View Full Version : Is this Nationalism...?
Hexen
28th May 2012, 02:54
I've been recently thinking about Nationalism lately for what it really is and something popped into my mind....
Is it actually an ideology that people are tied to their nations therefore today we have the "Germans, Italians, Americans, etc" 'nationality' categorization as the result?
If so...then I just made a Fridge Horror realization about Nationalism...I guess this is main reason for the genocides/mass killings of innocient people in wars due to Nationalism (since for example "Your therefore your the enemy since your part & tied to the lands and you represent everything we're fighting against therefore we're going have to kill you") as if their trying to wipe out an entire nation of people and replace it their [I]own. Not only that, It's also the same reason why of the hostility towards immigrants and visitors from other countries (For example, an American visits France and their treated like shit because "They represent the problem")?
This means we have also discovered the main source of what drives Fascism/Racism since I also thought Nationalism and Fascism are connected...
Am I describing Nationalism right?
If so...then I just made a Fridge Horror realization about Nationalism...I guess this is main reason for the genocides/mass killings of innocient people in wars due to Nationalism (since for example "Your therefore your the enemy since your part & tied to the lands and you represent everything we're fighting against therefore we're going have to kill you") as if their trying to wipe out an entire nation of people and replace it their [I]own. Not only that, It's also the same reason why of the hostility towards immigrants and visitors from other countries (For example, an American visits France and their treated like shit because "They represent the problem")?
That is pretty much why Communism aims to eliminate nations. To end wars once and for all.
That is pretty much why Communism aims to eliminate nations. To end wars once and for all.
That is like saying we aim to eliminate gender, Marxists have kept asking the national question.
National identity itself is not a bad thing, American blacks identifying themselves as nationality separate from American is what led blacks to arm themselves against the KKK and later to form black worker militias to protect black communities from police.
World communism will end all wars because with free distribution of the products of society there is nothing left to fight over, you can't blame another nationality for "stealing jobs" because there would be no such things as unemployment.
eric922
28th May 2012, 03:28
That's one of the problems with nations, tribes, kingdoms, etc. they divide people into groups. Us vs them or us vs the other. It serves as a way of dehumanizing people.
In her book "The Sociopath Next Door" psychologist Martha Stout says that the military uses this trick a lot, because the prohibition against killing other people is so strong that the human conscience often won't allow it unless you are either under extreme stress or you have dehumanized the people you are killing.
TheAltruist
28th May 2012, 03:30
Soooo, does this mean all nationalistic (even left-wing one) movements are fascistic in nature? At what point does nationalism break away from national identity?
Hexen
28th May 2012, 03:52
Soooo, does this mean all nationalistic (even left-wing one) movements are fascistic in nature?
Yep...All forms of nationalism ultimately lead to fascism.
At what point does nationalism break away from national identity?
I think we need to separate ethnicity (as of accepting that we're after all, homosapiens from different parts of the world due to the environment) from nationalism (Well it also seems to me that Nationalism is actually celebration that your part of that ethnic group...it all goes downhill from there).
That is like saying we aim to eliminate gender, Marxists have kept asking the national question.
What the hell?:confused:
How saying that we seek to eliminate nations is the same as saying that we seek to eliminate gender?
Are you serious or just trolling?
"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."
Lenin
National identity itself is not a bad thing, American blacks identifying themselves as nationality separate from American is what led blacks to arm themselves against the KKK and later to form black worker militias to protect black communities from police. You don't respond to white nationalism with black nationalism. They are both equal bad and harmful. The only difference is that the white nationalism was once dominant in the past and represents a bigger threat today than the black one.
World communism will end all wars because with free distribution of the products of society there is nothing left to fight over, you can't blame another nationality for "stealing jobs" because there would be no such things as unemployment.Natural resources will continue to exist. As long as you have natural resources you will have reasons to go to war in a national divided world. No doubt about it. If you eliminate those national divisions then you have no reasons to fight for natural resources.
TheAltruist
28th May 2012, 04:28
What about nationalism in the case of anti-imperialism? Is that something most people here would support? Or in the case of African-Americans, is it really wrong to recognize their common heritage, and unite with people of all races to fight against institutionalized racism?
What the hell?:confused:
How saying that we seek to eliminate nations is the same as saying that we seek to eliminate gender?
Are you serious or just trolling?
From the point of view of Marxists a nationality is community bound together through common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history, this is why Marxists have been asking the national question since Marx and Engels.
Ethnicity doesn't fully cover nationality for example black Americans are mix of different black ethnicities.
You don't respond to white nationalism with black nationalism. They are both equal bad and harmful. The only difference is that the white nationalism was once dominant in the past and represents a bigger threat today than the black one.
The Black Panthers were able to form black worker militias, they were able to get blacks interested in communism by defending their nationality and this is the threat the FBI saw in them, they feared the Black Panthers would eventually turned most blacks in the USA into communists.
Natural resources will continue to exist. As long as you have natural resources you will have reasons to go to war in a national divided world. No doubt about it. If you eliminate those national divisions then you have no reasons to fight for natural resources.
National boundaries are different then state boundaries for example Rosa Luxemburg supported Poland being an autonomous national region within the Russian state.
From the point of view of Marxists a nationality is community bound together through common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history, this is why Marxists have been asking the national question since Marx and Engels.
Ethnicity doesn't fully cover nationality for example black Americans are mix of different black ethnicities.
I guess that you didn't see the quote that I added to my post later. I'll transcribe it again: "The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."
Lenin
The Black Panthers were able to form black worker militias, they were able to get blacks interested in communism by defending their nationality and this is the threat the FBI saw in them, they feared the Black Panthers would eventually turned most blacks in the USA into communists.
The Nazis (strasserites) and the national bolsheviks also get white people interested in socialism. Do you wanna defend them as well?
I don't see anything positive in your defense of black nationalism. Nationalism is bad in any circumstance.
National boundaries are different then state boundaries for example Rosa Luxemburg supported Poland being an autonomous national region within the Russian state.
The problem is not in the state boundaries (which I didn't even mention) but in the national divisions. As long as exists one national group different from another there will be always a potential conflict between the two for some reason.
I guess that you didn't see the quote that I added to my post later. I'll transcribe it again: "The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."
Lenin
Merging nations doesn't mean getting rid of them, look at Lenin and Trotsky on the national Question where they gave nationalities in the Russian empire semi-autonomy.
The Nazis (strasserites) and the national bolsheviks also get white people interested in socialism. Do you wanna defend them as well?
The Black Panthers had nothing to do with Nazism or fascism. They were not planning on oppressing other nationalities.
I don't see anything positive in your defense of black nationalism. Nationalism is bad in any circumstance.
So feeding poor black families, providing free education and protecting the ghettos are not positive?
The problem is not in the state boundaries (which I didn't even mention) but in the national divisions. As long as exists one national group different from another there will be always a potential conflict between the two for some reason.
The USSR comprised of many national regions and racism didn't become and issue till after the fall of the USSR. I don't see how the USSR removing semi-autonomy of nations within the USSR would have been any better.
Merging nations doesn't mean getting rid of them, look at Lenin and Trotsky on the national Question where they have nationalities in the Russian empire semi-autonomy.
You're kidding right? Do you know what merge means? To end with all your doubts:
"The period of the victory of socialism on a world scale differs from the period of the victory of socialism in one country primarily in the fact that it will abolish imperialism in all countries, will abolish both the striving to subjugate other nations and the fear inspired by the menace of national enslavement, will radically undermine national distrust and national enmity, will unite the nations into one world socialist economic system, and will thus create the real conditions necessary for the gradual merging of all nations into one."
Stalin, The National Question and Leninism.
I believe that is no margin for other interpretations in this one.
The Black Panthers had nothing to do with Nazism or fascism. They were not planning on oppressing other nationalities.
The Strasserites (the original Nazis) and the National-Bolsheviks don't plan to oppress other nationalities either.
So feeding poor black families, providing free education and protecting the ghettos are not positive?
If a white nationalist regime feeds poor white people, provides free education and protect its people you support it? You had white nationalist regimes in the past which met those demands. I guess you do support it as well if you're coherent.
You are openly defending nationalism here. I've seen people getting banned or restricted for much less than that.
The USSR comprised of many national regions and racism didn't become and issue till after the fall of the USSR. I don't see how the USSR removing semi-autonomy of nations within the USSR would have been any better.
Racism doesn't appears overnight. Racism was an issue in the USSR and a serious one specially in the Ukraine. I'm surprised that you didn't know that.
Anti - Semitism was particularly strong and I can provide you a personal testimony of that. We have here a thread in RevLeft about racism in USSR. You might wanna check it.
ckaihatsu
28th May 2012, 05:48
Soooo, does this mean all nationalistic (even left-wing one) movements are fascistic in nature? At what point does nationalism break away from national identity?
Colonies -- including internal colonies -- can't be considered nations since they're controlled by larger, imperialist nations. For colonies, nationalism -- in the direction of self-determination -- is a *positive* thing since it asserts their own autonomy and identity as a people.
Any nation that has gained its political independence may find that it is still subject to *economic* oppression (and exploitation), the same as everyone else. A nation may grow and expand its sovereignty, without necessarily infringing on others, if it can reach outward into something of a regional bloc with trading partners on a roughly equitable basis. The same thing can also be accomplished internally, with an expansion of economic territory that is favorable for those within.
Nationalism can be progressive in that it fuels general well-being and cultural developments within. (In this way even imperialism can be seen to be "progressive" to the extent that it ends otherwise-sectarian conflicts and provides a stable system of governance, commerce, and culture.)
[22] History, Macro Micro
http://postimage.org/image/35q8b6o84/
[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision
http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/
Political Spectrum, Simplified
http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/
You're kidding right? Do you know what merge means? To end with all your doubts:
"The period of the victory of socialism on a world scale differs from the period of the victory of socialism in one country primarily in the fact that it will abolish imperialism in all countries, will abolish both the striving to subjugate other nations and the fear inspired by the menace of national enslavement, will radically undermine national distrust and national enmity, will unite the nations into one world socialist economic system, and will thus create the real conditions necessary for the gradual merging of all nations into one."
Stalin, The National Question and Leninism.
I believe that is no margin for other interpretations in this one.
I don't trust Stalin to have a good grasp on the national question, it contradicts both Lenin and Trotsky's view on the national question where they agreed the fight against any national oppression was necessary first and foremost because it eased the way to working class unity where Trotsky and Lenin differed on the national question was going about it.
The Strasserites (the original Nazis) and the National-Bolsheviks don't plan to oppress other nationalities either.
Gregor Strasser was anti-semitic and did want to oppress the Jews.
If a white nationalist regime feeds poor white people, provides free education and protect its people you support it? You had white nationalist regimes in the past which met those demands. I guess you do support it as well if you're coherent.
You are openly defending nationalism here. I've seen people getting banned or restricted for much less than that.
Because Lenin and Trotsky defended it. Go to any large socialist conference and the national question does come up. There are a wide range of reasons why we can't just ignore nationality the biggest being the alienation of minorities from movements that refuse to identify with their grievances based on their oppression against their nationality.
Racism doesn't appears overnight. Racism was an issue in the USSR and a serious one specially in the Ukraine. I'm surprised that you didn't know that.
Anti - Semitism was particularly strong and I can provide you a personal testimony of that. We have here a thread in RevLeft about racism in USSR. You might wanna check it.
Not to the level after the USSR broke up, also removing national semi-autonomy of the USSR wouldn't have helped it would just make minorities fell like they have less say in government.
jookyle
28th May 2012, 08:25
Nationalism by way of national liberation is not the same as nationalism by way of dominance or a sense of superiority to others because of their national origins. For example, the Cuban revolution was a nationalist one. Although the Communist Party supported it, the nature of the revolution was nationalist. In terms of liberation from oppression, nationalism can be a strong force to unite a people.
o well this is ok I guess
28th May 2012, 08:42
That is like saying we aim to eliminate gender I wouldn't mind
dodger
28th May 2012, 09:07
Capitalism a spent force, so increasingly vicious, it regards the destruction of sovereign nations as the solution to prolonging its life just a little bit longer. Workers’ nationalism means that each nation must fight to build socialism in its own land, the only alternative to capitalism.
Be clear and committed on this national class question. That is the only possible basis for internationalism. Self respect is never arrogance. We must respect other nations as we might hope to be respected in turn. Such a pity to see such a willing little bunch of 'helpers' destroy sovereignty. So much depends on us having ability to shape our own lives, not diktats from Brussels or elsewhere.
Tim Cornelis
28th May 2012, 11:36
I don't trust Stalin to have a good grasp on the national question, it contradicts both Lenin and Trotsky's view on the national question where they agreed the fight against any national oppression was necessary first and foremost because it eased the way to working class unity where Trotsky and Lenin differed on the national question was going about it.
Because Lenin and Trotsky defended it. Go to any large socialist conference and the national question does come up.
