal with it, to be honest. Even the concept of being patriotic to one's class seems reactionary considering that the whole Marxian project is to remove classes. And to have a nation that is supposedly under the the rule of a class, then having patriotism directed towards that nation seems to undermine the internationalist concept that marxists should be talking about.


Liking the landscape of your town is not patriotism.

Obviously. I love picking my nose but that doesn't make me a nose picking patriot.

[manic expression]

How is wanting the place you're live to be a better place patriotic?
You've misunderstood my meaning. First, I agree that you can appreciate the aspects of several countries at once, and I never attempted to contradict this basic truth. Second, who says that patriotism cannot be materialist and logical? The heart has no monopoly upon patriotism, though it is of course important, the mind has a part to play as well.

Lastly, wanting the place you live in to be better is the most patriotic of all sentiments. It is the purest form that patriotism can take: wanting to make one's country better.


Liking the landscape of your town is not patriotism.
It is not patriotism itself, but it can be a patriotic feeling. String it together with other patriotic feelings and at the very least you will find some species of patriotism in its sum.

[Crux]

If you ask me, progressives are uniformly patriots, even if they do not call themselves so.
Maybe that's a prerequisite for you to call someone a progressive, but certainly not for me. The reformists in 2nd international tried to use patriotism for something progressive. And then they all happily embraced one of the greatests slaughters in modern history, namely world war 1. These two thing's are no coincidence. That said, sometimes of course consciousness lags behind, indeed people who hold progressive values can be patriots, but then it is in spite of their patriotism not because of it. Patriotism is a cancer but sometimes it's benign.

[manic expression]

Not a prerequisite, simply a matter of fact whenever someone promotes the progress of one's nation. Communists do this and for it they are patriotic.

As for the 2nd International, it is simply not a tenable position to say that the reformists did what they did because they thought themselves patriots. Jaures similarly thought himself a patriot and somehow resisted the urge to support the war.

[Per Levy]

Lastly, wanting the place you live in to be better is the most patriotic of all sentiments. It is the purest form that patriotism can take: wanting to make one's country better.

yuk... btw i most defenetly dont want to make this country better for the bourgeosie or the nazis or the middle class and so on, also i want that the whole world gets better not just thew tiny place i happen to be be born in.


It is not patriotism itself, but it can be a patriotic feeling. String it together with other patriotic feelings and at the very least you will find some species of patriotism in its sum.

this whole talk about patritosim/nationalism makes me sick. come on now patriotism/nationalism is a terrible thing. it might wasnt a long time ago but nowadays its just wrong.

[Per Levy]

Not a prerequisite, simply a matter of fact whenever someone promotes the progress of one's nation. Communists do this and for it they are patriotic.

and there i was and thought communists wanted to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie world wide(ergo class war), instead they just want to "promote progress of nations".

[manic expression]

yuk... btw i most defenetly dont want to make this country better for the bourgeosie or the nazis or the middle class and so on, also i want that the whole world gets better not just thew tiny place i happen to be be born in.
Progressive patriots want their nation to be better along with the entire world.


and there i was communist wanted to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie world wide(ergo class war), instead they just want to "promote progress of nations".The overthrow of the capitalist class is the progress of nations, would you not agree?

[The Douche]

You've misunderstood my meaning. First, I agree that you can appreciate the aspects of several countries at once, and I never attempted to contradict this basic truth. Second, who says that patriotism cannot be materialist and logical? The heart has no monopoly upon patriotism, though it is of course important, the mind has a part to play as well.

Lastly, wanting the place you live in to be better is the most patriotic of all sentiments. It is the purest form that patriotism can take: wanting to make one's country better.


It is not patriotism itself, but it can be a patriotic feeling. String it together with other patriotic feelings and at the very least you will find some species of patriotism in its sum.

I mean, I really like the region I live in. I really like southern US culture, I like outlaw country music, mudding, rafting on the river, shit like that. But I don't consider myself a "southerner" or a patriot just because I like the swamp/river/beach/appalachians.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think liking the place you live is different from Patriotism: I like the surrounding landscape, but I don't like the government and nor will I die, or even hurt myself, to "defend" it. If one says a person is patriotic because they like the features of a geographical locations what next? People are patriots over liking a beautifully hand drawn painting of Rome?

[NoPasaran1936]

I love England's landscape, love the countryside and the cities and not forgetting many of the communities built in. But I don't love the flag, and never will. A piece of fabric designed to separate us humans from one another.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well, I am a Marxist-Leninist and this is what I had to say about my "patriotism" about a month ago on a thread about the burning of Korans in Afghanistan:


I am patriotic of my land, and I am bound by love to my fellow citizens, but I resent our political and economic system. My "patriotism" is what connects me to the proletariat of my land, and distances me from our government and capitalist system. For us revoltuionaries, patriotism is not loving our countries by what they are defined as by our capitalist governments, but loving the land we walk upon everyday and the people we have to coexist with. In fact, we love our nations so much, that we are willing to risk our lives helping them liberate themselves from the chains of capitalism. That is the most intense love and the most pure patriotism. So, when you criticize the United States, you are not being anti-American, you are being anti-United States. Being against the government and system is different from being against the people and the land.

Greetings from the United States. Just a little side-tracking. I just had to respond to such an important issue as is "anti-Americanism." Continue with talking about Koran burnings.

But that in no circumstance means I abandon proletariat internationalism, which is an important part of my ideology.

[Per Levy]

Progressive patriots want their nation to be better along with the entire world.

thats great and all but im a communist and want all nations and states to be gone unlike your beloved patriots who want to conserve nations and states and never want to do away with them.

[l'Enfermé]

Today, patriotism is just another word for social-chauvinism. It were the "patriots" that betrayed the proletariat and voted for war credits in 1914. I am proud of my people's history of consistently resisting and consistenly refusing to bow down to Russian Imperial oppression and later Stalinist oppression and now Russian imperialism again. That doesn't make me a "patriot". I am a patriot of all oppressed peoples and I am patriot of the working classes.

[Omsk]

It makes you a nationalist Borz,an ugly one.

[Althusser]

I love New York. I'm no nationalist though.

[l'Enfermé]

It makes you a nationalist Borz,an ugly one.
Sorry, what did you say Mr. "Genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced deportation of entire nations is fine if Stalin does it"?

[Rooster]

I don't know about anyone else but I really dislike being a proletarian. And I am an actual proletarian and I have been for most of my life. I don't feel any patriotic passion for it. I don't strictly follow proletarian ways of life. I don't like mass sports or the factory culture nor do I like drinking in dive pubs. I don't want for this way of life to continue and to support this class over all of humanity seems insane to me. I would like to see the whole of humanity, from peasant to capitalist, be liberated from this inane cycle of struggle so that we can finally just get on our rocket ships and just blast off to the moon or something. I don't feel any real sympathy to the country side in which I grew up in. I've lived in a lot of countries and climates and I saw in each one the same way of life being imposed on people. I'd rather cut through the bullshit and just get beyond all of this and leave all of it behind me.

[Crux]

Not a prerequisite, simply a matter of fact whenever someone promotes the progress of one's nation. Communists do this and for it they are patriotic.

As for the 2nd International, it is simply not a tenable position to say that the reformists did what they did because they thought themselves patriots. Jaures similarly thought himself a patriot and somehow resisted the urge to support the war.

Yes, when I was young and naive and had read nearly nothing of Marx or Lenin and knew very little of history I thought so too. Now I know better.

The exception confirms the rule. Besides Jaures was a pacifist and not a revolutionary.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't know about anyone else but I really dislike being a proletarian. And I am an actual proletarian and I have been for most of my life. I don't feel any patriotic passion for it. I don't strictly follow proletarian ways of life. I don't like mass sports or the factory culture nor do I like drinking in dive pubs. I don't want for this way of life to continue and to support this class over all of humanity seems insane to me. I would like to see the whole of humanity, from peasant to capitalist, be liberated from this inane cycle of struggle so that we can finally just get on our rocket ships and just blast off to the moon or something. I don't feel any real sympathy to the country side in which I grew up in. I've lived in a lot of countries and climates and I saw in each one the same way of life being imposed on people. I'd rather cut through the bullshit and just get beyond all of this and leave all of it behind me.

I think a lot of leftists who are not strictly proletarians - i.e. mummy and daddy pay for their stuff - sort of wish for proletarian acceptance by loving proletarian culture, wanting to live like a proletarian etc. I know because i've been guilty of this in the past and it's certainly a massive cultural/theoretical flaw in a Socialist movement where many comrades are not strictly proletarian.

Having said that, some of the aspects of proletarian 'culture' you talk about (mass sports, pubs) are not genuine proletarian culture but those manufactured for the masses from above. Much like caviar, cigars and champagne are probably not all the preserve of the rich really.

[Thirsty Crow]

I mean, I really like the region I live in. I really like southern US culture, I like outlaw country music, mudding, rafting on the river, shit like that. But I don't consider myself a "southerner" or a patriot just because I like the swamp/river/beach/appalachians.
No matter that you don't actually consider yourself a patriot, you are objectively a patriot, and of the most exalted kind (since you're a commie as well). I mean, ISN'T IT OBVIOUS? You're promoting the progress of YOUR OWN nation (no matter the fact that in all probability you'd like to see some of your fellow nation-ers shot; we can disregard that they are your fellow countrymen and just see them as a vile degenerates who aren't part of the nation).

[black magick hustla]

patriotism is definitely a childish feeling. i really stopped having any patriotic feelings since i was a teenager. once you realize your home is where your friends and family are, the patriotic myth just seems like a bunch of 19th century buisnessmen carving out shit at the tip of a gun.

[manic expression]

I mean, I really like the region I live in. I really like southern US culture, I like outlaw country music, mudding, rafting on the river, shit like that. But I don't consider myself a "southerner" or a patriot just because I like the swamp/river/beach/appalachians.
To be sure you don't have to. I could go on and on about how I love Turkey and Turkish culture and people but that doesn't make me a Turk or a Turkish patriot. I think that patriotism goes beyond mere appreciation, it's an embrace of a nation and its past, present and future to varying (and oftentimes critical) degrees, which might make it to some extent a political matter.

But don't get me wrong, what I am trying to say is that patriotism isn't always a gung-ho adoption of a list of political stances. A quiet love of one's country should not be pushed from the category merely because we are today accustomed to FOX News-style "patriotic" hot air. Leftists, I think, too often accept the ruling class' conception of patriotism and therefore concede a sentiment that is far bigger than any single political assumption or conclusion or conception.

In other words, why shouldn't we consider someone who very modestly loves their home a patriot?


Yes, when I was young and naive and had read nearly nothing of Marx or Lenin and knew very little of history I thought so too. Now I know better.

The exception confirms the rule. Besides Jaures was a pacifist and not a revolutionary.
Wait, so the fact that one of the most influential members of the 2nd International considered himself a patriot and didn't support the war means that everyone who considered themselves patriots supported the war? If you do indeed "know better", now would be the time to show us.


thats great and all but im a communist and want all nations and states to be gone unlike your beloved patriots who want to conserve nations and states and never want to do away with them.
Internationalism is about the friendship and progress of all nations...anti-nationalism is about wanting all nations to be gone, which is your position. If you are an anti-nationalist and I am an internationalist, I suppose we can agree to disagree on that point.

[Ostrinski]

Simply liking where you live doesn't necessarily mean you're a patriot or w/e

[Czesio]

I like regions in southern Poland where I and my ancestors came from. It includes their landscapes and some elements of history and culture (mostly linked with working people). I have similar feelings about Wales where I live now even if I am foreigner here. I think it makes me a (local) patriot.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Internationalism is about the friendship and progress of all nations...anti-nationalism is about wanting all nations to be gone, which is your position. If you are an anti-nationalist and I am an internationalist, I suppose we can agree to disagree on that point.

If you are not an anti-nationalist, then you are a nationalist, either actively or passively, surely.

Anti-nationalism is the cornerstone of proletarian nationalism. We don't want anybody to either be divided by nationality, nor to 'belong to' a nationality, nor to be categorised by their nationality. As Marxists, we categorise people by their class and do not judge based on nationality, national stereotypes etc.

Simply wanting 'friendship and progress' between all nations does not go beyond nationalism.

[Omsk]

Sorry, what did you say Mr. "Genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced deportation of entire nations is fine if Stalin does it"?


Stop such demagogy and disgusting slander,you are lying just because i exposed you as a typical nationalist.

[manic expression]

If you are not an anti-nationalist, then you are a nationalist, either actively or passively, surely.

Anti-nationalism is the cornerstone of proletarian nationalism. We don't want anybody to either be divided by nationality, nor to 'belong to' a nationality, nor to be categorised by their nationality. As Marxists, we categorise people by their class and do not judge based on nationality, national stereotypes etc.
If you're an anti-nationalist, then you cannot be an internationalist. Your choice to make, I'll not hold it against you if you admit to not be an internationalist.

