Do you consider me a Communist with these views, and is my "Utopia" Communist? [Archive]

View Full Version : Do you consider me a Communist with these views, and is my "Utopia" Communist?

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 16:54

Well, it's not that I'm a newbie to the principles of marxism, communism etc. I've been a part of the leftwing movement for a long time. It's just that I've always had a few opinions that from my experience has differed from other leftwingers I've met.
Note that this thread is not for you to bash my opinions etc, I'm not interested in a moralistic lesson, I'm just interested if you would consider me to be a Communist with these views?

(Oh and please note that I can be mistaken in my idea about these things, and that what my picture of these leftwing ideas exactly mean may differ greatly from what they are actually as I may have misunderstood them. If so it would be very nice if some kind Comrade would explain them more to me :) )

1st, Patriotism and the Nation:

I've pretty much always been a fierce patriot. Note that I do not support the nation-state, I agree with communism's goals of demolishing the nation-state, but that is because the state is a tool of oppression etc, and I don't want to see nations themselves as destroyed. I love the scandinavian culture, history, nature etc, and I believe that to destroy the "Volkgeist" of the world's different communities and create a world with the same culture would be very unwanted.
Note that with this said I do not, at all, agree with fash scum like the Sweden Democrats and their opposition to mixing cultures at all, it is pure madness as culture's has always been exchanged between different countries etc.

I dunno, it feels like I'm just rambling, but many leftwingers I've spoken to looks down on their nation's culture, on the flag, national anthem etc, and I don't understand that. While I agree that rightwing nationalism leads to dividing the working class and xenophobia, I don't agree that common patriotism, by just being proud of your heritage and celebrating your culture leads to that.
I don't think that the patriotism of the common people is the same as the false nationalism spread by the upper class in order to divide the working class, on the contrary, I think there is a huge difference between the two.
I guess my socialist utopia would be some sort of socialist UN with all nations of the world working together for the benefit of mankind.

2nd, The destruction of the "Family":

Well, while I agree that everyone should be able to live their own lives and not be restricted to the nuclear family, I also think that it would be wrong to "destroy" the nuclear family in itself as some leftwingers speak of. As long as the patriarchal oppression of females is destroyed, I don't see what is wrong with a male and a female loving each other and forming a "Nuclear Family" so to say. I mean, the goal is to set everybody free to live the lives they want, and if we would create some sort of Brave New World-socialism, people wouldn't be that. I for one would not want to live in such a world.

3rd, No borders:

I believe that a world without borders would be impossible. While I do think that almost all people should be able to move where they want, there would still be some people who couldn't be allowed to do that, like people with heavy contagious diseases etc, and for that reason there would still have to be some sort of border controls, like if a pandemia would suddenly spread etc.

My "Dream world":

My "Utopia" so to say would be, like I said, all nations of the world working together through a socialist version of the UN for the advancement and bettering of mankind worldwide. The world would be like one giant quilt of different nations with their unique cultures and histories cooperating to create the best world possible.
All people, no matter where they are born, would get an equal change from birth. The means of production would be owned and controlled democratically by the working class and the products created by them would be spread amongst the people, according to their needs. I do however think that physically and mentally fit people who refuse to take part in building this society wouldn't get any share of the wealths that it would create. There would be no place for parasites in this world. The states would have dissolved and all power would, finally, be in the hands of the people. Women's liberation and gender equality would finally be achieved of course. Any eventual existing rapists and other sexist scum would be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

All people would be free to live the life they wanted as fully as possible, as long as it doesn't go out on other people, and to live with the ones they love regardless of gender etc.

Well yes, that is it basically. Would you consider this a communist world, and would you consider me a communist despite the different views I listed?

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 17:09

Oh yeah I forgot to add: I'm no reformist, I don't believe that reforms will lead us to this world as the upper class will use violence to keep themselves in power as we've seen in tons of other countries such as Chile, Venezuela, Russia etc. But that doesn't mean that I hold a lot of respect to reformist leftwing leaders such as Chavez who fought hard to improve the situation for the people and to retake their Motherlands wealth and spread it amongst the poor. So yeah, I'm no social-democrat, I believe that a revolution, unfortunately, will be needed.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd January 2014, 17:34

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 18:36

You do realise that the nuclear family is essentially an oppressive institution. The idea of the nuclear family is that you have the bread-winner, the stay-at-home person (read: female) who does the unpaid domestic labour, and the child/children who learn to 'respect authority'. It oppresses the person (almost always female) who has to do the unpaid domestic labour, economically (read: exploits them economically, in terms of their unpaid labour) and in terms of their social status, it oppresses same-sex couples and essentially is a big 'fuck you' to anybody who wants to live in a non-nuclear family arrangement.