Merging nations doesn't mean getting rid of them, look at Lenin and Trotsky on the national Question where they gave nationalities in the Russian empire semi-autonomy.
From the point of view of Marxists a nationality is community bound together through common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history, this is why Marxists have been asking the national question since Marx and Engels.
Is there any particular reason your reasoning is confined to appeals to authority? I noticed this is in the other thread as well. "They asked the national question" "Lenin disagreed". Who cares?
Also, the BBP was not a black nationalist organisation.
@OP
Fascism is based on palingenetic ultranationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism).
Also, *you're, *you're, *you're, *they're
Permanent Revolutionary
28th May 2012, 12:43
Soooo, does this mean all nationalistic (even left-wing one) movements are fascistic in nature? At what point does nationalism break away from national identity?
No, because there are two kinds of nationalism, in my opinion.
In Britain you have the BNP who seeks to limit and/or get rid of immigrants. This I like to kall Xenophobic-nationalism.
Then you have nationalism in countrys who aren't independent. Like for example where I live, The Faroes. Here the nationalism is about becoming independent from the Kingdom of Denmark.
This, in my opinion, is an acceptable form of nationalism.
Is there any particular reason your reasoning is confined to appeals to authority? I noticed this is in the other thread as well. "They asked the national question" "Lenin disagreed". Who cares?
Because there is a national question in Marxism and Anarchism, even Rosa Luxemberg got involved in the question of Polish nationality in regard to the Russian workers state.
Why should we throw out everything Marxists and Anarchists have written on the national question?
Also, the BBP was not a black nationalist organisation.
Yes they were, their goal was self-determination of their nationality. This question came up in the Russian Empire with all the leftists as leftists had to deal with grievances particular to nationalities.
I don't trust Stalin to have a good grasp on the national question, it contradicts both Lenin and Trotsky's view on the national question where they agreed the fight against any national oppression was necessary first and foremost because it eased the way to working class unity where Trotsky and Lenin differed on the national question was going about it.
Stalin contradicts Lenin? Let's see the stance of both:
"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them."
Lenin
"The period of the victory of socialism on a world scale differs from the period of the victory of socialism in one country primarily in the fact that it will abolish imperialism in all countries, will abolish both the striving to subjugate other nations and the fear inspired by the menace of national enslavement, will radically undermine national distrust and national enmity, will unite the nations into one world socialist economic system, and will thus create the real conditions necessary for the gradual merging of all nations into one."
Stalin, The National Question and Leninism.
From what I see above the opinion of both match perfectly.
Gregor Strasser was anti-semitic and did want to oppress the Jews.
As you may know Strasserism is not only about Gregor but Otto Strasser as well. Otto was the one who developed the jewish question and he wasn't anti-semitic nor he did want to oppress the jews. That is why I referred specifically Strasser followers. Have you ever red "a word on the Jewish Problem" written by Otto Strasser? I'll give you just two quotes from it:
"I have expressed the utmost disapproval of the shameless and inhuman anti-Jewish campaign that has characterised the Hitler System",
"I protested editorially against antisemitism of the Streicher brand, voicing the war-cry, 'Antisemitism is dead. Long live the idea of the People!'"
Because Lenin and Trotsky defended it. Go to any large socialist conference and the national question does come up. There are a wide range of reasons why we can't just ignore nationality the biggest being the alienation of minorities from movements that refuse to identify with their grievances based on their oppression against their nationality.
Your argument is pretty much the same of the left-wing nationalists. They also claim that Marxism isn't totally clear about it and that the national sentiment shouldn't be ignored and maintain.
Lenin was clearly anti-nationalist as the quote above prove it and I don't have reasons to think that Trotsky was a nationalist. Would a nationalist advocate the merge of nations into one? I don't think so.
Not to the level after the USSR broke up, also removing national semi-autonomy of the USSR wouldn't have helped it would just make minorities fell like they have less say in government.
Do you think all that racism just appeared overnight? The racism was always there and was even fostered by soviet government officials, particularly anti-semitism. Since you lived under a repressive system the information about racist attacks or anything related to racism was obviously hidden by the regime. It's much more harder to do it in a more opened regime.
danyboy27
28th May 2012, 16:35
when you think you are better than your neighbor the shit will hit the fan.
With the rise of the mean of communications nationalism is getting more and more obsolete and absurd beccause it allow people to finally realize that even tho people got different cultures and customs, we are all verry much alike.
As you may know Strasserism is not only about Gregor but Otto Strasser as well. Otto was the one who developed the jewish question and he wasn't anti-semitic nor he did want to oppress the jews. That is why I referred specifically Strasser followers. Have you ever red "a word on the Jewish Problem" written by Otto Strasser? I'll give you just two quotes from it:
"I have expressed the utmost disapproval of the shameless and inhuman anti-Jewish campaign that has characterised the Hitler System",
"I protested editorially against antisemitism of the Streicher brand, voicing the war-cry, 'Antisemitism is dead. Long live the idea of the People!'"
That was anti-communist and was attacking the communists and anarchists of Germany.
Your argument is pretty much the same of the left-wing nationalists. They also claim that Marxism isn't totally clear about it and that the national sentiment shouldn't be ignored and maintain.
Marx called for the national independence of Poland.
Lenin was clearly anti-nationalist as the quote above prove it and I don't have reasons to think that Trotsky was a nationalist. Would a nationalist advocate the merge of nations into one? I don't think so.
Then why did he repeatedly recognize self-determination of nations withing the Russian state? You are confusing nation with state. Lenin supported nations existing within the workers state, this is why we see the USSR divided into republics and republics divided into provinces.
Do you think all that racism just appeared overnight? The racism was always there and was even fostered by soviet government officials, particularly anti-semitism. Since you lived under a repressive system the information about racist attacks or anything related to racism was obviously hidden by the regime. It's much more harder to do it in a more opened regime.
Yes the racism was always there it predates the revolution so how can you blame it on partitions within the USSR? How would the USSR have been any less racist if nationalities right to self-determination was done away with?
That was anti-communist and was attacking the communists and anarchists of Germany.
The strasserites weren't anti-communist and they even called for an alliance with USSR.
Strasserism was the left-wing of the NSDAP opposed to Hitler's faction.
Marx called for the national independence of Poland.
Then why did he repeatedly recognize self-determination of nations withing the Russian state? You are confusing nation with state. Lenin supported nations existing within the workers state, this is why we see the USSR divided into republics and republics divided into provinces.
You didn't grasp the meaning of Lenin and Marx support for the self-determination. Lenin and Marx supported self-determination struggles not because of nationalism itself since they weren't nationalists but because they thought that represented an advance to the class struggle in those regions for the working class. What you're defending is something totally different.
Yes the racism was always there it predates the revolution so how can you blame it on partitions within the USSR? How would the USSR have been any less racist if nationalities right to self-determination was done away with?
You were defending that there was less racism in USSR due to the semi-autonomous status of nations within the regime and my point was to prove you that racism was always present there in the same degree.
The strasserites weren't anti-communist and they even called for an alliance with USSR.
Strasserism was the left-wing of the NSDAP opposed to Hitler's faction.
Yes there were, if they were not they wouldn't be part of the NSDAP as the NSDAP was beating up the German communist that were organizing labor.
You didn't grasp the meaning of Lenin and Marx support for the self-determination. Lenin and Marx supported self-determination struggles not because of nationalism itself since they weren't nationalists but because they thought that represented an advance to the class struggle in those regions for the working class. What you're defending is something totally different.
But we are talking about self-determination of a nationality of workers, this is why today we still have the national question throughout the left. Marx and Engels supported national movements on a case by case basis.
You were defending that there was less racism in USSR due to the semi-autonomous status of nations within the regime and my point was to prove you that racism was always present there in the same degree.
Not in the same degree, racism was less from 1917 to 1991. I still fail to see how removing national autonomy within the USSR would have reduced racism more. The point of this national autonomy was to eliminate friction between the different nationalities and really the break up of the Warsaw Pact came about because Moscow didn't allow self-determination of the Warsaw Pact nations. Lets face it if Moscow allowed the liberalization in these nations there probably still be a Warsaw Pact and a USSR as you wouldn't have this reactionary nationalism caused by the USSR denying self-determination of the communist parties in the Warsaw Pact.
Yes there were, if they were not they wouldn't be part of the NSDAP as the NSDAP was beating up the German communist that were organizing labor.
And the fact is that the Strassers did indeed leave the NSDAP. Gregor Strasser was killed by Hitler personnel during the Night of the Long Knifes and Otto Strasser had been expelled from NSDAP years before precisely because both men advocated closer ties with communists and USSR.
But we are talking about self-determination of a nationality of workers, this is why today we still have the national question throughout the left. Marx and Engels supported national movements on a case by case basis.
No, Marx and Lenin knew pretty well that a workers state wouldn't emerge from Poland or Finland's self-determination. That is precisely why they didn't supported self-determination as a national process but instead as an advance in the class struggle.
Not in the same degree, racism was less from 1917 to 1991. I still fail to see how removing national autonomy within the USSR would have reduced racism more. The point of this national autonomy was to eliminate friction between the different nationalities and really the break up of the Warsaw Pact came about because Moscow didn't allow self-determination of the Warsaw Pact nations. Lets face it if Moscow allowed the liberalization in these nations there probably still be a Warsaw Pact and a USSR as you wouldn't have this reactionary nationalism caused by the USSR denying self-determination of the communist parties in the Warsaw Pact.
You simply can't say that the racism in 1992, 93 and so on isn't connected with the racism before 1991. If you had a high degree of racism after the collapse that means the racism was already there in the same degree. This is pretty obvious to me.
What you advocate (national autonomy) increases racism even more and I have a good example for you: Yugoslavia. Here you had even more national autonomy during Tito's regime and the result was a extremely brutal ethnic war with genocides, ethnic cleansing, etc...
The point is to reduce the national differences not to perpetuate them.
I don't see why you're referring the Warsaw Pact. As far as I can remember all countries which belonged to the Pact were independent.
Hexen
28th May 2012, 18:35
I think someone needs to restrict Psy before he spreads his nationalist filth on these forums any further. Nationalism is one of the main core problems with the world today which is the source of the hatred/prejudices & genocides/mass killings throughout history and today.
Infact even ethnic stereotypes can be traced back to Nationalism which treats everyone that is apart of a nation like a hive mind which is where the main problem lies.
In short like I said before: Nationalism is nothing more than a divide & conquer strategy.
And the fact is that the Strassers did indeed leave the NSDAP. Gregor Strasser was killed by Hitler personnel during the Night of the Long Knifes and Otto Strasser had been expelled from NSDAP years before precisely because both men advocated closer ties with communists and USSR.
But where we have the NSDAP separate from the communists and anarchist because the NSDAP is coming from a petite-beourgisie stance on nationality. The NSDAP in no way was for uniting the working class.
No, Marx and Lenin knew pretty well that a workers state wouldn't emerge from Poland or Finland's self-determination. That is precisely why they didn't supported self-determination as a national process but instead as an advance in the class struggle.
A worker state is different from self-determination of a nation. Self-determination of a nation means that a nationality has the right to their culture i.e minorities in Russia had the right to their language and customs.
You simply can't say that the racism in 1992, 93 and so on isn't connected with the racism before 1991. If you had a high degree of racism after the collapse that means the racism was already there in the same degree. This is pretty obvious to me.
Not in the same degree but in a different degree, during the USSR era you had a much higher number of inter-national marriages.
What you advocate (national autonomy) increases racism even more and I have a good example for you: Yugoslavia. Here you had even more national autonomy during Tito's regime and the result was a extremely brutal ethnic war with genocides, ethnic cleansing, etc...
The point is to reduce the national differences not to perpetuate them.
The point is to relieve anxieties between nationalities so nationalities don't blame each other for grievances.
I don't see why you're referring the Warsaw Pact. As far as I can remember all countries which belonged to the Pact were independent.
Explain the Prague Spring then, a split within the Czech communist party resulted in the USSR sending in troops to force the Czech communist party to following the party line in Moscow.
I think someone needs to restrict Psy before he spreads his nationalist filth on these forums any further. Nationalism is one of the main core problems with the world today which is the source of the hatred/prejudices & genocides/mass killings throughout history and today.
Infact even ethnic stereotypes can be traced back to Nationalism which treats everyone that is apart of a nation like a hive mind which is where the main problem lies.
In short like I said before: Nationalism is nothing more than a divide & conquer strategy.
Are you going to ban the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky? My point is that you can't say people don't have a right to their culture, language and customs.
But where we have the NSDAP separate from the communists and anarchist because the NSDAP is coming from a petite-beourgisie stance on nationality. The NSDAP in no way was for uniting the working class.
They were for socialism as much as other nationalist movements that you seem to support.
