Nationalism and Communism

[AlwaysAnarchy]

It has come to my attention that my rev-leftists uphold people who call themselves "communists" even though their policies were very nationalistic. People like Stalin, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh. So my question is, being that they are nationalists, how can they also be considered "communists" much less the heroes that a few rev-lefters make them out to be?

Yes they fought against imperialism, but anyone can be a fighter against imperialism - including reactionaries and theocratic governments. Just because they fight imperialism doesn't mean that left-wing people should uphold them as revolutionaries or socialist. More often than not, they instituted state capitalism which eventually turned into full-fledged capitalism.

[Zeruzo]

1. they weren't nationalist
2. All anti-imperialist struggles should be supported, socialist or not...

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Zeruzo+November 05, 2006 08:49 pm--> (Zeruzo @ November 05, 2006 08:49 pm) 1. they weren't nationalist
2. All anti-imperialist struggles should be supported, socialist or not... [/b]


Originally posted by Ho Chi Minh+--> ( Ho Chi Minh) I only follow one party: the Vietnamese party." [/b]


Originally posted by Ho Chi Minh
It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me.


Stalin, by contrast, argued that socialism could be built in one country, and thus capitalized on the nationalist sentiment that would support such an idea.



[email protected]
Castro first attracted attention in Cuban political life through nationalist critiques of Batista and United States corporate and political influence in Cuba. He gained an ardent, but limited, following and also drew the attention of the authorities


GRANMA
What is your opinion of Fidel’s nationalist ideal?

Castro’s nationalist ideal and his fight for Cuba’s independence is not unique. It didn’t start with him and it won’t end with him. It is deep-rooted.

On point #2, I agree that imperialist struggles need to be opposed, but disagree that we need to, by default actively support whoever is being attacked. We can condemn both: like in the Iraq War for instance I was anti war but also anti Saddam as well.

But either way, it is not helpful and in fact extremely harmful to call anti-imperialist nationalists "socialists" or "revolutionaries" when they clearly are not.

[Leo]

1. they weren't nationalist

Of course they were.


2. All anti-imperialist struggles should be supported, socialist or not...

Yeah, I'm sure you would be supporting the Nazis in their "struggle against British and American imperialism" :rolleyes:

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 09:22 pm

1. they weren't nationalist

Of course they were.


2. All anti-imperialist struggles should be supported, socialist or not...

Yeah, I'm sure you would be supporting the Nazis in their "struggle against British and American imperialism" :rolleyes:
Thanks Leo! Glad to see someone else agrees what I thought was pretty obvious too.

[Clarksist]

1. they weren't nationalist

Well, actually they were extremely nationalistic. As PeacefulAnarchist already pointed out, Ho Chi Minh was very nationalistic, Stalin was as well, as is Castro.


2. All anti-imperialist struggles should be supported, socialist or not...

Why? Because its against imperialism?

The enemies of our enemies can't be counted as allies. It's ridiculous. It completely undercuts all Marxist writings to support anti-imperialist measures even to the detriment of the proletariat at large.

Zeruzo, take Stalin out of your signature. I know you think your being cool, but based on what you just posted you really don't know much about Stalin.

[RedCommieBear]

I'm pretty sure that nationalism isn't compatible with leftism in the slightest. Nationalism is a distraction to the the real struggle: working class emancipation However, I have found an interesting quote, and I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about it?


Originally posted by Georgi Dimitov
Communists are the irreconcilable opponents, in principle, of bourgeois nationalism in all of its forms. But we are not supporters of national nihilism, and should never act as such. The task of educating workers and all working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism is one of the fundamental tasks of every Communist Party. But anyone who thinks that this permits him, or even compels him, to sneer at all national sentiments of the broad masses of working people is far from being a genuine Bolshevik, and has understood nothing of the teaching of Lenin on the national question. (United Front Against War and Fascism)

[Zeruzo]

The Ho Chi Minh quotes only state something about patriotism, not nationalism.



Stalin, by contrast, argued that socialism could be built in one country, and thus capitalized on the nationalist sentiment that would support such an idea.

This is just a statement, not a quote of Stalin stating he was a nationalist, thus no proof.


Castro first attracted attention in Cuban political life through nationalist critiques of Batista and United States corporate and political influence in Cuba. He gained an ardent, but limited, following and also drew the attention of the authorities

Wow wikipedia... brilliant...


What is your opinion of Fidel’s nationalist ideal?

Castro’s nationalist ideal and his fight for Cuba’s independence is not unique. It didn’t start with him and it won’t end with him. It is deep-rooted.

duuuh, ever heard of the national-liberation struggle?




On point #2, I agree that imperialist struggles need to be opposed, but disagree that we need to, by default actively support whoever is being attacked. We can condemn both: like in the Iraq War for instance I was anti war but also anti Saddam as well.


Whats Saddam got to do with national liberation?



But either way, it is not helpful and in fact extremely harmful to call anti-imperialist nationalists "socialists" or "revolutionaries" when they clearly are not.

Well, you cant deny the IRA is revolutionary while they are still semi-nationalistic.



Yeah, I'm sure you would be supporting the Nazis in their "struggle against British and American imperialism"

You know as good as i do that the Nazi's were imperialists themselves fighting an imperialist struggle, so this is bull-shit.




Well, actually they were extremely nationalistic. As PeacefulAnarchist already pointed out, Ho Chi Minh was very nationalistic, Stalin was as well, as is Castro.

Wow, you bolded the word extreme, that was so convincing...
Ohw wait, i miss the back-up... damn...



Why? Because its against imperialism?

The enemies of our enemies can't be counted as allies. It's ridiculous. It completely undercuts all Marxist writings to support anti-imperialist measures even to the detriment of the proletariat at large.

The enemy's of the ruling class is my friend, yes... how is that un-marxist?



Zeruzo, take Stalin out of your signature. I know you think your being cool, but based on what you just posted you really don't know much about Stalin.

Ohw boy... 15-year olds claiming i try to be cool, how revolutionary, whats next? Bolding words?... but no, i actually used to be very opposed to Stalin, just so you know.

edit:


I'm pretty sure that nationalism isn't compatible with leftism in the slightest. Nationalism is a distraction to the the real struggle: working class emancipation However, I have found an interesting quote, and I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about it?

A national liberation struggle, is in no way wrong in my opinion as long as it does not undermine the international proletarian struggle as a whole.
Thus, i completely agree with the quote.

[Leo]

You know as good as i do that the Nazi's were imperialists themselves fighting an imperialist struggle, so this is bull-shit.

To me, every nationalist state or even quasi-state fighting a war with another is imperialist, so I denounce all nationalist warss and support stuff like class unity, internationalism etc. things you don't care about.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 10:14 pm

You know as good as i do that the Nazi's were imperialists themselves fighting an imperialist struggle, so this is bull-shit.

To me, every nationalist state or even quasi-state fighting a war with another is an imperialist struggle, so I denounce all and support stuff like class unity, internationalism etc. things you don't care about.
have i ever said i dont care about class-unity and proletarian internationalism?
You really make things up as you go...

[Leo]

have i ever said i dont care about class-unity and proletarian internationalism?

You can't support nationalism and internationalism at the same time.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 10:16 pm

have i ever said i dont care about class-unity and proletarian internationalism?

You can't support nationalism and internationalism at the same time.
I support national liberation and patriotism, patriotism is in no way against proletarian internationalism.

[Leo]

I support national liberation and patriotism, patriotism is in no way against proletarian internationalism.

:lol: :rolleyes:

(This is where I am mocking your stupidity)

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 10:23 pm

I support national liberation and patriotism, patriotism is in no way against proletarian internationalism.

:lol: :rolleyes:

(This is where I am mocking your stupidity)
I'm still waiting for a reply where you actually respond to any of my statements...

[bolshevik butcher]

Wait so according to peaceful anarchist as socialists we shouldn't support a persons right to self determination?

We shouldn't support nationalism as an abstrct but of course we should support national liberation of countries ravaged by imperialism. That doesn't mean to say as socialists we should embrace nationalism.

[Leo]

I'm still waiting for a reply where you actually respond to any of my statements...

Your statements are bullshit;


I support national liberation and patriotism, patriotism is in no way against proletarian internationalism.

There isn't much to reply to this as it is very idiotic, of course completely anti-working class, and very confused. I seriously doubt that you even know what patriotism or proletarian internationalism means because your statement sounds utterly ridiculous. If you want to call yourself a patriot or a nationalist or whatever, fine, I don't give a fuck, but don't claim that it is no way against proletarian internationalism because it is all the way against proletarian internationalism, which depends on the quote saying "workers have no country". Than why are you loving your country? Why are you trying to liberate your nation but not your class? Because it is what your bosses and exploiters want. You serve their interests when you love and die for your nation.

[loveme4whoiam]

This is what bugs me about my International Relations topic at the moment. We are discussing the Cold War, and how every nationalist movement in whatever country was viewed by the US as being "a Commie risk" - as if just be showing any slight reformist tendancies made one a die-hard Stalinist.

I've often noticed that nationalism seems to be bound to neo-liberal reformism - as if by criticising the current power, you have to affirm your loyalty to the country as a whole. Which is patently ridiculous, for the reasons nationalism is absurd.

I'm against nationalism, and don't think it has any place in the head and heart of a revolutionary - internationalism is the way forward.

[Zeruzo]

There isn't much to reply to this as it is very idiotic, of course completely anti-working class, and very confused. I seriously doubt that you even know what patriotism or proletarian internationalism means because your statement sounds utterly ridiculous. If you want to call yourself a patriot or a nationalist or whatever, fine, I don't give a fuck, but don't claim that it is no way against proletarian internationalism because it is all the way against proletarian internationalism, which depends on the quote saying "workers have no country". Than why are you loving your country? Why are you trying to liberate your nation but not your class? Because it is what your bosses and exploiters want. You serve their interests when you love and die for your nation.

No, you are confusing things... nationalism and patriotism is 2 seperate things.

And you're quote 'workers have no country's' is merely dogmatic. It's like OMFGWTFBBQ, MARX SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!
You have to actually analyse it.
Patriotism is wanting the best for you're country which is what every communist should, therefore i support patriotism, the national liberation struggle and proletarian internationalism.

[Leo]

No, you are confusing things... nationalism and patriotism is 2 seperate things.

And you're quote 'workers have no country's' is merely dogmatic. It's like OMFGWTFBBQ, MARX SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!
You have to actually analyse it.
Patriotism is wanting the best for you're country which is what every communist should, therefore i support patriotism, the national liberation struggle and proletarian internationalism.

:rolleyes: Nationalists and patriots and whatever want the best for their country. Communists want the best for their class and always struggle against their nation-states, their bosses, their national capital; their country to sum up. Class and country are always against each other as countries divide the class.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 10:49 pm
:rolleyes: Nationalists and patriots and whatever want the best for their country. Communists want the best for their class and always struggle against their nation-states, their bosses, their national capital; their country to sum up. Class and country are always against each other as countries divide the class.
I already stated at least once in this topic that i am for patriotism AND proletarian internationalist, thus you're statement is an empty one.
There was the communist internationale, so technically speaking you could consider each socialist state as being merely an administrative and political region. States, fade away, so they will still exist under socialism, thus communists are automatically forced to be patriots and want the best for they're country, whether they like the fact they are patriots or not.

[Leo]

I already stated at least once in this topic that i am for patriotism AND proletarian internationalist, thus you're statement is an empty one.

And I already stated at least once what a ridiculous and idiotic idea that is, thus you're statement is an empty one.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2006 10:57 pm

I already stated at least once in this topic that i am for patriotism AND proletarian internationalist, thus you're statement is an empty one.

And I already stated at least once what a ridiculous and idiotic idea that is, thus you're statement is an empty one.
no, you only stated it is ridicolous and idiotic without backing it up, i gave a reply to you claiming i'm opposed to proletarian internationalism (which you stated in different words though).

[Leo]

Originally posted by Zeruzo+--> (Zeruzo)no, you only stated it is ridicolous and idiotic without backing it up, i gave a reply to you claiming i'm opposed to proletarian internationalism (which you stated in different words though).[/b]


Me
Communists want the best for their class and always struggle against their nation-states, their bosses, their national capital; [they fight against] their country to sum up. Class and country are always against each other as countries divide the [working] class.

:rolleyes: Why don't you try to read?

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+November 05, 2006 11:02 pm--> (Leo Uilleann @ November 05, 2006 11:02 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
no, you only stated it is ridicolous and idiotic without backing it up, i gave a reply to you claiming i'm opposed to proletarian internationalism (which you stated in different words though).