I mean yeah, it's lovely to see all these Hollywood films with their huge midde-class houses, the wealthy man and his beautiful wife, their 2.4 children, golden retriever, Lexus and huge garden, but in reality this ignores everything negative that is promoted by the nuclear family: its huge patriarchal, homophobic and conservative connotations.

I wouldn't apologise for taking an interest in the history and culture of the are you come from. I think it's natural to identify with the familiar; for a long time I found British history a very useful way to study the past. However, there is a difference between enjoying local culture and customs (I love a good cider, fish and chips, and driving through the English countryside), and being proud of your country for no apparent reason, i.e. it would be foolish for me to say Britain is a 'great' nation and point to shit like empire, the industrial revolution etc. Balance is key. Obviously the people of the world, in history and currently, have had some great achievements, and the developed western countries are no exception to that, but there is a fine line between healthy promotion of different cultures and the promotion of cultural or national superiority, or blind allegiance to a particular nation.

Ah okay, I must have misunderstood the definition of "Nuclear family", thanks for clarifying. I thought it was just any man-woman-children-family, which is what I was speaking about. Of course I'm as a feminist opposed to the concept of a family which is based on the oppression of the female through unpaid domestic labour and such. So I of course agree with you on that.

And I totally agree with you on that it is foolish as a leftwinger to celebrate imperialist history etc. There's a saying here in Sweden that "Sweden's history is not the story of swedish kings", which basically means that the actual swedish history is the one of the common people which have built this country and not of the lords, nobles and kings which has oppressed them for hundreds of years. I find it pretty stupid to be proud of that kind of history (I'm not proud of Carolus Rex and Gustavus Adoplhus and their bloody wars of conquest which wrecked the continent and left millions dead in their wake), I am proud of the common people who struggled to make their way despite the dark times, of the history of peasant uprisings such as the Dacke-uprising and Engelbrekt and of the culture ("Volkgeist") they left behind. And of course all blind jingoism or national/cultural superiority is reactionary bull-shit.

Full Metal Bolshevik

2nd January 2014, 19:22

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 19:31

I honestly don't get how you can be proud of something you had no contribution to it.

I was like that as a teen, proud of how big Portugal was in time but then I realized how much bullshit it is. I still think it's interesting as history, but that's it.
Of course I like reading stuff about my country in foreign media, but I stopped being patriotic, it makes no sense.

Yup, I've heard that a lot from other leftwing friends. I figure it's all pretty individually, just like cheering for a Football team. Some thinks that doesn't make any sense at all.

Guess my patriotism (or whatever you want to call) it boils down to that I'm so interested in swedish history, enjoy the culture and truly love the nature, and the fact that it was here I was born, and it's here I want to live my life and finally die. That's what makes me sing the national anthem, wave the Swedish flag and cheer when we're going to beat Finland in Hockey ;)

Taters

2nd January 2014, 19:40

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd January 2014, 19:46

Well, seeing as you've said you're not interested in hearing criticism of your views, I'll simply say, no, you're not a communist. Your idea of internationalism sounds like some kind of Wilsonian 'community of nations' thing.

I don't really think it's your place to tell someone else whether they are a communist or not. It's certainly not helpful, whatever the OP was asking.

As the OP said they want to see the abolition of nation-states, I don't see how you can label their idea a 'community of nations'.

Remus Bleys

2nd January 2014, 19:54

I don't really think it's your place to tell someone else whether they are a communist or not. It's certainly not helpful, whatever the OP was asking.
The OP literally asked if he "you consider me a Communist" then taters said "no." So what exactly do you mean it isn't his place to call people communists or not, this guy clearly isn't communist, and he asked if we consider him communist, and taters said no, because he doesn't think that OP is commie, thus answering OP's question.

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 19:59

I think you're close to communist, but have a bit to learn. I think you'll find this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1911/patriotism.htm interesting.

Taters

2nd January 2014, 20:02

I don't really think it's your place to tell someone else whether they are a communist or not. It's certainly not helpful, whatever the OP was asking.

He asked, adding that they didn't want anyone to bash their opinions, and I answered their question.