A worker state is different from self-determination of a nation. Self-determination of a nation means that a nationality has the right to their culture i.e minorities in Russia had the right to their language and customs.
You're right, they are different. That is why Marx and Lenin weren't nationalists as you and other left-wing nationalists claim.
Not in the same degree but in a different degree, during the USSR era you had a much higher number of inter-national marriages.
To make a statement like this you need to present official numbers proving your point. Nevertheless, this fact per si doesn't mean that racism was less during the USSR period. You hadn't black national communities in the USSR for instance.
The point is to relieve anxieties between nationalities so nationalities don't blame each other for grievances.
The only way to relieve anxieties between nationalities is to diminishing the national differences.
Explain the Prague Spring then, a split within the Czech communist party resulted in the USSR sending in troops to force the Czech communist party to following the party line in Moscow.
The Prague Spring had nothing to do with nationalist claims. It was a revolt against the communist regime established in Czech Republic. People wanted more freedom and liberalization internally.
I think someone needs to restrict Psy before he spreads his nationalist filth on these forums any further. Nationalism is one of the main core problems with the world today which is the source of the hatred/prejudices & genocides/mass killings throughout history and today.
Psy is clear a left- wing nationalist. He didn't even deny it. I know that a left wing nationalist group was expelled from RevLeft some time ago but I don't know if RevLeft maintains the same policy since then regarding nationalism.
Psy is clear a left- wing nationalist. He didn't even deny it. I know that a left wing nationalist group was expelled from RevLeft some time ago but I don't know if RevLeft maintains the same policy since then regarding nationalism.
I'm not a left-wing nationalist, I simply look at nationalism on a case by case basis which is how Lenin dealt with the issue.
They were for socialism as much as other nationalist movements that you seem to support.
No they were not, for example they were nothing like the Iceland national liberation group that came to the Comintern and which was supported by Lenin.
You're right, they are different. That is why Marx and Lenin weren't nationalists as you and other left-wing nationalists claim.
We are getting into systematics as Lenin and Trotsky did talk about the rights of nations for example the rights of Jews and Muslims in Bolshevik Russia. Lenin told the Mexico representative to the Comintern that they should struggle for the rights of the indigenous populations in Mexico.
To make a statement like this you need to present official numbers proving your point. Nevertheless, this fact per si doesn't mean that racism was less during the USSR period. You hadn't black national communities in the USSR for instance.
You seriously think racism during the USSR was as much of a problem was it was under Tsarist Russia or modern day.
The only way to relieve anxieties between nationalities is to diminishing the national differences.
No, that inflames anxieties as now people fear their culture and customs are under attack. What lowers anxieties is brining nationalities together and allowing overlap.
The Prague Spring had nothing to do with nationalist claims. It was a revolt against the communist regime established in Czech Republic. People wanted more freedom and liberalization internally.
A communist regime that didn't have self-determination, one where the cry for more liberalization came from within the party but Moscow didn't respect the self-determination of the Communist party of the Czech republic.
Tim Finnegan
28th May 2012, 20:14
That is like saying we aim to eliminate gender...
Are you saying that you don't? :confused:
Hexen
28th May 2012, 20:16
Psy is clear a left- wing nationalist. He didn't even deny it.
Looks like he denied it in his latest post above me.
Tim Finnegan
28th May 2012, 20:21
The strasserites weren't anti-communist and they even called for an alliance with USSR.
Strasserite sympathies for the Stalinist regime stemmed from their perception of it as being itself anti-communist and proto-fascist, a literal "national socialism" that reconciled the demand for the socialisation of capital with the vaporisation of "the nation", particularly the "Greater Russia" nationalism manifest in Soviet state ideology, which found obvious resonance with Nazi revanchism. The extent to which they tolerated self-described "communists" was the extent to which they did not regard them as truly communist; those which were so percieved were unreconcilable enemies of "the nation", with whom there could be no alliance and for whom their could be no lenience.
After all, it's not as if the Soviet Union hadn't already proven itself willing to pal around with violent anti-communists, from Ataturk to Chiang, so it was not in any sense obvious that one should have to tolerate communists within your own borders to gain the friendship of the workers' fatherland.
I'm not a left-wing nationalist, I simply look at nationalism on a case by case basis which Lenin.
Your arguments are exactly the same as the left-wing nationalists. Moreover, Lenin didn't look at nationalism on a case by case basis. He was against any type of nationalism. I've already explained you why Lenin supported self-determination.
No they were not, for example they were nothing like the Iceland national liberation group that came to the Comintern and which was supported by Lenin.
Just the fact that a party isn't supported by the Comintern or Lenin doesn't mean that the party doesn't support or aim to achieve Socialism. I could bring you the NSDPA original program which is essential socialist but I prefer not to do it. If you want you can see it in Wikipedia.
We are getting into systematics as Lenin and Trotsky did talk about the rights of nations for example the rights of Jews and Muslims in Bolshevik Russia. Lenin told the Mexico representative to the Comintern that they should struggle for the rights of the indigenous populations in Mexico.
Defending the rights of an oppressed people doesn't equate to nationalism. This is very basic.
You seriously think racism during the USSR was as much of a problem was it was under Tsarist Russia or modern day.
Yes, I do. I've already explained to you why.
No, that inflames anxieties as now people fear their culture and customs are under attack. What lowers anxieties is brining nationalities together and allowing overlap.
Bringing nationalities together and mix them in order to reduce their national differences will lower the divergences between them. Bringing nationalities together while maintaining those national differences will exacerbate these differences and create ethnic conflicts. The far right-wing movements would agree with you since they are against any mix of nations or cultures. This is why I think you are left-wing nationalist.
A communist regime that didn't have self-determination, one where the cry for more liberalization came from within the party but Moscow didn't respect the self-determination of the Communist party of the Czech republic.
Czech Republic was an independent nation but submitted to the soviet imperialism. Germany was also submitted to American imperialism at the time or South Korea today. Do you think these countries should seek for self-determination?
Strasserite sympathies for the Stalinist regime stemmed from their perception of it as being itself anti-communist and proto-fascist, a literal "national socialism" that reconciled the demand for the socialisation of capital with the vaporisation of "the nation", particularly the "Greater Russia" nations manifest in Soviet state ideology, which found obvious resonance with Nazi revanchism. The extent to which they tolerated self-described "communists" was the extent to which they did not regard them as truly communist; those which were so percieved were unreconcilable enemies of "the nation", with whom there could be no alliance and for whom their could be no lenience.
After all, it's not as if the Soviet Union hadn't already proven itself willing to pal around with violent anti-communists, from Ataturk to Chiang, so it was not in any sense obvious that one should have to tolerate communists within your own borders to gain the friendship of the workers' fatherland.
When Strasser advocated an alliance with the USSR in 1925 USSR wasn't Stalinist yet. ;)
Tim Finnegan
28th May 2012, 20:34
It wasn't run by Stalin, but whether or not it can be considered Stalinist is a different question.
Are you saying that you don't? :confused:
Reproduction would be impossible without having males and females.
Your arguments are exactly the same as the left-wing nationalists. Moreover, Lenin didn't look at nationalism on a case by case basis. He was against any type of nationalism. I've already explained you why Lenin supported self-determination.
Yes Lenin looked a nationalism on a case by case basis, the Comintern was struggling with the form struggles for national independence should take.
Just the fact that a party isn't supported by the Comintern or Lenin doesn't mean that the party doesn't support or aim to achieve Socialism. I could bring you the NSDPA original program which is essential socialist but I prefer not to do it. If you want you can see it in Wikipedia.
No they did not aim to achieve socialism they were dividing the working class.
Defending the rights of an oppressed people doesn't equate to nationalism. This is very basic.
You are claiming that supporting right of self-determination of nations is. Which is what Lenin national policy was.
Yes, I do. I've already explained to you why.
You are wrong, the national policy of Lenin for the first time allowed Jews and Muslims to have a say in policy and allowed them to interact with other as equals. The Bolsheviks communicated with the nationalities as equals so the Bolsheviks could get a better grasp of their grievances.
Bringing nationalities together and mix them in order to reduce their national differences will lower the divergences between them.
No because then you are down to the question of which nationality becomes the monoculture. it basically means people in Japan have to act exactly like Americans that have to act exactly like Africans,ect that cultural diversity has to be brutally crushed by the communist party and replace by one culture and one language as that is the only way you can reduce national differences
Why do national differences have to be reduced, why do people in Japan have to give up their language and culture if there is global communism? I don't see why any culture has to be willing to be snuffed out. Why can't all the cultures simply get along?
Bringing nationalities together while maintaining those national differences will exacerbate these differences and create ethnic conflicts. The far right-wing movements would agree with you since they are against any mix of nations or cultures. This is why I think you are left-wing nationalist.
No it doesn't the Internet brings nationalities while maintaining those differences and it doesn't exacerbate conflicts, the Internet allows people free access to different customs more importantly lowers the language barrier.
Czech Republic was an independent nation but submitted to the soviet imperialism. Germany was also submitted to American imperialism at the time or South Korea today. Do you think these countries should seek for self-determination?
You missing the point, what right does communists in Russia have over matters in the Czech Republic that doesn't concern anyone outside the Czech Republic? Of course the USSR had a right to have an opinion on the matter but it was an internal matter.
Yes Lenin looked a nationalism on a case by case basis, the Comintern was struggling with the form struggles for national independence should take.
Show me Lenin's quotes that show his approval of nationalism.
No they did not aim to achieve socialism they were dividing the working class.
You can say that the communist party was also dividing the working class by calling Social-Fascist to SPD.
You are claiming that supporting right of self-determination of nations is. Which is what Lenin national policy was.
I never said that supporting self-determination is the same as supporting nationalism. I've already said to you more than one time as Lenin saw it. Dude, you are talking about a man who said that the socialist aim is to merge all nations into one. What more can I possible give to you??? Just tell me.
You are wrong, the national policy of Lenin for the first time allowed Jews and Muslims to have a say in policy and allowed them to interact with other as equals. The Bolsheviks communicated with the nationalities as equals so the Bolsheviks could get a better grasp of their grievances.
The national policy of Lenin also allowed for massive deportations of specific ethnic communities and a clear racist policy followed by its successors. When I am talking about USSR I am not talking only about Lenin's period as you can imagine.
No because then you are down to the question of which nationality becomes the monoculture. it basically means people in Japan have to act exactly like Americans that have to act exactly like Africans,ect that cultural diversity has to be brutally crushed by the communist party and replace by one culture and one language as that is the only way you can reduce national differences
Multiculturalism proves that your vision is wrong and that you don't need a communist party to brutally repress nations to reduce the differences between them.
Why do national differences have to be reduced, why do people in Japan have to give up their language and culture if there is global communism? I don't see why any culture has to be willing to be snuffed out. Why can't all the cultures simply get along?
The aim of socialism isn't to destroy national divisions by force, unlike you and the rest of left-wing nationalists try to make it appear. As long as you have national differences you will have always the risk of conflicts between the two different national identities for some reason. Your statement that nations can get along is pretty naive if you look back at History.
No it doesn't the Internet brings nationalities while maintaining those differences and it doesn't exacerbate conflicts, the Internet allows people free access to different customs more importantly lowers the language barrier.
Are you kidding? Are you trying to give internet as an example? And yes, even in the internet you have a lot of nationalistic hate between different people.
You missing the point, what right does communists in Russia have over matters in the Czech Republic that doesn't concern anyone outside the Czech Republic? Of course the USSR had a right to have an opinion on the matter but it was an internal matter.
Do you think that I am defending USSR? I totally reprove what the USSR did to Czech Republic. This doesn't mean that Czech Republic wasn't an independent nation, though.
It wasn't run by Stalin, but whether or not it can be considered Stalinist is a different question.
Even if you consider Lenin a stalinist and anti-communist I could use the same argument against what PSY was talking about when I used the Strasser example.
Looks like he denied it in his latest post above me.
I wasn't expect him to admit it unless we were in the Socialist ******* and not in RevLeft.
Show me Lenin's quotes that show his approval of nationalism.
Outright there is none but support for national independence movements yes he supported some of them through the Comintern.
You can say that the communist party was also dividing the working class by calling Social-Fascist to SPD
.
Not to the same scale. More importantly Nazi Party policy would never brining socialism as Germany didn't have a national question as they were already a nation state so going on about nationalism at that point was missing the point, Germans were not being oppressed by another nationality, their language and culture was not threatened so it came down only to a class issue except for the minorities yet the Nazis engaged in national conflict against those minorities.
I never said that supporting self-determination is the same as supporting nationalism. I've already said to you more than one time as Lenin saw it. Dude, you are talking about a man who said that the socialist aim is to merge all nations into one. What more can I possible give to you??? Just tell me.
Lenin defended national diversity, if he didn't the USSR would have had only one language. By 1918 people had the right to be educated in their own language.
