Are Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist Revolutionary Left?

[Caesar]

Im a Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist which is definitely left wing I just want to no is it left wing enough to be revolutionary left?

[ckaihatsu]

As proof you may want to describe what your political stances are, on specific issues, that lead you to consider yourself to be 'left wing'.

Here's from another, recent thread:





'Left nationalists' are still nationalists, and revolutionaries are *not* nationalists.


Left Nationalists opposing the concept of Israel?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-nationalists-opposing-p2861107/index.html#post2861107

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see how 'Left Nationalist' and 'Libertarian Socialist' can go together. 'Libertarian Socialist' is a synonym for 'Anarchist'. How can one be both an Anarchist and a Nationalist?

[Guardia Rossa]

I guess he is just confuse, nationalism and socialism exclude eachother.
You are either a nationalist and therefore against us our your definition of nationalism is weird and you are a socialist.
Or, more probably, you are none of those and is just trying to look edgy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Im a Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist which is definitely left wing I just want to no is it left wing enough to be revolutionary left?

I'm a female Grey Elf mindcrafter. At least when I'm playing Ancient Domains of Mystery. Of course, in real life I don't have pointy ears, psionic powers or two X chromosomes, but hey, roleplaying games allow you to pretend to be whatever kind of character you want.

The same goes for political roleplaying, a very popular pastime on the Internet today, where you pick randomly from a list of ideas and pretend they make up a coherent political position, and that it was by sheer luck that no one before you thought up corporatist Austro-marxist neoliberalism or whatever. And, I'm sorry, but "left-wing nationalist libertarian socialist" is simply one of those combinations. "Libertarian socialists" is what anarchists call themselves when they're tired of people linking anarchism with "rebellious" teens or trying to prove "an"-caps are anarchists. And there is no nationalist anarchism. Or nationalist socialism in general. ("National anarchists", like "anarcho-capitalists", aren't anarchists, they're fascists.)

It's particularly perplexing to hear of "left-wing nationalism" in this day and age. What that meant in the sixties and seventies was nationalist (often military-based) movements supported by the Soviet Union (and very, very briefly, China) in order to spread their geopolitical interests. There is no more Soviet Union, to put it mildly. Nothing differentiates "right-wing" and "left-wing" nationalism today.

[Armchair Partisan]

Ooh, I love Mindcrafters. Unfortunately I've never actually completed the game with one. I did get a UCG as a bard though, another of my favorite gimmick classes.

Hmm, is this too off-topic? Perhaps. Let's post something on-topic then... well, anything and anyone which supports nationalism in the present day is not revolutionary. Support for nationalism can, in fact, be a reactionary position even compared to some of the bourgeoisie. Even if you put a left-wing veneer over it, like stuff about self-determination, independence from imperialist powers and all that, the matter of fact is, a genuine left-nationalist could not be a revolutionary by definition.

One more question I'd like to ask, by the way: what inspired your username 'Caesar'? Because over here on Revleft we have this weird thing called Third World Caesarean Socialism (which sounds just as bizarre as your moniker) and I was wondering if they related.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't see how 'Left Nationalist' and 'Libertarian Socialist' can go together. 'Libertarian Socialist' is a synonym for 'Anarchist'. How can one be both an Anarchist and a Nationalist?

There are forms of "left nationalism" or "left patriotism", at least from the Cold War era. Cuba, Laos and Vietnam come to mind. I'm not speaking to the consistency of these views or their relevance for us, however, or whether or not the regimes which hold these views are "really leftist". Their parties certainly dominated the political space on the left of these nations. There have always been "leftists" who inconsistently held various reactionary beliefs, from Liberation Theologians who want to destroy capitalism and ban abortion to Stalinists who want to preserve the family.

[Vee]

i could be wrong but my understanding of libertarian socialism is that it is another way of saying anarchism. you can not be both nationalist and anarchist without betraying anarchism or nationalism.