As the OP said they want to see the abolition of nation-states, I don't see how you can label their idea a 'community of nations'.
The OP's "utopia" is a "socialist UN." The OP likes the idea of the Volksgeist. The OP wants a stateless society and, yet, to also have borders. Aside from not making much sense, does that sound particularly communist?

Slavic

2nd January 2014, 20:30

He asked, adding that they didn't want anyone to bash their opinions, and I answered their question.

The OP's "utopia" is a "socialist UN." The OP likes the idea of the Volksgeist. The OP wants a stateless society and, yet, to also have borders. Aside from not making much sense, does that sound particularly communist?

The borders issue that NisseDacke raises are practical concerns. I don't think he is against freedom of movement he just knows that in certain circumstances freedom of movement can be a bad thing, such as his given example of a contagious pandemic. I don't think any socialist should scoff at the idea of restricting movement if it can prevent the spread of pandemic level diseases.

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 20:38

I think you're close to communist, but have a bit to learn. I think you'll find this interesting.

I don't really think it's your place to tell someone else whether they are a communist or not. It's certainly not helpful, whatever the OP was asking.

As the OP said they want to see the abolition of nation-states, I don't see how you can label their idea a 'community of nations'.

He asked, adding that they didn't want anyone to bash their opinions, and I answered their question.

The OP's "utopia" is a "socialist UN." The OP likes the idea of the Volksgeist. The OP wants a stateless society and, yet, to also have borders. Aside from not making much sense, does that sound particularly communist?

I think I need to explain my position a bit more thoroughly.

First of all, thanks for the link, I've read that before but I don't agree with Goldman there. Her definition of patriotism is not the same as mine, as I would call her definition of it for nationalism, and I am not a fan of nationalism. I think that I, first, should define what I mean by "patriotism" and "nation", so there's no misunderstandings.

Patriotism for me means to love the place you come from, to enjoy the culture and history etc, and feel a strong connection to it. That doesn't in any way mean It doesn't have to be to a nation, it could be to a village, a district in a city, a city, a county, a region etc. In Sweden we have a term called "Local-patriotism" which most often means your love to the town you're from and your connection to it.

On to nation. Wikipedia says that: Nation may refer to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.. For me, love to a nation doesn't have to mean supporting the nation-state, as the nation-state in many cases is built on removing some minority groups right of nationality. (In Sweden for example we have the Sami people, who has been treated very poorly throughout the ages and has been denied to freely celebrate their culture, language, traditions etc.)

I can't post links yet, but the "Braveheart and Scottish nationalism" article on Libcom explains it in a very good way, you can google it to find it:

To begin to answer these questions, we must first define what we mean by nationalism. For many people, it is just the natural attachment to home, the place they group up. These feelings, however, obviously do not exist in a social vacuum. Nationality, as Bakunin noted, is a “natural and social fact” as “every people and the smallest folk-unit has its own character, its own specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling, thinking, and acting; and it is this idiosyncrasy that constitutes the essence of nationality”[1]. But nationality is not the same as nationalism. Nationalism is far more, and a lot less ethically, than recognition of cultural uniqueness and love of home. Nationalism is the love of, of the desire to create, a nation state. [...] Anarchists have long noted the fundamental difference between society and state. In fact, in the words of Rudolf Rocker, the “nation is not the cause, but the result of the state. It is the state that creates the nation, not the nation the state”[2]. Every state is an artificial mechanism imposed on society by some ruler in order to defend and make secure the interests of privileged minorities within society. Nationalism was created to reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people of shared linguistic, ethnic, and cultural affinities. And if these shared affinities do not exist, the state will create them by centralising education in its own hands, imposing as “official” language and attempting to crush cultural differences from the people's within its borders. This can obviously be seen in Scottish history, when English Monarchs banned the pipes, the kilt and Gaelic.

[...] This is hardly surprising as the state is a centralised body, invested with power and a monopoly of force. It preempts the autonomy of localities and peoples and in the name of “nation” crushes the living, breathing reality of a nation (its peoples and their cultures) with one law, one culture and one “official” history. This does not mean, however, that anarchist are indifferent to national liberation struggles. Far from it. In the words of Bakunin, “I feel myself always the patriot of oppressed fatherlands … Nationality … is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance … Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principal of freedom” [...]

And while we unmask nationalism for what it is, we should not disdain the basic struggle for identity and self-management which nationalism diverts. Nor must we passively wait for an abstract world revolution. Social struggle occurs in a given place on the surface of the planet. As we live in Scotland we want it to occur here. We must encourage direct action and the spirit of revolt against all forms of oppression – social, economic, political, racial, sexual, religious and national. And while fighting against oppression, we struggle for anarchy, a free confederation of communes based on workplace and community assemblies. A confederation which will place the nation-state, all nation-states, into the dust-bin of history where it belongs.