The national policy of Lenin also allowed for massive deportations of specific ethnic communities and a clear racist policy followed by its successors. When I am talking about USSR I am not talking only about Lenin's period as you can imagine.
Stalin was a major diversion from Lenin. As for deportations these were national grievances among minorities regarding territory and Lenin was trying to bring fair compromises.
Multiculturalism proves that your vision is wrong and that you don't need a communist party to brutally repress nations to reduce the differences between them.
Multiculturalism doesn't reduce differences it simply increases tolerances for those differences.
The aim of socialism isn't to destroy national divisions by force, unlike you and the rest of left-wing nationalists try to make it appear. As long as you have national differences you will have always the risk of conflicts between the two different national identities for some reason. Your statement that nations can get along is pretty naive if you look back at History.
The Marxist approach is to not blame national differences for the conflict and view these conflicts being created through class conflict.
Are you kidding? Are you trying to give internet as an example? And yes, even in the internet you have a lot of nationalistic hate between different people.
Hate from the outside, the Internet doesn't bread new hate.
Do you think that I am defending USSR? I totally reprove what the USSR did to Czech Republic. This doesn't mean that Czech Republic wasn't an independent nation, though.
How could the Czech Republic be independent if it everything it broke with Moscow the Red Army showed up? Basically it is saying the Czech Republic was independent as long as it did everything Moscow said.
Movimento Sem Terra
28th May 2012, 23:06
Sorry i have question : This site allow Nazis ? If not why Psy is doing here with all those reactionary theories about Nationalism
Sorry i have question : This site allow Nazis ? If not why Psy is doing here with all those reactionary theories about Nationalism
Because I'm not a Nazi I simply support the right of nationalities to exist, which goes against Nazism as that means I oppose nationalities oppressing other nationalities.
Tim Finnegan
28th May 2012, 23:22
Reproduction would be impossible without having males and females.
I don't follow; what does the necessary existence of males and females (in a pre-transhumanist epoch) have to do with gender?
Movimento Sem Terra
28th May 2012, 23:23
Because I'm not a Nazi I simply support the right of nationalities to exist, which goes against Nazism as that means I oppose nationalities oppressing other nationalities.
But Marx didn't support Nationalism so how can you be a Marxist ? Only reactionarys support that crap of nationalism . One of the goals of Socialism is to merge Nation and disable them not having different Nations .
Outright there is none but support for national independence movements yes he supported some of them through the Comintern.
No quote, no valid argument. I gave you a Lenin quote already.
Not to the same scale. More importantly Nazi Party policy would never brining socialism as Germany didn't have a national question as they were already a nation state so going on about nationalism at that point was missing the point, Germans were not being oppressed by another nationality, their language and culture was not threatened so it came down only to a class issue except for the minorities yet the Nazis engaged in national conflict against those minorities.
According to Strasser and his program the aim of the Nazis was socialism. The thing is that he lost the fight for the Nazi leadership for Hitler. They defended nationalism in the same degree that you are defending now: to preserve the national identity. They didn't defend the oppression of minorities just like I proved to you regarding Strasser position on Anti-Semitism.
Lenin defended national diversity, if he didn't the USSR would have had only one language. By 1918 people had the right to be educated in their own language.
As you can imagine Lenin didn't plan to merge all nations into one overnight. It was an aim to achieve in a later period just like communism. We need to have some good sense here. You had Russification later though.
Stalin was a major diversion from Lenin. As for deportations these were national grievances among minorities regarding territory and Lenin was trying to bring fair compromises.
No, he wasn't. Did you see the post of Tim Finnegan? I agree that Stalin is natural evolution of Lenin. Trotskysts dreamers are the only ones who refused to see it despite all the evidence.
Multiculturalism doesn't reduce differences it simply increases tolerances for those differences.
No, it reduces. In a multicultural Society cultural behaviors tend to become similar in all respects. For example, if you have a Iranian child who emigrates to a multicultural society in Europe that child won't grow with the same national differences regarding other kids as the parents have regarding the natives of that country. The cultural assimilation process takes place in a multicultural Society.
The Marxist approach is to not blame national differences for the conflict and view these conflicts being created through class conflict.
In that case we must eliminate the national differences to end the class conflict then. One more reason to support it that you gave me.
Hate from the outside, the Internet doesn't bread new hate.
Yes, it perpetuates hate from outside which came from national differences. What is the difference here?
How could the Czech Republic be independent if it everything it broke with Moscow the Red Army showed up? Basically it is saying the Czech Republic was independent as long as it did everything Moscow said.
Just like West Germany was independent as long as it did everything Washington said. Do you think they should had struggle for self-determination against USA? Promoting nationalism maybe?
Because I'm not a Nazi I simply support the right of nationalities to exist, which goes against Nazism as that means I oppose nationalities oppressing other nationalities.
Theoretical, the Nazis don't defend the oppression of other nationalities. Hitler also defended an emancipation of the Germans against the oppression of the jews bankers and financial elite which were asphyxiating the Germans according to Hitler.
See, this is exactly what you defend regarding other situations.
I don't follow; what does the necessary existence of males and females (in a pre-transhumanist epoch) have to do with gender?
Because gender exists because isn't just a social construct and there are different physiology and scientists interchange the word sex with gender. I wasn't referring to sex roles in social constructs.
But Marx didn't support Nationalism so how can you be a Marxist ? Only reactionarys support that crap of nationalism . One of the goals of Socialism is to merge Nation and disable them not having different Nations .
He actually did look back at his writing about the 1848 national movements (in Marx's time they would be called nationalist) and look at modern debates on the national question.
For example take a look at Cuba and Vietnam, they started as a national liberation movements both Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro were willing work and freely trade with the USA as a nation state when that failed they turned the communist tendencies within their movement to deal with their isolation.
Also remember nations are simply different culture and traditions, someones nationality is simply what culture and tradition they identify with. Thus not having different nationality means you can't have for one culture any different then another since as soon as there is enough of a difference that people identify with one more then the other there is nationality. This is not a bad thing if class identity is predominant, meaning people identity with their class first.
Tim Cornelis
28th May 2012, 23:58
He actually did look back at his writing about the 1848 national movements (in Marx's time they would be called nationalist)
Marx also supported capitalism is this a reason to advocate capitalism now? You are arguing anachronisms.
and look at modern debates on the national question.
What do you mean?
For example take a look at Cuba and Vietnam, they started as a national liberation movements both Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro were willing work and freely trade with the USA as a nation state when that failed they turned the communist tendencies within their movement to deal with their isolation.
And look how that turned out.
Also remember nations are simply different culture and traditions, someones nationality is simply what culture and tradition they identify with. Thus not having different nationality means you can't have for one culture any different then another since as soon as there is enough of a difference that people identify with one more then the other there is nationality. This is not a bad thing if class identity is predominant, meaning people identity with their class first.
Nationalism is the advocacy of expanding, strengthening, or establishing a nation-state. My nationality is Dutch, as is my neighbour's but despite that we have the same nationality, he speaks a different language at home and has different customs.
Nationalism rose with capitalism and will fall with capitalism.
Theoretical, the Nazis don't defend the oppression of other nationalities. Hitler also defended an emancipation of the Germans against the oppression of the jews bankers and financial elite which were asphyxiating the Germans according to Hitler.
See, this is exactly what you defend regarding other situations.
Yes they do as even in the insane logic that the Jews were a threat their actions infringed on the Jewish right to exist.
It is not socialist as the asphyxiating was from capitalists not Jews.
No quote, no valid argument. I gave you a Lenin quote already.
The awakening of the masses from feudal slumber, their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of nations is progressive. Hence, it is the bounded duty of a Marxist to uphold the most resolute and consistent democracy on all points of the national question.The task is mainly a negative one. But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism, for beyond it begins the 'positive' activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism
So there you have Lenin saying struggle against national oppression, sovereignty of people and nations are progressive but to the point where the bourgeoisie strives to fortify national identity.
According to Strasser and his program the aim of the Nazis was socialism. The thing is that he lost the fight for the Nazi leadership for Hitler. They defended nationalism in the same degree that you are defending now: to preserve the national identity. They didn't defend the oppression of minorities just like I proved to you regarding Strasser position on Anti-Semitism.
It was not, the national question from the point of view of socialists is that uneven development causes friction between nationalities which is amplified by the exploitive nature of capitalism.
As you can imagine Lenin didn't plan to merge all nations into one overnight. It was an aim to achieve in a later period just like communism. We need to have some good sense here. You had Russification later though.
So was Lenin planning to bring Russification to Germany and Britain? The idea of merging all cultures into one is silly.
No, he wasn't. Did you see the post of Tim Finnegan? I agree that Stalin is natural evolution of Lenin. Trotskysts dreamers are the only ones who refused to see it despite all the evidence.
If he was such a natural evolution why did he murder the Bolsheviks that took place in the revolution?
No, it reduces. In a multicultural Society cultural behaviors tend to become similar in all respects. For example, if you have a Iranian child who emigrates to a multicultural society in Europe that child won't grow with the same national differences regarding other kids as the parents have regarding the natives of that country. The cultural assimilation process takes place in a multicultural Society.
I've lived in a multilingual city long enough to witness this as untrue, you have greater interactions between nationalities and this changes nationalities but you don't get a reduction of nationalities.
In that case we must eliminate the national differences to end the class conflict then. One more reason to support it that you gave me.
Other way around, class conflict exists regards of national strife and is the cause of it.
Yes, it perpetuates hate from outside which came from national differences. What is the difference here?
Then explain why the Internet has brought more and more nationalities together with language being the only stumbling block.
Just like West Germany was independent as long as it did everything Washington said. Do you think they should had struggle for self-determination against USA? Promoting nationalism maybe?
You do know the Japanese Communist Party supported Japanese independence from the USA since occupation out of the logic that until they kick the American troops out of Japan they have no chance in overthrowing the Japanese bourgeoisie state and installing a Japanese workers state.
Welshy
29th May 2012, 00:24
Marx called for the national independence of Poland.
At the time poland was going through a series of rebellions against russian feudalism, so the independence of Poland would have meant a blow to feudalism. If Russia (or Germany) had completely rid itself of feudalism, then based on their positions on other national movements at the time would have probably opposed it as soon as it came into conflict with the working class movement.
So yes they weren't against national liberation but at same time they weren't entirely for it and their position was a lot more nuance then you are opportunistically trying to give off.
Marx also supported capitalism is this a reason to advocate capitalism now? You are arguing anachronisms.
There are still national liberation movements that have a working class character.
What do you mean?
The national question has been debated many times since 1848, modern takes on it focuses on national liberation movements and that if communists don't support them fascists will drive the direction of these movement. For example we can't just tell Iraqis, screw your fight for national independence from the USA.
And look how that turned out.
Compared to what?
Nationalism is the advocacy of expanding, strengthening, or establishing a nation-state. My nationality is Dutch, as is my neighbour's but despite that we have the same nationality, he speaks a different language at home and has different customs.
Nationalism rose with capitalism and will fall with capitalism.
Right but from the point of view of national liberation movements you are talking about pushing out imperial occupiers thus there is a progressive nature, now I do agree that progressive nature does stop at the nation being a bourgeois nation state but from that point the working class can struggle to bring a workers state.
At the time poland was going through a series of rebellions against russian feudalism, so the independence of Poland would have meant a blow to feudalism. If Russia (or Germany) had completely rid itself of feudalism, then based on their positions on other national movements at the time would have probably opposed it as soon as it came into conflict with the working class movement.
So yes they weren't against national liberation but at same time they weren't entirely for it and their position was a lot more nuance then you are opportunistically trying to give off.
Right but all I was saying is that Marxists have asked the national question since 1848. And I did say that Marx and Lenin did look at national liberation movements on a case by case basis.
Yes they do as even in the insane logic that the Jews were a threat their actions infringed on the Jewish right to exist.
It is not socialist as the asphyxiating was from capitalists not Jews.
Hitler was wrong as much as other any nationalist group that you defend. That is why all nationalism is bad, because they don't see were it lies the real problem and blame other races or nations for the failures of the system where they live in. That is why national differences are superficial and must disappear. Can't you see that you have been giving me arguments with your own answers?
No quote, no valid argument. I gave you a Lenin quote already.
The awakening of the masses from feudal slumber, their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of nations is progressive. Hence, it is the bounded duty of a Marxist to uphold the most resolute and consistent democracy on all points of the national question.The task is mainly a negative one. But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism, for beyond it begins the 'positive' activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism
So there you have Lenin saying struggle against national oppression, sovereignty of people and nations are progressive but to the point where the bourgeoisie strives to fortify national identity.
I'm not seeing Lenin defending nationalism here but instead defending the right of self determination. You even gave me another argument. Look:" But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism"
This is Lenin clearly departing from Nationalism.
It was not, the national question from the point of view of socialists is that uneven development causes friction between nationalities which is amplified by the exploitive nature of capitalism.