But tell me, who encouraged people to be judged based on nationality or national stereotypes? Who exactly said that on this thread? Who?

Oh, right, no one did. Next time take a few extra seconds to figure out what someone's saying before going into ultra-left automaton mode.


Simply wanting 'friendship and progress' between all nations does not go beyond nationalism.
Though it is far better and more practicable than the alternative you present.

[Brosip Tito]

Patriotism is a devotion to one's country. To me, it stenches of nationalist sentiment, and is a petit-bourgeois idea.

If you want your country, and the rest of the world to be better, you aren't a patriot, unless you think your country deserves to get better first.

Anti-internationalists like Stalin, and the Red Army embraced patriotism with open arms. "For the motherland!" not "for the proletariat!".

Internationalists, are not patriots.


If you're an anti-nationalist, then you cannot be an internationalist. Your choice to make, I'll not hold it against you if you admit to not be an internationalist.Oh, go ahead and explain this little gem.

Nationalism is the opposite of internationalism, you goober.

[#FF0000]

I disagree with the above post, because patriotism comes in many forms. "BEING A PATRIOT (TM)" has in our time been warped into something very narrow and stupid, when it is hardly the case and patriotism can be as simple as loving where you're from or even just wanting it to be a better place; I think it is especially this last instinct that forms the basis of all patriotism. If you ask me, progressives are uniformly patriots, even if they do not call themselves so.

i want to see my country in ruins though

[manic expression]

Oh, go ahead and explain this little gem.

Nationalism is the opposite of internationalism, you goober.
No problem. Let's break down "internationalism" for a second. Inter means between various, separate entities (unlike intra which means within one entity)...so intercollegiate means something between independent schools. Thus, inter-national means between various distinct nations. Finally, inter-national-ism means the championing of the rights of all these distinct nations.

Therefore, internationalism depends upon recognizing the existence of many nations.

Next, you should be a bit more incisive in your view on nationalism. Nationalism isn't just waving the flag of one's country, it's much bigger than that. Malcolm X was a nationalist and yet he never once gave so much as a sympathetic thought to the US state, as his nation was/is oppressed by that state and by extension by that country. He also was very clear in his support of the struggles of other nations such as Algeria...and so he doubtlessly demonstrated internationalist principles. From his example, we can learn that nationalism and internationalism are not always in conflict, and can act in concert.


i want to see my country in ruins though
That might make finding adequate housing for workers something of a doozy, don't you think? I suspect we will disagree and I respect that, but I would prefer liberating a region to destroying it. Plus, the achievements of the past belong to the masses...making ruins of the world would deny them this.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ah, Manic Expression invoking Stalinist Chauvinism as some sort of blueprint for world realpolitik with this 'distinct nations' bullshit, and then has the nerve to call those of us who understand true proletarian internationalism, 'not internationalists'.

Hahaha. Troll-worthy.:lol:

[manic expression]

Coming from the poster who loudly declared themselves to be "anti-nationalist" as opposed to internationalist in their last post, that's awfully cute. If you want to be called an internationalist, then I suggest you understand the term and begin applying its principles.

[lombas]

I'm pro-decentralisation. That puts me up with the nationalists in my country, though that's not the group I prefer to be compared with.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Coming from the poster who loudly declared themselves to be "anti-nationalist" as opposed to internationalist in their last post, that's awfully cute. If you want to be called an internationalist, then I suggest you understand the term and begin applying its principles.

Your argument is semantic nonsense and relies on your own reinterpretation of internationalism. But this is not surprising - it is not the first time you have expressed nationalist and other blood-and-soil-nation type opinions.

[#FF0000]

Coming from the poster who loudly declared themselves to be "anti-nationalist" as opposed to internationalist in their last post, that's awfully cute. If you want to be called an internationalist, then I suggest you understand the term and begin applying its principles.

yawn you are just jumping through hoops to try and make one of the most pedantic points in history

[manic expression]

Your argument is semantic nonsense and relies on your own reinterpretation of internationalism. But this is not surprising - it is not the first time you have expressed nationalist and other blood-and-soil-nation type opinions.
Ah yes, my "own reinterpretation" that only has to do with what the word actually means. Need I bring this up again?

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

So let's see it. Where is Marx's call to do away with nationality itself? Where is Marx's rejection of the concept of the nation? Point it out to me.


yawn you are just jumping through hoops to try and make one of the most pedantic points in history
I don't need to make the point that S&T is anti-nationalist, they said as much themselves.

[#FF0000]

I don't need to make the point that S&T is anti-nationalist, they said as much themselves.

'the point' being "WELL LEFTISTS ARE ACTUALLY SUPER PATRIOTS IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT"

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So in order to support proletarian internationalism, you want me to start supporting nationalism and the 'distinct identity' of nations? lol.

What happened to a classless, stateless society? Did it get lost in your realpolitik, buddy?

[Czesio]

We don't want anybody to either be divided by nationality, nor to 'belong to' a nationality, nor to be categorised by their nationality.
And what do you think about differences because of ethnicity, language or cultural heritage? Should they also dissapear?

[l'Enfermé]

Stop such demagogy and disgusting slander,you are lying just because i exposed you as a typical nationalist.
It would be only demagogy and disgusting slander only if you weren't denying and make up justifications for Stalin's genocides, mass-murders and forced deportations. But as things stand, you are a Stalinist and you do deny and make justifications for Stalin's crimes.

It's like if you called yourself a National Socialist and I would call you out for the Holocaust and you would say it's a "human mistake"(what you called the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Chechen people), so if you forgive that mistake everything is ok, because Hitler is just a human and humans make mistakes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And what do you think about differences because of ethnicity, language or cultural heritage? Should they also dissapear?

Nope, just the nations themselves.

I wouldn't have thought that, on a revolutionary Socialist forum, that the idea of a culturally diverse yet stateless world would really be that difficult of a concept to grasp. However, it seems to me as though some pathetic sect member(s) just like to grab at the semantics of a debate for the sake of petty politicking.

I mean, really, it's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellectual and political honesty what my point was re: anti-nationalism, proletarian internationalism and nationalism.

Put your own interpretation on it if you want, Manic, but really you're coming off a fool here, telling a left-wing communist that they are somehow against proletarian internationalism. I know people with your kind of politics are a fan of telling people what their views should be, but you ain't gonna be telling me what my views are any time soon, 'comrade'.

[Brosip Tito]

Coming from the poster who loudly declared themselves to be "anti-nationalist" as opposed to internationalist in their last post, that's awfully cute. If you want to be called an internationalist, then I suggest you understand the term and begin applying its principles.Well, thank you Noam Chomsky. I'm sure you aced any semantics courses you've taken.

Proletarian internationalism (or international socialism) is a concept that workers are a global class and should act as such to defeat capitalism, a global system. Struggling in solidarity together, with workers of all nations in their CLASS interest.

Nationalism is the idea that your nation (in the common terms; country) comes first, and is superior to other nations. It is reactionary. If you are a nationalist and a socialist, you are likely a Stalinist, ergo a revisionist. You fight, not in your class interest, but your nations interest: WHICH INCLUDES THE INTERESTS OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE PETIT-BOURGEOISIE.

Also, nationality =/= nationalism. I am a Canadian, a multi-ethnic, white as a ghost, (Swedish, German, Irish, English, Palestinian Jew) Canadian. That is my nationality, Canadian. I am not a Canadian nationalist, however, I am a proletarian internationalist.

[manic expression]

What happened to a classless, stateless society? Did it get lost in your realpolitik, buddy?


Nope, just the nations themselves.Ah, so what nations actually are shouldn't disappear, just the nations themselves. :lol:

This is very basic materialism...states aren't nations and nations aren't states.

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

As you can see, a nation has no inherent ties to the existence of a state; it can exist with or without a state, and even in our own time many nations are without states. Since you keep erroneously trying to associate nationality with statehood, it's quite obvious that you have no idea what a nation is, and so you should educate yourself about the topic before you go off on one of your self-righteous rants.


Put your own interpretation on it if you want, Manic, but really you're coming off a fool here, telling a left-wing communist that they are somehow against proletarian internationalism.If you refuse to recognize what internationalism actually means then you can hardly be an internationalist. If you're an anti-nationalist, as you call yourself, then you're not an internationalist. The two are mutually exclusive, so take your pick.

[Brosip Tito]

If you refuse to recognize what internationalism actually means then you can hardly be an internationalist. If you're an anti-nationalist, as you call yourself, then you're not an internationalist. The two are mutually exclusive, so take your pick.
Nobody cares about your poorly defined, shitty semantics.

Any Marxist knows what Proletarian internationalism is, or International Socialism as it's also known.

Read my post above.

You cannot be a nationalist and an internationalist. Internationalism is a class idea, nationalism is a national idea.

Internationalism: Workers of all nations unite!
Nationalism: Workers, bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie of each nation unite within your nation!

[manic expression]

Well, thank you Noam Chomsky. I'm sure you aced any semantics courses you've taken.
Figuring out what inter means isn't semantics, it's being true to the principle. You might as well say that the material part of "materialism" is mere semantics. :rolleyes:


Proletarian internationalism (or international socialism) is a concept that workers are a global class and should act as such to defeat capitalism, a global system. Struggling in solidarity together, with workers of all nations in their CLASS interest.

Nationalism is the idea that your nation (in the common terms; country) comes first, and is superior to other nations. It is reactionary. If you are a nationalist and a socialist, you are likely a Stalinist, ergo a revisionist. You fight, not in your class interest, but your nations interest: WHICH INCLUDES THE INTERESTS OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE PETIT-BOURGEOISIE.Once again, you're trying to say that nationality and country are interchangeable synonyms, which is simply not the case. Nations and countries are not the same...countries are lines on a map with a state enforcing those borders, while nations have to do with language, culture and so on. Nationalism, then, is the promotion of the rights of a nation, to one or another end. Therefore, there is reactionary nationalism just as there is progressive nationalism, for there are always competing views on the direction that a nation should take...the point, though, is that communism holds in itself the progress of all nations, and so the progress of one's nation, and so to be a working-class revolutionary is to also be a patriot.

Malcolm X, do not forget, was neither a Stalinist nor a revisionist, but he was a nationalist, and one of the worthiest voices for the masses of the 20th Century.


Also, nationality =/= nationalism.I never said it did.


You cannot be a nationalist and an internationalist. Internationalism is a class idea, nationalism is a national idea.Internationalism is inherently a national idea...it presumes the existence and legitimacy of nations. Without nationality there can be no internationalism.


Internationalism: Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.Fixed your post.

[Brosip Tito]

Figuring out what inter means isn't semantics, it's being true to the principle. You might as well say that the material part of "materialism" is mere semantics. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Once again, you're trying to say that nationality and country are interchangeable synonyms,Yes, professor....Christ you're thick.


which is simply not the case. Nations and countries are not the same...countries are lines on a map with a state enforcing those borders, while nations have to do with language, culture and so on.Semantics, again.

Yes, these multiple ethnicities make up the culture of the nation of Canada, for instance. One who is proud of that, and believe that Canada is superior because of it, is a nationalist. You are confusing nationalism, with racial nationalism such as white supremacy.

Nationalism encompasses all classes within that nation, you tool.


Nationalism, then, is the promotion of the rights of a nation, to one or another end. Marxists do not assert eternal formulae such as rights. "Rights" are antithetical to materialism.


Therefore, there is reactionary nationalism just as there is progressive nationalism, for there are always competing views on the direction that a nation should take...the point, though, is that communism holds in itself the progress of all nations, and so the progress of one's nation, and so to be a working-class revolutionary is to also be a patriot.Communism holds in itself the progress of the working class, not all the people of a nation.

As I said, nationalism is class-collaborationist.


Malcolm X, do not forget, was neither a Stalinist nor a revisionist, but he was a nationalist, and one of the worthiest voices for the masses of the 20th Century.Malcolm X wasn't a Marxist. He was a utopian.


Internationalism is inherently a national idea...it presumes the existence and legitimacy of nations. Without nationality there can be no internationalism.Yes, nations exist. The idea of internationalism is that the working CLASS of all of these nations, work together in solidarity to overthrow the GLOBAL (INTERNATIONAL) capitalist system, not the NATIONAL capitalist system.

I'm not arguing that nations shouldn't, or do not exist. I am arguing that it is NOT internationalism, to put your nation ahead of other nations. Ergo, you cannot be a nationalist and an internationalist.

You are saying that, because internationalism suggests that nations exist, that it also suggests that you can put one nation, your own, ahead of other nations.

We are International Socialists. We believe in the working CLASS of all nations, uniting and working together for their class interests (Proletarian INTERNATIONALISM -- working class in Canada, works with the working class in Turkey, and both work with Israeli workers and they all work with Chinese workers, etc.).

Not all the people of our own nations. Nationalism is class collaborationist. The workers, petit-boureoisie and the bourgeoisie working together for their "nation".