That pretty much explains my views on the whole matter. I think I should have used some better words (English is not my native language) than a "Socialist UN" to explain my Utopia as it sounds like a world full of nation-states, which is not it at all. Like I said, I support the dissolvement of the nation-state.

Regarding borders, I didn't said that I "wanted borders", but I said that I do believe that a would entirely without any borders would be impossible, due to the dangers of pandemics etc. It would be very interesting if anyone of you had any solution to this problem? Because I've thought about it for a long time and I haven't came up with any real solution in my head.

Regarding Volkgeist, I used that word as I thought it meant a nation's unique culture and so. Maybe it doesn't? My German is a bit rusty. I'm not sure what you mean by "Likes the idea of Volkgeist", I like the idea of a community's own sort of culture yes? I'm not sure how that would go against Communism really, so please enlighten me :)

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 20:40

The borders issue that NisseDacke raises are practical concerns. I don't think he is against freedom of movement he just knows that in certain circumstances freedom of movement can be a bad thing, such as his given example of a contagious pandemic. I don't think any socialist should scoff at the idea of restricting movement if it can prevent the spread of pandemic level diseases.

Yep that is what I mean. I support freedom of movement but I believe that this is a problem that many leftwingers fail to answer, and it needs to be discussed so we come up with a solution to it so we're prepared for it. The dangers of pandemics is real, deadly and ugly.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

2nd January 2014, 20:54

I think I need to explain my position a bit more thoroughly.

First of all, thanks for the link, I've read that before but I don't agree with Goldman there. Her definition of patriotism is not the same as mine, as I would call her definition of it for nationalism, and I am not a fan of nationalism. I think that I, first, should define what I mean by "patriotism" and "nation", so there's no misunderstandings.

Patriotism for me means to love the place you come from, to enjoy the culture and history etc, and feel a strong connection to it. That doesn't in any way mean It doesn't have to be to a nation, it could be to a village, a district in a city, a city, a county, a region etc. In Sweden we have a term called "Local-patriotism" which most often means your love to the town you're from and your connection to it.

On to nation. Wikipedia says that: Nation may refer to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.. For me, love to a nation doesn't have to mean supporting the nation-state, as the nation-state in many cases is built on removing some minority groups right of nationality. (In Sweden for example we have the Sami people, who has been treated very poorly throughout the ages and has been denied to freely celebrate their culture, language, traditions etc.)

Nationalism, patriotism; same thing; I've never heard of this local patriotism but it's the daftest thing I've ever heard of; fuck this country, fuck this people, fuck this culture, fuck this nation, this state, and everyone who love it; fuck it to death. Fuck all embracing of nationality, ethnicity, any culture on all levels imaginable.

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 20:56

I don't think you're anywhere near communist anymore NisseDacke.

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 20:56

Nationalism, patriotism; same thing; I've never heard of this local patriotism but it's the daftest thing I've ever heard of; fuck this country, fuck this people, fuck this culture, fuck this nation, this state, and everyone who love it; fuck it to death. Fuck all embracing of nationality, ethnicity, any culture on all levels imaginable.

Cool, come to Sweden and say that to working class kids and you're guaranteed to alienate them away from the leftwing movement into the arms of the Sweden Democrats in a second. I've seen it happen many times enough when mega-dega-radical-leftwingers do just that.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

2nd January 2014, 21:04

Cool, come to Sweden and say that to working class kids and you're guaranteed to alienate them away from the leftwing movement into the arms of the Sweden Democrats in a second. I've seen it happen many times enough when mega-dega-radical-leftwingers do just that.

I don't need to come to Sweden; I am in Sweden. If they love this country they are deranged and blind nationalist swine, and if they join their kind like the nationalist swine they are, then nothing has really changed. We are not about embracing populism, we are not about pandering to a lowest common denominator, the love for an abstracted nation-state.

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 21:10

Should I be proud to be American? Should I be proud that I live in a nation founded on genocide, slavery, and colonialism/imperialism? Fuck all nations, fuck all states and their bullshit.

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 21:11

I don't need to come to Sweden; I am in Sweden. If they love this country they are deranged and blind nationalist swine, and if they join their kind like the nationalist swine they are, then nothing has really changed. We are not about embracing populism, we are not about pandering to a lowest common denominator, the love for an abstracted nation-state.