[Blake's Baby]

There are forms of "left nationalism" or "left patriotism", at least from the Cold War era. Cuba, Laos and Vietnam come to mind. I'm not speaking to the consistency of these views or their relevance for us, however, or whether or not the regimes which hold these views are "really leftist". Their parties certainly dominated the political space on the left of these nations. There have always been "leftists" who inconsistently held various reactionary beliefs, from Liberation Theologians who want to destroy capitalism and ban abortion to Stalinists who want to preserve the family.

Whether or not people consider themselves 'Left Nationalists' and whether that term means anything (left of capital = nationalist so it has some coherence), my point was that one cannot simultaneously be a 'nationalist' (left or right) and an Anarchist.

'Destroy all nations! Except the one I'm expressing ethnic solidarity for!'

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Whether or not people consider themselves 'Left Nationalists' and whether that term means anything (left of capital = nationalist so it has some coherence), my point was that one cannot simultaneously be a 'nationalist' (left or right) and an Anarchist.

'Destroy all nations! Except the one I'm expressing ethnic solidarity for!'

Fair enough, and I agree with you that there is a basic inconsistency, but wasn't Bakunin a nationalist? After all, nationality and the state aren't the same, so one could feasibly want to destroy the state, but not take the logic to its next conclusion and destroy the nationalism that justifies various states.

[Guardia Rossa]

Fair enough, and I agree with you that there is a basic inconsistency, but wasn't Bakunin a nationalist? After all, nationality and the state aren't the same, so one could feasibly want to destroy the state, but not take the logic to its next conclusion and destroy the nationalism that justifies various states.

??

Then you have anarcho-nationalism, advocating people living around in racially pure tribes :rolleyes:

And I'm serious, I have met one.

Hell I've even met an anarcho-tankie. Not much an anarcho but very tankie.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

??

Then you have anarcho-nationalism, advocating people living around in racially pure tribes :rolleyes:

And I'm serious, I have met one.

Hell I've even met an anarcho-tankie. Not much an anarcho but very tankie.

Yeah they're dumb, irrational, and ideologically reactionary, but sometimes I'm skeptical of the desire to play "no true scotsman" with the left (or, "no true leftsman").

[Luís Henrique]

Im a Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist which is definitely left wing I just want to no is it left wing enough to be revolutionary left?

What nation is your nationalism linked to? And why do you think that supporting that specific nation is a left-wing position?

What is socialism in your opinion? How is it compatible with nationalism? How do you reconcile these two things?

What is, especifically, "libertarian socialism", and how does it differ from socialism in general?

With whom are you organised in order to foster a "left-nationalist libertarian socialist" political platform?

******************************

There isn't a linear scale from right to left, that at some point someone is so to the left that he or she becomes "revolutionary". What we call "revolutionary left" is predicated into a few basic principles, which could perhaps be summarised as:

1. We want a "revolution", ie, a complete rupture with our capitalist present. We want a society without private property of means of production, without social classes, without money and markets, without a State and its political tools, police, army, bureaucracy, etc.;

2. We don't believe such a rupture can be attained by an incremental process of slow, gradual, transformation and improvement of the present situation;

3. We want a revolution from below, ie, we don't believe that such a rupture can be a concession from our present masters - it will have to be fought for, and won, by the vast labouring majority of the world population, consciously united and organised for that end.

Luís Henrique

[newdayrising]

Maybe this notion has something to do with the kurdish nationalists' enthusiasm for Bookchin.

[Aslan]

One more question I'd like to ask, by the way: what inspired your username 'Caesar'? Because over here on Revleft we have this weird thing called Third World Caesarean Socialism (which sounds just as bizarre as your moniker) and I was wondering if they related.

TWCS is a joke by some of the Libertarian Marxists to make the most kookyiest and tankie-ist ideology possible. Its supposed to be a poke at the batshit Jim-jones Khmer-rouge thirdworldists types.