[bcbm]

there is a difference between internationalism and proletarian internationalism. manic seems to be talking about the former while everyone else means the latter, basically the split between leninists and left communists in the third international.

[manic expression]

:rolleyes:
Smilies without text make for poor argumentation.


Semantics, again.

Yes, these multiple ethnicities make up the culture of the nation of Canada, for instance. One who is proud of that, and believe that Canada is superior because of it, is a nationalist. You are confusing nationalism, with racial nationalism such as white supremacy.

Nationalism encompasses all classes within that nation, you tool.Canada isn't a nation, it's a multinational country. The Quebecois, for example, is a distinct nation within Canada.

If you find this to be semantics, then you obviously aren't grasping the gravity of the question. This has very important consequences: Your formulation would have us consider the Mohawk in Canada to be part of a different nation than the Mohawk in the US, because the former are merely Canadian and the latter are merely American. Go ask Iroquois workers how they feel about that idea and then tell me this is semantics.

As for nationalism, it's not inherently the belief that one's nation is superior. Irish nationalists didn't tell the Palestinians that they were beneath them, they stood in solidarity with them.


Marxists do not assert eternal formulae such as rights. "Rights" are antithetical to materialism.I did not say they were eternal, I instead implied they were legitimate. If you are a revolutionary you believe in the right to rebel, admit it or not it makes no difference.


Communism holds in itself the progress of the working class, not all the people of a nation.

As I said, nationalism is class-collaborationist.You are incorrect. Communism, that is the movement that promotes a classless society, represents progress for all of humanity, not just the working class. The workers are the revolutionary class but they are not the sole beneficiaries of the overturning of capitalism.


Malcolm X wasn't a Marxist. He was a utopian.Ha, of all the inaccurate labels applied to Malcolm X, this must be among the most curious. Tell me what, precisely, makes Malcolm X "utopian"?


Yes, nations exist. The idea of internationalism is that the working CLASS of all of these nations, work together in solidarity to overthrow the GLOBAL (INTERNATIONAL) capitalist system, not the NATIONAL capitalist system.

I'm not arguing that nations shouldn't, or do not exist. I am arguing that it is NOT internationalism, to put your nation ahead of other nations. Ergo, you cannot be a nationalist and an internationalist.

You are saying that, because internationalism suggests that nations exist, that it also suggests that you can put one nation, your own, ahead of other nations.

We are International Socialists. We believe in the working CLASS of all nations, uniting and working together for their class interests (Proletarian INTERNATIONALISM -- working class in Canada, works with the working class in Turkey, and both work with Israeli workers and they all work with Chinese workers, etc.).

Not all the people of our own nations. Nationalism is class collaborationist. The workers, petit-boureoisie and the bourgeoisie working together for their "nation".Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that putting one's nation ahead of others is inherent in nationalism or patriotism.

[dodger]

MANIC EXPRESSION I do follow your reasoning and can see that arrogance and self-respect in a nation are two separate attitudes. Here in Mindanao life is harsh, patrimony is robbed, sovereignty is insulted on a daily basis. The less poor join the migrants in their 1000's robbing further the nations wealth by stealing skill. How would you in US, or your party express Proletarian Internationalism. A country the other side of the ocean with it seems very little in common with you?

[Brosip Tito]

Smilies without text make for poor argumentation.You're point was moot.


Canada isn't a nation, it's a multinational country. The Quebecois, for example, is a distinct nation within Canada.For the love of Christ in the garden...

Yes, the quebecois is a distinct nation within Canada, which also make up a part of the national identity of Canada. As do the First nations, Acadians, etc.

A nation, can be made up of many "nations".


If you find this to be semantics, then you obviously aren't grasping the gravity of the question. This has very important consequences: Your formulation would have us consider the Mohawk in Canada to be part of a different nation than the Mohawk in the US, because the former are merely Canadian and the latter are merely American. Go ask Iroquois workers how they feel about that idea and then tell me this is semantics.The Mohawk, along with the Metis and Miq'ma, are a part of the First Nations. Which is a part of the Canadian nation (national identity). The mowhawk in the us and Canada, can be considered their own nationality, however, they are also within a larger spectrum, the Canadian (or American) nationality.


As for nationalism, it's not inherently the belief that one's nation is superior. Irish nationalists didn't tell the Palestinians that they were beneath them, they stood in solidarity with them.Yes, however, the struggle of the Irish nationalist is, first and foremost, independence of Ireland. It is also, class collaborationist. Ergo, their struggle is more important than the struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Give them a vote Irish Independence, or Palestinian Independence. They will vote the former.


I did not say they were eternal, I instead implied they were legitimate. If you are a revolutionary you believe in the right to rebel, admit it or not it makes no difference.Rights suggest that they are eternal formulae. i.e. that apply to all nations, all the time.


You are incorrect. Communism, that is the movement that promotes a classless society, represents progress for all of humanity, not just the working class. The workers are the revolutionary class but they are not the sole beneficiaries of the overturning of capitalism.HOLY SWEET BAT FUCKING JESUS.

I'm not even responding to this revisionist filth.


Ha, of all the inaccurate labels applied to Malcolm X, this must be among the most curious. Tell me what, precisely, makes Malcolm X "utopian"?Scientific Socialism, is the term used by Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered by Marx.

i.e. Marxism.

The theories involved are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes/falsification of elements of theory.

Malcolm X's socialism, was not Marxist socialism, and therefore not scientific. It was the goal in the distant future, it was unscientific. Ergo, utopian.

Have you even read The Communist Manifesto? Evidently, not.


Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that putting one's nation ahead of others is inherent in nationalism or patriotism.You have, by giving me the example of Irish nationalists supporting Palestinian liberation.

The Irish nationalists, would put their independence first, hence their nation first.

[manic expression]

You're point was moot.
It's not at all moot. If you don't think the inter part of internationalism matters then you have no interest in the principle.


For the love of Christ in the garden...

Yes, the quebecois is a distinct nation within Canada, which also make up a part of the national identity of Canada. As do the First nations, Acadians, etc.

A nation, can be made up of many "nations".
False. A nation cannot be made up of many nations, that's like saying a class can be made up of many classes; a country can be made up of many nations and often is.


The Mohawk, along with the Metis and Miq'ma, are a part of the First Nations. Which is a part of the Canadian nation (national identity). The mowhawk in the us and Canada, can be considered their own nationality, however, they are also within a larger spectrum, the Canadian (or American) nationality.
So they're considered their own nationality but their "larger" nationality is Canadian or American? You don't collect nationalities like baseball cards. Someone who is Cree is not Quebecois, and so the nations are two separate and distinct entities. Being part of Canada is merely a function of the presiding country, it has no bearing on nationality, which is, again:

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


Yes, however, the struggle of the Irish nationalist is, first and foremost, independence of Ireland. It is also, class collaborationist. Ergo, their struggle is more important than the struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Give them a vote Irish Independence, or Palestinian Independence. They will vote the former.
Good thing, then, that rhetorically-invented referendums neither exist nor have any bearing on the character of a movement. Unless the struggle of Irish nationalism is at the expense of Palestinian self-determination, you have no argument.


Rights suggest that they are eternal formulae. i.e. that apply to all nations, all the time.
Only if you blindly accept the Enlightenment version of rights.


HOLY SWEET BAT FUCKING JESUS.

I'm not even responding to this revisionist filth.
Well, your idea that the establishment of classless society injures certain people is quite a novel one. Tell us more about how your version of communism disadvantages certain people, I find myself most interested.


Scientific Socialism, is the term used by Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered by Marx.

i.e. Marxism.

The theories involved are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes/falsification of elements of theory.

Malcolm X's socialism, was not Marxist socialism, and therefore not scientific. It was the goal in the distant future, it was unscientific. Ergo, utopian.
That actually made me chuckle. What part of Malcolm X's socialism was more "in the distant future" than your socialism? Most of his demands were very much in the present.


Have you even read The Communist Manifesto? Evidently, not.
Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

Evidently not.


You have, by giving me the example of Irish nationalists supporting Palestinian liberation.

The Irish nationalists, would put their independence first, hence their nation first.
Making things up and projecting them upon an entire movement for ideological convenience...sure to raise some eyebrows.

[manic expression]

MANIC EXPRESSION I do follow your reasoning and can see that arrogance and self-respect in a nation are two separate attitudes. Here in Mindanao life is harsh, patrimony is robbed, sovereignty is insulted on a daily basis. The less poor join the migrants in their 1000's robbing further the nations wealth by stealing skill. How would you in US, or your party express Proletarian Internationalism. A country the other side of the ocean with it seems very little in common with you?
That capitalism oppresses the people of Mindanao is all the commonality that one needs to know. The interests of workers in Mindanao is shared by the interests of workers in New York City...both are confronted with the same group of capitalist rulers, both struggle towards the same immediate goal: the establishment of working-class rule.

I would express internationalism by supporting the masses of Mindanao in their cause against the capitalist class, against those who attack and exploit them.

[Brosip Tito]

It's not at all moot. If you don't think the inter part of internationalism matters then you have no interest in the principle.I thought bcbm cleared this up. You are discussing internationalism, whilst the rest of us are referring to Proletarian Internationalism.

So, for further reference, when I mention "Internationalism", I am referring to Proletarian Internationalism.


False. A nation cannot be made up of many nations, that's like saying a class can be made up of many classes; a country can be made up of many nations and often is.So, then what is MY nationality?

My ancestors came from Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Germany and Palestine. I was born and raised in Canada.


So they're considered their own nationality but their "larger" nationality is Canadian or American? You don't collect nationalities like baseball cards. Someone who is Cree is not Quebecois, and so the nations are two separate and distinct entities. Being part of Canada is merely a function of the presiding country, it has no bearing on nationality, which is, again:Being a Canadian, is also to be a part of it's culture, language(s), traditions, etc. Since these are varied, from white christians, to black Muslims, to natives with their tribal religion. The Canadian nationality encompasses many ethnicities.


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



Good thing, then, that rhetorically-invented referendums neither exist nor have any bearing on the character of a movement. Unless the struggle of Irish nationalism is at the expense of Palestinian self-determination, you have no argument.Stop avoiding the main point. That the Irish nationalists put their own independence ahead of Palestinian independence.


Only if you blindly accept the Enlightenment version of rights.Do explain the Materialist concept of rights.


Well, your idea that the establishment of classless society injures certain people is quite a novel one. Tell us more about how your version of communism disadvantages certain people, I find myself most interested.It's far from beneficial to the petit-bourgeois and the bourgeoisie. Unless you think the peasantry is still a factor.


That actually made me chuckle. What part of Malcolm X's socialism was more "in the distant future" than your socialism? Most of his demands were very much in the present.The point isn't that it's just in the distant future. The point is that it isn't MARXIST.



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

Evidently not.Nation, in this sense, IS referring to the country. Goober. The proletariat constitutes itself as the nation, means that they take political power from the bourgeoisie.


Making things up and projecting them upon an entire movement for ideological convenience...sure to raise some eyebrows.You're good at avoiding.

[bcbm]

False. A nation cannot be made up of many nations, that's like saying a class can be made up of many classes; a country can be made up of many nations and often is.

actually nation is correct in both cases.

[Rafiq]

It depends on the situation.

It would be foolish to adopt patroitism today in Europe or the U.S. as an ideological tenet, but for the Jacobins to adopt it is understandable, for their situation.

[manic expression]

I thought bcbm cleared this up. You are discussing internationalism, whilst the rest of us are referring to Proletarian Internationalism.
Internationalism isn't a principle that comes in different flavors like so many types of ice cream...something is either internationalist or it isn't.


So, for further reference, when I mention "Internationalism", I am referring to Proletarian Internationalism.So why not call it internationalism?


So, then what is MY nationality?

My ancestors came from Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Germany and Palestine. I was born and raised in Canada.

Being a Canadian, is also to be a part of it's culture, language(s), traditions, etc. Since these are varied, from white christians, to black Muslims, to natives with their tribal religion. The Canadian nationality encompasses many ethnicities.Once again, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Sooooo...as you should have noticed before (if you read the above passage with requisite care, that is) ethnicity and religion have nothing to do with it. Instead, nationality has to do with common language, territory, economic life, culture of a given community. That means that you and the Cree people aren't in the same nation just because you happen to live within the same borders, under the same state. Each nation is distinct, and would remain so if the borders of the country were to be changed.

Let me ask you, was the Irish nation suddenly invented when Ireland gained partial independence? Of course not, Ireland was a separate nation from England and Scotland even when it was entirely under the heel of British colonialism. Your formulation would mean that Ireland didn't exist as a nationality until the moment its borders were recognized officially...but obviously this is nonsense and therefore your position is as well.

As for your nationality, I don't know you, I don't know what language you speak or where you live, what culture you identify most with. But if I had to guess, I'd suppose you're probably Anglophone Canadian.