Me
Communists want the best for their class and always struggle against their nation-states, their bosses, their national capital; [they fight against] their country to sum up. Class and country are always against each other as countries divide the [working] class.

:rolleyes: Why don't you try to read? [/b]
Yes, only you HAVEN'T said WHY they should fight against they're country... WHY can't they fight for they're country? A better one?
Next to that the proletariat is as divided as it permits itself to be, a country is merely a tool of the ruling class. Thus will the proletariat be in power in lets say 2 countries, then the gap between these 2 states is as big as they alow it to be.

[Leo]

Yes, only you HAVEN'T said WHY they should fight against they're country

Because they fight against their nation-states, their bosses, their national capital and only those elements are the ones that are making the existence of a country possible?


WHY can't they fight for they're country? A better one?

Because they are fighting for the international working class?

[Zeruzo]

Because they fight against their nation-states, their bosses, their national capital and only those elements are the ones that are making the existence of a country possible?

Yes, cultures, society's, languages, traditions, common economy's and a common history are all just fake. Lets just all pretend the world is one big country and force 1 policy on the entire world hoping it works everywhere based on the decision made in 1 country based on the material conditions of that country. Ohw wait, that wont work, now will it?

Try reading Stalins book on the national question before talking crap. It perfectly describes what a country is, so that we wont have difficulty's with that again...



Because they are fighting for the international working class?

How can they, when they haven't even liberated themselves. Or are you claiming that after the national liberation, whoops i mean liberation of a certain region, they should just force the revolution down the throat of the rest of the world?

btw you can find Stalins book on:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...rks/1913/03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm)

[Leo]

Yes, cultures

are feudal remnants


society's

are divided into classes


languages

are dying as we speak


traditions

are turned into commodities


common economy's

are economies of capitalists


common history

is written by the victorious ruling class


are all just fake

First true statement you made today!


Lets just all pretend the world is one big country and force 1 policy on the entire world hoping it works everywhere based on the decision made in 1 country based on the material conditions of that country. Ohw wait, that wont work, now will it?

It will after the revolution.


Try reading Stalins book on the national question before talking crap. It perfectly describes what a country is, so that we wont have difficulty's with that again...

Stalin was a great-russian nationalist bastard. He can shove his book up to his dead ass! :angry:


How can they, when they haven't even liberated themselves. Or are you claiming that after the national liberation, whoops i mean liberation of a certain region, they should just force the revolution down the throat of the rest of the world?

No, I am saying that "workers have no country" and you keep disagreeing with it. It is a really simple thing to say, workers have no country, every struggle they make for their own needs, demonstrations, strikes, occupations, revolutions etc. is against the interests of the national bourgeoisie and for the interests of the international proletariat.

[Zeruzo]

are feudal remnants

So, you're denying the importance of culture?
Thats plain idealism!
You're culture made a huge part of who you are, what you think, and what you see as acceptable and not (like society's).



are divided into classes

Uhm no... So prehistoric society's are class-society's?



are dying as we speak

In thin air i&#39;m sure <_<



are turned into commodities

On occasions, yes... but you cant deny they&#39;re influence.



are economies of capitalists

Well, if people like you are &#39;true communists&#39; then i agree that there is no such thing as economy&#39;s of communists... since there wont be much of an economy left...



is written by the victorious ruling class

It&#39;s not about who wrote it, it&#39;s about the fact they do have a common history.



It will after the revolution.

Ohw c&#39;mon you cant seriously say that?
You cant seriously ignore the material conditions of a country?&#33;



Stalin was a great-russian nationalist bastard. He can shove his book up to his dead ass&#33;

Yes... how silly of me to have ever read books of people&#39;s i disagreed with...




No, I am saying that "workers have no country" and you keep disagreeing with it. It is a really simple thing to say, workers have no country, every struggle they make for their own needs, demonstrations, strikes, occupations, revolutions etc. is against the interests of the national bourgeoisie and for the interests of the international proletariat.

Eventually countries will fade away, but for now patriotism can only be used for our advantage... And it has to be, since you are as a communist inevitably always a patriot&#33;
You cant seriously claim that a strike or revolution in 1 country or region is in the full interest of the world-proletariat?
The world proletariat will get a revolutionary boost, but eventually they&#39;ll still have to do the same hard work the other revolutionary&#39;s did in they&#39;re region.

[Leo]

So, you&#39;re denying the importance of culture?
Thats plain idealism&#33;
You&#39;re culture made a huge part of who you are, what you think, and what you see as acceptable and not (like society&#39;s).

No, I&#39;m saying what we know as cultures today are remnants from our feudal past.


Uhm no... So prehistoric society&#39;s are class-society&#39;s?

Current societies are class societies.


In thin air i&#39;m sure

You proved that you don&#39;t know anything about this subject.


On occasions, yes... but you cant deny they&#39;re influence.

Of course I can and I do deny their influence, they are complete commodities now in urban areas and they are dying out if not completely dead in rural areas.


Ohw c&#39;mon you cant seriously say that?
You cant seriously ignore the material conditions of a country?&#33;

Which are?


Yes... how silly of me to have ever read books of people&#39;s i disagreed with...

No, I read his book, that&#39;s why I&#39;m saying it is shit.

[Zeruzo]

No, I&#39;m saying what we know as cultures today are remnants from our feudal past.

Where i live (The Netherlands) we use fireworks at new-years, it was an old prehistoric tradition of chasing away the evil spirits.



Current societies are class societies.


True, so it can also be a proletarian society...



You proved that you don&#39;t know anything about this subject.

Why dont you analyse WHY i dont know anything about the subject, and where i am wrong.
Except for just grabbing old Marxist rhetoric screaming: CAUSE MARX SAID SO (indirectly). Which is a very un-marxist way of debating btw.



Of course I can and I do deny their influence, they are complete commodities now in urban areas and they are dying out if not completely dead in rural areas.

You want to claim that there is no such thing as morals?
You have motals, everybody has morals, the &#39;dying&#39; morals in urban area&#39;s aren&#39;t &#39;dying&#39; they are replaced by new ones, for moral behavior is a human thing. You seem to see morals as a set thing that never changes, and you accept it or you dont. Morals are different anywhere you go, such as morals in Indonesia and morals in the U.S..



Which are?

Are you even close to anything called a marxist?
You want to claim that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be the same in India as it will be in the U.S.?



No, I read his book, that&#39;s why I&#39;m saying it is shit.

Well, instead of screaming: OMG THIS BOOK SO SUCKS&#33; you can actually give me you&#39;re reasoning and reasons and analyses of why you think it&#39;s not a correct analyses of nations in relation to a class-society.

[Leo]

Where i live (The Netherlands) we use fireworks at new-years, it was an old prehistoric tradition of chasing away the evil spirits.

The only actual reason it is done now is the profits fireworks sellers get from turning an old prehistoric tradition into a commodity.


True, so it can also be a proletarian society...

Current societies are divided into classes, and between those different classes there is complete antagonism.

[Zeruzo]

The only actual reason it is done now is the profits fireworks sellers get from turning an old prehistoric tradition into a commodity.

But it IS a cultural thing, and in no way feudal. Dont try to get around it, with this bull-shit.



Current societies are divided into classes, and between those different classes there is complete antagonism.

Uhm... you&#39;re totally getting past the point here, i&#39;m stating that a society can be a proletarian one. And no there is no COMPLETE antagonism. If it was, the bourgeouisie would&#39;ve been overthrown by now.

[Leo]

But it IS a cultural thing, and in no way feudal. Dont try to get around it, with this bull-shit.

It wouldn&#39;t be there if cappies couldn&#39;t sell fireworks. Plain and simple.


Uhm... you&#39;re totally getting past the point here, i&#39;m stating that a society can be a proletarian one.

A national society? No. Socialism in one country is bullshit.


And no there is no COMPLETE antagonism. If it was, the bourgeouisie would&#39;ve been overthrown by now.

Because there is false consciousness i.e nationalism, patriotism, religion etc.

[Zeruzo]

It wouldn&#39;t be there if cappies couldn&#39;t sell fireworks. Plain and simple.


No, if the tradition wasn&#39;t there they couldn&#39;t sell it. You claim the tradition still exists beceause capitalism makes a profit out of it. This is partly true, would they not sell fireworks then it wouldn&#39;t exist anymore, but the tradition existed far before the existence of private property. Thus traditions are not remnants of feudal society&#39;s.



A national society? No. Socialism in one country is bullshit.

Well yes, you have a city for example, which is already a society, or a neighbourhood, which is all society&#39;s, are you opposing city&#39;s and neighbourhoods under socialism too?



Because there is false consciousness i.e nationalism, patriotism, religion etc.

This statement is the exact opposite of what you said just 1 post ago.

[Leo]

No, if the tradition wasn&#39;t there they couldn&#39;t sell it.

Do they sell every fucking tradition? No.


Well yes, you have a city for example, which is already a society, or a neighbourhood, which is all society&#39;s, are you opposing city&#39;s and neighbourhoods under socialism too?

Cities and countries are actually different things, if you haven&#39;t realized.


This statement is the exact opposite of what you said just 1 post ago.

There is complete actual antagonism, but the bourgeoisie uses false consciousness i.e nationalism, patriotism, religion etc. in order to prevent proletarians from developing class consciousness.

[Zeruzo]

Do they sell every fucking tradition? No.

You&#39;re point?
That wasn&#39;t my point... so i dont know what you&#39;re rambling about.
You claim: the tradition is there so they can sell it.
I say: beceause the tradition is there they can sell it.



Cities and countries are actually different things, if you haven&#39;t realized.


I have, jet they are both society&#39;s...
Whats wrong with 1 country liberating itself, and taking pride over the fact they liberated themselves and working hard and wishing the best for his country to develop socialism. And of course in combination witht hat wishing and helping other country&#39;s and people&#39;s liberate themselves?



There is complete actual antagonism, but the bourgeoisie uses false consciousness i.e nationalism, patriotism, religion etc. in order to prevent proletarians from developing class consciousness.

wikipedia:
&#39;In philosophy, antagonism refers to a principle, force or factor that is an active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness.&#39;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonism

Thus this false consiousness takes away the complete part of the antagonism.

[Leo]

You claim: the tradition is there so they can sell it.
I say: beceause the tradition is there they can sell it.

The only traditions that are there are the ones they can sell.


I have, jet they are both society&#39;s...

So?


Whats wrong with 1 country liberating itself

It&#39;s impossible.


and taking pride over the fact they liberated themselves

It is nationalistic and patronizing.


&#39;In philosophy, antagonism refers to a principle, force or factor that is an active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness.&#39;

The complete antagonism is real between classes, however it is the bourgeoisie always opposing the proletariat. Never underestimate the consciousness of the bourgeoisie.

[Zeruzo]

The only traditions that are there are the ones they can sell.

Perhaps, but the source of the tradition isn&#39;t capitalism.
Edit: nor feudalism



So?

Read back, and you&#39;ll notice that on that part we were talking about society&#39;s...



It&#39;s impossible.

and WHY is that?



It is nationalistic and patronizing.

It&#39;s not nationalistic, it&#39;s patriotic. You CAN be a patriot and an internationalist.
And you still haven&#39;t provided any reasons with why it is wrong...



The complete antagonism is real between classes, however it is the bourgeoisie always opposing the proletariat. Never underestimate the consciousness of the bourgeoisie.

I&#39;m not underestimating anybody. But it is a fact that there is no COMPLETE antagonism, for would there be COMPLETE antagonism, the revolution would have already occured. There is at least SOME common ground for the bourgeouisie and the proletariat, or the bourgeouisie wouldn&#39;t be capable of upholding it&#39;s current state of being in power.

[Leo]

Perhaps, but the source of the tradition isn&#39;t capitalism.

It doesn&#39;t make a difference. Traditions that cant be sold die off.


and WHY is that?

A single country can&#39;t break from the foreign capital so national independence is bullshit. As for actual proletarian revolutions, they got defeated as they can&#39;t fight international capital by themselves if the revolution doesn&#39;t expand.


It&#39;s not nationalistic, it&#39;s patriotic. You CAN be a patriot and an internationalist.

This debate is getting quite boring.


Originally posted by Wiki
Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and culture, the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the culture, and identification with other members of the nation. Patriotism is closely associated with nationalism, and is often used as a synonym for it. Strictly speaking, nationalism is an ideology - but it often promotes patriotic attitudes as desirable and appropriate. (Both nationalist political movements, and patriotic expression, may be negative towards other people&#39;s &#39;fatherland&#39;).