However, ''nationalism'' in respect to culture along with anarchism in my opinion could be possible. There would be no state, but the flavors of human culture would persist. However nationalism as we know it (people who love the USA or Russia) is inherently statist and is incompatible. Our little tankie friend is just doing what fascists, strasserists, and AnCaps do in putting anarchist/communist terms along with their bullshit to make it sound ''libertine and good''. They use terms like Liberty or revolution when they are actually agents of tyranny.

[Blake's Baby]

Fair enough, and I agree with you that there is a basic inconsistency, but wasn't Bakunin a nationalist?...

He was a Pan-Slavist (which isn't exactly nationalist, bt isn't exactly not either), before he was an Anarchist. He wasn't both at the same time.


... After all, nationality and the state aren't the same, so one could feasibly want to destroy the state, but not take the logic to its next conclusion and destroy the nationalism that justifies various states.

Which leads to 'Jews run the world, destroy the UN and all live in separate-but-equal ethnic ghettoes'. Not Anarchist.

[revnoon]

Im a Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist which is definitely left wing I just want to no is it left wing enough to be revolutionary left?

There is no such thing as Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist

There is no country or state under communism or anarchy.

The word Socialism is road to communism. If you don't want communism or anarchy than you a social democrat.

People get the word communism and Socialism mix up a lot.

But under communism or anarchy there is no such thing like country, state or many country.

When people say communism is a stateless they mean there is no country or state.

[revnoon]

Im a Left-Nationalist Libertarian Socialist which is definitely left wing I just want to no is it left wing enough to be revolutionary left?

Also I forgot to say there is no government under communism or anarchy be it federal or state because there is no federal or state or country.

The people run and control the stores, factories, business and public service.

There no CEO, capitalist or boss every thing is run and control by the workers council similar to workers union.

That Burger king or Walmart on main street that have staff of 20 people will have join worker council those 20 people will vote on wages, benefits and vacation. There be no need for VP or boss of that Burger king or Walmart on main street. Other Burger king or Walmart on 7th street two blocks way of a staff of 25 people will have own worker council.

There be no need for a CEO,VP and Capitalist living in million dollar house, own jet plane and millions of money in bank account well the workers are paying rent in a rooming house and walking to work.

The working class will do away with CEO,VP and Capitalist and have a workers council all workers will vote on wages, benefits, work times on and off and vacation time so on.

[revnoon]

TWCS is a joke by some of the Libertarian Marxists to make the most kookyiest and tankie-ist ideology possible. Its supposed to be a poke at the batshit Jim-jones Khmer-rouge thirdworldists types.

However, ''nationalism'' in respect to culture along with anarchism in my opinion could be possible. There would be no state, but the flavors of human culture would persist. However nationalism as we know it (people who love the USA or Russia) is inherently statist and is incompatible. Our little tankie friend is just doing what fascists, strasserists, and AnCaps do in putting anarchist/communist terms along with their bullshit to make it sound ''libertine and good''. They use terms like Liberty or revolution when they are actually agents of tyranny.

All cultures are a by products of capitalism and religion and well under Communism there is no capitalism and all religions and cultures will be gone.

The big SUV, big million dollar home, that big billion dollar clothes you have in in closet and that music you listen to is by products of capitalism part of marketing.

You in country xy and you mom does not go to work or leave house :ohmy::ohmy: wow, just stay home and look after the kids well you dad go to work is well a by products of religion where under religion it is very sexism.

Under religion females sexuality is taboo and sin, female to go out with other guy is sin, female to leave partner and go with other guy is sin. Under religion females to have sex with out marriage or live with the partner with out marriage is sin or have kids with out marriage is sin.

Under religion females have no control over her body there no liberty or rights.

The hippies, liberals and feminism been trying to end this but just very hard under capitalism and religion. It just does not want to go away.