Sorry but I didn't understand your point here. Socialism was the goal of Strasserists but instead of an internationalist approach they had a nationalist one. They wanted to preserve the integrity of the German Nation as you advocate. They also wanted to overthrow capitalism.
So was Lenin planning to bring Russification to Germany and Britain? The idea of merging all cultures into one is silly.
I don't think Russification was the idea of Lenin but he definitely wanted to merge nations into one. I simply transcribed Lenin's quote and you gave me the exactly answer that I received from a strasserist. Once again I alert the Rev Left moderators.
If he was such a natural evolution why did he murder the Bolsheviks that took place in the revolution?
Maybe because Lenin was the first one to turn against members of his own party when he instituted the ban on factions.
I've lived in a multilingual city long enough to witness this as untrue, you have greater interactions between nationalities and this changes nationalities but you don't get a reduction of nationalities.
You answered to yourself: "you have greater interactions between nationalities and this changes nationalities". Yes, it changes and turns them much more similar to each other.
Other way around, class conflict exists regards of national strife and is the cause of it.
No, class conflict derive also from national differences. That is precisely why Lenin supported self-determination. Otherwise self-determination was useless and the merging of nations which Lenin advocated was meaningless.
Then explain why the Internet has brought more and more nationalities together with language being the only stumbling block.
This all thing with the internet is damn ridiculous. What do you mean with bringing nationalities together? I see the same thing in the internet as I see outside. If a person is racist it's racist online and offline. The internet won't change it. By the way, what is your point with the internet?
You do know the Japanese Communist Party supported Japanese independence from the USA since occupation out of the logic that until they kick the American troops out of Japan they have no chance in overthrowing the Japanese bourgeoisie state and installing a Japanese workers state.
Are you advocating the self-determination of the independent nation of Japan?
Hitler was wrong as much as other any nationalist group that you defend. That is why all nationalism is bad, because they don't see were it lies the real problem and blame other races or nations for the failures of the system where they live in. That is why national differences are superficial and must disappear. Can't you see that you have been giving me arguments with your own answers?
This is a problem of class consciousness. There is nothing at that point in Germany's history that could be solved with a focus on national identity.
I'm not seeing Lenin defending nationalism here but instead defending the right of self determination. You even gave me another argument. Look:" But the proletariat cannot go beyond this in supporting nationalism"
This is Lenin clearly departing from Nationalism.
That struggle against national oppression is progressive, just as capitalist struggle against feudalism is progressive. There will come a point when national struggle becomes reactionary so Marxists have to look at national liberation struggles case by case.
Sorry but I didn't understand your point here. Socialism was the goal of Strasserists but instead of an internationalist approach they had a nationalist one. They wanted to preserve the integrity of the German Nation as you advocate. They also wanted to overthrow capitalism.
At that point national struggle was reactionary, the only way to progress for Germany was a class struggle.
I don't think Russification was the idea of Lenin but he definitely wanted to merge nations into one. I simply transcribed Lenin's quote and you gave me the exactly answer that I received from a strasserist. Once again I alert the Rev Left moderators.
I don't think so either, as for merging nations into one since nations are cultural identity that is near impossible.
Maybe because Lenin was the first one to turn against members of his own party when he instituted the ban on factions.
That doesn't explain why Stalin went against those that supported Lenin if he is a continuation of Lenin.
You answered to yourself: "you have greater interactions between nationalities and this changes nationalities". Yes, it changes and turns them much more similar to each other.
Nope, they don't because you then have people picking and choosing bits and pieces of different cultures forming new sub cultures. The solution is for tolerance and for workers to unite across cultures and languages.
No, class conflict derive also from national differences. That is precisely why Lenin supported self-determination. Otherwise self-determination was useless and the merging of nations which Lenin advocated was meaningless.
What!?!
Class conflict does not derive from national differences. If you go back to hunter gather societies national differences didn't instantly result in prejudice.
This all thing with the internet is damn ridiculous. What do you mean with bringing nationalities together? I see the same thing in the internet as I see outside. If a person is racist it's racist online and offline. The internet won't change it. By the way, what is your point with the internet?
I mean that it is possible if one wants to consume culture from around the world and interact with people of different cultures. Don't judge the Internet just on its trolls.
Are you advocating the self-determination of the independent nation of Japan?
The communist party of Japan since occupation has been against the US's military presents in Japan viewing it as a barrier to overthrowing the Japanese capitalist class.
This is a problem of class consciousness. There is nothing at that point in Germany's history that could be solved with a focus on national identity.
The Strasser brothers diverged with Hitler precisely because he was much more inclined to the National Question than to the class consciousness and they wanted to give more emphasis in the socialist aspect of NSDAP program.
That struggle against national oppression is progressive, just as capitalist struggle against feudalism is progressive. There will come a point when national struggle becomes reactionary so Marxists have to look at national liberation struggles case by case.
Thinking that you can promote nationalism and then just turn off because you want is ridiculous. That is why Lenin and Marx didn't support the nationalism itself but rather the self-determination.
At that point national struggle was reactionary, the only way to progress for Germany was a class struggle.
According to National Socialism Germany was an oppressed nation by the jewish financial elite and the countries which supported the Versailles Treaty. Do you understand now why it's dangerous to support any kind of nationalism? It can turn against you very easily.
I don't think so either, as for merging nations into one since nations are cultural identity that is near impossible.
I might also argue that communism is impossible. What you're gonna do about it? Are you gonna stop fight for it?
That doesn't explain why Stalin went against those that supported Lenin if he is a continuation of Lenin.
Yes it does. If Lenin himself turned against his own followers why wouldn't Stalin do the same?
Nope, they don't because you then have people picking and choosing bits and pieces of different cultures forming new sub cultures. The solution is for tolerance and for workers to unite across cultures and languages.
This new sub-cultures that you are mentioning are the result of the mixture of cultures that will lead to one final and universal culture. Those sub cultures weakens the differences between the former cultures creating an favorable atmosphere to merge cultures that were once very different into one.
What!?!
Class conflict does not derive from national differences. If you go back to hunter gather societies national differences didn't instantly result in prejudice.
You had national differences in the hunter gather societies???
I mean that it is possible if one wants to consume culture from around the world and interact with people of different cultures. Don't judge the Internet just on its trolls.
Ultimately this will lead to reduce the differences between the different nationalities. You are right from that point of view, yes.
The communist party of Japan since occupation has been against the US's military presents in Japan viewing it as a barrier to overthrowing the Japanese capitalist class.
You didn't answered my question and already made it two times. I am not gonna repeat myself here forever. Japan had reasons to fight for self-determination or not?
Hexen
29th May 2012, 02:02
It's safe to say that Psy is a closet Nazi (National Socialism...get it?).
It's safe to say that Psy is a closet Nazi (National Socialism...get it?).
So are you saying real Marxists don't support any national liberation movement to kick US troops out of Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, Iraqi and Afghanistan and anyone that wants US imperialism rolled back are Nazis?
Basically you are labeling me a Nazi simply because I view that some national struggles do temporarily play a progressive role.
The Strasser brothers diverged with Hitler precisely because he was much more inclined to the National Question than to the class consciousness and they wanted to give more emphasis in the socialist aspect of NSDAP program.
The party still lacked class consciousness.
Thinking that you can promote nationalism and then just turn off because you want is ridiculous. That is why Lenin and Marx didn't support the nationalism itself but rather the self-determination.
There are national liberation movements have evolved into class war.
According to National Socialism Germany was an oppressed nation by the jewish financial elite and the countries which supported the Versailles Treaty. Do you understand now why it's dangerous to support any kind of nationalism? It can turn against you very easily.
That can easily be debunked when analysing capital relations.
I might also argue that communism is impossible. What you're gonna do about it? Are you gonna stop fight for it?
Uniting workers across nationalities is far easier then crating a monolithic nationality. Marxists can't even create a monolithic party across all Marxists so how can Marxists create a monolithic nationality?
Yes it does. If Lenin himself turned against his own followers why wouldn't Stalin do the same?
Lenin was not as against his followers if he was then the Bolshivks would have been much more unified by the time Lenin died.
This new sub-cultures that you are mentioning are the result of the mixture of cultures that will lead to one final and universal culture. Those sub cultures weakens the differences between the former cultures creating an favorable atmosphere to merge cultures that were once very different into one.
Nope, subcultures spin off yet more subcultures the end result is yet more cultural diversity.
You had national differences in the hunter gather societies???
Yes, they had different languages, culture and worshiped different spirits. Yet wondering tribes did interact with each other.
Ultimately this will lead to reduce the differences between the different nationalities. You are right from that point of view, yes.
Again we'd have sub-cultures splintering off creating more differences.
You didn't answered my question and already made it two times. I am not gonna repeat myself here forever. Japan had reasons to fight for self-determination or not?
The Japanese Communist Party has a reason to fight for self-determination of Japan. After WWII the Japanese Communist Party was on the road to having a shot at getting elected into government through but US military police was crushing their movement and still poses a threat to this day. Here the national question for Marxists is US military presence in Japan is a major obstacle to revolution in Japan, as long as US troops are there any revolution in Japan eventually will have to deal with US troops from US bases in Japan.
It's safe to say that Psy is a closet Nazi (National Socialism...get it?).
It's not by chance that I've been insisting on Strasser in this arguing. Those guys with whom I argued about the national aspect within Marxism and were saying pretty much what Psy is arguing were former strasserites who converted themselves to Marxism but preserved the national aspect in their political ideas. Their excuse was exactly the same Psy presented: Marx did not develop the national question enough, leaving margin for nationalist interpretations of it. Actually the all speech and the examples presented are the same. Of course he won't admit that unless he wants to get banned or restricted but you don't need a person to tell you clearly that he is a nazi or left-wing nationalists to know what he truly is.
I knew that those guys from left-wing nationalism were somehow related to the Strasserist current of Nazism but they never admitted until a former member of their group came up to me and told me that they tried to establish themselves in SF but were banned from there for their socialist ideals. He also told me that they all came from Strasserism.
So are you saying real Marxists don't support any national liberation movement to kick US troops out of Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, Iraqi and Afghanistan and anyone that wants US imperialism rolled back are Nazis?
Basically you are labeling me a Nazi simply because I view that some national struggles do temporarily play a progressive role.
You didn't just say that. I advise you to take a careful look at what you've said throughout this thread. You openly defended nationalism.
The party still lacked class consciousness.
For strasserists it didn't. I am not comparing your position to Hitler's, I am comparing to the Strasser Brothers. Is pretty much the same.
There are national liberation movements have evolved into class war.
If history shows us something is that national liberation movements have nothing to do with class conflicts. National liberation movements merely replaced the old elite.
That can easily be debunked when analysing capital relations.
You can easily debunk any nationalist theory when analysing capital relation. That is why nationalism is wrong and should be eliminated.
Uniting workers across nationalities is far easier then crating a monolithic nationality. Marxists can't even create a monolithic party across all Marxists so how can Marxists create a monolithic nationality?
Uniting workers across nationalities is the first step to eliminate those nationalities. Why the workers will need national divisions in a socialist world?
I hope you're not trying to compare a nationality to a party.
Lenin was not as against his followers if he was then the Bolshivks would have been much more unified by the time Lenin died.
If he wasn't why he instituted the ban on factions?
Nope, subcultures spin off yet more subcultures the end result is yet more cultural diversity.
This is the most funny thing that I ever red here in RevLeft for some time. If you mix two cultures the result will be creation of more cultural division??? Get serious.
Yes, they had different languages, culture and worshiped different spirits. Yet wondering tribes did interact with each other.
The last time I argued with a left-wing nationalist he also presented the primitive tribal example and I'll say to you the same I said to him: comparing modern nations to primitive tribes is an enormous stupidity to say the least. Do you think you can qualify primitive tribes as NATIONS?
Again we'd have sub-cultures splintering off creating more differences.
So, if you bring nationalities together the result will be the creation of more cultural differences???
The Japanese Communist Party has a reason to fight for self-determination of Japan. After WWII the Japanese Communist Party was on the road to having a shot at getting elected into government through but US military police was crushing their movement and still poses a threat to this day. Here the national question for Marxists is US military presence in Japan is a major obstacle to revolution in Japan, as long as US troops are there any revolution in Japan eventually will have to deal with US troops from US bases in Japan.
See, you clearly defend nationalism in an independent country. Not to say how absurd is your point that Japan isn't a national independent country that seeks self-determination.
I see that you probably also agreed with national-socialist german groups in the post-Hitler Germany since the country was military occupied and the foreign troops represented a major obstacle to any revolution in Germany, right?
You didn't just say that. I advise you to take a careful look at what you've said throughout this thread. You openly defended nationalism.
No look at what I said, national liberation movements to roll back US imperialism and that said movement can play temporary progressive roles.
For strasserists it didn't. I am not comparing your position to Hitler's, I am comparing to the Strasser Brothers. Is pretty much the same.