Stop avoiding the main point. That the Irish nationalists put their own independence ahead of Palestinian independence.Why, because you said so on an internet site in 2012?


Do explain the Materialist concept of rights.Rights are not eternal but based in material conditions presented by society. Thus, the proletariat has the right to confront the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie exists through the exploitation of the proletariat. So on and so on goes the materialist concept of rights.


It's far from beneficial to the petit-bourgeois and the bourgeoisie. Unless you think the peasantry is still a factor.I disagree. In the short-term, the bourgeoisie will lose rank and wealth surely enough, but in the long-term, those of the bourgeoisie will benefit enormously from the advancement of human affairs. No longer will they be put on one side of class struggle as a matter of preservation, no longer will they be at the mercy of the market, no longer will they need to exploit others to maintain their own comfort. Human gain means human gain, and communism means both.


The point isn't that it's just in the distant future. The point is that it isn't MARXIST.Marxism is bigger than whomever waves a red flag of just the right tint, it's bigger than whomever memorizes certain parts of the Manifesto. Marxism is about the masses organizing their strength and struggling against their oppressors...that's really what it's about. Self-proclamations of ideology pale in comparison to concrete action by workers for the interests of workers. Malcolm X represented that, and so he represents the power of the many in the face of the ruling class.


Nation, in this sense, IS referring to the country. Goober. The proletariat constitutes itself as the nation, means that they take political power from the bourgeoisie.Ha, it's charming to see someone think they can read Marx's mind and know what he really wanted to say. Of course, in Marx's day, Ireland was part of the country of the United Kingdom, and yet he supported Irish nationhood (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech.htm). Simply put, this means that nationality is what he meant, not the revision you'd like to insert about 164 years later.


You're good at avoiding.You're avoiding being good. ;)

[manic expression]

actually nation is correct in both cases.
If we're talking about materialist definitions, then no, they're not synonyms.

It's the same way "middle class" is accepted by most as being a class onto itself, but in materialist terms it's technically no such thing.

[bcbm]

Internationalism isn't a principle that comes in different flavors like so many types of ice cream...something is either internationalist or it isn't.

actually there are different definitions of internationalism on the left, which is why there was a split in the third international over this issue with the leninists taking your position while the left communists maintained proletarian internationalism. but i suspect you know that.


If we're talking about materialist definitions, then no, they're not synonyms.

true enough but i think most people are obviously operating from colloquial usage here so it might have been useful for you to clarify earlier that you're using a materialist definition instead of just repeating stalin.

[Brosip Tito]

Internationalism isn't a principle that comes in different flavors like so many types of ice cream...something is either internationalist or it isn't.Christ...

Since you are the all-unknowing prince of semantics and language, let us look at the definitions, that's right PLURAL:

Internationalism:

1
: international (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/international) character, principles, interests (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interests), or outlook

2
a : a policy of cooperation among nationsb : an attitude or belief favoring such a policy
[Miriam Webster]

Taking from number two, we add the word proletarian. This means a policy of cooperation among the proletarian of all nations. (THIS is the MARXIST notion of Internationalism).


Nation:

a community of people who share common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history [World Book Dictionary] (You profess this as the only definition, though the "or" escapes your tiny brain)

people who share a common territory and government irrespective of their ethnic make-up. [Collins English Dictionary] -- yes, the dictionary gives more than the one definition!

a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government [Websters]


So why not call it internationalism?I have been, but you are so caught up with wasting this argument on semantics.


Once again, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.Yes, that is one of a few definitions. See response 1.


Sooooo...as you should have noticed before (if you read the above passage with requisite care, that is) ethnicity and religion have nothing to do with it. Instead, nationality has to do with common language, territory, economic life, culture of a given community. That means that you and the Cree people aren't in the same nation just because you happen to live within the same borders, under the same state. Each nation is distinct, and would remain so if the borders of the country were to be changed.See the definitions I gave.


Let me ask you, was the Irish nation suddenly invented when Ireland gained partial independence? Of course not, Ireland was a separate nation from England and Scotland even when it was entirely under the heel of British colonialism. Your formulation would mean that Ireland didn't exist as a nationality until the moment its borders were recognized officially...but obviously this is nonsense and therefore your position is as well.How would my formulation suggest that the Irish nation never existed?


As for your nationality, I don't know you, I don't know what language you speak or where you live, what culture you identify most with. But if I had to guess, I'd suppose you're probably Anglophone Canadian.If I had a Qubecois mother, and an anglo father, and I was bi-lingual, I would be?


Why, because you said so on an internet site in 2012?You still avoid it. You think that the Irish nationalists, given the choice, would throw away their own chance for independence for the independence of another nation?


Rights are not eternal but based in material conditions presented by society. Thus, the proletariat has the right to confront the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie exists through the exploitation of the proletariat. So on and so on goes the materialist concept of rights.Surely you can source this to Marx?


I disagree. In the short-term, the bourgeoisie will lose rank and wealth surely enough, but in the long-term, those of the bourgeoisie will benefit enormously from the advancement of human affairs. No longer will they be put on one side of class struggle as a matter of preservation, no longer will they be at the mercy of the market, no longer will they need to exploit others to maintain their own comfort. Human gain means human gain, and communism means both.No, the bourgeoisie will be at a disadvantage throughout, until classes are ultimately eliminated. You are quite the revisionist. No surprise though, you are a Stalinite.


Marxism is bigger than whomever waves a red flag of just the right tint, it's bigger than whomever memorizes certain parts of the Manifesto. Marxism is about the masses organizing their strength and struggling against their oppressors...that's really what it's about. Self-proclamations of ideology pale in comparison to concrete action by workers for the interests of workers. Malcolm X represented that, and so he represents the power of the many in the face of the ruling class.Marxism encompasses theories and ideas espoused by Marx and Engels. Malcolm X was not a dialectical materialist, did not support a stateless, classless society, and did not support the idea of a DOTP, or many of Marx's theories. Ergo, not a Marxist.

From your definition, Jacobins, Syndicalists, Anarcho-communists are all Marxists. Idiot.


Ha, it's charming to see someone think they can read Marx's mind and know what he really wanted to say. Of course, in Marx's day, Ireland was part of the country of the United Kingdom, and yet he supported Irish nationhood (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/irish-speech.htm). Simply put, this means that nationality is what he meant, not the revision you'd like to insert about 164 years later.
That is PRECISELY what I am claiming.:rolleyes:

The material conditions in Ireland HAVE CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY IN 164 YEARS YOU FUCKING EEJIT.

As material conditions change, so does your approach to whether or not it's important to support the self-determination of that nation.

Marx would certainly oppose Irish independence today. It would serve the national bourgeoisie of Ireland, and would hinder the unity of the working class in the UK.

Marx opposed the baltic slavs attempt for self determination, for example. His reasoning was due to Tsarism, and that self determination for the slavs would end up aiding Tsarism. As time went on material conditions changed, influence of the slav national movement shifted from Tsarist to progressive bourgeois, ergo it was a thing to be supported.


You're avoiding being good. ;)You should finally admit that you are no Marxist.

Perhaps, you can also address the following quote, of Lenin:

"In place of all forms of nationalism, Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity"

[manic expression]

Taking from number two, we add the word proletarian. This means a policy of cooperation among the proletarian of all nations. (THIS is the MARXIST notion of Internationalism).


yes, the dictionary gives more than the one definition!
Yes, the dictionary also classifies any overthrow of any government to be a "revolution", when Marxists know better. Going to the dictionary to get your conceptions of terms is a pretty good way to be unmaterialist.


I have been, but you are so caught up with wasting this argument on semantics.
It's not semantics if it contradicts your view of the principle.


How would my formulation suggest that the Irish nation never existed?
It's the logical application of your argument, as you hold that nationality has to do with the borders of the country that one lives in...thus you and Cree people have a common nationality, which is of course absurd. Applying that to Ireland, however, you would have to say that English people and Irish people shared a common nationality before the 1910's simply by virtue of being under the same governmental authority.


If I had a Qubecois mother, and an anglo father, and I was bi-lingual, I would be?
Depends on where you were brought up, what you identified with most.


You still avoid it. You think that the Irish nationalists, given the choice, would throw away their own chance for independence for the independence of another nation?
They're not mutually exclusive and could not be. How does Irish independence affect the ability of Palestinians to promote their own self-determination? Not one bit.


Surely you can source this to Marx?
"Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case."


Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)



No, the bourgeoisie will be at a disadvantage throughout, until classes are ultimately eliminated.
And those who were bourgeois will then continue to be at disadvantage?


Marxism encompasses theories and ideas espoused by Marx and Engels. Malcolm X was not a dialectical materialist, did not support a stateless, classless society, and did not support the idea of a DOTP, or many of Marx's theories. Ergo, not a Marxist.
And yet a ton weighs more than an ounce.


From your definition, Jacobins, Syndicalists, Anarcho-communists are all Marxists. Idiot.
Or, more appropriately, all such tendencies and movements had/have most progressive contributions to make to the struggle of the masses.


That is PRECISELY what I am claiming.:rolleyes:

The material conditions in Ireland HAVE CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY IN 164 YEARS YOU FUCKING EEJIT.

As material conditions change, so does your approach to whether or not it's important to support the self-determination of that nation.

Marx would certainly oppose Irish independence today. It would serve the national bourgeoisie of Ireland, and would hinder the unity of the working class in the UK.
:laugh: Once again, we're supposed to take your word that Marx would agree with you...because you said so. "Material conditions change" isn't a justification for your opposition to the self-determination of Ireland, it's just an empty phrase that's not even substantive enough to be called sloganeering.


Marx opposed the baltic slavs attempt for self determination, for example. His reasoning was due to Tsarism, and that self determination for the slavs would end up aiding Tsarism. As time went on material conditions changed, influence of the slav national movement shifted from Tsarist to progressive bourgeois, ergo it was a thing to be supported.
Baltic Slavs aren't a nation.


You should finally admit that you are no Marxist.

Perhaps, you can also address the following quote, of Lenin:

"In place of all forms of nationalism, Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity"
And yet Lenin was one of the architects of the Soviet system of various republics and oblasts to recognize and respect the self-determination of distinct nations. Lenin never said that Uzbeks and Russians shared the same nationality because it would have contradicted precisely that internationalist principle.

[Brosip Tito]

Yes, the dictionary also classifies any overthrow of any government to be a "revolution", when Marxists know better. Going to the dictionary to get your conceptions of terms is a pretty good way to be unmaterialist.Where do you keep your great Marxist Dictionary? Surely you can start SOURCING all of your definitions?

What is the Marxist definition of "revolution"?


It's not semantics if it contradicts your view of the principle.No, it's semantics.


It's the logical application of your argument, as you hold that nationality has to do with the borders of the country that one lives in...thus you and Cree people have a common nationality, which is of course absurd. Applying that to Ireland, however, you would have to say that English people and Irish people shared a common nationality before the 1910's simply by virtue of being under the same governmental authority.Yes, I gave you the definitions, did you not read them? My nationality is Canadian, as is my native girlfriend's. Her ethnicity is native.


Depends on where you were brought up, what you identified with most.Which means the majority of people in Canada, would consider their nationality "Canadian".


They're not mutually exclusive and could not be. How does Irish independence affect the ability of Palestinians to promote their own self-determination? Not one bit.It doesn't. My point is that given the choice, nationalists will fight for their own "nation" before another.



"Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case."


Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm)Doesn't give a concise answer.

"A “right of nations” which is valid for all countries and all times is nothing more than a metaphysical cliché of the type of ”rights of man” and “rights of the citizen.” Dialectic materialism, which is the basis of scientific socialism, has broken once and for all with this type of “eternal” formula. For the historical dialectic has shown that there are no “eternal” truths and that there are no “rights.” ... In the words of Engels, “What is good in the here and now, is an evil somewhere else, and vice versa” – or, what is right and reasonable under some circumstances becomes nonsense and absurdity under others. Historical materialism has taught us that the real content of these “eternal” truths, rights, and formulae is determined only by the material social conditions of the environment in a given historical epoch." - Luxemburg


Where bourgeois will then continue to be at disadvantageWhen their capital is expropriated, and they are repressed by the workers state.


And yet a ton weighs more than an ounce.Yet, Malcolm X is still not a Marxist.


Or, more appropriately, all such tendencies and movements had/have most progressive contributions to make to the struggle of the masses.Doesn't make them Marxist, as you claim. In fact, Marx had a BIG debate with Bakunin over anarchism.


:laugh:Once again, we're supposed to take your word that Marx would agree with you...because you said so. "Material conditions change" isn't a justification for your opposition to the self-determination of Ireland, it's just an empty phrase that's not even substantive enough to be called sloganeering.You don't have to take my word. Any Marxist would understand that Irish independence will serve the national bourgeoisie of Ireland, and not the workers.



Baltic Slavs aren't a nation.Why not?