Nationalism and patriotism are the ideologies of the bosses. By identifying yourself with with the capitalists, you submit to them, you obey them, you serve them. By identifying yourself with your class, you become an internationalist and fight only for your class and against your bosses and therefore against your nation state, national capital, national flag; against your country.

[Zeruzo]

It doesn&#39;t make a difference. Traditions that cant be sold die off.

Then what about New Year Resolutions?



A single country can&#39;t break from the foreign capital so national independence is bullshit. As for actual proletarian revolutions, they got defeated as they can&#39;t fight international capital by themselves if the revolution doesn&#39;t expand.

National independence and National liberation are 2 seperate things.
And revolutions, agreed upon have to expand, but they shouldn&#39;t be forced down the throat of the international working class.


Patriotism covers such attitudes as: pride in its achievements and culture

Ok, so you&#39;re saying that people shouldn&#39;t take pride in socialism and a country&#39;s socialist culture?


the desire to preserve its character and the basis of the culture, and identification with other members of the nation.

Uhm, yes... if thats a socialist culture i dont see whats wrong with it...



Nationalism and patriotism are the ideologies of the bosses.

First off, you&#39;re own quote shows that patriotism isn&#39;t an ideology, and second of all patriotism CAN be used by whatever ruling class is in power, whether this is the proletariat or the bourgeouisie.
tell me, WHY cant the proletariat use patriotism to advance it&#39;s cause?


By identifying yourself with your class, you become an internationalist and fight only for your class and against your bosses and therefore against your nation state, national capital, national flag; against your country.

You can identify yourself with you&#39;re class. But when the revolution will come it will almost inevitably be a national one. Or you are capable of naming me a non-national revolution?

[redoperative92]

Has anybody ever heard of National Bolshevism? Please go look it up on wikipedia.org.

[Forward Union]

Zeruzo, as much as I think your line of argument is rediculous in itself, and without trying degenerating the deabte into something ugly, I can honestly say, the presentation of your points is very poor.
However,


when the revolution will come it will almost inevitably be a national one. Or you are capable of naming me a non-national revolution?

Geographically? Of course it will happen within a nation. The reasons for this, are language barriers, and the economic and social conditions of neighborign countries. For example, the Russian revolutio nwas not iscolated, conditions in Ukraine were similar, and led to revolutionary bodies beign formed that later worked with the bolsheviks against the white armies. More reacently, the riots in france last summer, also spread to parts of germany and Belgium.

This is all however, besides the point. Though the revolution may happen within a single nation (geographically) before spreading,. The point is that the revolution will in itself be against that nation. It will not be a nationalist-revolution, on the contrary, it will be fought against that nations interests.

If the revolution were nationalist, such as witnissed in Germany in the 1930s or even spain, then it is likely the communist movement will have to go underground. If it survives atall. Because Communism sees to abolish all nations, not only though physical conflict, but in principal also. Nationalism is opposed to anything that undermines the purity of the nation, including homosexuality, immigration, and individual liberty, all things we support in some way or another.

All forms of nationalism are inherantly counter-revolutionary. The goal of a nationalist revolution is not to get rid of the bosses, not to abolish the capitalist order, but to get rid of foreign influence in it, in an attempt to strenghten it. The idea that native opression is somehow better than forign opression. That a German boss is better than &#39;Jewish&#39; one or whatever. Because we would struggle against even the native hierachy, we are lumped in with the immigrants and considered enemies of the state.


Ok, so you&#39;re saying that people shouldn&#39;t take pride in socialism and a country&#39;s socialist culture?

Not simply becuase they were born there, no. They should take pride in socialism because of the superior nature of such a system to other systems, whetehr they live in a socialist nation or not. To do so requires an understanding of socialism. You are trying to encourage the kind of thinking whereby people should be proud of their country because that&#39;s where they were born, and whatever political/economic philosophy that nation adheres to, they should be proud of it also, then frankly, and can&#39;t see how this is in any way a revolutionary philosophy. It is infact, and incredibly stagnant and conservative one.


patriotism CAN be used by whatever ruling class is in power

Exactly, it&#39;s a tool of the ruling (opressing) class, a class we seek to abolish.

[Leo]

Zeruzo, I&#39;m really getting bored of you.


And revolutions, agreed upon have to expand, but they shouldn&#39;t be forced down the throat of the international working class.

This has nothing to do with what I&#39;ve been saying.


First off, you&#39;re own quote shows that patriotism isn&#39;t an ideology, and second of all patriotism CAN be used by whatever ruling class is in power, whether this is the proletariat or the bourgeouisie. tell me, WHY cant the proletariat use patriotism to advance it&#39;s cause?

Patriotism and nationalism are created for the legitimation of bourgeois power. This is why the proletariat can&#39;t use it.


You can identify yourself with you&#39;re class. But when the revolution will come it will almost inevitably be a national one. Or you are capable of naming me a non-national revolution?

A national revolution means a revolution (allegedly) done by members of one nation with no mention of class. In fact, such revolutions are always conducted by the bourgeoisie or one of its factions. We won&#39;t make a "national revolution", what we make will be a proletarian revolution which happened in the boundaries of a nation-state.

[redflag32]

Here is two links to articles from the Irish Republican Socialist Movement. Their position and one i can identify with is that you cannot distinguish between the Class and National struggle in Ireland. Every attempt to seperate the two has resulted in complete failure of a progress towards its objective.

http://www.irsm.org/irsp/tirs.html

http://www.irsm.org/history/liberation.html

[kaaos_af]

Do comrades agree with this 13th Congress Statement of the Communist Party of Britain(ML)?


nationalism and internationalism

Being patriotic is often sniffed at now as an outmoded sentiment, tainted with imperialism. The derision fostered by the conceit that we have outgrown the nation state. Well, capital can certainly cross and re-cross national boundaries but we can?t. We can and should be proud of Britain because it means being proud of what workers have achieved. Health and education, indust rial advance, the flowering of science, are the achievements of workers. So not a rose tinted nationalism, a love of structures, but a workers&#39; nationalism, built on pride and optimism in what workers can and will achieve.

This workers&#39; nationalism provides the basis for a true internationalism - how can we profess to care about the world if we allow our own sovereignty to be handed over, whether to EU or US? On the world stage, real effective internationalism can only be based on the coming together of sovereign nations to decide on those issues which transcend the individual nation, on the basis of non-interference in the internal affairs of others and mutual respect. The UN could be such a forum - not the Security Council but the whole body with every country having an equal voice.

The young of Britain represent our best opportunity to break with the past. They desire neither narcosis nor slavery. They want a better world, and as they come to assume responsibilities, come to understand that this starts with a better Britain.


It&#39;s hard not to, wouldn&#39;t you agree?

From:
http://www.workers.org.uk/where/13cong.html

[Vargha Poralli]

to Leo,LU,PA and all those idealist anarchists. i don&#39;t have the capacity to argue with you guys. so i make my point as simple as i can.

A Child has to crawl Before it can think of running. National liberation according to me is like crawling to an infant.Nationalism is different from National liberation. a simple dictionary can differentiate the both words i think.

for fucks sake don&#39;t compare the anti imperialist struggle of Vietnam to nationalism of HITLER , MUSSOLINI etc.

yes Ho Chi Minh is patriotic and may be nationalist but for that 8 years cruelty of US IMPERIALISM can NEVER be JUSTIFIED.

I can&#39;t understand some anarchists and their Hypocritic Views.

[The Grey Blur]

The IRSP analysis is perfect but in practice, in the North of Ireland, waving an Irish flag (even if the Red Flag is in the other hand) has only alienated Potestant workers who see Republican groups as threats to themselves. The tiny amount of Protestant members in the IRSP is testament to this. Sadly the IRSP&#39;s armed wing the INLA could not succeed as small groups of armed men are not equal to the revolutionary power of organised labour, something they failed to recognise or if they did, failed to pursue. I&#39;m also wary of how IRSP activists have a very muddled line on some simple issues; drug usage, Israel, grass-roots Socialism, anti-sectarianism.

From James Connolly&#39;s revolutionary analysis of British Imperialism & Capitalism to today&#39;s struggle Irish Marxists have adapted and today the leading role is taken by the Irish Socialist Party, affiliated with the Committee For A Worker&#39;s International. We call for a complete withdrawal of all British Military and an Ireland united on a Socialist basis. We&#39;ve had successes in gaining support in Ireland North and South, with the nonsectarian postal worker&#39;s strike and the anti-water charge activities in the South through which we gained councillors and an MP, as well as a dedicated working-class base of support.

"The national problem is intractable and insoluble on the basis of capitalism. We are for a socialist solution"

The above truths about the IRSP in my opinion makes obvious the conflicts between Nationalism & Communism, even on an anti-imperialist basis. It is an impossibly narrow board to walk, and you will either eventually alienate the working-class or ally yourself with the beurgeois.

On a wider scale, Communists can never unite uncritically with Nationalists - the example has been set here in Ireland were there was always a struggle between the Left Anti-Imperialists and the Right Nationalists. If anyone&#39;s seen the film The Wind That Shakes The Barley this is illustrated nicely.

That&#39;s my two cents.

[Dimentio]

Castro and Ho Chi-Minh are examples of nationalists, while Stalin rather was some kind of statist [if he were a nationalist, he would have fought for one ethnic group inside the USSR and probably discriminated other ethnic groups, like the current Chinese government].

I think that the archetypical nationalist socialist probably is a mixture between Alexander Dugin and Kai Murros.

[redflag32]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 06, 2006 06:37 pm
The IRSP analysis is perfect but in practice, in the North of Ireland, waving an Irish flag (even if the Red Flag is in the other hand) has only alienated Potestant workers who see Republican groups as threats to themselves. The tiny amount of Protestant members in the IRSP is testament to this. Sadly the IRSP&#39;s armed wing the INLA could not succeed as small groups of armed men are not equal to the revolutionary power of organised labour, something they failed to recognise or if they did, failed to pursue. I&#39;m also wary of how IRSP activists have a very muddled line on some simple issues; drug usage, Israel, grass-roots Socialism, anti-sectarianism.

From James Connolly&#39;s revolutionary analysis of British Imperialism & Capitalism to today&#39;s struggle Irish Marxists have adapted and today the leading role is taken by the Irish Socialist Party, affiliated with the Committee For A Worker&#39;s International. We call for a complete withdrawal of all British Military and an Ireland united on a Socialist basis. We&#39;ve had successes in gaining support in Ireland North and South, with the nonsectarian postal worker&#39;s strike and the anti-water charge activities in the South through which we gained councillors and an MP, as well as a dedicated working-class base of support.

"The national problem is intractable and insoluble on the basis of capitalism. We are for a socialist solution"

The above truths about the IRSP in my opinion makes obvious the conflicts between Nationalism & Communism, even on an anti-imperialist basis. It is an impossibly narrow board to walk, and you will either eventually alienate the working-class or ally yourself with the beurgeois.

On a wider scale, Communists can never unite uncritically with Nationalists - the example has been set here in Ireland were there was always a struggle between the Left Anti-Imperialists and the Right Nationalists. If anyone&#39;s seen the film The Wind That Shakes The Barley this is illustrated nicely.

That&#39;s my two cents.

The IRSP analysis is perfect but in practice, in the North of Ireland, waving an Irish flag (even if the Red Flag is in the other hand) has only alienated Potestant workers who see Republican groups as threats to themselves

I do agree that the actions of Republicanism, and the provisional movement in general has done great damage to winning the Ulster-scot people over. However, i dont think appeasing Loyalists is the way to go. Loyalism is an ideology that is the opposite of Socialism, if and when there is a socialist revolution, you can be sure the Loyalists wil be on the side of the Capitalists. A confrontation with them is bound to happen.We should not want or seek the friendship of Loyalism, this is counter-revolutionary and only serves to give them credit in the eyes of protestants.

I do realise that we have to win over a large section of the protestant community in order to have a successful revolution, but i think the only way to achieve this is to be completely honest with them. Why should we hide the flag of this country when even after a social revolution that very flag will more than likely be the flag of choice of the majority of the population? We have to show them that Republican Socialism is a human ideology not a catholic or an Irish one. Only through complete honesty can we win over the section of Ulster-scots we need. It is not the fault of those who fought for Irish self determination that the flag has been tarred in the eyes of the Ulster-scot comunity, it is direct cocsiquence of the Loyalist leaders propaganda that Irish=Evil. We must tackle them head on, not try to be tricky and do it through appeasement.


The tiny amount of Protestant members in the IRSP is testament to this.