[revnoon]

I don't see how 'Left Nationalist' and 'Libertarian Socialist' can go together. 'Libertarian Socialist' is a synonym for 'Anarchist'. How can one be both an Anarchist and a Nationalist?

I don't know how anyone can be Libertarian Socialist or left Libertarian? No word or such a thing like Libertarian Socialist or left Libertarian.

Libertarian are for a free market, very small government, anti- welfare state, they do not believe in helping the poor and low income people, do not believe in universal health care.

Liberals are strong on welfare state, believe in helping the poor and low income people and believe in universal health care.

In the US Ron Paul is libertarian he is anti wars, end the drug war and do away with the prison industrial complex, do away with police industrial complex, cut backs the military and do away with wars and police industrial complex like arresting people for any thing now to get more money like drinking,sex, drugs, jaywalking, filming the police, not wearing the seat belt, no car insurance, license for any thing the government can come up with now,no helmet or life jacket, watching cops work a call, asking cops questions,drinking in public so on and the very large police force now and militarization of police.

So yes Ron Paul is libertarian in that way :rolleyes::rolleyes: and Liberals love him for that but he is anti welfare state, do not believe in helping the poor and low income people and do not believe in universal health care.

The libertarian and Liberals come from the roots of liberty of liberty rights but different in one ways of the free market and welfare state.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Libertarian are for a free market, very small government, anti- welfare state, they do not believe in helping the poor and low income people, do not believe in universal health care.

Ah, that's the thing, "libertarian" is a term anarchists (I mean actual anarchists, who adhere to the "libertarian" branch of socialism) use to describe themselves. The only ones who think this minor radical-liberal US sect are "libertarians" are themselves, and the people they manage to win to their use by pushing their nonsense on the Internet.


Liberals are strong on welfare state, believe in helping the poor and low income people and believe in universal health care.

But of course, everyone wants to "help the poor"; liberal policies don't help the poor, and in the US, they certainly don't include universal health care.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Ah, that's the thing, "libertarian" is a term anarchists (I mean actual anarchists, who adhere to the "libertarian" branch of socialism) use to describe themselves. The only ones who think this minor radical-liberal US sect are "libertarians" are themselves, and the people they manage to win to their use by pushing their nonsense on the Internet.


I would say that in the US at least, "libertarian" as a kind of radically liberal political system is the most widespread definition. Anarchism as an actual movement is too obscure for most people to be familiar with, while pretty much everyone had an obnoxious Ayn Rand-spouting sophomoric dorm mate hoping to get an MBA.

Ironically, despite the fact that Ayn Rand is the most revered "thinker" among many American libertarians, she actually despised American libertarianism.

[Blake's Baby]

And yet again 5% of the world's population, who insist on a definition of 'libertarian' that has only existed since the 1970s, tells the 95% of the world who uses the definition that's been around since the 1850s that they're doing it wrong.

Really; if you want to tell every 'Libertarian Socialist' or 'Libertarian Communist' that ever used that term that they should follow Ron Paul's terminology, then I suspect a lot of people will just tell you to fuck off and read a book of Anarchist history.

Really, 'Libertarianism' as Americans understand it doesn't have much traction outside the US. I won't say none because it has some. But I'm certain more people know broadly what Anarchism is than even slightly understand American 'Libertarianism'.

[revnoon]

Ah, that's the thing, "libertarian" is a term anarchists (I mean actual anarchists, who adhere to the "libertarian" branch of socialism) use to describe themselves. The only ones who think this minor radical-liberal US sect are "libertarians" are themselves, and the people they manage to win to their use by pushing their nonsense on the Internet.





But of course, everyone wants to "help the poor"; liberal policies don't help the poor, and in the US, they certainly don't include universal health care.


An anarchy society is different than libertarian society.


An anarchists envision is a society where anyone can join or leave collectives, and negotiate rules valid in those collectives. In all except the most tolerant collectives, you choose between living within its rules, or moving to another collective. In extreme cases, a person can be expelled from a collective, by this collective.