It's not populism, it's common sense. You don't have anything against around 10% of Sweden's population turning to the SD, and that they got 13% and almost the 3rd biggest party in the school-elections in 2010, and that they are growing even more in the polls? But I guess all of those supporters is "Nationalists swines".

Well, I for one have something against a left that actively scares off working class youths into the arms of the SD by refusing to discuss anything remotely connected to the situation of the swedish working class today. But enough OT.

helot

2nd January 2014, 21:12

On to nation. Wikipedia says that: Nation may refer to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.. For me, love to a nation doesn't have to mean supporting the nation-state, as the nation-state in many cases is built on removing some minority groups right of nationality. (In Sweden for example we have the Sami people, who has been treated very poorly throughout the ages and has been denied to freely celebrate their culture, language, traditions etc.)

The thing is though that shared language, culture, etc as defining a nation is complete bollocks.

http://libcom.org/library/why-anti-national

NisseDacke

2nd January 2014, 21:13

Should I be proud to be American? Should I be proud that I live in a nation founded on genocide, slavery, and colonialism/imperialism? Fuck all nations, fuck all states and their bullshit.

Well, as a matter of fact I do think that patriotic leftwing artists like Bruce Springsteen, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie etc has done much more for the American Labour Movement and has a bigger popularity amongst the American working class than the flag-burning USA-hating anarchists. But that's just me.

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 21:24

Remus Bleys

2nd January 2014, 21:24

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 21:35

how? How has Springsteen or Seeger benefitted the labor movement with their idiotic meolodies, tasteless tunes, and revolting nationalism?

Pretty sure he's confused, I only like Guthries music though, and not becuase his guitar had "this machine kills fascists." on it. Otherwise their music sucks.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

2nd January 2014, 21:36

It's not populism, it's common sense. You don't have anything against around 10% of Sweden's population turning to the SD, and that they got 13% and almost the 3rd biggest party in the school-elections in 2010, and that they are growing even more in the polls, and that they ? But I guess all of those is "Nationalists swines".

Well, I for one have something against a left that actively scares off working class youths into the arms of the SD by refusing to discuss anything remotely connected to the situation of the swedish working class today. But enough OT.

Common sense is nonsense. There are reasons for them turning thereto, and it has nothing to do with the left, at least certainly not the far-left (frankly, we are not significant enough to matter even that much) - the social-democrats and their sickening ilk are part of the game, though. But the shift towards nationalism and anti-immigrant positions isn't something that ought to be responded to by accepting their faulty positions and pandering to their mistaken views; they are still wrong.

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 21:53

Should this be moved to OI possibly?

#FF0000

2nd January 2014, 21:57

Well, as a matter of fact I do think that patriotic leftwing artists like Bruce Springsteen, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie etc has done much more for the American Labour Movement and has a bigger popularity amongst the American working class than the flag-burning USA-hating anarchists. But that's just me.

That's cool, but that doesn't change the fact that being "patriotic" and "socialist" is stupid because you can't have a communist society and a nation-state -- the best a "socialist nation" can do is slightly reorganize capital (never abolish) and run the "firm" (which is all, essentially, a nation is) in a way that might benefit that nation's working class slightly at the expense of all others.

So yeah, it might not be "popular" but patriotism is foolish and has nothing to offer if one's looking to abolish capitalism.

EDIT: also if we're just going for what's popular at the moment with most working folks at this very moment, then we ought to give up being "left-wing" and anti-capitalist at all.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd January 2014, 22:18

how? How has Springsteen or Seeger benefitted the labor movement with their idiotic meolodies, tasteless tunes, and revolting nationalism?

I don't think you're really on the money here at all re: revolting nationalism. I'm guessing you've not actually listened to their music much at all. Anyway, not to fully derail the thread, so i'll relate it back to the OP:

we need to accept that viewing aspects of the culture of the place where you live positively =/= nationalism, or necessarily bad. I certainly think there is a grain of truth that much of the criticism of the sort of lyrics espoused by Springsteen et al. coming from 'the left' are often espoused by the sort of limousine liberals who probably actually have more in common with Springsteen than they might care to imagine, and it's a similar story in Britain tbh.

Remus Bleys

2nd January 2014, 22:21

I don't think you're really on the money here at all re: revolting nationalism.We're talking about Bruce "Born in the USA" Springsteen, right?