And yet Lenin was one of the architects of the Soviet system of various republics and oblasts to recognize and respect the self-determination of distinct nations. Lenin never said that Uzbeks and Russians shared the same nationality because it would have contradicted precisely that internationalist principle.:laugh:

[manic expression]

Where do you keep your great Marxist Dictionary? Surely you can start SOURCING all of your definitions?

What is the Marxist definition of "revolution"?
Marxist definitions can be found among the important contributions to our movement. I've been using the definition of nationality accepted by the Bolsheviks.

A revolution is the overthrow of one ruling class by a new ruling class.


Yes, I gave you the definitions, did you not read them? My nationality is Canadian, as is my native girlfriend's. Her ethnicity is native.Yeah, but I still don't know you. You could be entirely without French ancestry, and even not be born in Quebec and still be Quebecois if you were brought up there. Nationality has nothing to do with ethnicity.

I don't know your girlfriend or her background and in all honesty I find it's best to keep significant others out of such conversations. At the same time, if someone is brought up in the Cree or Mohawk community in the country of Canada then they are Cree or Mohawk, not Anglophone Canadian.


Which means the majority of people in Canada, would consider their nationality "Canadian".That is an un-materialist argument. What people think about nationality is irrelevant. Most people consider the "middle class" to be an actual class but it is no such thing. Most people consider capitalism to be freedom but it is not.


It doesn't. My point is that given the choice, nationalists will fight for their own "nation" before another.Yes, but my point is that such a choice does not exist and logically cannot. There is no possible arrangement of reality that could possibly put the struggle of Irish independence at odds with Palestinian self-determination.


Doesn't give a concise answer.It shows you that rights were a concept relevant to the ideas of Marx.


When their capital is expropriated, and they are repressed by the workers state.Politically repressed, sure, but ultimately they will gain liberation from the vicissitudes of capitalism.


Yet, Malcolm X is still not a Marxist.Ounces and tons.


Doesn't make them Marxist, as you claim. In fact, Marx had a BIG debate with Bakunin over anarchism.We debate with one another but I've come to see that anarchists oftentimes represent working-class interests, even if I strongly disagree with many of their assumptions and conclusions.


You don't have to take my word. Any Marxist would understand that Irish independence will serve the national bourgeoisie of Ireland, and not the workers.James Connolly disagreed.


Why not?They don't constitute a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

Slavs in the Baltic are usually Russians living in the Baltic...they're not a separate nationality just by virtue of living across a border.


:laugh:These facts amuse you somehow. It is immaterial, though, for they remain facts.

[Brosip Tito]

Marxist definitions can be found among the important contributions to our movement. I've been using the definition of nationality accepted by the Bolsheviks.Stalinist you mean?


A revolution is the overthrow of one ruling class by a new ruling class. "The revolution in Spain has now so far taken on the appearance of a permanent condition that, as our correspondent at London [A. Pulszky] has informed us, the wealthy and conservative classes have begun to emigrate and to seek security in France[295] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/revolutionary-spain/notes.htm#295). This is not surprising; Spain has never adopted the modern French fashion, so generally in vogue in 1848, of beginning and accomplishing a revolution in three days[296] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/revolutionary-spain/notes.htm#296). Her efforts in that line are complex and more prolonged. Three years seems to be the shortest limit to which she restricts herself, while her revolutionary cycle sometimes expands to nine. Thus her first revolution in the present century extended from 1808 to 1814; the second from 1820 to 1823; and the third from 1834 to 1843. How long the present one will continue, or in what it will result, it is impossible for the keenest politician to foretell; but it is not much to say that there is no other part of Europe, not even Turkey and the Russian war, which offers so profound an interest to the thoughtful observer, as does Spain at this instant." - Marx

This suggests that Marx viewed Spain as having changed ruling classes quite a few times! (If we use your definition).


Yeah, but I still don't know you. You could be entirely without French ancestry, and even not be born in Quebec and still be Quebecois if you were brought up there. Nationality has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Did you not read ALL of those definitions?


I don't know your girlfriend or her background and in all honesty I find it's best to keep significant others out of such conversations. At the same time, if someone is brought up in the Cree or Mohawk community in the country of Canada then they are Cree or Mohawk, not Anglophone Canadian.The majority of Canadians are brought up in the Canadian nationality (which includes Quebecois). You Told me that there was no such thing.


That is an un-materialist argument. What people think about nationality is irrelevant. Most people consider the "middle class" to be an actual class but it is no such thing. Most people consider capitalism to be freedom but it is not.Un-materialist isn't a word. You consider anarchy to be Marxism, but it is not.


Yes, but my point is that such a choice does not exist and logically cannot. There is no possible arrangement of reality that could possibly put the struggle of Irish independence at odds with Palestinian self-determination.I'm aware of that, but you cannot deny the fact that Irish nationalists put their independence ahead of Palestinian independence.


It shows you that rights were a concept relevant to the ideas of Marx.Yeah, and that there were no eternal rights.


Politically repressed, sure, but ultimately they will gain liberation from the vicissitudes of capitalism.Liberation from what? They are the beneficiaries of capitalism, they are the owners, the exploiters.

You are NOT a Marxist. You are a class collaborationist, revisionist moron.


Ounces and tons.Facts.


We debate with one another but I've come to see that anarchists oftentimes represent working-class interests, even if I strongly disagree with many of their assumptions and conclusions.Agree, doesn't make them Marxists, and doesn't change the fact that they will fail.


James Connolly disagreed.James Connolly died 94 years ago. MATERIAL CONDITIONS CHANGE.


They don't constitute a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.


Slavs in the Baltic are usually Russians living in the Baltic...they're not a separate nationality just by virtue of living across a border.They have their own culture, and customs, and language. Ergo, they are a nation in your own definition.


These facts amuse you somehow. It is immaterial, though, for they remain facts.
Your revisionism amuses me. You prefer to make yourself look like a fool, than admit that you are both wrong and an anti-Marxist revisionist.

[manic expression]

Stalinist you mean?
Seeing as it was adopted by the Bolsheviks and not just Stalin I'd say the label makes less sense than usual. Anyone who supports the Bolsheviks' approach to the national question will inevitably have to deem the definition at the very least valid if not correct.


This suggests that Marx viewed Spain as having changed ruling classes quite a few times! (If we use your definition).
How so?


Did you not read ALL of those definitions?
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Your ancestry you mean? If so, that's no way to judge your nationality...someone could have total European ancestry and still belong to an NDN nation.


The majority of Canadians are brought up in the Canadian nationality (which includes Quebecois). You Told me that there was no such thing.
There's no such thing as a single Canadian nationality.


Un-materialist isn't a word. You consider anarchy to be Marxism, but it is not.
Neither is nonmaterialist and yet your analysis is as much.

Anarchism can represent genuine working-class interests and voices. You seem to be led by ideological blinders instead of seeing class struggle for what it is.


I'm aware of that, but you cannot deny the fact that Irish nationalists put their independence ahead of Palestinian independence.
They never did.


Yeah, and that there were no eternal rights.
Good thing, then, that I did not imply that rights are eternal.


Liberation from what? They are the beneficiaries of capitalism, they are the owners, the exploiters.
Liberation from the instability, competition, violence, hatred, war and more of capitalist society. Communism brings about the liberation of all of humanity.


You are NOT a Marxist. You are a class collaborationist, revisionist moron.
And you are making unsupported statements and trying to substitute argumentation with paper-thin personal attacks.


Facts.
Precisely, which is why Malcolm X stands as one of the great voices for the masses of the 20th Century.


Agree, doesn't make them Marxists, and doesn't change the fact that they will fail.
If they work with communists they won't.


James Connolly died 94 years ago. MATERIAL CONDITIONS CHANGE.
Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated how material conditions have changed to render irrelevant the cause he died for, the cause that still remains unfulfilled.


They have their own culture, and customs, and language. Ergo, they are a nation in your own definition.
Easy to say, hard to prove.


Your revisionism amuses me. You prefer to make yourself look like a fool, than admit that you are both wrong and an anti-Marxist revisionist.
So you dispute the idea that the Soviet Union formed separate republics for separate nationalities? Quite a bold statement when every history book says that it did.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Progressive patriots want their nation to be better along with the entire world


Progressive believers in racial pride want their race to be better along with all the other races.

[manic expression]

Progressive believers in racial pride want their race to be better along with all the other races.
Black is beautiful.

Not racial pride per say, but regardless a positive self-perception can be seen as pride in some capacity, and it is ultimately progressive and beneficial to the masses of all nations because it is doing away with racist perceptions and replacing them with the idea that all of us are human, and that all humans are of infinite worth.

[Crux]

Black is beautiful.

Not racial pride per say, but regardless a positive self-perception can be seen as pride in some capacity, and it is ultimately progressive and beneficial to the masses of all nations because it is doing away with racist perceptions and replacing them with the idea that all of us are human, and that all humans are of infinite worth.
White pride?

[manic expression]

You mean like Arab pride? Sami pride? Tatar pride? Roma-Sinti pride?

Who's white? What makes someone white?

[Brosip Tito]

You mean like Arab pride? Sami pride? Tatar pride? Roma-Sinti pride?

Who's white? What makes someone white?
http://troll.me/2011/09/25/pissed-off-obama/you-sir-are-an-idiot/
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

This is a face palm, as well as an example of a white person.

Caucasian. European/of European descent -- including slavs. That is what we are talkin about.

[Crux]

You mean like Arab pride? Sami pride? Tatar pride? Roma-Sinti pride?

Who's white? What makes someone white?
I think it is more complicated than that. Now I am in favour of self-determination and indeed cultural rights, but it is far far more complex and potentially problematic than what you've put forward so far. The utter failure of the post-Lenin USSR in this regard should be something to learn from, and indeed the failures and limitations of much of the third world nationalist left.

That's an academic subject in itself. Whiteness is primarily defined from by a position of privilege. But typically it would be western and northern europeans. It's a bit more complex than that of course, a good example would be say the irish emancipation to whiteness in the U.S for example.

[Brosip Tito]

Seeing as it was adopted by the Bolsheviks and not just Stalin I'd say the label makes less sense than usual. Anyone who supports the Bolsheviks' approach to the national question will inevitably have to deem the definition at the very least valid if not correct.When Luxemburg raised the question of ETERNAL rights being anti-materialist (because the Bolsheviks applied the right to every situation, unlike Marx and Engels), Lenin did not respond to that point, he merely argued that she was wrong for opposing it, whilst providing no actual argumentation. I've had this debate with a Trotskyist already.


How so?Did you not read it? He mentions numerous revolutions in the 1800s in Spain alone. If we follow your definition, the ruling class not only changed from the feudalistic rulers to the bourgeoisie, but to some other ruling classes as well!


I'm not sure what you're referring to. Your ancestry you mean? If so, that's no way to judge your nationality...someone could have total European ancestry and still belong to an NDN nation.I am referring to the definitions of Nation and Internationalism that I provided you:

Internationalism:

1
: international (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/international) character, principles, interests (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interests), or outlook

2
a : a policy of cooperation among nationsb : an attitude or belief favoring such a policy
[Miriam Webster]

Taking from number two, we add the word proletarian. This means a policy of cooperation among the proletarian of all nations. (THIS is the MARXIST notion of Internationalism).


Nation:

a community of people who share common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history [World Book Dictionary] (You profess this as the only definition, though the "or" escapes your tiny brain)

people who share a common territory and government irrespective of their ethnic make-up. [Collins English Dictionary] -- yes, the dictionary gives more than the one definition!

a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government [Websters]


There's no such thing as a single Canadian nationality.Why? If I, a mostly European with some Palestinian Jewish ancestry, am born in the same community as a Cree native, we speak the same language, are brought up as Christians, etc. what are we, what is our nationality?


Neither is nonmaterialist and yet your analysis is as much.You're looking for the word "anti-materialist", or just "not materialist". Explain how my analysis is not materialist.


Anarchism can represent genuine working-class interests and voices. You seem to be led by ideological blinders instead of seeing class struggle for what it is.Yes, it can represent genuine working-class interests and voices. Not the point, the point is that they are incorrect with theory. They are not proponents of Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism, and Marxian economics. These three things are what make up Marxism, according to Lenin. Ergo, they are not Marxists.

You really need to read up on Marx's debates with Bakunin to help you understand the Marxist-Anarchist divide.


They never did.I'm not sure who I can force this into your thick skull.

The point is, that they would, otherwise they wouldn't be nationalists.


Good thing, then, that I did not imply that rights are eternal.
You support the right of ALL NATIONS to self-determination. Even if it is harmful to the labour movement, because it does say ALL NATIONS.


Liberation from the instability, competition, violence, hatred, war and more of capitalist society. Communism brings about the liberation of all of humanity.They are not harmed or hindered by the instability, competition, violence or hatred of capitalist society. They are the proponents of it. They are behind the wars, the systematic racism, the competition, etc. The bourgeoisie are those who rule society, the beneficiaries of capitalism.