Germany was not fighting a struggle for national liberation.
If history shows us something is that national liberation movements have nothing to do with class conflicts. National liberation movements merely replaced the old elite.
We had Cuba, China and Vietnam are you saying these were not progressive?
That Cuba would be better if it never got independence from the USA, Vietnam from the French and China got from the many imperial powers that occupied it?
You can easily debunk any nationalist theory when analysing capital relation. That is why nationalism is wrong and should be eliminated.
If you have a occupying force then national independence becomes logical due to limited options.
Uniting workers across nationalities is the first step to eliminate those nationalities. Why the workers will need national divisions in a socialist world?
We are talking voluntary partitions, the point is for the parties not to force their will on minority communities that are no threat to the communist world.
I hope you're not trying to compare a nationality to a party.
They are similar once you strip the state out of it, then a national identity becomes what ever someone identifies their nationality as.
If he wasn't why he instituted the ban on factions?
There was still more factions Stalin purged that were in the Bolshevik party.
This is the most funny thing that I ever red here in RevLeft for some time. If you mix two cultures the result will be creation of more cultural division??? Get serious.
Marxism started with Marx and Engels we now have how many splits?
The last time I argued with a left-wing nationalist he also presented the primitive tribal example and I'll say to you the same I said to him: comparing modern nations to primitive tribes is an enormous stupidity to say the least. Do you think you can qualify primitive tribes as NATIONS?
Yes a nation is a community of people that share common of language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
So, if you bring nationalities together the result will be the creation of more cultural differences???
Yes the interaction eases friction between groups.
See, you clearly defend nationalism in an independent country. Not to say how absurd is your point that Japan isn't a national independent country that seeks self-determination.
You are not looking at it from the eyes of the communist party, from their point of view when Japan was on the road to the CP getting in power the US military police stationed in Japan attacked the CP in Japan then Washington order Japan to create an army to suppress the communists.
I see that you probably also agreed with national-socialist german groups in the post-Hitler Germany since the country was military occupied and the foreign troops represented a major obstacle to any revolution in Germany, right?
Wrong, when communists took to the streets in Germany only the German army reacted, Germany.
No look at what I said, national liberation movements to roll back US imperialism and that said movement can play temporary progressive roles.
No, you defend that national integrity must be preserved and that communist shouldn't seek to abolish the national differences. This is Strasser at its best.
Germany was not fighting a struggle for national liberation.
For the Nazis they were since they consider that parts of Germany were occupied military by foreign powers. This is so valid as your Japanese example. Here you get closer not to Strasser but Hitler himself.
We had Cuba, China and Vietnam are you saying these were not progressive?
That Cuba would be better if it never got independence from the USA, Vietnam from the French and China got from the many imperial powers that occupied it?
The only progression there was the self-determination. Those populations remained under oppression by a new elite.
If you have a occupying force then national independence becomes logical due to limited options.
I'm not against self-determination but against nationalism. You can have self-determination without nationalist movements.
We are talking voluntary partitions, the point is for the parties not to force their will on minority communities that are no threat to the communist world.
No one ever suggested that the merge of nations should be imposed by force. You are the one who keep bringing this fallacy over here.
They are similar once you strip the state out of it, then a national identity becomes what ever someone identifies their nationality as.
Sorry man, a political party is not a nation. This comparison is absurd.
There was still more factions Stalin purged that were in the Bolshevik party.
Lenin banned factions within the party and all the opposition outside the party.
Marxism started with Marx and Engels we now have how many splits?
You are clearing trolling here. First you compare a nation to a party, now you compare a culture to an political ideology. If you wanna keep this discussion don't do this again.
Yes a nation is a community of people that share common of language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
And you think this applies in the same degree to primitive tribes???
Yes the interaction eases friction between groups.
Eases friction because the differences between the groups diminishes not because it increases. For example, more people learn a common language (the english). No new languages or dialects are created as you pretend.
You are not looking at it from the eyes of the communist party, from their point of view when Japan was on the road to the CP getting in power the US military police stationed in Japan attacked the CP in Japan then Washington order Japan to create an army to suppress the communists.
This has nothing to do with Japan's independence but rather with an attempt to Japanese communists to take over Japan. The fact that you are mixing nationalism with communism is what is creating some sort of confusing in your mind regarding it. That is why nationalism it's dangerous.
Wrong, when communists took to the streets in Germany only the German army reacted, Germany.
You're caught on this one. Look at what you've said above: "If you have a occupying force then national independence becomes logical due to limited options." You are legitimating the national socialists and implicitly supporting them over here.
No, you defend that national integrity must be preserved and that communist shouldn't seek to abolish the national differences. This is Strasser at its best.
No I never said nations even had a right to defend their integrity since nations due die out naturally. Yet I don't support the oppression of nations since that means you are oppressing a group of workers that happen to be part of that nationality. I don't support forcing nations to merge or reform as that is highly undemocratic for the workers of that nationality.
For the Nazis they were since they consider that parts of Germany were occupied military by foreign powers. This is so valid as your Japanese example. Here you get closer not to Strasser but Hitler himself.
Yes but that was irreverent, those Germans were free to work with worker movements in their bourgeois state, unification of German borders was irrelevant to worker revolution and actually counter productive as the changing of German's borders left the German bourgeoisie in a weaker position without weakening the working class.
The only progression there was the self-determination. Those populations remained under oppression by a new elite.
Self-determination, rolling back imperialism along with rapid industrialization in China's case.
I'm not against self-determination but against nationalism. You can have self-determination without nationalist movements.
No one ever suggested that the merge of nations should be imposed by force. You are the one who keep bringing this fallacy over here.
Then why not let people free to identify with nationalities?
Sorry man, a political party is not a nation. This comparison is absurd.
I said like a nation. Again a nation is only a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
Lenin banned factions within the party and all the opposition outside the party.
Factions still existed within the party, Lenin just limited the factions.
You are clearing trolling here. First you compare a nation to a party, now you compare a culture to an political ideology. If you wanna keep this discussion don't do this again.
They are similar, as I said a nation is only a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. This is why the in the national debate in the Bolshivk party there was the argument that nations can be separated from geography and they could support nations spread across the USSR without geographical partition.
And you think this applies in the same degree to primitive tribes???
Yes of course it does, each tribes was a nation.
Eases friction because the differences between the groups diminishes not because it increases. For example, more people learn a common language (the english). No new languages or dialects are created as you pretend.
More people learn about each other and there is a demystification, this is what eases friction.
This has nothing to do with Japan's independence but rather with an attempt to Japanese communists to take over Japan. The fact that you are mixing nationalism with communism is what is creating some sort of confusing in your mind regarding it. That is why nationalism it's dangerous.
Think logically, what would have happen if Japan became a workers state? What do you think US troops stationed in Japan would do? The national outcry in Japan to get American troops out of Japan are in line with the class interest of workers in Japan.
You're caught on this one. Look at what you've said above: "If you have a occupying force then national independence becomes logical due to limited options." You are legitimating the national socialists and implicitly supporting them over here.
What occupying force stopped the German workers? Rosa Luxembourg was attack by the German state, not by Britain or France. How can you have national independence when your enemy is the national bourgeoisie state?
No I never said nations even had a right to defend their integrity since nations due die out naturally. Yet I don't support the oppression of nations since that means you are oppressing a group of workers that happen to be part of that nationality. I don't support forcing nations to merge or reform as that is highly undemocratic for the workers of that nationality.
What you tried to say here "since nations due die out naturally"?
You defended that national divisions should be continued which is the same as saying that you defend national integrity. Other option is approximate those nations and try to merge them as much as is possible. You clearly opted for the first option which is reactionary by nature. You keep saying the same crap, who talk in forcing anybody?
Yes but that was irreverent, those Germans were free to work with worker movements in their bourgeois state, unification of German borders was irrelevant to worker revolution and actually counter productive as the changing of German's borders left the German bourgeoisie in a weaker position without weakening the working class.
What the hell are you talking about? I told you that the Nazis considered that parts of it's territory were military occupied and you talk about borders??? I don't think you are making any sense right now. I advise you to take it easy and reconstruct your argument all over again.
Self-determination, rolling back imperialism along with rapid industrialization in China's case.
You didn't have rapid industrialization in China and the rolling back imperialism didn't prevent the chinese, the vietnamese and the cuban people from getting oppressed by their own elites. In some cases was even worst as was the Chinese case. You might also wanna talk about Cambodia.
Then why not let people free to identify with nationalities?
Because as long as you perpetuate national differences there will be always the possibility of wars, genocides, etc... The best solution is trying to reduce much as it is possible the national differences until you don't have any national differences anymore.
I said like a nation. Again a nation is only a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
And the party is a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history?
Factions still existed within the party, Lenin just limited the factions.
First of all, factions existed but had virtually no power or influence within the party.
Secondly, the ban on factions was just the first step took by Lenin to eliminate any opposition within the party. Stalin developed that.
They are similar, as I said a nation is only a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. This is why the in the national debate in the Bolshivk party there was the argument that nations can be separated from geography and they could support nations spread across the USSR without geographical partition.
A political ideology is a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history?
Yes of course it does, each tribes was a nation.
Primitive tribes weren't nations. That is why they are called differently, because there is major differences between primitive tribes and modern Nations.
More people learn about each other and there is a demystification, this is what eases friction.
More people learn about each other and more people want to adopt cultural behaviors that they like from seeing in other cultures, reducing the differences between the people.
Think logically, what would have happen if Japan became a workers state? What do you think US troops stationed in Japan would do? The national outcry in Japan to get American troops out of Japan are in line with the class interest of workers in Japan.
Wasn't the Japanese bourgeoisie state the biggest enemy of the communists and the USA simply allies? I just can use the argument that you used to Germany and apply here. What would have happened in West Germany if a workers state had been created there? Would the USA let it go? You think West Germany also needed self-determination?
What occupying force stopped the German workers? Rosa Luxembourg was attack by the German state, not by Britain or France. How can you have national independence when your enemy is the national bourgeoisie state?
You didn't grasp what I said. Look at my previous post: I was referring to the POST-HITLER Germany and not before it. Germany was occupied after the war by four different foreign forces and remained so throughout the whole Cold War. I assume that you know that.
Hexen
29th May 2012, 06:37
So are you saying real Marxists don't support any national liberation movement to kick US troops out of Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, Iraqi and Afghanistan and anyone that wants US imperialism rolled back are Nazis?
Basically you are labeling me a Nazi simply because I view that some national struggles do temporarily play a progressive role.
I think your missing the point that in the end we're all homosapiens and there should be no National Barriers. The Troops (or anyone like Immigrants, etc) shouldn't be 'kicked out' to some imaginary homeland according to Nationalism, but rather be integrated into global society...well actually the Troops belong in rehabilitation centers.
What you tried to say here "since nations due die out naturally"?
You defended that national divisions should be continued which is the same as saying that you defend national integrity. Other option is approximate those nations and try to merge them as much as is possible. You clearly opted for the first option which is reactionary by nature. You keep saying the same crap, who talk in forcing anybody?
I defend that communities are free to have national identities in that communities a free to have a common: language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history from others. That minority nationalities have a right to education, media and access to government in their language.
What the hell are you talking about? I told you that the Nazis considered that parts of it's territory were military occupied and you talk about borders??? I don't think you are making any sense right now. I advise you to take it easy and reconstruct your argument all over again.
Irrelevant, all of Europe was erupting with worker revolution, any German national issue by that point would be easier to solve after a European workers revolution.
You didn't have rapid industrialization in China
China was more backwards then Russia was in 1917 by 1949 so yhea China industrialized rapidly.
and the rolling back imperialism didn't prevent the chinese, the vietnamese and the cuban people from getting oppressed by their own elites. In some cases was even worst as was the Chinese case. You might also wanna talk about Cambodia.
You think China had it worse? You do remeber the Nanjing Massacre caused by Japanese imperialism.
Because as long as you perpetuate national differences there will be always the possibility of wars, genocides, etc... The best solution is trying to reduce much as it is possible the national differences until you don't have any national differences anymore.
Why would you have wars when access to products of society is freely available? Why would workers care there are differences among their co-workers in such a enviorment?
And the party is a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history?
The similarity is the ease one can identify with a nationality when you remove coercion from the state identifying with a nation is as easy as identifying with a party.
First of all, factions existed but had virtually no power or influence within the party.
Then why did Stalin purge them?
Secondly, the ban on factions was just the first step took by Lenin to eliminate any opposition within the party. Stalin developed that.
There was still opposition, Lenin still was fighting with opposition in the Bolshevik party to his death.
Primitive tribes weren't nations. That is why they are called differently, because there is major differences between primitive tribes and modern Nations.
Yes they were and I'm not talking about modern nations, I'm talking about communities with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
More people learn about each other and more people want to adopt cultural behaviors that they like from seeing in other cultures, reducing the differences between the people.