The IRSM is very proud of the fact that even through the most sectarian section of our history that they attracted Protestants who agreed with the revolutionary politics of the IRSM.



Sadly the IRSP&#39;s armed wing the INLA could not succeed as small groups of armed men are not equal to the revolutionary power of organised labour, something they failed to recognise or if they did, failed to pursue.

The INLA and the IRSP today recognise that no paramilitary organisation acting on the will of the people can achieve a socialist republic. They are on a ceasefire and are subordinate to the party. Im not sure if you have read the "Ta Power document" but this shows the internal debate and criticisism that the IRSM are capable of. They realise allot of mistakes where made in the past and have brought about chnages to stop this happening again. They have gone back to the politics of Marx, Connolly and Costello and believe that Revolutionary politics is the way forward, not armed resistence.


I&#39;m also wary of how IRSP activists have a very muddled line on some simple issues; drug usage, Israel, grass-roots Socialism, anti-sectarianism.

Id be interested to know what line you think they are taking and why you believe these issues to be simple? I am aware of the policy for all of the above and to me it is correct. In saying that, there will allways be, and it is a healthy thing, to have differences of opinion from within a revolutionary movement.


On a wider scale, Communists can never unite uncritically with Nationalists - the example has been set here in Ireland were there was always a struggle between the Left Anti-Imperialists and the Right Nationalists. If anyone&#39;s seen the film The Wind That Shakes The Barley this is illustrated nicely.

I dont think we should uncritically support Nationalists either, Their has allways been two strands of republicanism, the socialists and the traditionalists. The Nationalist bourgeoisie have allways betrayed the working class down the years of the Irish struggle, one example is when the Irish volunteers betrayed the Easter rising. The partition of this island is illegal and wrong, and we should not cower away from struggling for that to be un-done. Trying to appease Loyalims sets the struggle for socialism back, it isnt a progressive route, we have to be honest with the protestant community and get involved in issues that effect us all, but in noway should we give loyalism a voice it doesnt deserve.

IMO obviously :D

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 02:24 pm
Has anybody ever heard of National Bolshevism? Please go look it up on wikipedia.org.
Yes i have, the point?




Geographically? Of course it will happen within a nation. The reasons for this, are language barriers, and the economic and social conditions of neighborign countries. For example, the Russian revolutio nwas not iscolated, conditions in Ukraine were similar, and led to revolutionary bodies beign formed that later worked with the bolsheviks against the white armies. More reacently, the riots in france last summer, also spread to parts of germany and Belgium.


I already stated before that revolutions can spark a revolutionary fire in other country&#39;s. But you still dont show why patriotism would be wrong, what would be wrong with being proud of a socialist state and it&#39;s achievements...



This is all however, besides the point. Though the revolution may happen within a single nation (geographically) before spreading,. The point is that the revolution will in itself be against that nation. It will not be a nationalist-revolution, on the contrary, it will be fought against that nations interests.

And why would that be?



If the revolution were nationalist, such as witnissed in Germany in the 1930s or even spain, then it is likely the communist movement will have to go underground. If it survives atall. Because Communism sees to abolish all nations, not only though physical conflict, but in principal also. Nationalism is opposed to anything that undermines the purity of the nation, including homosexuality, immigration, and individual liberty, all things we support in some way or another.

The nazi rise to power was a coup not a revolution. And i never said i supported nationalist governments now did i... I said national liberation and patriotism are good things...



Not simply becuase they were born there, no. They should take pride in socialism because of the superior nature of such a system to other systems, whetehr they live in a socialist nation or not. To do so requires an understanding of socialism. You are trying to encourage the kind of thinking whereby people should be proud of their country because that&#39;s where they were born, and whatever political/economic philosophy that nation adheres to, they should be proud of it also, then frankly, and can&#39;t see how this is in any way a revolutionary philosophy. It is infact, and incredibly stagnant and conservative one.

No, i said they should be proud of that country&#39;s achievements and it&#39;s socialism. I never said anything about being proud beceause you&#39;re born there... I know patriots that aren&#39;t born in the country they&#39;re proud of, so thats bull-shit...



Exactly, it&#39;s a tool of the ruling (opressing) class, a class we seek to abolish.

I&#39;m talking DOP here fool...
When the proletariat is in power, patriotism can thus be used to increase pride in socialism, etc...


Zeruzo, I&#39;m really getting bored of you.

Then dont reply if you dont want to... Nobody&#39;s forcing you.



This has nothing to do with what I&#39;ve been saying.

You were opposed to socialism in 1 country, thus you are pro what i just stated...



Patriotism and nationalism are created for the legitimation of bourgeois power. This is why the proletariat can&#39;t use it.


So wait... if a state under socialism would encourage patriotism they would be legitimizing bourgeouisie power :unsure: .



A national revolution means a revolution (allegedly) done by members of one nation with no mention of class. In fact, such revolutions are always conducted by the bourgeoisie or one of its factions. We won&#39;t make a "national revolution", what we make will be a proletarian revolution which happened in the boundaries of a nation-state.

*Sigh* how over-simplifying, so just beceause it says national revolution without the adition of it being a socialist one (Which seemed obvious to me), you start talking crap... jippie...

And well with the rest: i either agree, or they dont really add anything to the discussion, or they are replies to someone else :).

[YKTMX]

Here&#39;s an interesting article on Marxism and the national question:

link (http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue13/Dixon.htm)

Basically, it sets how Marx and Engels explained that Communist show support the rights of oppressed nations to self-determine:


A nation which throughout its history [Germany] has allowed itself to be used as a tool of oppression against all other nations must first of all prove that it has been really revolutionised ... A revolutionised Germany ought to have renounced her entire past, especially as far as the neighbouring nations are concerned. Together with her own freedom, she should have proclaimed the freedom of the nations hitherto suppressed by her.

And what has revolutionised Germany done? She has fully endorsed the old oppression of Italy, Poland and now of Bohemia, too, by German troops ... And the Germans, after this, demand that Czechs should trust them?

Are the Czechs to be blamed for not wanting to join a nation that oppresses and maltreats other nations, while liberating itself?

In the course of making revolution, the working class of the imperialist states liberates not only itself, but the people&#39;s which that imperialist state had previously oppressed. Indeed, it&#39;s a pre-condition for socialist liberation that national domination is cast off, as Marx says


it is in the direct and absolute interests of the English working class to get rid of their present connection with Ireland . I long believed it was possible to overthrow the Irish regime by way of the English working class ascendancy . A deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never achieve anything before it has got rid of Ireland.

Marxists support the struggle of nations for independence because independence can only serve the class interests of the working class of both nations. Also, the working class in the oppressed nation should support the bourgeoisie as long as they struggle for complete independence and the destruction of feudal structures.

This is why, in Iraq, we call for a victory to the resistance. A victory to the resistance would not only serve the immediate interests of the Iraqi people but would be a victory for the American working class. The defeat of American imperialism can only increase the growth of class consciousness amongst American workers.

Similarly, we call for a defeat for Zionism in all its wars because Zionism has a hold over the Israeli working class that only Palestinian liberation can defeat.

The phrase-mongering of people like Leo is as hollow as it is uninformed.

He&#39;s not a Marxist in the sense that he understand the thought of Karl Marx and Engels or the people in that tradition. He merely adopts the most radical phrases to the most reactionary ends - defending imperialism and slandering the people who resist against it.

[Leo]

Also, the working class in the oppressed nation should support the bourgeoisie as long as they struggle for complete independence and the destruction of feudal structures.

By saying this, you deny us workers who belong to "oppressed nations" the right to act as a class for communism. Well, guess what you bastard, we will struggle as a class and not as a nation for communism not only in the middle east but also in the rest of the "third world" while your leaders keep selling themselves to the highest bidder, so please don&#39;t get offended when we don&#39;t give a fuck about what patronizing Trotskyists say about supporting our own bourgeoisie.


This is why, in Iraq, we call for a victory to the resistance. A victory to the resistance would not only serve the immediate interests of the Iraqi people but would be a victory for the American working class. The defeat of American imperialism can only increase the growth of class consciousness amongst American workers.

Similarly, we call for a defeat for Zionism in all its wars because Zionism has a hold over the Israeli working class that only Palestinian liberation can defeat.

This quote proves that you don&#39;t give a fuck about Palestinian or Iraqi working class, but only about the workers in places your petty organization operates.


The phrase-mongering of people like Leo is as hollow as it is uninformed.

He&#39;s not a Marxist in the sense that he understand the thought of Karl Marx and Engels or the people in that tradition.

If this* is Marxism ;)

*Turning every specific analysis Marx made about a situation in 1850ties into a dogma


defending imperialism and slandering the people who resist against it.

Fuck off you lying bastard, I opposed Zionism, the invasion and the war from the beginning. I oppose all nation-states and all forms of nationalism and imperialism.

[YKTMX]

By saying this, you deny us workers who belong to "oppressed nations" the right to act as a class for communism.

Firstly, Marxists, which you&#39;ve just admitted you&#39;re not, think that communism is only possible after the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution, one aspect of which is the throwing off of the chains of imperialism.

My advice to workers in oppressed nations is to support their national bourgeoisie in so far as they serve the interests of the workers, to ALWAYS raise independent demands and to seek to make revolutions permanent.

This is Marxism.

Wheezy teengers screaming "COMMUNISM" from the side of a mass movement isn&#39;t.



Well, guess what you bastard

You&#39;re a bit bruised by Marx and Engels eh, poppet?


so please don&#39;t get offended when we don&#39;t give a fuck about what patronizing Trotskyists say about supporting our own bourgeoisie.


Who is this "we" you speak of? The 50 students that make up your ultra-left circle jerk?

People like you never have, never will and never can represent anything. I doubt you even represent yourself.


This quote proves that you don&#39;t give a fuck about Palestinian or Iraqi working class, but only about the workers in places your petty organization operates.


I support the Palestinian and Iraqi working class. You support the people who kill them in the name of Capital.


If this* is Marxism

Yes, being a communist revolutionary and understanding Marx is precondition for Marxism.



Fuck off you lying bastard, I opposed Zionism, the invasion and the war from the beginning. I oppose all nation-states and all forms of nationalism and imperialism.

You opposed it from a psuedo-pacifist middle class position of "opposition" (at least rhetorically) to the IDF and their American backers and opposition to the Hezbollah resistance fighters, citing a spurious moral equivalance between one of the biggest armies in the world and an indigenous national liberation movement.

I mean, I can almost understand the out and out Zionist murderers, but not shameful apologists like you.

[Leo]

Firstly, Marxists, which you&#39;ve just admitted you&#39;re not, think that communism is only possible after the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution, one aspect of which is the throwing off of the chains of imperialism.

Except we don&#39;t live in 1850ies anymore.


My advice to workers in oppressed nations is to support their national bourgeoisie

Shove your advice in your ass.


Who is this "we" you speak of? The 50 students that make up your ultra-left circle jerk?

This "we" is the workers in the middle east, and Communist ideas which you regard unsuitable for the middle east are not less popular here than they are in the west. The enemy of your enemy you support is the enemy of the working class in the Middle East.


People like you never have, never will and never can represent anything.

I&#39;m not trying to.


Yes, being a communist revolutionary

You are not a communist and you are not a revolutionary.


I support the Palestinian and Iraqi working class.

No, you don&#39;t give a shit about them. You don&#39;t mind them dying as long as they take some of your enemies with them.

You are disgusting, sitting from the west, patronizing communists and praising reactionaries in the middle east because it suits the interests of your party. I&#39;m guessing that you&#39;ve never met anyone from an "oppressed" nationality. I&#39;m guessing that you&#39;ve never met anyone who actually knows Hezbollah, who actually lived under it. I&#39;m guessing that you&#39;ve never actually met anyone who lives in the middle east. Maybe it&#39;s time to shut the fuck up.

[YKTMX]

Except we don&#39;t live in 1850ies anymore.

Everything Marx said has been shown to be accurate by the progress of history.

Everything people like you have said has been proven to be complete bunkum.


Shove your advice in your ass.

Since when is Turkey an oppressed nation you cretin?


This "we" is the workers in the middle east

You have no grounds to speak for those people, since you support their oppressors.


I&#39;m guessing that you&#39;ve never met anyone from an "oppressed" nationality.

I&#39;ve met loads of Lebanese and Syrians while being a part of the Glasgow movement against your Zionist war. Similarly, I&#39;m good friends with a Palestinian woman who&#39;s family was slaughtered by the Israelis at Sshabra and Shatilla. That is how one forms their ideas, through experience, through speaking to people, that&#39;s how you become a revolutionary.