You are making it quite clear that you are not a Marxist, nor have you read much Marx. If you did read Marx, you clearly didn't understand it.


And you are making unsupported statements and trying to substitute argumentation with paper-thin personal attacks.I'm stating the facts. That you are not a Marxist, and are clearly an idiot. The only thing paper thin, is your brain.


Precisely, which is why Malcolm X stands as one of the great voices for the masses of the 20th Century.Yes, he was a great voice, and a good man. However, he was a utopian socialist, not a scientific socialist (Marxist).


If they work with communists they won't.If they do not oppose the formation of a dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists can be fine comrades, and they can put their views on the line by running in the workers councils.

However, we are discussing theory. Anarchists do not believe in the use of the state, which I, as a Marxist, know we need to use in order to build repress the bourgeois counter-revolution, and organize the economy, etc.

An Anarchist led revolution cannot work, is my point.



Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated how material conditions have changed to render irrelevant the cause he died for, the cause that still remains unfulfilled.You don't think mass improvement in the living standards, elimination of national oppression by the Brits, and advancement of industry and the economy has taken place?

That, is the point.


Easy to say, hard to prove.So, they are 100% in line with your definition of "nation", yet they are not a nation because you say so?


So you dispute the idea that the Soviet Union formed separate republics for separate nationalities? Quite a bold statement when every history book says that it did.Not what I was talking about, you eejit.

I never called you a historical revisionist, but a revisionist of Marxist theory.

[dodger]

, There is nothing wrong with patriotism, as long as it isn't an excuse used for belittling or attacking others not of the same country.

If as a human being one can't tell the difference between arrogance and self respect then.....
Patriotism is like self-respect - it does not mean disrespect for anybody else.

That warmongers abuse patriotism for their own evil ends is no surprise to anybody.

There's nothing wrong with self-respect, and there's nothing wrong with the British nation being proud of its genuine achievements.
But patriotism does not mean disrespect for others, it does not mean oppressing or attacking others, it does not mean respecting, for example, the Empire, which was bult on disrespect for other nations.

[manic expression]

http://troll.me/2011/09/25/pissed-off-obama/you-sir-are-an-idiot/This is a face palm, as well as an example of a white person.

Caucasian. European/of European descent -- including slavs. That is what we are talkin about.
Caucasian: so Turks, Sami, Basques, Hungarians...not white?

European descent: so Arabs, Persians...not white?

Here's a hint: "white" doesn't really mean anything. It just represents a pretty poor attempt by colonialists to fundamentally distinguish themselves from the rest of the world.


I think it is more complicated than that. Now I am in favour of self-determination and indeed cultural rights, but it is far far more complex and potentially problematic than what you've put forward so far. The utter failure of the post-Lenin USSR in this regard should be something to learn from, and indeed the failures and limitations of much of the third world nationalist left.I admit that this question is quite complex, and perhaps I do not grasp it in its totality, but I do hope that I have helped explain some of the more basic aspects of the communist approach to the national question.


That's an academic subject in itself. Whiteness is primarily defined from by a position of privilege. But typically it would be western and northern europeans. It's a bit more complex than that of course, a good example would be say the irish emancipation to whiteness in the U.S for example.In general I agree. If there is any such thing as whiteness, then it exists only in self-perception and, as you said, position.

I think that "Black is beautiful" has to be understood in precisely this (invented) dichotomy that colonialism/capitalism has set up. The idea of whiteness relegated anyone else, but perhaps (and this isn't quantifiable) most pointedly those of dark complexion, and so it is only right that nationalities that are seen that way improve their image in their own eyes. It is, IMO, right that black be seen as beautiful, and it's not "race pride" so much as counteracting the psychological subjugation of such peoples.

[dodger]

Patriotism, is class-collaborationist.

With whom?

[Brosip Tito]

Caucasian: so Turks, Sami, Basques, Hungarians...not white?

European descent: so Arabs, Persians...not white?

Here's a hint: "white" doesn't really mean anything. It just represents a pretty poor attempt by colonialists to fundamentally distinguish themselves from the rest of the world.
For the purpose of avoiding your love of semantic arguments, we are talking about people of western and northern European descent.

The main proponents of white pride, are the people who identify as "white", and are of European descent.

Simple enough for you?

People like George Bush, Adolf Hitler, Tom Cruise, Winston Churchill are what we are talking about, when we refer to white people in this sense.

PS, you missed my reply to your last grouping of bullshit.

[manic expression]

For the purpose of avoiding your love of semantic arguments, we are talking about people of western and northern European descent.
So Sami and Basques are white but Poles, Croats and Greeks aren't?


The main proponents of white pride, are the people who identify as "white", and are of European descent.
Arabs and Turks think themselves white.


Simple enough for you?
Trying to boil down complex issues into simplistic sound-bites. Typical.

[Brosip Tito]

So Sami and Basques are white but Poles, Croats and Greeks aren't?


Arabs and Turks think themselves white.


Trying to boil down complex issues into simplistic sound-bites. Typical.

There's a segment on Real Time with Bill Maher called "Conservatives in a bubble".

This conversation is "Revisionist in a bubble" (The revisionist being you).

Still, you've yet to reply to my reply form earlier.

[manic expression]

When Luxemburg raised the question of ETERNAL rights being anti-materialist (because the Bolsheviks applied the right to every situation, unlike Marx and Engels), Lenin did not respond to that point, he merely argued that she was wrong for opposing it, whilst providing no actual argumentation. I've had this debate with a Trotskyist already.
The right to self-determination is not eternal but based in the concrete existence of nationalities as developed in human affairs.


Did you not read it? He mentions numerous revolutions in the 1800s in Spain alone. If we follow your definition, the ruling class not only changed from the feudalistic rulers to the bourgeoisie, but to some other ruling classes as well!
There were revolutions in the 1800's in Spain.


I am referring to the definitions of Nation and Internationalism that I provided you:
Then you're not a Marxist but a fan of dictionaries.


Why? If I, a mostly European with some Palestinian Jewish ancestry, am born in the same community as a Cree native, we speak the same language, are brought up as Christians, etc. what are we, what is our nationality?
Not enough information..."same community as a Cree native" could be Toronto or it could be a majority Cree town in Manitoba.


You're looking for the word "anti-materialist", or just "not materialist". Explain how my analysis is not materialist.
Unmaterialist works fine, thanks (talk about semantics :laugh:), and it's unmaterialist because you're basing your opinion on what most people think, which is silly because common opinion has nothing to do with materialism and its approach to various questions.


Yes, it can represent genuine working-class interests and voices. Not the point, the point is that they are incorrect with theory. They are not proponents of Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism, and Marxian economics. These three things are what make up Marxism, according to Lenin. Ergo, they are not Marxists.

You really need to read up on Marx's debates with Bakunin to help you understand the Marxist-Anarchist divide.
I understand it just fine, I'm just more level-headed about it than you are.


I'm not sure who I can force this into your thick skull.

The point is, that they would, otherwise they wouldn't be nationalists.
They wouldn't because such a thing is impossible, and furthermore because they never once expressed any interest in doing so.

"They would because they're nationalists and they're nationalists so they would" is a cheap tautology. Try better next time.


You support the right of ALL NATIONS to self-determination. Even if it is harmful to the labour movement, because it does say ALL NATIONS.
Self-determination to all nations is beneficial to the labor movement, not only as it weakens the power of the capitalist class over oppressed nationalities, not only as it represents defeats for imperialism in many cases, but also because it gives workers in those nations greater ability to organize and struggle as workers. The workers of Ireland were not harmed in their struggle as workers when partial independence was achieved.


They are not harmed or hindered by the instability, competition, violence or hatred of capitalist society. They are the proponents of it. They are behind the wars, the systematic racism, the competition, etc. The bourgeoisie are those who rule society, the beneficiaries of capitalism.

You are making it quite clear that you are not a Marxist, nor have you read much Marx. If you did read Marx, you clearly didn't understand it.
Of course they are. Bourgeois families can and do go bankrupt and fall into poverty due to competition and/or market dynamics. Members of the bourgeoisie can and do die due to capitalist war. Capitalists can and do suffer from racism.

You keep saying that you read Marx's mind and yet you provide no evidence that your position is vaguely valid. Is this all you're capable of? I don't think so.


I'm stating the facts. That you are not a Marxist, and are clearly an idiot. The only thing paper thin, is your brain.
That's yet another charge that's not an argument but instead an unfounded personal attack.


Yes, he was a great voice, and a good man. However, he was a utopian socialist, not a scientific socialist (Marxist).
There was nothing vaguely utopian about him.


If they do not oppose the formation of a dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists can be fine comrades, and they can put their views on the line by running in the workers councils.

However, we are discussing theory. Anarchists do not believe in the use of the state, which I, as a Marxist, know we need to use in order to build repress the bourgeois counter-revolution, and organize the economy, etc.

An Anarchist led revolution cannot work, is my point.
Don't be so quick to believe them. Call the state something else and some of them will surprise you.


You don't think mass improvement in the living standards, elimination of national oppression by the Brits, and advancement of industry and the economy has taken place?

That, is the point.
Irish living standards have gone up, British oppression has been reduced to only a few counties and industry has advanced.

That is secondary to the struggle for the self-determination of the Irish people, something you apparently oppose.


So, they are 100% in line with your definition of "nation", yet they are not a nation because you say so?
They're not a nation because you don't say so. Show us how they meet the qualifications and I'll happily reexamine my statement.


Not what I was talking about, you eejit.

I never called you a historical revisionist, but a revisionist of Marxist theory.
You may call me many things but I doubt you will support any of them.

[manic expression]

There's a segment on Real Time with Bill Maher called "Conservatives in a bubble".
Ah, taking your cues from Bill Maher, are you?

What's interesting is that in essence you're now positioning yourself in defense of the concept of whiteness, a colonialist philosophy that has absolutely no basis and is entirely a matter of egotistical bigotry. Instead of doing that, you should go back to the Bolsheviks' definition I posted earlier, as it expressly rejects the idea that nationality is an ethnic matter. This is the materialist approach to nationality, and I think you will find it most worthwhile when contrasted with the very ill-advised arguments you have recently put forth in favor of the existence of whiteness.

[Ostrinski]

Why do we have two different threads about this going on at the same time?

[manic expression]

True...we should split both so we can have four going at once.

[Dogs On Acid]

Yes, Proletarian Internationalism recognizes the EXISTENCE of Nations, but does not adhere to the PROMOTION of them.

So what's Proletarian Internationalism? Basically Nations (a term that refers to groups of people that share similar history, language, etc.) exist within Capitalism, and all Proletarians WITHIN these Nations must unite and fight the oppressive classes that are WITHIN ALL Nations.

That means that Hispanic Proletarians should help African Proletarians fight their oppressors within their African Nations.

"Progressive Nationalism" is only progressive in the Bourgeois sense of the word, under Socialist philosophy, it it CONSERVATIVE, because it ignores class struggle, and promotes NATIONAL struggle, which has it's origins in the demise of Feudalism and in bourgeois revolution.
The reason any Nationalism is conservative, be it Black Nationalism or Palestinian Nationalism, is because it seeks to emancipate not only the Proletariat, but also the Bourgeoisie within that Nation!

Communists must reject any Nation that is composed of classes.

Will there be Nations under Communism? Yes, because nations are just groups of people with a common heritage and culture, not with the same country. It's the idea of borders and countries that we wish to abolish.

The fact that Communist Nations Would have a different composition (classlessness), makes the term "Nation" under Communism different to that of under Capitalism. This is why Marx said workers must constitute the Cation, but not in the Bourgeois sense of the word, i.e., the Classed Nation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

For a supposed Marxist, Manic has a great interest in defining exactly who is of what national persuasion, ethnicity etc.:rolleyes:

[manic expression]

For a supposed Marxist, Manic has a great interest in defining exactly who is of what national persuasion, ethnicity etc.:rolleyes:
I do believe that my point has consistently been that ethnicity is not a factor in the materialist approach to the national question, and that moreover reactionary conceptions of ethnicity such as "whiteness" are nonsense and have no place in our discussions. It is hardly my fault that my opponents keep giving me 1% of their life story and asking me to define their nationality for them.

[Dogs On Acid]

For a supposed Marxist, Manic has a great interest in defining exactly who is of what national persuasion, ethnicity etc.:rolleyes:

Don't make this a personal attack on Malic. He does have a point. Semantics exist for a reason. What leftists need to understand is that the Bourgeois and Socialist concept of Nation are different, because a Socialist Nation is Classless while a Bourgeois Nation is Classist.

The question of "should we support nationalist movements?" depends on a class analysis of those movements. They are only progressive is the movement is proletarian and not class colaborationist like most.

[Brosip Tito]

The right to self-determination is not eternal but based in the concrete existence of nationalities as developed in human affairs.The reason it is eternal, is because it is considered a right. Meaning that it applies to all situations, whether they harm the labour movement, or not. That is the point in saying it is an eternal formulae.