I'm guessing you've not actually listened to their music much at all.
I try to avoid them whenever possible, but thats pretty hard. I've listened to quite a bit of Springsteen.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd January 2014, 22:30

[QUOTE=Remus Bleys;2703035]We're talking about Bruce "Born in the USA" Springsteen, right?

You realise that BitUSA is an anti-patriotic song, right?

Sinister Intents

2nd January 2014, 22:32

[QUOTE]

You realise that BitUSA is an anti-patriotic song, right?

I didn't realize that until listening to the song with the lyrics :)

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd January 2014, 22:33

I didn't realize that until listening to the song with the lyrics :)

It helps.

Remus Bleys

2nd January 2014, 22:38

You realise that BitUSA is an anti-patriotic song, right? And Nirvana's Rape Me is an anti-rape song, but both of them have incomprehensible lyrics, kinda ruining the whole point of the political statement.
Anyway, to the OP, how does this help anything?

Yuppie Grinder

4th January 2014, 07:04

I'm convinced Nirvana were just trying too hard to be edgy with that song.
Bruce Springsteen strikes me as pretty patriotic, but left-wing at the same time. A lot of people who really love being American think the Vietnam war was a disaster.

ckaihatsu

4th January 2014, 20:43

I've pretty much always been a fierce patriot. Note that I do not support the nation-state, I agree with communism's goals of demolishing the nation-state, but that is because the state is a tool of oppression etc, and I don't want to see nations themselves as destroyed.

I love the scandinavian culture, history, nature etc, and I believe that to destroy the "Volkgeist" of the world's different communities and create a world with the same culture would be very unwanted.
Note that with this said I do not, at all, agree with fash scum like the Sweden Democrats and their opposition to mixing cultures at all, it is pure madness as culture's has always been exchanged between different countries etc.

What comes to mind is that you're distinguishing between the state, and culture -- one is political (social relations), while the latter could conceivably be thought-of as being as intimate as one's own DNA -- one's 'cultural DNA', so to speak.

I'll also note that culture has often *preceded* the formal nation-state itself, and so has indisputable historic value -- it's the part that's often commercialized because it's "frozen in time", compared with our present time in the *modern* era, *and* it's generally non-threatening and homey since it's about the everyday life of regular folks like ourselves.

On my historical framework I put a pan-national 'regional culture' as having more magnitude than even empires (including nation-states, etc.).

[22] History, Macro Micro

http://s6.postimage.org/58kljbt2l/22_History_Macro_Micro.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/58kljbt2l/)

I dunno, it feels like I'm just rambling, but many leftwingers I've spoken to looks down on their nation's culture, on the flag, national anthem etc, and I don't understand that.

Here you're *mixing* the two since you're no longer talking about Scandinavian culture itself, but rather that of the Swedish *nation*.

While I agree that rightwing nationalism leads to dividing the working class and xenophobia, I don't agree that common patriotism, by just being proud of your heritage and celebrating your culture leads to that.

Here again you may want to re-establish the distinction between a benign cultural folkways, and that of an official national identity -- founded for the sake of nationalism and probably conquest.

I don't think that the patriotism of the common people is the same as the false nationalism spread by the upper class in order to divide the working class, on the contrary, I think there is a huge difference between the two.

There you go.

I guess my socialist utopia would be some sort of socialist UN with all nations of the world working together for the benefit of mankind.

This definitely sounds anarchist -- 'confederalism'.

2nd, The destruction of the "Family":

Well, while I agree that everyone should be able to live their own lives and not be restricted to the nuclear family, I also think that it would be wrong to "destroy" the nuclear family in itself as some leftwingers speak of.

This topic just came up a few days at another thread:

Communist Education System

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-education-system-t168972/index.html

As with religion, some revolutionaries would be relatively more militant against traditional forms -- the nuclear family -- than others, but the *point* of it is to allow the individual the greatest individual *freedom* to choose their own life-path, as early in their life as possible.

(Since communism collectivizes both the social relations of production *and* the means of mass production, the world itself would be entirely *inviting* and harmless to the individual, even at the earliest ages of existence.) (I like to think of it as being like the existing public sector growing limitlessly to encompass and envelop the whole world -- but under workers' control, of course.)

As long as the patriarchal oppression of females is destroyed, I don't see what is wrong with a male and a female loving each other and forming a "Nuclear Family" so to say.

There's *nothing* wrong with this, of course -- but we have to ask what would / should their relationship be to their offspring, if they decide to do that -- ?

Without the enforcement of private property relations we'd have to consider if the larger (public) society would have a greater interest -- and far better capacities to provide-for -- for the child than even the parents themselves.