As a side note, my mother was on a Scottish delegation to Lebanon recently, where she meet many leaders of the Lebanese people and ordinary resistance fighters. She brought me back loads of great Hezbollah merchandise, I&#39;ll send you some.


I&#39;m guessing that you&#39;ve never actually met anyone who lives in the middle east. Maybe it&#39;s time to shut the fuck up.

I&#39;ve forgotton more about the Middle East than you&#39;ll ever know.

[Leo]

Everything Marx said has been shown to be accurate by the progress of history.

Yes because Marx was the avatar of God, who came down to earth to show the right way he could never get something wrong and nothing can change after his times :rolleyes:


Since when is Turkey an oppressed nation you cretin?

I&#39;m a Kurd you idiot.


You have no grounds to speak for those people, since you support their oppressors.

No, you support their oppressors.


I&#39;ve met loads of Lebanese and Syrians while being a part of the Glasgow movement against your Zionist war.

My Zionist war? Fuck off you lying little bastard, it&#39;s your war, you are the one supporting workers getting killed :angry:

[Zeruzo]

I&#39;m a Kurd you idiot.

A Kurd? aren&#39;t we all working class :o.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 03:23 am


I&#39;m a Kurd you idiot.

A Kurd? aren&#39;t we all working class :o.
Uhhhh. Being Kurdish is not being working class. It&#39;s the indigenous people of Kurdistan.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Rollo+November 07, 2006 05:29 pm--> (Rollo @ November 07, 2006 05:29 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2006 03:23 am


I&#39;m a Kurd you idiot.

A Kurd? aren&#39;t we all working class :o.
Uhhhh. Being Kurdish is not being working class. It&#39;s the indigenous people of Kurdistan. [/b]
I know, it was a joke... I doubt you read the entire threath...

[YKTMX]

I&#39;m a Kurd you idiot.

That explains a lot.

[Leo]

A Kurd? aren&#39;t we all class?

Of course we are all working class. YKTMX asked if Turkey was an oppressed nationality, I answered to say that I was a Kurd, something accepted by all all Trots and Stalinists as an "oppressed nationality". It doesn&#39;t mean anything, I don&#39;t give a fuck about my nationality.


That explains a lot.

What does it explain?

[Zeruzo]

So... you hate kurdistan?

[Leo]

I oppose national liberation.

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 08, 2006 05:17 am
I oppose national liberation.
So, you hate Kurdistan?
Edit: (I&#39;m just using you&#39;re own words since you said all working-class people should hate they&#39;re country, something you cant honestly expect from them, thats 1, and something that would be completely silly since under socialism there would still be country&#39;s, thus by hating you&#39;re country you&#39;d hate socialism since you&#39;re country would be the manifestation of socialism in itself).

Next to that, why do you oppose national liberation?
Wouldn&#39;t you like to see a free Kurdistan where the Kurds can live freely without being oppressed by the Turks?

[Leo]

So, you hate Kurdistan?

I hate the proto nation-state. Naturally I don&#39;t regard the actual place any better or worse than somewhere else.


Next to that, why do you oppose national liberation? Wouldn&#39;t you like to see a free Kurdistan where the Kurds can live freely without being oppressed by the Turks?

It doesn&#39;t work that way. Besides this is a completely bourgeois argument. A nation is actually divided into classes, Kurdish bourgeoisie is free, Kurdish proletariat is not. Turkish bourgeoisie is free, Turkish proletariat is not. The only difference between two is that the Turkish bourgeoisie is bigger and stronger than its Kurdish counterpart. I want Turkish and Kurdish workers to struggle together, as a class. This is what the bourgeoisie is actually afraid of, whereas "national liberation" only means that the Kurdish bourgeoisie is going to be dominant in controlling labor and resources in a specific area after a bloody inter-bourgeois war with the Turkish bourgeoisie. Communists support the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie.

[KC]

Of course we are all working class. YKTMX asked if Turkey was an oppressed nationality, I answered to say that I was a Kurd, something accepted by all all Trots and Stalinists as an "oppressed nationality". It doesn&#39;t mean anything, I don&#39;t give a fuck about my nationality.

Actually, he asked if Turkey was an oppressed nation.

[Lings]

How do you fuck up imperialism and capitalism the most? Using strategies bound to fail, or making sure that opressed nations tell the imperialist opressors to fuck off and brake free from the grip of the western imperialist states?
If people are ever going to be free, they have to seriusly fuck with the imperialists, taking territory from them, taking their markets, taking their natural resources and killing their soldiers will is a good way to do that.

But thats really up to the people in the opressed nations to decide. Even if the struggle is the same, people must choose their own strategies were they live, were they work and were they fight.
And if anyone on the left wants to be a fucktard becouse they dislike the strategies working people some places in the world choose, be a fucktard with a tad of respect.

[Leo]

Actually, he asked if Turkey was an oppressed nation.

I have noticed. He thought I was talking about Turkey when I said that workers who belong to an "oppressed nation" also should, could and has every right to struggle as an independent class for communism. He thought I was talking about Turkey, I was actually referring to the Kurds.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 01:28 am
The phrase-mongering of people like Leo is as hollow as it is uninformed.

He&#39;s not a Marxist in the sense that he understand the thought of Karl Marx and Engels or the people in that tradition. He merely adopts the most radical phrases to the most reactionary ends - defending imperialism and slandering the people who resist against it.
Comrade - you speak the truth.

Leo - you disappont me: I thought you were a Marxist-Leninist. Now you&#39;ve turned out to be another utopian idealist left "communist". Leo should read what Lenin had to say about Left "communists" when he called it an "INFANTILE" Disorder&#33;&#33;&#33; (Lenin&#39;s words)

You can read it here - Left Wing "Communism" The Infantile Disorder (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html)

Of course Marxists support the national liberation struggles: revolution occur in stages and each stage is a process, is progress toward that revolution. It cannot happen all it once like the dopey anarchists say&#33; It must happen one country at a time, one stage at a time, using patriotic messages to gain support from the working class.

Leo is not a Marxist.

[Devrim]

I would like to make a few points on this thread:
1) On the nature of Leo&#39;s group

Who is this "we" you speak of? The 50 students that make up your ultra-left circle jerk?
I am a member of the same group as Leo, EKS in Turkey. I am not a student, and in fact haven&#39;t been to university. I am 38 years old, and I am a worker. The woman, who lives next door to me is also, a member of the same group, is also in her 30&#39;s, and is also a worker. Actually the split of workers, and students in our group is about 50/50. We would like to have 50 members though.

2)On Turkey as an oppressed nation

Since when is Turkey an oppressed nation you cretin?
I think that this came up from a misunderstanding when Leo was actually refering to the Kurds, but there is an interesting point here. There are actually lots of leftists in Turkey who do claim this, and argue for it in the name of Marxism. Then again, this should come as no surprise as the comintern argued in the 20&#39;s that Germany was an oppressed nation.

3)On Kurdistan

Wouldn&#39;t you like to see a free Kurdistan where the Kurds can live freely without being oppressed by the Turks?
Interestingly enough when I was working in London about 20 years ago, I met a PKK supporter who argued that the first think that they would do when they had a Kurdistan would be to kill all of the Alevi. The PKK are now much more pro-Alevi, but the point remains. A good example of this can be seen in the Kurdish zone of Northern Iraq where the Turcoman minority is now being oppressed. A &#39;free Kurdistan&#39; will only change the people who are being oppressed.

4)On why the Communist Left opposes national liberation movements
We don&#39;t oppose national liberation movements because we think that they have the &#39;wrong&#39; tactics. We oppose them because they are anti-working class. The PKK&#39;s campaign of shooting school teachers is just one example of this. It would be quite easy to pull out examples of every nationalist group in the Middle East doing the same sort of thing. The national liberation movements are directly involved in the deepening spiral of ethnic, and sectarian violence across the entire region. The only thing that can oppose this tendency towards war is workers struggling for their own interests.

5)On the contempt of some of the left for the working class

Similarly, we call for a defeat for Zionism in all its wars because Zionism has a hold over the Israeli working class that only Palestinian liberation can defeat.I will let that one speak for itself.

Devrim

[Leo]

Leo - you disappont me: I thought you were a Marxist-Leninist. Now you&#39;ve turned out to be another utopian idealist left "communist".

Oh snap&#33; :lol: If you actually knew how to read, you would have understood that from the beginning.


Leo should read what Lenin had to say about Left "communists" when he called it an "INFANTILE" Disorder&#33;&#33;&#33; (Lenin&#39;s words)

Oui, je suis un enfant terrible :D

[Zeruzo]

It doesn&#39;t work that way. Besides this is a completely bourgeois argument. A nation is actually divided into classes, Kurdish bourgeoisie is free, Kurdish proletariat is not. Turkish bourgeoisie is free, Turkish proletariat is not. The only difference between two is that the Turkish bourgeoisie is bigger and stronger than its Kurdish counterpart. I want Turkish and Kurdish workers to struggle together, as a class. This is what the bourgeoisie is actually afraid of, whereas "national liberation" only means that the Kurdish bourgeoisie is going to be dominant in controlling labor and resources in a specific area after a bloody inter-bourgeois war with the Turkish bourgeoisie. Communists support the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie.

A completely bourgeouisie argument?
If it was, wouldn&#39;t i be supporting my imperialist bourgeouisie. Yes i rather have national autonomy while there is still a bourgeouisie. Now tell me yourself, which people are more oppressed the Kurdish or the Turkish?
The Kurdish i assume, so if you can just losen they&#39;re chains a little and provide Kurdistan with a little (Perhaps even bourgeouisie) autonomy, wouldn&#39;t that already be a good and positive event? Wouldn&#39;t it be sectarian to just scream it&#39;s bourgeouisie without looking at it&#39;s positive effects?
Next to that the National Liberation i&#39;m mostly talking about is socialist National Liberation.

[Leo]

If it was, wouldn&#39;t i be supporting my imperialist bourgeouisie.

Why? Would it not be a bourgeois argument if the SPD supported Russians instead of Germans in WW1?


Now tell me yourself, which people are more oppressed the Kurdish or the Turkish?

Obviously, workers are the most oppressed in Turkey and their nationality is not important.


Next to that the National Liberation i&#39;m mostly talking about is socialist National Liberation.

It is impossible. Without the world revolution, ultimately all that is gained will be lost.

[Zeruzo]

Why? Would it not be a bourgeois argument if the SPD supported Russians instead of Germans in WW1?

Well yes, but how are the Russians an oppressed nationality?



Obviously, workers are the most oppressed in Turkey and their nationality is not important.


So, you&#39;re claim is that Turkish and Kurdish workers are both eqaully oppressed, cause i know Kurds that would counter this statement (I just dunno if they want to come to Revleft :)).



It is impossible. Without the world revolution, ultimately all that is gained will be lost.

This is just rhetoric. Why would it ultimately fail?

[Leo]

Well yes, but how are the Russians an oppressed nationality?

What is an oppressed nationality?


So, you&#39;re claim is that Turkish and Kurdish workers are both eqaully oppressed, cause i know Kurds that would counter this statement

No, it is common sense, really. Of course a larger percentage of the Kurdish population is proletarian than it is for the Turkish population, percentagewise but this doesn&#39;t change the actual conditions of the proletariat itself.


This is just rhetoric. Why would it ultimately fail?

It won&#39;t be able to be independent from world capital, in the current age isolation is impossible. It will either fall from external pressure or internal threats supported by world capital will turn the direction into an imperialist route. If the revolution can&#39;t expand. It is a matter of strength.

[redflag32]

To those who think we shouldnt support those who fight a nationalist struggle even if we do so with reservations, do you also think we should not support the feminist movement because they are not fighting a Marxist struggle? Socialism to me is, among many other things, a theory that stands up for what is right even if it is not popular. As a socialist i stand with feminists, environmentalists, gay rights protesters and national independence fighters as i believe we should stind up for the oppressed in every situation, that doesnt mean we dont show them the socialist opinion of their strugle. But to show contempt for them is anti-revolutionary in my view.

[Zeruzo]

What is an oppressed nationality?

Well, more directly the Northern Irish, the Welsh, Scottish and Kurds.
Indirectly the entire 3rd world (you cant really claim that the conditions of the 3rd world proletariat are the same as of the 1st world proletariat).



No, it is common sense, really. Of course a larger percentage of the Kurdish population is proletarian than it is for the Turkish population, percentagewise but this doesn&#39;t change the actual conditions of the proletariat itself.