There were revolutions in the 1800's in Spain.Yes. So, you believe, therefore, that the ruling class changed hands multiple times in the 1800s. This was your definition.

Therefore, you must inform me as to what ruling classes there were in Spain in the 1800's.


Then you're not a Marxist but a fan of dictionaries.This, is by far, my favourite quote of revleft history.

What about being a Marxist means you have to disregard dictionaries?

Ergo, give me a DIRECT QUOTE from marx's work defining what a nation is, and defining what internationalism is. You claim you know the definitions, you must know where to find them.


Not enough information..."same community as a Cree native" could be Toronto or it could be a majority Cree town in Manitoba.What if it was either. What if it was toronto?What if it was manitoba?


Unmaterialist works fine, thanks (talk about semantics :laugh:), and it's unmaterialist because you're basing your opinion on what most people think, which is silly because common opinion has nothing to do with materialism and its approach to various questions.Un-materialist isn't a word. like, un-capitalist isn't a word.

I base my opinion on what I think. Otherwise, I wouldn't be a Marxist.


I understand it just fine, I'm just more level-headed about it than you are.Clearly you do not. You still consider Anarchists to be Marxist, because your definition of Marxism is anything that is pro-worker, whether it/they are in agreement with marx's theories.

You need to realize that anarchists are not Marxists, and Marxists understand that an anarchist led revolution will fail.


They wouldn't because such a thing is impossible, and furthermore because they never once expressed any interest in doing so.Seriously, you're still playing this old canard?

Explain to me, why would Irish nationalists choose another nations independence over their own.


"They would because they're nationalists and they're nationalists so they would" is a cheap tautology. Try better next time.No, nationalists put their nation first. Hence, they are nationalists.


Self-determination to all nations is beneficial to the labor movement, not only as it weakens the power of the capitalist class over oppressed nationalities,Not in all cases, not in Quebec, not in Ireland. Where no oppression is taking place.


not only as it represents defeats for imperialism in many cases, but also because it gives workers in those nations greater ability to organize and struggle as workers. That depends on the situation. This is not applicable to Quebec, for instance, nor Ireland. This could be applicable to the likes of Palestine though.

Most national liberation struggles are class collaborationist, i.e. they are in the interests of all classes involved. We know, as Marxists, that what is beneficial to the bourgeoisie is not beneficial to the worker, and visa-versa.


The workers of Ireland were not harmed in their struggle as workers when partial independence was achieved.They were not put any farther ahead either. It served the interests of those who put their nation ahead of their class.

So, when Marx opposed certain national liberation struggles, he was wrong in doing so?


Of course they are. Bourgeois families can and do go bankrupt and fall into poverty due to competition and/or market dynamics. Members of the bourgeoisie can and do die due to capitalist war. Capitalists can and do suffer from racism.Where has this happened. Surely you can give me some examples of some poor unfortunate bourgeois families who "lost it all".


You keep saying that you read Marx's mind and yet you provide no evidence that your position is vaguely valid. Is this all you're capable of? I don't think so.I never said I read Marx's mind.

Evidence that my opinion is valid: material conditions changed, Marx opposed certain national liberation movements.


That's yet another charge that's not an argument but instead an unfounded personal attack.
:laugh:


There was nothing vaguely utopian about him.So, he was a Marxist? He believed in Historical Materialism, Dialectical materialism and Marxian economics? Surely, you can provide me with proof.


Don't be so quick to believe them. Call the state something else and some of them will surprise you.The state is the government, the military, police, etc. This is the definition we use, and it is what they oppose.

If an anarchist abandons the position of not using the state, they are not anarchists.


Irish living standards have gone up, British oppression has been reduced to only a few counties and industry has advanced.

That is secondary to the struggle for the self-determination of the Irish people, something you apparently oppose.We are talking material conditions changing. Ergo, I just told you they changed, and you agreed after vehemently opposing the idea that they changed.

So, what is the primary principle of the struggle for self-determination in Ireland?

Oh, and yeah, I do oppose the Irish nationalist movement.


They're not a nation because you don't say so. Show us how they meet the qualifications and I'll happily reexamine my statement.They are not a nation because you do say so.

I told you, they have a common language, culture, history, etc. I am using your definition.


You may call me many things but I doubt you will support any of them.I certainly do not support revisionism.


Ah, taking your cues from Bill Maher, are you?He can be quite funny sometimes, annoying other times.

Do expalin, how am I taking my cues from maher?


What's interesting is that in essence you're now positioning yourself in defense of the concept of whiteness, a colonialist philosophy that has absolutely no basis and is entirely a matter of egotistical bigotry. Instead of doing that, you should go back to the Bolsheviks' definition I posted earlier, as it expressly rejects the idea that nationality is an ethnic matter. This is the materialist approach to nationality, and I think you will find it most worthwhile when contrasted with the very ill-advised arguments you have recently put forth in favor of the existence of whiteness.Jesus H Christ. Talking to you is like talking to an infant.

I said that FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION.

Those who are proponents of white pride, do use that colonialist definition, therefore, to simplify the discussion, I said "FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION WE WILL USE THIS DEFINITION".

FUCK SAKES YOU BRAINLESS TWIT.

You've made ZERO counter arguments. Just promoting revision of marxist theory, and making this into a semantics discussion, where I give an argument against your position, and you tell me why I'm wrong because my definition is wrong, and YOU CAN'T EVEN SOURCE WHERE IN MARXIST LITERATUIRE YOU FIND THESE DEFINITIONS.

I'm fucking finished.

[bcbm]

FUCK SAKES YOU BRAINLESS TWIT.

pleasee dont flame other users

[manic expression]

The reason it is eternal, is because it is considered a right. Meaning that it applies to all situations, whether they harm the labour movement, or not. That is the point in saying it is an eternal formulae.
Not so. Rights are certainly not considered eternal or omnipotent in practice, as citizens are accorded rights that non-citizens are not. This is a matter of you accepting bourgeois rhetoric at its word instead of being more analytical.


Yes. So, you believe, therefore, that the ruling class changed hands multiple times in the 1800s. This was your definition.
The various wars of Spain in the 1800's makes this conclusion an inevitability.


Therefore, you must inform me as to what ruling classes there were in Spain in the 1800's.
The Bourbon Dynasty, the French Imperial Family, the Constitutional Monarchy of the Cortes and the Trienio Liberal, the restored Bourbon absolutist monarchy, the First Spanish Republic.


This, is by far, my favourite quote of revleft history.

What about being a Marxist means you have to disregard dictionaries?

Ergo, give me a DIRECT QUOTE from marx's work defining what a nation is, and defining what internationalism is. You claim you know the definitions, you must know where to find them.
As I said, the definition comes from the contributions of materialists to our movement. Using the analytical process established by Marx, the Bolsheviks came to the definition of nationality that I have posted multiple times.


What if it was either. What if it was toronto?What if it was manitoba?
It could very well change your identity, then...or, depending on the family you grew up in, it could be the opposite of the location. It depends on a wide range of factors that you have not given.


Un-materialist isn't a word. like, un-capitalist isn't a word.

I base my opinion on what I think. Otherwise, I wouldn't be a Marxist.
If you base your opinion on what you think, why are you resorting to a vox pox justification of your un-materialist worldview?


Clearly you do not. You still consider Anarchists to be Marxist
No I don't. Go back and read what I wrote.


Seriously, you're still playing this old canard?

Explain to me, why would Irish nationalists choose another nations independence over their own.
It's a false dichotomy, no choice could possibly exist. You might as well ask if Irish nationalists would choose their independence over cake and ice cream.


No, nationalists put their nation first. Hence, they are nationalists.
Too bad that's not how reality bears it out. Nice to have imagination, though.


Not in all cases, not in Quebec, not in Ireland. Where no oppression is taking place.
Both nations are denied full self-determination and so there are steps of progress to be made.


That depends on the situation. This is not applicable to Quebec, for instance, nor Ireland. This could be applicable to the likes of Palestine though.

Most national liberation struggles are class collaborationist, i.e. they are in the interests of all classes involved. We know, as Marxists, that what is beneficial to the bourgeoisie is not beneficial to the worker, and visa-versa.
It's applicable to all three, for all three have not yet achieved full self-determination as a nation. Whatever the class composition of a national struggle, it will include the masses and it will directly benefit the masses. Marx said that the triumph of the bourgeoisie was the only way the proletariat could come into existence, and so obviously your formulation of "good for capitalists bad for workers" is wrong.


They were not put any farther ahead either. It served the interests of those who put their nation ahead of their class.

So, when Marx opposed certain national liberation struggles, he was wrong in doing so?
The class is part of the nation.

You have not demonstrated that he opposed genuine national liberation struggles...you've cited Baltic Slavs without showing us that they are indeed a nation according to the materialist definition given.


Where has this happened. Surely you can give me some examples of some poor unfortunate bourgeois families who "lost it all".
Here (http://www.smartonmoney.com/going-broke-after-having-millions-how-one-millionaire-family-lost-it-all/)

That you don't believe this just shows your lack of understanding of capitalism.


I never said I read Marx's mind.

Evidence that my opinion is valid: material conditions changed, Marx opposed certain national liberation movements.
First, that's not actually evidence for your point. Second, you haven't demonstrated he did, as pointed out above.


So, he was a Marxist? He believed in Historical Materialism, Dialectical materialism and Marxian economics? Surely, you can provide me with proof.
One need not be an expert in Marxian economics to be a working-class revolutionary. Ounces and tons.


The state is the government, the military, police, etc. This is the definition we use, and it is what they oppose.

If an anarchist abandons the position of not using the state, they are not anarchists.
Some anarchists have a habit of supporting states so long as they aren't labeled states. The military and government and law-enforcement of anarchist Catalonia is good proof of this.


We are talking material conditions changing. Ergo, I just told you they changed, and you agreed after vehemently opposing the idea that they changed.
The relevance of this remains non-existent.


So, what is the primary principle of the struggle for self-determination in Ireland?
You just answered your own question.


Oh, and yeah, I do oppose the Irish nationalist movement.
Nice to know you support British colonial holdings.


They are not a nation because you do say so.
I have a concrete definition that I have met in every example. You have nothing.


I told you, they have a common language, culture, history, etc. I am using your definition.
What common language? What common culture? What common history?


I certainly do not support revisionism.
Yeah, that'll show Bernstein.


He can be quite funny sometimes, annoying other times.

Do expalin, how am I taking my cues from maher?
Using his jokes as a way to try to undercut my position, of course.


Jesus H Christ. Talking to you is like talking to an infant.

I said that FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION.

Those who are proponents of white pride, do use that colonialist definition, therefore, to simplify the discussion, I said "FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION WE WILL USE THIS DEFINITION".

FUCK SAKES YOU BRAINLESS TWIT.

You've made ZERO counter arguments. Just promoting revision of marxist theory, and making this into a semantics discussion, where I give an argument against your position, and you tell me why I'm wrong because my definition is wrong, and YOU CAN'T EVEN SOURCE WHERE IN MARXIST LITERATUIRE YOU FIND THESE DEFINITIONS.

I'm fucking finished.
Look's like I've touched a nerve. :D

[Brosip Tito]

Not so. Rights are certainly not considered eternal or omnipotent in practice, as citizens are accorded rights that non-citizens are not. This is a matter of you accepting bourgeois rhetoric at its word instead of being more analytical.


The various wars of Spain in the 1800's makes this conclusion an inevitability.


The Bourbon Dynasty, the French Imperial Family, the Constitutional Monarchy of the Cortes and the Trienio Liberal, the restored Bourbon absolutist monarchy, the First Spanish Republic.


As I said, the definition comes from the contributions of materialists to our movement. Using the analytical process established by Marx, the Bolsheviks came to the definition of nationality that I have posted multiple times.


It could very well change your identity, then...or, depending on the family you grew up in, it could be the opposite of the location. It depends on a wide range of factors that you have not given.


If you base your opinion on what you think, why are you resorting to a vox pox justification of your un-materialist worldview?


No I don't. Go back and read what I wrote.


It's a false dichotomy, no choice could possibly exist. You might as well ask if Irish nationalists would choose their independence over cake and ice cream.


Too bad that's not how reality bears it out. Nice to have imagination, though.


Both nations are denied full self-determination and so there are steps of progress to be made.


It's applicable to all three, for all three have not yet achieved full self-determination as a nation. Whatever the class composition of a national struggle, it will include the masses and it will directly benefit the masses. Marx said that the triumph of the bourgeoisie was the only way the proletariat could come into existence, and so obviously your formulation of "good for capitalists bad for workers" is wrong.


The class is part of the nation.

You have not demonstrated that he opposed genuine national liberation struggles...you've cited Baltic Slavs without showing us that they are indeed a nation according to the materialist definition given.