It doesn't work that way, for example subcultures in society still have differences yet those differences don't cause conflict.
Wasn't the Japanese bourgeoisie state the biggest enemy of the communists and the USA simply allies?
During occupation the Japanese bourgeoisie state was a paper tiger and all the power came from the US occupation forces. The Japanese bourgeoisie state is a legitimate threat now and as it has grown the Japanese communist party has focused in on it rather then the US.
I just can use the argument that you used to Germany and apply here. What would have happened in West Germany if a workers state had been created there? Would the USA let it go? You think West Germany also needed self-determination?
No because you have East Germany right next door and a successful revolution in one would have spread to the other. The US and the Warsaw pact would be a threat but the revolution would be in better shape unifying through worker revolution.
You didn't grasp what I said. Look at my previous post: I was referring to the POST-HITLER Germany and not before it. Germany was occupied after the war by four different foreign forces and remained so throughout the whole Cold War. I assume that you know that.
Yes and that made a national movement impossible. But looking at a unified Germany we see the problem with forced unification (yhea there was a election but West Germany heavily backed parties that supported a quick unification and opposition had little resources) as you have a number of East Germans still identifying their nationality as East German, this is because the state (or lack there of) doesn't determine nationality.
I think your missing the point that in the end we're all homosapiens and there should be no National Barriers. The Troops (or anyone like Immigrants, etc) shouldn't be 'kicked out' to some imaginary homeland according to Nationalism, but rather be integrated into global society...well actually the Troops belong in rehabilitation centers.
I agree but that doesn't mean the end of nations and doesn't mean we just remove all partitions without debate. There is also nothing wrong with voluntary partitions that all parties involved agree on, simple example if a indigenous community wants a partition to stop development encroaching on their community and the region agrees that is fine, if they want to integrate with the rest of the region that fine too but it is up to the democratic process.
Tim Finnegan
29th May 2012, 11:52
Because gender exists because isn't just a social construct and there are different physiology and scientists interchange the word sex with gender. I wasn't referring to sex roles in social constructs.
So you think that nationality exists at the level of biology? :confused:
So you think that nationality exists at the level of biology? :confused:
No I think it is almost as impossible to get rid of. The nation of East Germany still exists two decades after the state of East Germany fell because there are East Germans that still identify their nationality as East German rather then German.
harte.beest
29th May 2012, 15:19
Nationalism is fine I think, as long as the group is a very small minority and has no real claim to the land, as an ethnicity, culture, race etc. Black people in America fighting for equal rights is different then a white nationalist fighting for the supremacy of his race over all others.
Jewish Nationalism, for example, in early 20th centruy Europe was good, because they were fighting for the rights of minorities. When they used Jewish nationalism to create Isreal they created a country becuase they felt they had a "claim" to the land. This why they still have so much trouble with, even non-muslim, immigrants.
Isreal wouldn't have as many problems today (I think) if it was founded on secularism with a much higher tolerance and respect for immigrant's rights. Which is ironic because immigrant's rights was all that jewish nationalism was originally based on.
... Also nationalism's most powerful was Hitler, fascism's most powerful leader was Mussolini.... so yes they are both connected to eachother and especially to racism :)
I defend that communities are free to have national identities in that communities a free to have a common: language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history from others. That minority nationalities have a right to education, media and access to government in their language.
Pretty much a left-wing nationalist argument. They believe (and you do as well) that after a successful socialist revolution in the world people will "freely" chose maintain their national boundaries. The question is that those national boundaries that you defend aren't necessary anymore. There won't be "minorities" in a socialist society, don't you get it? I am confused though. Why the hell those guys from Left-Wing Nationalism were banned from RevLeft??? They didn't defend anything worst or different from this. I'm curious now.
Irrelevant, all of Europe was erupting with worker revolution, any German national issue by that point would be easier to solve after a European workers revolution.
Yes, and the Strasserists wanted a workers revolution. Once again, check the original political program of NSDAP.
China was more backwards then Russia was in 1917 by 1949 so yhea China industrialized rapidly.
No it didn't. Everybody knows that. Mao failed miserably and the Great Leap Forward was a human catastrophe with no industrial progress.
You think China had it worse? You do remeber the Nanjing Massacre caused by Japanese imperialism.
I was not referring to Japanese Imperialism but rather to Kuomitang. Anyway, I don't know if more Chinese people died at the hands of Mao than at the hands of the Japaneses. I'll see it later.
Why would you have wars when access to products of society is freely available? Why would workers care there are differences among their co-workers in such a enviorment?
Because you still have national boundaries and divisions. As long as this exists there will be always the possibility of one group attempt to dominate natural resources. I'm not talking about consumer goods, I'm talking about natural resources which are the main reason for war in the Modern History.
The similarity is the ease one can identify with a nationality when you remove coercion from the state identifying with a nation is as easy as identifying with a party.
Sorry but I still don't see the similarity between a nation and a party. You'll have to explain better this crazy comparison.
Then why did Stalin purge them?
Because Stalin's leadership was not so consensual as was Lenin's. Lenin was a consensual leader despite the huge errors committed by him. Stalin didn't have the same margin for error. Many important Bolsheviks members wanted to remove Stalin from power.
There was still opposition, Lenin still was fighting with opposition in the Bolshevik party to his death.
Lenin literally killed all effective opposition with the ban on factions. As I said was the first step.
The ban on factions was the most repressive mechanism introduced in the Bolshevik party and was implemented by Lenin with Trotsky's approval. Stalin used the same mechanism to get rid of all his opposition.
Yes they were and I'm not talking about modern nations, I'm talking about communities with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
You say that primitive tribes are the same as modern nations. I say they aren't. And now you say they are but you aren't talking about modern nations. You need to explain you better. Primitive tribes are the same as modern nations or not?
It doesn't work that way, for example subcultures in society still have differences yet those differences don't cause conflict.
Yes it works. Those sub-cultures don't cause conflict precisely because they represent an intermediate stage between the former culture and the culture that you embrace. Sub-cultures represents a mixing of the former culture with the culture that you embrace as I've said before and this will lead to one universal culture. This is one of the positive consequences of globalization although there are negative as well but not regarding culture of course.
During occupation the Japanese bourgeoisie state was a paper tiger and all the power came from the US occupation forces. The Japanese bourgeoisie state is a legitimate threat now and as it has grown the Japanese communist party has focused in on it rather then the US.
We can talk the same way about West Germany, can't we?
No because you have East Germany right next door and a successful revolution in one would have spread to the other. The US and the Warsaw pact would be a threat but the revolution would be in better shape unifying through worker revolution.
But both parts of the country were military occupied by foreign powers how the workers could unify the country? According to your logic the Neo-Nazis (strasserists) had all the legitimacy to take power in West Germany.
Yes and that made a national movement impossible. But looking at a unified Germany we see the problem with forced unification (yhea there was a election but West Germany heavily backed parties that supported a quick unification and opposition had little resources) as you have a number of East Germans still identifying their nationality as East German, this is because the state (or lack there of) doesn't determine nationality.
I know that there is still a social stigma regarding the East Germans but I don't think the East Germans still identifying their nationality as East German. If somebody wanted the unification of Germany were the East Germans, believe me. Otherwise, it would a waste to have the Berlin Wall secured by machine guns. East Germans benefited a lot from the unification.
Movimento Sem Terra
29th May 2012, 15:27
Please someone ban this nationalist troll . Marxism = End of National barriers I Study a lot of Strasseism and i can assure you that you are a strasserist based on their ideology .
Please someone ban this nationalist troll . Marxism = End of National barriers I Study a lot of Strasseism and i can assure you that you are a strasserist based on their ideology .
I am not. I only defend the right of groups of people to freely associate based on language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
No where did I support barriers.
Pretty much a left-wing nationalist argument. They believe (and you do as well) that after a successful socialist revolution in the world people will "freely" chose maintain their national boundaries. The question is that those national boundaries that you defend aren't necessary anymore. There won't be "minorities" in a socialist society, don't you get it? I am confused though. Why the hell those guys from Left-Wing Nationalism were banned from RevLeft??? They didn't defend anything worst or different from this. I'm curious now.
I said people would freely associate with nations and there voluntary partitions but these partitions don't stop travel and these partitions would be special cases in which the local communities want to regulate development in their area. I.E indigenous populations wanting a line where the rest of the communist world has to ask their permission to build anything.
Yes, and the Strasserists wanted a workers revolution. Once again, check the original political program of NSDAP.
There was worker revolutions in Germany the NSDAP attacked them thus the NSDAP were counter-revolutionary.
No it didn't. Everybody knows that. Mao failed miserably and the Great Leap Forward was a human catastrophe with no industrial progress.
The human cost was great but there was industrial progress.
Because you still have national boundaries and divisions. As long as this exists there will be always the possibility of one group attempt to dominate natural resources. I'm not talking about consumer goods, I'm talking about natural resources which are the main reason for war in the Modern History.
National resources are not part of the nation, national resources are not language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history so have no place in the national question thus nations in a communist world would have not control over.
Sorry but I still don't see the similarity between a nation and a party. You'll have to explain better this crazy comparison.
A party is a community with common history and culture thus very loosely you can call a party a nation.
Because Stalin's leadership was not so consensual as was Lenin's. Lenin was a consensual leader despite the huge errors committed by him. Stalin didn't have the same margin for error. Many important Bolsheviks members wanted to remove Stalin from power.
Right there that shows Stalin is a huge divergence from Lenin.
Lenin literally killed all effective opposition with the ban on factions. As I said was the first step.
Lenin still had opposition as he was still struggling against the growing bureaucracy
You say that primitive tribes are the same as modern nations. I say they aren't. And now you say they are but you aren't talking about modern nations. You need to explain you better. Primitive tribes are the same as modern nations or not?
But I am talking nations period not how nations exist in modern capitalism.
Yes it works. Those sub-cultures don't cause conflict precisely because they represent an intermediate stage between the former culture and the culture that you embrace. Sub-cultures represents a mixing of the former culture with the culture that you embrace as I've said before and this will lead to one universal culture. This is one of the positive consequences of globalization although there are negative as well but not regarding culture of course.
No it won't lead to one universal culture, we haven't seen that on the Internet.
We can talk the same way about West Germany, can't we?
No we can't, because Europe is a separate situation where revolution can accrue through the states.
But both parts of the country were military occupied by foreign powers how the workers could unify the country? According to your logic the Neo-Nazis (strasserists) had all the legitimacy to take power in West Germany.
Because the revolutionary situation meant a workers revolution could spread quickly through Europe, nationality became a irreverent issue.
I know that there is still a social stigma regarding the East Germans but I don't think the East Germans still identifying their nationality as East German. If somebody wanted the unification of Germany were the East Germans, believe me. Otherwise, it would a waste to have the Berlin Wall secured by machine guns. East Germans benefited a lot from the unification.
East Germans wanted a removal of the barrier to travel with the west, that is correct but in hind sight there are a number of East Germans that wanted to remain autonomous from West Germany.
Tim Finnegan
29th May 2012, 17:10
No I think it is almost as impossible to get rid of. The nation of East Germany still exists two decades after the state of East Germany fell because there are East Germans that still identify their nationality as East German rather then German.
But surely the fact that they identify as East German, a country that only came into existence in 1945, demonstrates the. If nationality was really as primordial as you imagine, then they would simply identify as "German", if even that, and not as "Saxon", "Hanoverian", "Rheninisch", etc. All you're really saying is that nationalism is sticky, not that it is a necessary aspect of the human condition. (It is demonstrably not.)
I am not. I only defend the right of groups of people to freely associate based on language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
No where did I support barriers.
By defending what you defended above you are implicitly defending barriers. What you don't understand here? Tell me, what is the difference between left-wing nationalism and what you defend?
I said people would freely associate with nations and there voluntary partitions but these partitions don't stop travel and these partitions would be special cases in which the local communities want to regulate development in their area. I.E indigenous populations wanting a line where the rest of the communist world has to ask their permission to build anything. See, this is supporting BARRIERS. This is clearly LEFT-WING NATIONALISM. If there was still any doubt about it those doubts ended. He even uses the word indigenous.
There was worker revolutions in Germany the NSDAP attacked them thus the NSDAP were counter-revolutionary. I have already told you that it was Hitler's faction who attacked communists. Strasserists were favorable to an alliance with the communists.
The human cost was great but there was industrial progress.Very little. Very far from anything like a rapid industrialization.
National resources are not part of the nation, national resources are not language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history so have no place in the national question thus nations in a communist world would have not control over.Here are you trolling again. Natural resources are located in specific regions where they are controlled by the nations of those regions.
A party is a community with common history and culture thus very loosely you can call a party a nation. A common culture? You can have people from very different cultures within the same party. Belong to a party it doesn't require to have a common culture. A common history? Well, sport clubs have also a common history. Do you think it's reasonable to compare a sport club to a nation???