I&#39;ve seen American tanks in Kurdish villages and heard story&#39;s of American airplanes frequently flying over by Kurds... So this is normal in Turkey as a whole?



It won&#39;t be able to be independent from world capital, in the current age isolation is impossible. It will either fall from external pressure or internal threats supported by world capital will turn the direction into an imperialist route. If the revolution can&#39;t expand. It is a matter of strength.

Cuba seems to be doing pretty well, the fact that even after the rise of revisionism the USSR was capable of existing for 30 more years shows the strength of socialism...

[Leo]

Well, more directly the Northern Irish, the Welsh, Scottish and Kurds.
Indirectly the entire 3rd world

I asked for a definition actually.


you cant really claim that the conditions of the 3rd world proletariat are the same as of the 1st world proletariat

What I can&#39;t really claim is that the size of the 3rd world proletariat is the same as of the 1st world proletariat.


Cuba seems to be doing pretty well, the fact that even after the rise of revisionism the USSR was capable of existing for 30 more years shows the strength of socialism...

Cuba isn&#39;t socialist; workers don&#39;t control the means of production.

[Zeruzo]

I asked for a definition actually.


A definition... well it&#39;s difficult to define, but Stalin put it quite well... he needed an entire book for it though... But i&#39;ll give it a try:


"A nation is an aggregate of people bound into a community of character by a common destiny."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/.../1913/03.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm#s2)

Thus an oppressed nationality is a people&#39;s that is oppressed by another nationality.
Or do i have to define oppresion for you?



What I can&#39;t really claim is that the size of the 3rd world proletariat is the same as of the 1st world proletariat.

So you are claiming that they&#39;re conditions are the same?



Cuba isn&#39;t socialist; workers don&#39;t control the means of production.

Whether they&#39;re socialist or not doesn&#39;t matter...
They have a state which is the enemy of most of the worlds bourgeouisie, and they are capable of keeping they&#39;re form of government, even considering the outside pressure.

[Leo]

"A nation is an aggregate of people bound into a community of character by a common destiny."

I am wondering which bourgeois nationalist Stalin stole this definition from <_<


Thus an oppressed nationality is a people&#39;s that is oppressed by another nationality.

Try again lad :rolleyes:

Nations are not real in the actual, material sense. They are invented by the bourgeois leaders who took power from feudal institutions, they became some sort of a radical bourgeois replacement for religion and imagined or believed by the exploited class. After all, it is impossible to determine the actual, pure nationality of an individual, because we are mixed so much.


So you are claiming that they&#39;re conditions are the same?

:lol: Do you think I am?


They have a state which is the enemy of most of the worlds bourgeouisie, and they are capable of keeping they&#39;re form of government, even considering the outside pressure.

Ultimately, they are part of the worlds bourgeoisie.

[Zeruzo]

I am wondering which bourgeois nationalist Stalin stole this definition from dry.gif

Wow, i truly notice you read his book...



Try again lad rolleyes.gif

Nations are not real in the actual, material sense. They are invented by the bourgeois leaders who took power from feudal institutions, they became some sort of a radical bourgeois replacement for religion and imagined or believed by the exploited class. After all, it is impossible to determine the actual, pure nationality of an individual, because we are mixed so much.

They are far from &#39;invented&#39; they grew into society beceause of it&#39;s material conditions and class-differences. It was used by the ruling class to put down others and enlarge they&#39;re own power. Thus the proletariat can do the same.
And thus it is possible for 1 nationality with a common identity to be oppressed by another nationality with a common identity. You can&#39;t seriously claim that for example the Indonesian culture is the same as the Dutch one. Jet the Dutch have made up the laws of Indonesia for hundreds of years, this clearly makes the Indonesian proletariat (For they were xploited to a far greater extend) far more oppressed then the Dutch proletariat. Denying this is pure dogmatism and idealism, not even dogmatism... even Marx acknowledged that countries will exist under socialism.
And how are we so mixed? When i visit foreign countries i notice a lot of things that are different and a lot of times even odd to me, for i was not raised that way. Yoiu cant just say: hey people, now you&#39;re all just going to be the same&#33;
This is something Stalin knew and noticed, that is why he was so succesfull and popular. You cant force new things down the troath of the people&#39;s without taking into account the background and material conditions of these people&#39;s.



laugh.gif Do you think I am?

Since you didn&#39;t directly answered my question...
So, if you acknowledge that the circumstances of the 3rd world proletariat are harsher then those of the 1st world, then would you oppose the national liberation of a 3rd world country from a 1st world country?



Ultimately, they are part of the worlds bourgeoisie.

Well, if it&#39;s all world-bourgeouisie then why again do we have countries? (Just using you&#39;re own rhetoric)

[The Grey Blur]

However, i dont think appeasing Loyalists is the way to go.
I&#39;m talking about working class people from a protestant background, not loyalists


Loyalism is an ideology that is the opposite of Socialism, if and when there is a socialist revolution, you can be sure the Loyalists wil be on the side of the Capitalists
Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism. Loyalism is a reactionary ideology, so is Republicanism - so is any ideology that calls for the seperation of the working-class on sectarian lines.


We should not want or seek the friendship of Loyalism, this is counter-revolutionary and only serves to give them credit in the eyes of protestants.
I think you should read my post again, the fact that you cannot even differentiate between working class protestants and their Loyalist bully-boy masters makes clear that you have little or no knowledge on the objective conditions in the North. We call for a union of workers from catholic & protestant backgrounds, we don&#39;t just spout some fancy rhetoric - we organise on the ground in both communities on simple issues such as water charges, low pay, privatisation, etc. The IRSP have historically stood outside the organised worker&#39;s movement, for chrissake they believe that Protestant workers are a &#39;labour aristocracy&#39; or some other semi-Maoist bullshit.


Why should we hide the flag of this country when even after a social revolution that very flag will more than likely be the flag of choice of the majority of the population
The red flag is the people&#39;s flag


The IRSM is very proud of the fact that even through the most sectarian section of our history that they attracted Protestants who agreed with the revolutionary politics of the IRSM.
Ronnie Bunting?

Yay

On the ground the Irps are a tiny bunch of reactionary old men clinging on to a romantiscised military past. Seriously, you&#39;re just utterly irrelevant except on internet message boards and shooting hoods.

[Leo]

Wow, i truly notice you read his book...

It must have been in one of those parts where I felt asleep while reading it :D


They are far from &#39;invented&#39; they grew into society beceause of it&#39;s material conditions and class-differences. It was used by the ruling class to put down others and enlarge they&#39;re own power. Thus the proletariat can do the same.

This doesn&#39;t make sense at all. Of course nations were invented by the bourgeoisie and the masses imagined them, or believed them because of material conditions. After all was religion not invented also? Of course it was.


You can&#39;t seriously claim that for example the Indonesian culture is the same as the Dutch one. Jet the Dutch have made up the laws of Indonesia for hundreds of years, this clearly makes the Indonesian proletariat (For they were xploited to a far greater extend) far more oppressed then the Dutch proletariat.

I wouldn&#39;t care about the nationality about my rulers.


even Marx acknowledged that countries will exist under socialism.

"Workers have no country" ;)


And how are we so mixed? When i visit foreign countries i notice a lot of things that are different and a lot of times even odd to me, for i was not raised that way. Yoiu cant just say: hey people, now you&#39;re all just going to be the same&#33;

The thing is, it is not a cultural difference. Every town is different. Every village is different. Every house is different. Every individual is different. Hell, every single cell is different. That&#39;s not the point.


This is something Stalin knew and noticed, that is why he was so succesfull and popular.

He was only popular among the "middle cadre" bureaucratic capitalist class, which "Comrade Card Index" proudly belonged to.


Since you didn&#39;t directly answered my question...
So, if you acknowledge that the circumstances of the 3rd world proletariat are harsher then those of the 1st world, then would you oppose the national liberation of a 3rd world country from a 1st world country?

Economics doesn&#39;t work that way. I said that "what I can&#39;t really claim is that the size of the 3rd world proletariat is the same as of the 1st world proletariat." So it seems that poverty is bigger in the third world, that the situation is harsher which is. What the harshness of the situation means is that there are more proletarians, and more jobs are becoming proletarianized. When you consider that I look at the world on the international level with the class perspective, what I am saying is that the situation of the proletariat is the same everywhere, but the proletarians aren&#39;t spread on the world on an equal scale. That proletariat is whom I want to see liberated. All else serves one faction of the bourgeoisie, and the net benefit international proletariat gets is zero at the best conditions.

[Zeruzo]

It must have been in one of those parts where I felt asleep while reading it biggrin.gif

Well it&#39;s not that much of a boring book, it&#39;s actually quite clear and easy to read.



This doesn&#39;t make sense at all. Of course nations were invented by the bourgeoisie and the masses imagined them, or believed them because of material conditions. After all was religion not invented also? Of course it was.


No, first off: it wasn&#39;t invented by the bourgeouisie but by the slave owners. Second off countries AND religions aren&#39;t invented as if a scientist just screams: UREKA&#33; THATS THE WAY TO OPPRESS THE MASSES&#33;



I wouldn&#39;t care about the nationality about my rulers.

And why not?



"Workers have no country" wink.gif


Yes, slogans replace analyses these days.... long live left-communism <_<



The thing is, it is not a cultural difference. Every town is different. Every village is different. Every house is different. Every individual is different. Hell, every single cell is different. That&#39;s not the point.

Jet, the differences between 2 Kurd-city&#39;s are far smaller then the differences between Kurds and Mongols...
Claiming it is not a cultural difference is ridicolous to say the least&#33;



He was only popular among the "middle cadre" bureaucratic capitalist class, which "Comrade Card Index" proudly belonged to.

Yes, and you know out of experience...
Try talking to people from the area...



Economics doesn&#39;t work that way. I said that "what I can&#39;t really claim is that the size of the 3rd world proletariat is the same as of the 1st world proletariat." So it seems that poverty is bigger in the third world, that the situation is harsher which is. What the harshness of the situation means is that there are more proletarians, and more jobs are becoming proletarianized. When you consider that I look at the world on the international level with the class perspective, what I am saying is that the situation of the proletariat is the same everywhere, but the proletarians aren&#39;t spread on the world on an equal scale. That proletariat is whom I want to see liberated. All else serves one faction of the bourgeoisie, and the net benefit international proletariat gets is zero at the best conditions.

What a magnificant piece of economics... i&#39;ll reply to this part when i have the time for it...

[Leo]

Well it&#39;s not that much of a boring book, it&#39;s actually quite clear and easy to read.

It was a quite... sad attempt really :rolleyes: I think that Stalin was not good at writing things.


No, first off: it wasn&#39;t invented by the bourgeouisie but by the slave owners.

A.k.a the ruling class of that period.


Second off countries AND religions aren&#39;t invented as if a scientist just screams: UREKA&#33; THATS THE WAY TO OPPRESS THE MASSES&#33;

Obviously not, ideologies that legitimize rule of a class are of course meaningless without the actual material conditions which would enable that class to establish that rule. This is exactly why the proletariat can&#39;t use patriotism for its own interests, because it is a specific ideological tool for the bourgeoisie to legitimize its rule, because it doesn&#39;t serve the class interests of the proletariat, quite the contrary; it serves the class interests of the bourgeoisie, the class enemy of the proletariat therefore it is against the class interests of the proletariat.


Yes, and you know out of experience...
Try talking to people from the area...

Should I talk to the cadres, the revolutionaries who ended up in gulags or the brainwashed Russian citizens?

[Nilats]

Zeruzo you have clearly won this debate with the infantile Leo. By adopting a truly materialist, Marxist Leninist position you have dealt a death blow against Leo and his idealism. Good work&#33;

[Nilats]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 07, 2006 11:06 pm

That explains a lot.

What does it explain?
Oh don&#39;t play dumb...I think you know exactly what he meant.

And read Lenin&#39;s Left wing communism an Infantile disorder while you&#39;re at it.

[Leo]

:lol: I love stalinists who can&#39;t read&#33; You guys are hilarious&#33;

[Zeruzo]

It was a quite... sad attempt really rolleyes.gif I think that Stalin was not good at writing things.

This is more of an opinion and intellectuel elitism then a fact.




A.k.a the ruling class of that period.


Yes, so not the bourgeouisie...




Obviously not, ideologies that legitimize rule of a class are of course meaningless without the actual material conditions which would enable that class to establish that rule.

Then why did you specifically state it was invented?