Here (http://www.smartonmoney.com/going-broke-after-having-millions-how-one-millionaire-family-lost-it-all/)

That you don't believe this just shows your lack of understanding of capitalism.


First, that's not actually evidence for your point. Second, you haven't demonstrated he did, as pointed out above.


One need not be an expert in Marxian economics to be a working-class revolutionary. Ounces and tons.


Some anarchists have a habit of supporting states so long as they aren't labeled states. The military and government and law-enforcement of anarchist Catalonia is good proof of this.


The relevance of this remains non-existent.


You just answered your own question.


Nice to know you support British colonial holdings.


I have a concrete definition that I have met in every example. You have nothing.


What common language? What common culture? What common history?


Yeah, that'll show Bernstein.


Using his jokes as a way to try to undercut my position, of course.


Look's like I've touched a nerve. :D
You can continue being a revisionist, anti-marxist nationalist. You have been wrong at every turn in this conversation, and made yourself look like a complete idiot.

You keep supporting your national struggles, I'll support the class struggle.

You keep collaborating with enemy classes, I'll keep working with the proletariat only.

You keep feeling bad for the bourgeoisie, I'll keep fighting the tear every bit of capital from their filthy hands, and only feel sympathy with my fellow workers.

You keep revising Marx, and I'll keep being a Marxist through and through.

You are one of the most politically inept posters I've read, aside from adolescent Marxist-Leninists that seem to frequent here.

You are not a marxist. You, Bernstein and Kautsky would get along quite well together.

This is my last post by the way. Ill keep reading your posts, and I'll just laugh at your inability to support your claims, and your absolute stubbornness to admit you are wrong when proven.

[manic expression]

You can continue being a revisionist, anti-marxist nationalist. You have been wrong at every turn in this conversation, and made yourself look like a complete idiot.
And you, as always, are incapable of making a counterpoint that isn't baseless personal insults.

If you refuse to understand the national question in Marxist terms, that's your problem, not mine. Let me know when you're ready to think like a materialist, OK?

[Crux]

I admit that this question is quite complex, and perhaps I do not grasp it in its totality, but I do hope that I have helped explain some of the more basic aspects of the communist approach to the national question.

In general I agree. If there is any such thing as whiteness, then it exists only in self-perception and, as you said, position.

I think that "Black is beautiful" has to be understood in precisely this (invented) dichotomy that colonialism/capitalism has set up. The idea of whiteness relegated anyone else, but perhaps (and this isn't quantifiable) most pointedly those of dark complexion, and so it is only right that nationalities that are seen that way improve their image in their own eyes. It is, IMO, right that black be seen as beautiful, and it's not "race pride" so much as counteracting the psychological subjugation of such peoples.
Well, I think the biggest mistake, and indeed a mistake that happened even in Lenin's time, was not engaging critically with national-liberation movements. We must never tail petit-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie leaders. Whatever tactical alliances exist the indepenence of the working class and the struggle for a working class and marxist leadership can never be negotiable. When and if we engage with left-nationalists we must do so with the intention to win them to marxism and not hide our positions, or worse yet simply adopt left nationalism out of convenience. National independence is always a stepping stone and never an end in itself.

[Grenzer]

For a supposed Marxist, Manic has a great interest in defining exactly who is of what national persuasion, ethnicity etc.:rolleyes:

Manic is, as usual, spouting off nonsense to support his own reactionary positions. Patriotism is nationalism, he's trying to make a very poor argument of semantics; which isn't going to be convincing to anyone who isn't already a nationalist. Nationalism is irreconcilably opposed to internationalism, which is the understanding of the practical necessity of destroying all nations in support of the goal of the communist programme. This kind of talk is much more appropriate at the Socialist *******.

Nationalism? Check. Imperialism under the banner of 'anti-imperialism'? Check. Racialism? Check. Support for bourgeois dictators like Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi? Check.

Business as usual for the PSL.

[Rooster]

The Bourbon Dynasty, the French Imperial Family, the Constitutional Monarchy of the Cortes and the Trienio Liberal, the restored Bourbon absolutist monarchy, the First Spanish Republic.

Wait a minute, what classes do they constitute then? That was what he asked, wasn't it?

[IrishWorker]

James Connolly



Socialism and Nationalism

(1897)

From L’Irlande Libre, Paris 1897.
Transcribed by The James Connolly Society in 1997.
The public life of Ireland has been generally so much identified with the struggle for political emancipation, that, naturally, the economic side of the situation has only received from our historians and public men a very small amount of attention.

Scientific Socialism is based upon the truth incorporated in this proposition of Karl Marx, that, “the economic dependence of the workers on the monopolists of the means of production is the foundation of slavery in all its forms, the cause of nearly all social misery, modern crime, mental degradation and political dependence”. Thus this false exaggeration of purely political forms which has clothed in Ireland the struggle for liberty, must appear to the Socialist an inexplicable error on the part of a people so strongly crushed down as the Irish.

But the error is more in appearance than in reality.

The reactionary attitude of our political leaders notwithstanding, the great mass of the Irish people know full well that if they had once conquered that political liberty which they struggle for with so much ardour, it would have to be used as a means of social redemption before their well-being would be assured.

In spite of occasional exaggeration of its immediate results one must remember that by striving determinedly, as they have done, towards this definite political end, the Irish are working on the lines of conduct laid down by modern Socialism as the indispensable condition of success.

Since the abandonment of the unfortunate insurrectionism of the early Socialists whose hopes were exclusively concentrated on the eventual triumph of an uprising and barricade struggle, modern Socialism, relying on the slower, but surer method of the ballot-box, has directed the attention of its partisans toward the peaceful conquest of the forces of government in the interests of the revolutionary ideal.

The advent of Socialism can only take place when the revolutionary proletariat, in possession of the organized forces of the nation (the political power of government) will be able to build up a social organization in conformity with the natural march of industrial development.

On the other hand, non-political co operative effort must infallibly succumb in face of the opposition of the privileged classes, entrenched behind the ramparts of law and monopoly. This is why, even when he is from the economic point of view intensely conservative, the Irish Nationalist, even with his false reasoning, is an active agent in social regeneration, in so far as he seeks to invest with full power over its own destinies a people actually governed in the interests of a feudal aristocracy.

The section of the Socialist army to which I belong, the Irish Socialist Republican Party, never seeks to hide its hostility to those purely bourgeois parties which at present direct Irish politics.

But, in inscribing on our banners an ideal to which they also give lip-homage, we have no intention of joining in a movement which could debase the banner of revolutionary Socialism.

The Socialist parties of France oppose the mere Republicans without ceasing to love the Republic. In the same way the Irish Socialist Republican Party seeks the independence of the nation, while refusing to conform to the methods or to employ the arguments of the chauvinist Nationalist.

As Socialists we are not imbued with national or racial hatred by the remembrance that the political and social order under which we live was imposed on our fathers at the point of the sword; that during 700 years Ireland has resisted this unjust foreign domination; that famine, pestilence and bad government have made this western isle almost a desert and scattered our exiled fellow-countrymen over the whole face of the globe.

The enunciation of facts such as I have just stated is not able today to inspire or to direct the political energies of the militant working class of Ireland; such is not the foundation of our resolve to free Ireland from the yoke of the British Empire. We recognize rather that during all these centuries the great mass of the British people had no political existence whatever; that England was, politically and socially, terrorized by a numerically small governing class; that the atrocities which have been perpetrated against Ireland are only imputable to the unscrupulous ambition of this class, greedy to enrich itself at the expense of defenceless men; that up to the present generation the great majority of the English people were denied a deliberate voice in the government of their own country; that it is, therefore, manifestly unjust to charge the English people with the past crimes of their Government; and that at the worst we can but charge them with a criminal apathy in submitting to slavery and allowing themselves to be made an instrument of coercion for the enslavement of others. An accusation as applicable to the present as to the past.

But whilst refusing to base our political action on hereditary national antipathy, and wishing rather comradeship with the English workers than to regard them with hatred, we desire with our precursors the United Irishmen of 1798 that our animosities be buried with the bones of our ancestors – there is not a party in Ireland which accentuates more as a vital principle of its political faith the need of separating Ireland from England and of making it absolutely independent. In the eyes of the ignorant and of the unreflecting this appears an inconsistency, but I am persuaded that our Socialist brothers in France will immediately recognize the justice of the reasoning upon which such a policy is based.

1. We hold “the economic emancipation of the worker requires the conversion of the means of production into the common property of Society”. Translated into the current language and practice of actual politics this teaches that the necessary road to be travelled towards the establishment of Socialism requires the transference of the means of production from the hands of private owners to those of public bodies directly responsible to the entire community.

2. Socialism seeks then in the interest of the democracy to strengthen popular action on all public bodies.

3. Representative bodies in Ireland would express more directly the will of the Irish people than when those bodies reside in England.

An Irish Republic would then be the natural depository of popular power; the weapon of popular emancipation, the only power which would show in the full light of day all these class antagonisms and lines of economic demarcation now obscured by the mists of bourgeois patriotism.

In that there is not a trace of chauvinism. We desire to preserve with the English people the same political relations as with the people of France, or Germany, or of any other country; the greatest possible friendship, but also the strictest independence. Brothers, but not bedfellows. Thus, inspired by another ideal, conducted by reason not by tradition, following a different course, the Socialist Republican Party of Ireland arrives at the same conclusion as the most irreconcilable Nationalist. The governmental power of England over us must be destroyed; the bonds which bind us to her must be broken. Having learned from history that all bourgeois movements end in compromise, that the bourgeois revolutionists of today become the conservatives of tomorrow, the Irish Socialists refuse to deny or to lose their identity with those who only half understand the problem of liberty. They seek only the alliance and the friendship of those hearts who, loving liberty for its own sake, are not afraid to follow its banner when it is uplifted by the hands of the working class who have most need of it. Their friends are those who would not hesitate to follow that standard of liberty, to consecrate their lives in its service even should it lead to the terrible arbitration of the sword.

[manic expression]

Wait a minute, what classes do they constitute then? That was what he asked, wasn't it?
Feudalist monarchy, Bonapartist monarchy, bourgeois-allied-with-monarchy of constitutional republicanism, bourgeoisie.


Manic is, as usual, spouting off nonsense to support his own reactionary positions. Patriotism is nationalism, he's trying to make a very poor argument of semantics; which isn't going to be convincing to anyone who isn't already a nationalist. Nationalism is irreconcilably opposed to internationalism, which is the understanding of the practical necessity of destroying all nations in support of the goal of the communist programme. This kind of talk is much more appropriate at the Socialist *******.

Nationalism? Check. Imperialism under the banner of 'anti-imperialism'? Check. Racialism? Check. Support for bourgeois dictators like Ahmadinejad and Gaddafi? Check.

Business as usual for the PSL.
Too bad you've made no argument as to why patriotism and nationalism are the same thing. Perhaps if you engaged in some modicum of reason instead of parroting cheap and stale sloganeering you'd have something amounting to a serious point. Oh, well, there's always next time, I suppose.

Thanks for lying about my positions and those of my party. It exposes you ever so deservedly as someone without any intellectual honesty.


Well, I think the biggest mistake, and indeed a mistake that happened even in Lenin's time, was not engaging critically with national-liberation movements. We must never tail petit-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie leaders. Whatever tactical alliances exist the indepenence of the working class and the struggle for a working class and marxist leadership can never be negotiable. When and if we engage with left-nationalists we must do so with the intention to win them to marxism and not hide our positions, or worse yet simply adopt left nationalism out of convenience. National independence is always a stepping stone and never an end in itself.
Well said. I think we can learn from the example of Connolly, who was out in front of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois independence figures when it came to opposing imperialism and struggling for national liberation. At the same time, he was very clear in saying that national liberation would only be one step of many others, and that Ireland could not be truly free if not free from capitalism itself.

All I would venture add is the hypothesis that left-nationalism lends itself to revolutionary trends (something we see in the history of the Black Power struggle in the US...reformists turned into revolutionaries because of their experiences), and so engaging positively with such tendencies is not only natural but eminently desirable.

[Zealot]

People are confusing states, countries, and nations. Appalling, really. Even bourgeois political scientists recognize a distinction.

[Geiseric]

Manic, how are patriotism and nationalism different? Such a question is besides the point, since as Leninists, we are staunch internationalists, thus we are members of no "nation," other than the worldwide proletariat, which is a class, not a nation. If you at any point start to identify yourself with any nation, you isolate your consciousness to a small part of the Capitalist system, and eventually start to have cheuvanist assessments towards nations who aren't as "class conscious," as yours and eventually, you put your nation's interests in front of the world wide proletariat. That is what happened with the U.S.S.R.

I completely support self determination for oppressed minorities, however focusing all of our effort on national liberation struggles instead of 1st world countries hasn't worked, if anything it's been a huge detriment to the movement.

If you continue to support policies such as the ones that resulted in the Shanghai Massacre, that is counter revolutionary.