Right there that shows Stalin is a huge divergence from Lenin.Why? Just because he was not so consensual as Lenin? He wasn't so consensual as Lenin because he hadn't Lenin's charisma and wasn't the uncontested leader from the beginning like Lenin's was. It had nothing to do with ideological divergences.
Lenin still had opposition as he was still struggling against the growing bureaucracy Lenin's opposition was bureaucracy?
But I am talking nations period not how nations exist in modern capitalism.What is the difference?
No it won't lead to one universal culture, we haven't seen that on the Internet.A lot of people outside the west have been adopting a western type of thinking and behavior through what they see and listen on internet. The internet is actually a good example of how people of different cultures can reduce their cultural differences. This is irrefutable. For example, here in RevLeft you have people of many different nationalities: which language do you speak here? We have a common language when we want to talk with other nationalities in the internet. Universal language. Get it?
No we can't, because Europe is a separate situation where revolution can accrue through the states. But would the USA allow it to happened? I don't think so. Same thing as Japan.
Because the revolutionary situation meant a workers revolution could spread quickly through Europe, nationality became a irreverent issue. If they were military occupied by a foreign power how it's not a case of nationality according to your logic? The USA had control over all Western Europe and not only West Germany. It seems that your Japanese argument just backfired to you and you are having a hard time to deal with.
East Germans wanted a removal of the barrier to travel with the west, that is correct but in hind sight there are a number of East Germans that wanted to remain autonomous from West Germany.Sources? Official statistics?
But surely the fact that they identify as East German, a country that only came into existence in 1945, demonstrates the. If nationality was really as primordial as you imagine, then they would simply identify as "German", if even that, and not as "Saxon", "Hanoverian", "Rheninisch", etc. All you're saying is that nationalism is sticky, not that it is actually intractable.
The problem is that since nationality is only a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history you can't get rid of it because all communities around the world won't have the same culture and history.
For example there are those that identify with their home town on a national level making the town a nation (community with common culture and history). The other issue is that the town has partition from the rest of the world, there is a geographical area for that town thus also geographical area for that town viewed as a nation. Now there is nothing stopping people from another town from traveling into that town and doing whatever in that town.
Tim Finnegan
29th May 2012, 17:38
The problem is that since nationality is only a community with common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history you can't get rid of it because all communities around the world won't have the same culture and history.
Well, no, it isn't. That's ideology, it doesn't actually describe the world as it exists, or has ever existed. "Nationality", in this sense, makes no appearance in human history until the early modern period, and when it does appear is understood in a varied and shifting manner. The monolithic and primordial nationalism which you seem to take as natural, is in fact a very particular current of thought derived from French Republicanism, and does not in practice describe "nationality" as it is experienced by the greater part of the global population.
By defending what you defended above you are implicitly defending barriers. What you don't understand here? Tell me, what is the difference between left-wing nationalism and what you defend?
See, this is supporting BARRIERS. This is clearly LEFT-WING NATIONALISM. If there was still any doubt about it those doubts ended. He even uses the word indigenous.
It is not a barrier to travel, it is a political administrative area. As for indigenous if there is a more acceptable term please tell me. You seem to be against any partition and expect one government for the entire planet.
I have already told you that it was Hitler's faction who attacked communists. Strasserists were favorable to an alliance with the communists.
The Starsserists were dividing the working class, as I told you before Europe at that time had progressed past national struggle being progressive.
Very little. Very far from anything like a rapid industrialization.
I disagree
Here are you trolling again. Natural resources are located in specific regions where they are controlled by the nations of those regions.
Again you seem to not understand how varied partitions are. For example towns are partitions and have local authority yet they can't control resources moving through their town. Using USSR as an example the city officials at Leningrad had no saw in what was produced in Leningrad outside of representatives to the USSR.
A common culture? You can have people from very different cultures within the same party. Belong to a party it doesn't require to have a common culture. A common history? Well, sport clubs have also a common history. Do you think it's reasonable to compare a sport club to a nation???
This is a misunderstanding you assume everyone has the exactly same culture, when it is common culture.
Why? Just because he was not so consensual as Lenin? He wasn't so consensual as Lenin because he hadn't Lenin's charisma and wasn't the uncontested leader from the beginning like Lenin's was. It had nothing to do with ideological divergences.
Yhea, Lenin still had opposition thus there was still a level of democracy within the party.
Lenin's opposition was bureaucracy?
No Lenin (and Trotsky) opposed the growing bureaucracy.
What is the difference?
The differences is the state which you are confusing for nation. In the modern state the state imposes national identity and restricts movement based on what it views as people's nationality.
If we roll back the clock people national identity was their tribe of birth and people were free to travel where they choose.
A lot of people outside the west have been adopting a western type of thinking and behavior through what they see and listen on internet. The internet is actually a good example of how people of different cultures can reduce their cultural differences. This is irrefutable. For example, here in RevLeft you have people of many different nationalities: which language do you speak here? We have a common language when we want to talk with other nationalities in the internet. Universal language. Get it?
I take it you missed RevLeft has different language forums.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revlefts-international-language-f39/index.html
But would the USA allow it to happened? I don't think so. Same thing as Japan.
Europe has progressed to the point that revolution can grow much faster through Europe faster then the US can react in Europe.
If they were military occupied by a foreign power how it's not a case of nationality according to your logic? The USA had control over all Western Europe and not only West Germany. It seems that your Japanese argument just backfired to you and you are having a hard time to deal with.
The situation, Europe has shown that it has progressed to the point that only through class revolution can it progress, national movements can't help in anyway as no individual European state could hope to stand alone.
Sources? Official statistics?
rbbWIRhJbgc
Well, no, it isn't. That's ideology, it doesn't actually describe the world as it exists, or has ever existed.
Ideology is set of ideas that constitute one's goals.
"Nationality", in this sense, makes no appearance in human history until the early modern period, and when it does appear is understood in a varied and shifting manner. The monolithic and primordial nationalism which you seem to take as natural, is in fact a very particular current of thought derived from French Republicanism, and does not in practice describe "nationality" as it is experienced by the greater part of the global population.
Wrong the nationality goes back the feudal era and can be applied to tribes. During the feudal era nationality existed to describe the common fiefdoms as more traders traveled across the globe.
Tim Finnegan
29th May 2012, 18:44
Ideology is set of ideas that constitute one's goals.
That is useless.
Wrong the nationality goes back the feudal era and can be applied to tribes. During the feudal era nationality existed to describe the common fiefdoms as more traders traveled across the globe.
And that is nonsense.
You're not doing very well, here.
It is not a barrier to travel, it is a political administrative area. As for indigenous if there is a more acceptable term please tell me. You seem to be against any partition and expect one government for the entire planet.
Yes I am against any partition in a socialist world. Any communist would be. Only left-wing nationalists defend the opposite. You just confirmed that there will still be a political administrative area. Of course this administrative needs to have barriers. When I talk about no barriers, I am not just referring to travel. You clearly advocate national barriers.
The Starsserists were dividing the working class, as I told you before Europe at that time had progressed past national struggle being progressive.
And I already told you that they were dividing so much as was KDP by calling SPD social fascists. You advocated nationalism in the case of independent Japan, you can also advocate nationalism in this case.
Again you seem to not understand how varied partitions are. For example towns are partitions and have local authority yet they can't control resources moving through their town. Using USSR as an example the city officials at Leningrad had no saw in what was produced in Leningrad outside of representatives to the USSR.
Dude, USSR was not an world. It was a federal country. Stop to give this absurd example of a country when we are talking about a situation where the whole world would be socialist and not just a country. If it is to give absurd examples like this I could also give you Yugoslavia but I think you wouldn't like it too much.
This is a misunderstanding you assume everyone has the exactly same culture, when it is common culture.
Common culture isn't the same culture?
Yhea, Lenin still had opposition thus there was still a level of democracy within the party.
LOL. Lenin banned factions within the party and you still talk about democracy? By the way, Lenin also expelled opposition members from the party.
No Lenin (and Trotsky) opposed the growing bureaucracy.
They opposed so much that one (Lenin) admitted that bureaucracy was unavoidable for decades and the other (Trotsky) proposed the increase of that bureaucracy (Trade Unions issue).
The differences is the state which you are confusing for nation. In the modern state the state imposes national identity and restricts movement based on what it views as people's nationality.
If we roll back the clock people national identity was their tribe of birth and people were free to travel where they choose.
The concept of nation is historically associated to the state, of course. This is very basic. You never had an independent nation without a state. You are the only one confused here since you are trying to compare modern nations to primitive tribes.
I take it you missed RevLeft has different language forums.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revlefts-international-language-f39/index.html
And when you wanna talk with somebody of other language that you don't speak (99% of the cases) which language do you use?
Europe has progressed to the point that revolution can grow much faster through Europe faster then the US can react in Europe.
Are you kidding me? USA had troops in Germany (and still has through NATO). A military intervention would be a matter of minutes. Unless you think you can have a simultaneous revolution in all European countries at the same minute which is pretty much absurd.
The situation, Europe has shown that it has progressed to the point that only through class revolution can it progress, national movements can't help in anyway as no individual European state could hope to stand alone.
But if they were military occupied how could they even attempt to revolt???
rbbWIRhJbgc[/QUOTE]
East Germany's nostalgia of a restrict number of people for the East Germany times doesn't equates to East Germans wanting a return of the old state or identifying with it. Russians also have nostalgia for USSR but when asked if they want a return of the soviet state the majority says no.
Pretty Flaco
29th May 2012, 18:59
Yep...All forms of nationalism ultimately lead to fascism.
how is this true at all? nationalism and fascism are two distinct things, although fascism is characterized by hypernationalism.
That is useless.
Yet the definition of the word, ideology is just a set of ideas.
And that is nonsense.
You're not doing very well, here.
Why is it nonsense, go back to feudal times ask them what nationality that are and they would name their lord and king. The meaning of nation is a community that shares common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. Now to feudal people the word means nations means a group of people with common ancestry but you wouldn't get any different answer even if you modernized their definition of the word.
Hexen
29th May 2012, 19:09
how is this true at all? nationalism and fascism are two distinct things, although fascism is characterized by hypernationalism.
Actually, Nationalism is Fascism's beginning proto stages which later evolves to it over time.
Tim Finnegan
29th May 2012, 19:11
Yet the definition of the word, ideology is just a set of ideas.
"I want a cup of tea" is not an ideology.
Why is it nonsense, go back to feudal times ask them what nationality that are and they would name their lord and king. The meaning of nation is a community that shares common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. Now to feudal people the word means nations means a group of people with common ancestry but you wouldn't get any different answer even if you modernized their definition of the word.Is it necessary that a "nationality" share all of those characteristics, or just any one of them? Because if it's the former, then there are almost no nations on earth, and if it's the latter, then Iron Maiden fans are a nationality. And you can see where the problems with each.
Movimento Sem Terra
29th May 2012, 19:14
Innitialy Nationalism in only a ideology based on same culture and stuff but soon he will envolve to Fascism since they want to kick out non-whites . You are a NAZI .
Hexen
29th May 2012, 19:18
Basically the best way I can describe Nationalism is basically dormant Fascism that will inevitably wake up from it's slumber (or basically Fascism is Nationalism at it's pinnacle).
"I want a cup of tea" is not an ideology.
Well yhea since "I want a coup of tea" is not a body of ideas.
Is it necessary that a "nationality" share all of those characteristics, or just any one of them? Because if it's the former, then there are almost no nations on earth, and if it's the latter, then Iron Maiden fans are a nationality. And you can see where the problems with each.
By definition any, and yes you could define Iron Maiden fans as a nationality. This is not a problem as we not talking countries (sovereign states) but simply common communities.
Pretty Flaco
30th May 2012, 17:31
Basically the best way I can describe Nationalism is basically dormant Fascism that will inevitably wake up from it's slumber (or basically Fascism is Nationalism at it's pinnacle).
but theyre clearly two different things. can you back up what youre saying?
Hexen
30th May 2012, 17:41
but theyre clearly two different things. can you back up what youre saying?
Well I think I just guessed, well how are Nationalism and Fascism two completely different things? Enlighten me.
Pretty Flaco
30th May 2012, 18:18
Well I think I just guessed, well how are Nationalism and Fascism two completely different things? Enlighten me.
nationalism is movements for nation-states, typically based on geographical, ethnic, or religious lines. fascism is specifically a movement which calls for hypernationalism. in fascism there is complete class collaboration and its theory states that the individual owes all their allegiance to their state. the state has regulation of business but business is still owned by a capitalist class. fascism also has a high emphasis on militarism and in fascist theory, war is used to "invigorate" people. here are some quotes from mussolini, the father of fascism, which outline his program.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
"The function of a citizen and a soldier are inseparable."
"War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it."
so to sum it up: fascism uses nationalism, but nationalism doesn't have to be connected to fascism.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.