This is exactly why the proletariat can&#39;t use patriotism for its own interests, because it is a specific ideological tool for the bourgeoisie to legitimize its rule,

Then how comes it has been sued by EVERY ruling class in history?
Not just the bourgeouisie?
Thus it can also be used by the proletariat as a ruling class&#33;


because it doesn&#39;t serve the class interests of the proletariat, quite the contrary; it serves the class interests of the bourgeoisie, the class enemy of the proletariat therefore it is against the class interests of the proletariat.


So, you&#39;re claiming that in a socialist state patriotism would serve the interest of the bourgeouisie?



Should I talk to the cadres, the revolutionaries who ended up in gulags or the brainwashed Russian citizens?

preferably all, and claiming the Russian citizens were brainwashed shows you&#39;re lack of knowledge on this subject... Political education and brainwashing are seperate things...

Ok, i&#39;ll reply to the following very un-economic piece of &#39;art&#39;:



Economics doesn&#39;t work that way. I said that "what I can&#39;t really claim is that the size of the 3rd world proletariat is the same as of the 1st world proletariat." So it seems that poverty is bigger in the third world, that the situation is harsher which is. What the harshness of the situation means is that there are more proletarians, and more jobs are becoming proletarianized. When you consider that I look at the world on the international level with the class perspective, what I am saying is that the situation of the proletariat is the same everywhere, but the proletarians aren&#39;t spread on the world on an equal scale. That proletariat is whom I want to see liberated. All else serves one faction of the bourgeoisie, and the net benefit international proletariat gets is zero at the best conditions.

Yes, economics does work that way


I said that "what I can&#39;t really claim is that the size of the 3rd world proletariat is the same as of the 1st world proletariat." So it seems that poverty is bigger in the third world, that the situation is harsher which is.

Wow, what great knowledge of the concept of Imperialism... IF let us asume you&#39;re right... and the 1st world proletariat is smaller and thats why it&#39;s richer... Then why would the bourgeouisie allow them to be this rich, just for the sake of them being smaller?
Thats... Silly...
But that of course leaves out the reality of Social-Democracy and Imperialism, and shows a vast lack of knowledge on this subject and eocnomics.


What the harshness of the situation means is that there are more proletarians, and more jobs are becoming proletarianized.

No, it&#39;s beceause of social-democracy and imperialism, first study these 2 concepts before shitting all over revleft talking bull-shit about economics&#33;


When you consider that I look at the world on the international level with the class perspective, what I am saying is that the situation of the proletariat is the same everywhere, but the proletarians aren&#39;t spread on the world on an equal scale. That proletariat is whom I want to see liberated. All else serves one faction of the bourgeoisie, and the net benefit international proletariat gets is zero at the best conditions.

So, this is plainly denying the existence of the Labor Aristocracy... thats purely idealistic and utopian&#33; It&#39;s ridicolous&#33;

[Leo]

Yes, so not the bourgeouisie...

I never said religion was invented by the bourgeoisie. It was invented by the ruling class, and bourgeoisie is the current ruling class but has not been one always.


Then how comes it has been sued by EVERY ruling class in history?

No, it has not been sued by every ruling class in history; it is used only by the bourgeoisie.


So, you&#39;re claiming that in a socialist state patriotism would serve the interest of the bourgeouisie?

I&#39;m claiming more; if a "socialist state" is using patriotism, then the state has already become a tool of the red bourgeoisie.


preferably all, and claiming the Russian citizens were brainwashed shows you&#39;re lack of knowledge on this subject... Political education and brainwashing are seperate things...

:lol: :rolleyes:


Wow, what great knowledge of the concept of Imperialism... IF let us asume you&#39;re right... and the 1st world proletariat is smaller and thats why it&#39;s richer

No, it&#39;s not richer. Just smaller compared to the third world proletariat. You didn&#39;t understand anything I said. I didn&#39;t said that first world proletariat was richer. I said that there were more rich people in the first world than the third world, but the poor are always proletarians.


No, it&#39;s beceause of social-democracy and imperialism, first study these 2 concepts before shitting all over revleft talking bull-shit about economics&#33;

:rolleyes: I have a different analysis of imperialism than Lenin&#39;s petty theory. I have my base on Rosa Luxemburg&#39;s. As for social democracy, your argument falls because you didn&#39;t understand anything I said.


So, this is plainly denying the existence of the Labor Aristocracy

If what you mean by Labor Aristocracy is Maoists bullshit theory, then yes, it does. :D


Anyway, better luck next time&#33; :lol:

[Zeruzo]

I never said religion was invented by the bourgeoisie. It was invented by the ruling class, and bourgeoisie is the current ruling class but has not been one always.


Ohw you didn&#39;t... then i must have misread:

They are invented by the bourgeois leaders who took power from feudal institutions,

Ohw wait, no i didn&#39;t misread now did i?



No, it has not been sued by every ruling class in history; it is used only by the bourgeoisie.


Wait, you&#39;re actually claiming that Feudal states didn&#39;t use patriotism...
And even if you&#39;re right it doesn&#39;t take away the validity of my argument.



I&#39;m claiming more; if a "socialist state" is using patriotism, then the state has already become a tool of the red bourgeoisie.

So, you&#39;re not allowed to be proud of a socialist state?



No, it&#39;s not richer. Just smaller compared to the third world proletariat. You didn&#39;t understand anything I said. I didn&#39;t said that first world proletariat was richer. I said that there were more rich people in the first world than the third world, but the poor are always proletarians.

Well, if i didn&#39;t understand what you said it says nothing about my intelligence but more about you&#39;re writing-style...

And next to that the 1st world proletariat IS richer... So again showing you&#39;re lack of knowledge...



rolleyes.gif I have a different analysis of imperialism than Lenin&#39;s petty theory. I have my base on Rosa Luxemburg&#39;s. As for social democracy, your argument falls because you didn&#39;t understand anything I said.

Well duuh&#33; Cause you&#39;re confusing as fuck&#33; And thats someone that complains about Stalins way of writing&#33; Next to that, have you ever visited an imperialist country? For you&#39;ll realize that they and it&#39;s proletariat are far richer then yours. Probably broadening you&#39;re understanding of imperialism and Social-democracy.




If what you mean by Labor Aristocracy is Maoists bullshit theory, then yes, it does. biggrin.gif


It&#39;s actually Marxist-Leninist and every person that lives in the 1st world WILL agree with the existence of a Labor Aristocracy...


Anyway, better luck next time&#33; laugh.gif

Good luck with what? You&#39;re the one not making any sense...

[Leo]

Ohw you didn&#39;t... then i must have misread:


They are invented by the bourgeois leaders who took power from feudal institutions,

Ohw wait, no i didn&#39;t misread now did i?

Yes you did, I was talking about nationalism there, not religion.


Wait, you&#39;re actually claiming that Feudal states didn&#39;t use patriotism...
And even if you&#39;re right it doesn&#39;t take away the validity of my argument.


It is right, they used religion (i.e crusades), and it completely takes the validity of your argument.


So, you&#39;re not allowed to be proud of a socialist state?

You&#39;re not allowed to be proud of being born in a "socialist state".


Well, if i didn&#39;t understand what you said it says nothing about my intelligence but more about you&#39;re writing-style...

No, I was actually thinking that it tells something about your English, which is completely cool, English is also my second language, I understand you, I just wanted to say that you just misunderstood what I said and your argument wasn&#39;t valid because of that, I wasn&#39;t trying to insult you.


And next to that the 1st world proletariat IS richer... So again showing you&#39;re lack of knowledge...

This is completely subjective and vague, therefore not a statement to be taken seriously.


Next to that, have you ever visited an imperialist country?

I lived in one for a year actually.


And thats someone that complains about Stalins way of writing&#33;

I was actually complaining about the boringness of the weakness of his arguments.


For you&#39;ll realize that they and it&#39;s proletariat are far richer then yours.

Well, the way I explain this spectacle is with the numbers and percentages. This is where saying that there are more proletarians in the third world comes into my analysis.

[Zeruzo]

Yes you did, I was talking about nationalism there, not religion.

For nationalism that counts too...



It is right, they used religion (i.e crusades), and it completely takes the validity of your argument.


Then if they had religions, why did they had different country&#39;s and different ruling classes?
And no it doesn&#39;t take away any validity sinc eit totally goes past the point which i made which is that the proletariat can also use patriotism.



You&#39;re not allowed to be proud of being born in a "socialist state".

Why not?
Isn&#39;t that counter-productive in any way/shape/form?




This is completely subjective and vague, therefore not a statement to be taken seriously.

I&#39;ll put it this way: the standard of living of the first world proletariat is of such high qaulity that it is completely un-comparable to that of the 3rd world and which also makes a huge proportion of it&#39;s population apathetic towards imperialism.



I lived in one for a year actually.

And you never noticed the differences in it&#39;s standard of living? (It wasn&#39;t the U.S. i hope, caus ethats close to a 3rd world country in the projects and ghetto&#39;s...)



I was actually complaining about the boringness of the weakness of his arguments.

Ok, but how are they weak, he gives a basis and a foundation for all of his claims...?
Why do you think he had weak arguments?
And which of them were weak?



Well, the way I explain this spectacle is with the numbers and percentages. This is where saying that there are more proletarians in the third world comes into my analysis.

But, this only started hapening after the begining of the last century. Whereas the populations of these countries rose un-proportionally beceause these children could help in creating money for the family, creating an endless spiral of cpaitalist poverty with itself. So it is not the reason, but the consequence of imperialism and poverty.
A lot of these countries in fact have great amounts of natural resources.

[Leo]

For nationalism that counts too...

No, it doesn&#39;t, that&#39;s the whole point.


Then if they had religions, why did they had different country&#39;s and different ruling classes?

I take it that you don&#39;t know much about feudalism... The loyalties were to feudal landlords and it was them who controlled the means of production and owned the serfs during feudalism and not to "kings" who were nothing but remnants of the age of slavery.


Why not?

Because it&#39;s not sensible, in any way. It&#39;s patronizing, the only function of such feeling is serving the national bourgeoisie. Ultimately, the proletariat has to be international.


I&#39;ll put it this way: the standard of living of the first world proletariat is of such high qaulity that it is completely un-comparable to that of the 3rd world and which also makes a huge proportion of it&#39;s population apathetic towards imperialism.

This is an unsupported analysis for starters, the gap is big between wages but not that big between standard of living because third world countries are cheap places to live where first world countries are very expensive.


And you never noticed the differences in it&#39;s standard of living? (It wasn&#39;t the U.S. i hope, caus ethats close to a 3rd world country in the projects and ghetto&#39;s...)

It was the US, but the proletariat is the proletariat everywhere. I&#39;ve also been in Europe as well enough to observe, and I know many Europeans and there are many friends who are from Turkey but living in Europe so I have a knowledge about the general situation as well. Even in Scandinavia, if you ask the members from there, such as NWOG, they will tell you that it is not as good as it is described at all.


Ok, but how are they weak, he gives a basis and a foundation for all of his claims...?
Why do you think he had weak arguments?
And which of them were weak?

As you can probably guess, I don&#39;t really have enough time to make a detailed book review right now.


But, this only started hapening after the begining of the last century. Whereas the populations of these countries rose un-proportionally beceause these children could help in creating money for the family, creating an endless spiral of cpaitalist poverty with itself. So it is not the reason, but the consequence of imperialism and poverty.

This doesn&#39;t make sense: poverty is having too many proletarians in a country.

[Zeruzo]

No, it doesn&#39;t, that&#39;s the whole point.


So, you&#39;re claim is that nationalism only existed under capitalism. Then what about the Nationalism in Czarist Russia?



I take it that you don&#39;t know much about feudalism... The loyalties were to feudal landlords and it was them who controlled the means of production and owned the serfs during feudalism and not to "kings" who were nothing but remnants of the age of slavery.

Actually, the throne was important for foreign policy, even though the Feudal landlords fought battles together, they also fought side by side in fighting other feudal states.



Because it&#39;s not sensible, in any way. It&#39;s patronizing, the only function of such feeling is serving the national bourgeoisie. Ultimately, the proletariat has to be international.

Well yes, the proletariat has to be international, but discouraging socialist pride is silly... And in no way proggresive, it will only work against the cause forcing internationalism upon the masses. It has to be a more graduate process.




This is an unsupported analysis for starters, the gap is big between wages but not that big between standard of living because third world countries are cheap places to live where first world countries are very expensive.

So, you&#39;re claim is that people with 2 TV-sets a computer, well-nutritioned children and clean water are the same as people without all this?