Put another way, it could very well be the case that, at a certain very young age, the individual will naturally want to 'explore the world', away from their parents, and will be empowered with every ability to do this, by the larger world -- what could the biological parents possibly do to retain the child's interest if it's simply no longer there -- ?

I mean, the goal is to set everybody free to live the lives they want, and if we would create some sort of Brave New World-socialism, people wouldn't be that. I for one would not want to live in such a world.

'Brave New World' is problematic because it's a satirization of enlightenment-revolutionary ways of thinking -- it's borderline-propaganda.

3rd, No borders:

I believe that a world without borders would be impossible. While I do think that almost all people should be able to move where they want, there would still be some people who couldn't be allowed to do that, like people with heavy contagious diseases etc, and for that reason there would still have to be some sort of border controls, like if a pandemia would suddenly spread etc.

Um, so that could happen on a *medical*, case-by-case basis. We don't need standing borders any more than we need standing armies.

My "Dream world":

My "Utopia" so to say would be, like I said, all nations of the world working together through a socialist version of the UN for the advancement and bettering of mankind worldwide. The world would be like one giant quilt of different nations with their unique cultures and histories cooperating to create the best world possible.

I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with this as long as it remained strictly *cultural* and didn't try to use 'culture' as a springboard to *political* aspirations.

All people, no matter where they are born, would get an equal change from birth. The means of production would be owned and controlled democratically by the working class and the products created by them would be spread amongst the people, according to their needs.

Yup.

I do however think that physically and mentally fit people who refuse to take part in building this society wouldn't get any share of the wealths that it would create. There would be no place for parasites in this world.

This is an *economic* point you're making, and I'll just note for the record that this ethos you're espousing is definitely un-communistic.

'How would an individual obtain goods in a feasible post-capitalist social order, in a socially acceptable way, without having to work.'

And, to address this, my conception of such a social order *would* readily allow individuals to receive goods *without* providing work themselves, *because of* the existence of machinery that doesn't require much work-effort input to produce mass quantities of manufactured goods.

Here's the "proof", in steps:

Material function

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]

Determination of material values

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination

Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

So, in brief, this means that any one person's demands would only be their own, but, depending on what's demanded, they may resonate with the same, or similar, demands of many others.

If the goods that someone wanted were commonly demanded and routinely produced then it would just be a matter of making sure that the number of units produced would be adequate to satisfy one's own personal requirements -- I'd imagine this would simply be an administrative matter of contacting those whose policy package it is that's actively in use, to have production bumped-up accordingly. I doubt that additional labor credits would have to be considered for this, since you're only one person, and the additional production to cover one person would be negligible.

So we can see that the key variable here is 'which goods'. If the request / demand can be satisfied with already-existing mass production, then there you have it -- no work needed on your part, and you get what you want, subject to the real-world political process.

The downside is that it *would* still require you to be part of a *social-political* process, since the context is a *political economy*, unless regular practices included producing significant surpluses of whatever, for those like yourself to just find and take from.

At *worst* you might have to deal in a more-involved way with those whose policy package is being used, to have it favorably amended, and/or to deal with the liberated laborers themselves, to ask them to run a larger batch, for your personal benefit.

The states would have dissolved and all power would, finally, be in the hands of the people. Women's liberation and gender equality would finally be achieved of course. Any eventual existing rapists and other sexist scum would be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

All people would be free to live the life they wanted as fully as possible, as long as it doesn't go out on other people, and to live with the ones they love regardless of gender etc.

Well yes, that is it basically. Would you consider this a communist world, and would you consider me a communist despite the different views I listed?

Yeah, basically, but, more precisely, I'd term you an anarchist.

TheWannabeAnarchist

4th January 2014, 21:35

A Psychological Symphony

4th January 2014, 22:29

It's one thing to admire your culture, and another to admire your nation. There are some things I love about American culture. Our flag looks pretty awesome, cheeseburgers taste great, and we invented rock and roll.

There's not much I like about the American state and government, however, which is dominated by corrupt politicians and corporate interests.

And while I might find some American historical figures admirable (e.g. Thomas Paine, Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, and Eugene V. Debs) I don't take pride in any of our historical actions because I didn't take part in them. What gives me the right to feel good about myself if I didn't help?:laugh:

I'm a little surprised any communist or anarchist can admire American culture. The flag is basically an international symbol of oppression.

What is there to admire about Lincoln? That it happened to be beneficial for him as an American politician to legally end slavery?