And yet again 5% of the world's population, who insist on a definition of 'libertarian' that has only existed since the 1970s, tells the 95% of the world who uses the definition that's been around since the 1850s that they're doing it wrong.

Really; if you want to tell every 'Libertarian Socialist' or 'Libertarian Communist' that ever used that term that they should follow Ron Paul's terminology, then I suspect a lot of people will just tell you to fuck off and read a book of Anarchist history.

What do you mean by most people today are using the word libertarian wrong? That what people call libertarian today are not libertarian? That there some new school of thought vs old school of thought libertarian meaning?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, the term 'libertarian' has recently been hijacked by (mostly) American supporters of 'free market' economics and a small state. For 150 years before that, it was used by revolutionaries and specifically Anarchists to describe themselves.

[revnoon]

Yes, the term 'libertarian' has recently been hijacked by (mostly) American supporters of 'free market' economics and a small state. For 150 years before that, it was used by revolutionaries and specifically Anarchists to describe themselves.

What did the old school libertarian believe in and way of doing things that set them apart from the new libertarian we have today?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would say that in the US at least, "libertarian" as a kind of radically liberal political system is the most widespread definition. Anarchism as an actual movement is too obscure for most people to be familiar with, while pretty much everyone had an obnoxious Ayn Rand-spouting sophomoric dorm mate hoping to get an MBA.

I'm very sorry to hear that, although to be honest I suspect you're extrapolating from your own experience a bit. Other people from the US I've talked to have seen more LaRouchites than American right-wing "libertarians". They really do seem to be minuscule, and present mostly on the Internet where their buddies help them push their, ah, peculiar interpretation of the world.


What did the old school libertarian believe in and way of doing things that set them apart from the new libertarian we have today?

They were anarchists. As in, socialists who deny the necessity of a temporary revolutionary state. They had nothing to do with the Hayek fanboys of today.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And yet again 5% of the world's population, who insist on a definition of 'libertarian' that has only existed since the 1970s, tells the 95% of the world who uses the definition that's been around since the 1850s that they're doing it wrong.

Really; if you want to tell every 'Libertarian Socialist' or 'Libertarian Communist' that ever used that term that they should follow Ron Paul's terminology, then I suspect a lot of people will just tell you to fuck off and read a book of Anarchist history.

Really, 'Libertarianism' as Americans understand it doesn't have much traction outside the US. I won't say none because it has some. But I'm certain more people know broadly what Anarchism is than even slightly understand American 'Libertarianism'.

You may be right, but I was just speaking to the situation in the US. I don't know how it is elsewhere in the Anglophone world, but radical liberals appropriated the term in the US long before Ron Paul was around unfortunately. I am familiar with the origins of the term, but frankly there are better things for me to do than play semantics with those who don't even believe we live in a capitalist economy because there are taxes and regulations (seriously, these so-called "libertarians" believe stuff like that)


I'm very sorry to hear that, although to be honest I suspect you're extrapolating from your own experience a bit. Other people from the US I've talked to have seen more LaRouchites than American right-wing "libertarians". They really do seem to be minuscule, and present mostly on the Internet where their buddies help them push their, ah, peculiar interpretation of the world.There is an American Libertarian party which has a liberal economic stance, and there is a so-called "libertarian" wing of the Republican party. The American Libertarian Party doesn't get many votes, but it is a well known 3rd party. Many call themselves "libertarians" because they oppose things like drug laws, but when pushed on their economic views they still believe in the primacy of private property, etc. There are certainly some "libertarian" nuts who get most of their news from infowars. I don't know if the dominance of thinkers like Milton Friedman and Hayek among certain crowds who are pursuing their MBA/econ degree has led to the terminological appropriation, but unfortunately it's pretty well established by now in the American political vocabulary.

[Blake's Baby]

And, again, the US only represents 5% of he world's population, so the other 95% in general doesn't care how you use the term 'libertarian'. Literally, for everyone who uses the term to mean 'von Mises fanboy', 19 other people don't.

Now, while there are certainly people in the rest of the world who use 'libertarian' to mean right-wing free-marketeer, there are also people in the US who use it to mean 'Anarchist' so I reckon that evens out.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Libertarian are for a free market, very small government, anti- welfare state, they do not believe in helping the poor and low income people, do not believe in universal health care.
I'm glad you posted this in Learning, because this is definitely a teachable moment. Libertarianism originally, and still does in most of the world, referred to those who were anti-state and anti-capitalist, i.e. anarchists.

[Palmares]

I'm glad you posted this in Learning, because this is definitely a teachable moment. Libertarianism originally, and still does in most of the world, referred to those who were anti-state and anti-capitalist, i.e. anarchists.

To follow your lead:


The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[10][11] political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism.

[Guardia Rossa]

In Brazil the "anarcho"-capitalist retarded middle class kids use "libertarian" and dominate the internet (Mainly Facebook) with their free time as petit-bourgeois.

We call them ultra-liberals and they get REALLY mad at us :grin:

PS: I once asked them what was the difference between Statism and Communism
The answer? "What is the difference between a Potato and a Potato?? POTATOES ARE POTATOES!"

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And, again, the US only represents 5% of he world's population, so the other 95% in general doesn't care how you use the term 'libertarian'. Literally, for everyone who uses the term to mean 'von Mises fanboy', 19 other people don't.


I don't disagree with you, although it is useful to know why Americans might be surprised to find foreign libertarians supporting socialist economics.



Now, while there are certainly people in the rest of the world who use 'libertarian' to mean right-wing free-marketeer, there are also people in the US who use it to mean 'Anarchist' so I reckon that evens out.There are some, but unfortunately anarchism isn't a political philosophy which has much cultural relevance in the wider US anymore, aside from stereotypes stemming from punks, the Battle for Seattle and weird bookstores. It did during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and there are a few cities with lively anarchist scenes, but it is not widely recognized today. What's worst of all is that in today's America, anarcho-capitalists are doing their best to appropriate the word anarchism, too.

I'm curious to know how the term is understood in Chile, where Friedman's acolytes held state power.

[Antibiotic]

Nonsense was posted in this topic, to say the least. I can't quote everyone now, but combining nationalism and socialism anyhow, is way to Nazism, and where is that, socialism leads to communism, when it's opposite? And how is that anarchists is term for libertarian socialist? Anarchist can be anyone, anti authoritarian. And did you hear about cultural nationalist? That is enough RevLeft, combined with anything. Socialism is greater evil, than communism, but communism is greater wrong, than socialism, only way to compare those two.

[ckaihatsu]

Nonsense was posted in this topic, to say the least. I can't quote everyone now, but




combining nationalism and socialism anyhow, is way to Nazism, and


No, not necessarily -- many would say that a fight for self-determining nationalism for an *oppressed* country can be 'national liberation', and can be in the direction of socialism and communism.

It would depend if the national revolution then *led into* a larger, worldwide struggle for proletarian control -- otherwise the 'liberated' nation would just happen to be controlled on a *national* basis, by its own bourgeoisie. (See the French Revolution.)





where is that, socialism leads to communism, when it's opposite?


You seem to be saying that planned production on a nation-wide basis would automatically / necessarily be *oppressive*, but that's not a given at all -- if all productive assets were *socialized* ('nationalized') and used in bureaucratic-type planning (or better), then at least there would no longer be any need for markets and exchange values, depending on how such planning was implemented.





And how is that anarchists is term for libertarian socialist? Anarchist can be anyone, anti authoritarian. And did you hear about cultural nationalist? That is enough RevLeft, combined with anything.




Socialism is greater evil, than communism, but communism is greater wrong, than socialism, only way to compare those two.