American history is nothing to be proud of; it was a history of oppression that was founded on the genocide of the indigenous people. It has been as capitalist as possibly imaginable for the entire history the nation has existed. This country is one huge exploitative business.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

5th January 2014, 00:56

I'm a little surprised any communist or anarchist can admire American culture. The flag is basically an international symbol of oppression.

What is there to admire about Lincoln? That it happened to be beneficial for him as an American politician to legally end slavery?

American history is nothing to be proud of; it was a history of oppression that was founded on the genocide of the indigenous people. It has been as capitalist as possibly imaginable for the entire history the nation has existed. This country is one huge exploitative business.

Yet America is made up of hundreds of millions of workers. I'm sure there are some heroic stories and struggles out there. Just look at the struggles of the likes of the Black Panthers in the 1960s, for example. There are lots of individuals behind the civil rights movement whose stories are invisible to the public eye, but who were important historical actors nonetheless, and as a collective did show that opposition to capitalism is possible, even in America.

A Psychological Symphony

5th January 2014, 01:12

Yet America is made up of hundreds of millions of workers. I'm sure there are some heroic stories and struggles out there. Just look at the struggles of the likes of the Black Panthers in the 1960s, for example. There are lots of individuals behind the civil rights movement whose stories are invisible to the public eye, but who were important historical actors nonetheless, and as a collective did show that opposition to capitalism is possible, even in America.

I'm not saying that no Americans have ever done heroic or great things. I would say these people did these great things not because of American culture, but in spite of it. There are noble men and women fighting the good fight and changing the world everywhere; this does not need to warrant an admiration for a parasitic culture.

Crabbensmasher

7th January 2014, 18:44

I think showing pride in any sort of group/organization you belong to is a somewhat normal behavior. This group could consist of your culture, your ethnicity, your city, tribe, country, etc. Pride itself isn't a crime.

Like, humans will always desire to be part of a community, won't they? There is something fulfilling about identifying with a specific group. Not to mention, the old adage "If you don't know where you come from, you don't know where you're going" is still a comforting thought.

So, in those respect, I think it just comes down to being misguided. As a communist, be proud of belonging to the struggle. Pride towards a nation state however, is seriously contradictory. It's misdirected love I guess.

Philosophos

7th January 2014, 20:21

Well if you like your nation (even if you don't mean the nation-state) then you are a nationalist. If you say you like the swedish culture then you just like swedish culture as I like greek, chinese italian and spanish culture.

By saying culture it means the songs, the traditions, the dances, paintings etc of people living in a nation NOT THE NATION itself.

I also used to like the greek national anthem till I realised it was all bullshit. It was written for "national independece" and the "pride" of greeks and so on which makes me sick now because I understand that we are LOGICAL beings and we don't need wars (aka not killing each other because it's completely stupid and pointless) because we can live in a much better way without them. I'm not sure but I think the swedish national anthem is Du gamla, du fria. If it really is this then you shouldn't enjoy it so much because it's pretty much bullshit too. (if this is not the national anthem could you tell which is actually I would like to see it).

At the same time it's different to enjoy national history than enjoy history. National history is a tool that works for capitalists so they can make people nationalists by making them feel proud (!!!) for all the wars they won, for how great the nation was at some times etc (aka as A'MURIKA). If you enjoy history it means that you like to study/see/learn how people used to live (aka culture).

In addition the flag of each state is bullshit too. It represents the state and nationalisms in a country. For example the greek flag has nine lines on it some blue some white. This stands for the colours of the country we use them a lot so it's not that big of a deal. The nine lines represent the nine letters in word "ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ" which in greek mean freedom. That's ok it's just a word. Now WHY THE FUCK DOES IT HAVE A CROSS ON IT? Why would I be connected with something that I might not believe in? Why would I have wet eyes whenever I see this thing? We are not all christians here and we weren't when they made the flag. We had muslims, jews and others back then so I think it's pretty clear that they made it for a nationalist reason. Why doesn't it have a pidgeon or a sun or a hammer and a sickle ( :grin: ) and it has a cross? That's the main reasons of why communists look down on flags and they burn them.

So no to national history
Yes to culture/history
HELL NO to nations' flags
No to national anthems.

It's ok if you like your country because of the beauty and the culture, but it's not ok if you like something "more" than just these things.

I won't tell you or point the finger that you are a communist/non-communist, but it's not very logical to like nations as nations, it's just an idea that we are programmed to follow/like and think that is logical.