You're using your *own* understanding of these two terms, without providing any suggested definitions for either -- a planned economy is not an 'evil', and there's nothing inherently 'wrong' about people deciding things on a *collective* basis, rather than as an amalgamation of individuals.

[Left Voice]

Libertarian are for a free market, very small government, anti- welfare state, they do not believe in helping the poor and low income people, do not believe in universal health care.
I think you're refering to the weird right-wing libertarians who only really exist in the US, a byproduct of the American push to the west coast and associated obsession with private property.

The term 'libertarian' usually refers to left-libertarianism i.e. anarchism outside of the US, and even more so outside the Anglophere.

[ckaihatsu]

Libertarian are for a free market, very small government, anti- welfare state, they do not believe in helping the poor and low income people, do not believe in universal health care.





I think you're refering to the weird right-wing libertarians who only really exist in the US, a byproduct of the American push to the west coast and associated obsession with private property.

The term 'libertarian' usually refers to left-libertarianism i.e. anarchism outside of the US, and even more so outside the Anglophere.


I don't see a dichotomy here -- the political philosophy behind libertarianism is that all social rights flow from the 'natural right' of (individuated) private property, so 'personal sphere'-type civil liberties are seen as the bedrock, with a minimal protective state to enforce public safety.

This, of course, is philosophical and historical 'baggage' from the era of bourgeois revolutions, while the world has since undergone the *industrial* revolution, producing an unparalleled productivity that's been a real game-changer for all aspects and considerations of political economy.

[Heretek]

So the op is a troll who got us to argue about terminology amongst ourselves rather than with them. "Am I left enough?" Come on, really? You either stand for revolution or you don't. And I mean an actual overthrow and destruction of the current system, not some "breakthrough" crap that is so 'different. By this logic Trump is a revolutionary.

Now almost 100℅ of leftists are against nationalism, but some of the Lenin descendants advocate national liberation, and some stalinists believe in building socialism in one place (Russia it so happens), but I don't think actual adherents of this advocate everything become Russia, and therefore communist. Simply as the place to export it, however dismal that line of thought

[ckaihatsu]

So the op is a troll who got us to argue about terminology amongst ourselves rather than with them. "Am I left enough?" Come on, really? You either stand for revolution or you don't. And I mean an actual overthrow and destruction of the current system, not some "breakthrough" crap that is so 'different. By this logic Trump is a revolutionary.




Now almost 100℅ of leftists are against nationalism


Not to be argumentative, but it's often the case that people instinctively revert to a social framework of *hierarchy* (which fits hand-in-glove with nationalism) -- granted, a hierarchical structure is always more *expedient*, but it's also a less-thought-out and less-socially-enlightened way of doing things.





, but some of the Lenin descendants advocate national liberation, and some stalinists believe in building socialism in one place (Russia it so happens), but I don't think actual adherents of this advocate everything become Russia, and therefore communist. Simply as the place to export it, however dismal that line of thought

[Caesar]

I believe that a nation should be free and the people in it should be free but they still should be patriotic and have a powerful military there should still be a powerful government but it should not oppress the people and allow them to live there own lives kind of like Ancient Rome.

[Blake's Baby]

Against whom do they need a 'powerful military', if the people are free?

Why should they be patriotic, when the working class has no country (something both kinds of 'revolutionary leftist' agree on)?

What is 'the people' in a period when there are states? Do you mean, 'all the people who live in this arbitrarily-defined bit of territory', or 'all the people who speak like this' or 'all the people who look like this'? Alliances with our oppressors in the name of ethnic unity don't fly well round here.

Ancient Rome? Are you literally a Fascist, as in a follower of Mussolini?

[Armchair Partisan]

I don't know, I've heard plenty of fetishistic idealizations of Ancient Rome, but "libertarian paradise" was not one of them. I guess this is why you never say "now I've heard it all".