It was the US, but the proletariat is the proletariat everywhere. I&#39;ve also been in Europe as well enough to observe, and I know many Europeans and there are many friends who are from Turkey but living in Europe so I have a knowledge about the general situation as well. Even in Scandinavia, if you ask the members from there, such as NWOG, they will tell you that it is not as good as it is described at all.

Well, i&#39;ve visited those countries too, and i live in the Netherlands myself... I&#39;ve also visited the Czech Republic, the U.S. and certain 3rd world countries. But it is absolutely un-comparable&#33;
But i have a feeling this is going to be like:
No it&#39;s not&#33;
Yes it is&#33;
No it&#39;s not&#33;



As you can probably guess, I don&#39;t really have enough time to make a detailed book review right now.

I could, but when you have time, i&#39;d be glad to hear it from you&#33;



This doesn&#39;t make sense: poverty is having too many proletarians in a country.

So, you cant have rich proletarians?

[Leo]

So, you&#39;re claim is that nationalism only existed under capitalism. Then what about the Nationalism in Czarist Russia?

Ideologically, nationalism entered the world stage with the French revolution, the first seizure of power of the bourgeoisie. It spread afterwards. If you ever read Dostoevsky, Gorky or other Russian authors, you would see that there are lots of references about the conditions of a newly formed working class in industrializing cities. Nationalism developed with capitalism in Russia, Lenin&#39;s book about it can actually give you an idea of the economic developments.


Actually, the throne was important for foreign policy, even though the Feudal landlords fought battles together, they also fought side by side in fighting other feudal states.

Occasionally, yes, but it was, after all, more symbolic than real.


Well yes, the proletariat has to be international, but discouraging socialist pride is silly

Not socialist pride, nationalist pride is what we are discouraging. If you are proud of the place you are born you are a fool, because being born there wasn&#39;t something you achieved yourself. I would hope that people who are born into communes to have better things to be proud of throughout their lives than the place they were born in.

[Zeruzo]

I made a huge comment, and then my internet broke down :(. I&#39;ll respond tommorow again :).

[Leo]

I made a huge comment, and then my internet broke down :( . I&#39;ll respond tommorow again :)

Okay, I&#39;ll talk to you tomorrow :)

[Patchd]

Wow, a long debate between two people. My eyes have gone all funny now, I might respond tommorow because I&#39;m tired and need to get up at 6AM.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 10:34 am

By saying this, you deny us workers who belong to "oppressed nations" the right to act as a class for communism.

Firstly, Marxists, which you&#39;ve just admitted you&#39;re not, think that communism is only possible after the victory of the bourgeois democratic revolution, one aspect of which is the throwing off of the chains of imperialism.

My advice to workers in oppressed nations is to support their national bourgeoisie in so far as they serve the interests of the workers, to ALWAYS raise independent demands and to seek to make revolutions permanent.

This is Marxism.

Wheezy teengers screaming "COMMUNISM" from the side of a mass movement isn&#39;t.



Well, guess what you bastard

You&#39;re a bit bruised by Marx and Engels eh, poppet?


so please don&#39;t get offended when we don&#39;t give a fuck about what patronizing Trotskyists say about supporting our own bourgeoisie.


Who is this "we" you speak of? The 50 students that make up your ultra-left circle jerk?

People like you never have, never will and never can represent anything. I doubt you even represent yourself.


This quote proves that you don&#39;t give a fuck about Palestinian or Iraqi working class, but only about the workers in places your petty organization operates.


I support the Palestinian and Iraqi working class. You support the people who kill them in the name of Capital.


If this* is Marxism

Yes, being a communist revolutionary and understanding Marx is precondition for Marxism.



Fuck off you lying bastard, I opposed Zionism, the invasion and the war from the beginning. I oppose all nation-states and all forms of nationalism and imperialism.

You opposed it from a psuedo-pacifist middle class position of "opposition" (at least rhetorically) to the IDF and their American backers and opposition to the Hezbollah resistance fighters, citing a spurious moral equivalance between one of the biggest armies in the world and an indigenous national liberation movement.

I mean, I can almost understand the out and out Zionist murderers, but not shameful apologists like you.
the bourgeoisie in third world countries have no revolutionary role to play at all, since they act as colonial agents of imperialism, so those reforms needed to democratize and develop the means of production will be in the hands of workers organizations. That involves national liberation along with social liberation from the parasite colonial bourgeoisie; however, national liberation struggles sometimes may be usurped by the bourgeoisie so as to avoid greater workers radicalization, but they escentially share the same interests of their imperialist masters. But it must be clear to all revolutionaries that national liberation struggle in opressed countries is a step to emancipate the working class, something totally opposite to petty and extreme nationalism. In fact, every opressed nation carrying a national liberation struggle deserves our support since it is an example to other opressed nations and that will hit hard the core of capitalism. This must be the attitude of every true internationalist.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 10, 2006 04:59 pm
Capitalism is the opposite of Socialism. Loyalism is a reactionary ideology, so is Republicanism - so is any ideology that calls for the seperation of the working-class on sectarian lines.



We call for a union of workers from catholic & protestant backgrounds, we don&#39;t just spout some fancy rhetoric - we organise on the ground in both communities on simple issues such as water charges, low pay, privatisation, etc.


The IRSP were doing those things before your group were...



The IRSP have historically stood outside the organised worker&#39;s movement, for chrissake they believe that Protestant workers are a &#39;labour aristocracy&#39; or some other semi-Maoist bullshit.


No, the IRSP don&#39;t say Protestant workers are a labour aristocracy. At one time Protestant workers were - but the industries that support their privelages over Catholics no longer exist (like ship building). Much of the sectarian conflit existed because Protestant workers saw their living standards decrease at the same time that the Catholic Civil Rights Movement was demanding more equality.

Today there is discrimination against Catholics still, but the privelages for Protestants are overall decreasing. Logically you think that would mean there&#39;s less sectarianism, but Loyalism is an ideology in reaction to the loss of Protestant privelages.

Much of the IRSM&#39;s history it didn&#39;t focus on the workers movement as much as it should have. For some time it was a smaller, left wing version of the provisionals. But when the movement was founded, it counted trade unionists amongst its members. The RSM has been much more active in the workers movement in the past few years.



The IRSM is very proud of the fact that even through the most sectarian section of our history that they attracted Protestants who agreed with the revolutionary politics of the IRSM.
Ronnie Bunting?

Yay

On the ground the Irps are a tiny bunch of reactionary old men clinging on to a romantiscised military past. Seriously, you&#39;re just utterly irrelevant except on internet message boards and shooting hoods.

It wasn&#39;t just Ronnie Bunting. We&#39;ve been over this before.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:41 pm
It has come to my attention that my rev-leftists uphold people who call themselves "communists" even though their policies were very nationalistic. People like Stalin, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh. So my question is, being that they are nationalists, how can they also be considered "communists" much less the heroes that a few rev-lefters make them out to be?

Yes they fought against imperialism, but anyone can be a fighter against imperialism - including reactionaries and theocratic governments. Just because they fight imperialism doesn&#39;t mean that left-wing people should uphold them as revolutionaries or socialist. More often than not, they instituted state capitalism which eventually turned into full-fledged capitalism.
Leaving aside your comments on Castro and without going into here the differences between nationalism and national liberation -

These revolutions deserve some support, since despite their flaws, they finished the tasks of democratic revolution more thoroughly than actual bourgeois / democratic revolutions would have. That helps create the conditions for communism... even if you disagree with the revolutions in question for other reasons.

[Zeruzo]

I&#39;ll keep my answers short :).



Ideologically, nationalism entered the world stage with the French revolution, the first seizure of power of the bourgeoisie. It spread afterwards. If you ever read Dostoevsky, Gorky or other Russian authors, you would see that there are lots of references about the conditions of a newly formed working class in industrializing cities. Nationalism developed with capitalism in Russia, Lenin&#39;s book about it can actually give you an idea of the economic developments.

I would be pleased, if you&#39;d provide these books for me. Jet it still doesn&#39;t show how patriotism can not be used by the working class...



Occasionally, yes, but it was, after all, more symbolic than real.

If they were completely symbolic they would have disapeared for they wouldn&#39;t have been of any use anymore. As countries would dissapear with them and they would have been replaced for feudal land-lords.



Not socialist pride, nationalist pride is what we are discouraging. If you are proud of the place you are born you are a fool, because being born there wasn&#39;t something you achieved yourself. I would hope that people who are born into communes to have better things to be proud of throughout their lives than the place they were born in.

Well yes, i&#39;m opposed to nationalism too...
I&#39;m not saying they should be proud of the place just for being born there, but for it&#39;s achievements, it&#39;s socialism and it&#39;s proletarian internationalism. Therefore in essense priding socialism in you&#39;re country does not only show patriotism, but also proletarian internationalism. For in essense socialism is internationalism. Thus priding it is internationalism.

[Leo]

I would be pleased, if you&#39;d provide these books for me.

Well, providing the actual books will be pretty hard, but you can find them around, they are considered classics of literature. I would reccoment Mother from Gorky and Crime and Punishment from Dostoyevski - they were my favorites.


If they were completely symbolic they would have disapeared for they wouldn&#39;t have been of any use anymore. As countries would dissapear with them and they would have been replaced for feudal land-lords.

Also, remember that those kings were not based at all on nationality as they were all relatives of each other. They were based on feudal aristocratic relations as well.


I&#39;m not saying they should be proud of the place just for being born there, but for it&#39;s achievements, it&#39;s socialism and it&#39;s proletarian internationalism. Therefore in essense priding socialism in you&#39;re country does not only show patriotism, but also proletarian internationalism.

Why be proud of just your country then? Why not be proud of the workers movement and the achievements of the entire class? I mean what does the country mean? You live in a house, you work to make it nice, you are proud of it, okay... You live in a city, you like it, you have memories there, you try to make it nice, you are initally a little proud of, fine. But what is a country? Is it based on anything other than borders of national bourgeois factions? If you are living in a border for example, another "country" would be more close to most parts of your "country". Is there any sense in being proud of the "country"?

[Zeruzo]

Well, providing the actual books will be pretty hard, but you can find them around, they are considered classics of literature. I would reccoment Mother from Gorky and Crime and Punishment from Dostoyevski - they were my favorites.

I will read them when i have the time...



Also, remember that those kings were not based at all on nationality as they were all relatives of each other. They were based on feudal aristocratic relations as well.

whats the fact they were relatives got to do with things?
Of course they were based on feudal aristocratic relations&#33; Thats more then logical&#33;



Why be proud of just your country then? Why not be proud of the workers movement and the achievements of the entire class? I mean what does the country mean? You live in a house, you work to make it nice, you are proud of it, okay... You live in a city, you like it, you have memories there, you try to make it nice, you are initally a little proud of, fine. But what is a country? Is it based on anything other than borders of national bourgeois factions? If you are living in a border for example, another "country" would be more close to most parts of your "country". Is there any sense in being proud of the "country"?

I never said they should JUST be proud of they&#39;re country, i have stated a million times that patriotism is in combination with proletarian internationalism a good thing&#33;
The basis of a country is it&#39;s common identity&#33; As you can NOT change one&#39;s common identity like that&#33; You cant just force people like that to pick up a world-wide common identity and to completely ignore the historic realities and material conditions under which these persons were raised&#33; Thats pure idealism&#33;
Of course country&#39;s should eventually dissapear&#33; Of course it is no use to STICK with these countries, but at this point in history countries are a FACT&#33; Therefore trying to ignore country&#39;s as a whole is utopian, to say the least&#33;

[Leo]

whats the fact they were relatives got to do with things?

That there wasn&#39;t anything going on about nation or nationality?


I never said they should JUST be proud of they&#39;re country, i have stated a million times that patriotism is in combination with proletarian internationalism a good thing&#33;

And I stated a million times that patriotism is always opposed to proletarian internationalism as you can&#39;t support division of the working class while you are opposing it.


The basis of a country is it&#39;s common identity&#33;

No, it is the ruling class. A workers shouldn&#39;t have a "common identity" with his boss. That&#39;s the whole point of class politics.


You cant just force people like that to pick up a world-wide common identity and to completely ignore the historic realities and material conditions under which these persons were raised&#33; Thats pure idealism&#33;

No, because "false (national, religious etc.) consciousness", as it is called by Marxists, does not have its roots in the material conditions of the working class but they are a result of bourgeois indoctrination.

[Keyser]

Nationalism and Communism, Are they compatible?

No and never will be&#33;

Nationalism, patriotism, religion, national &#39;liberation&#39;, nations, states, border controls. All of these things are the polar opposite to communism, class struggle of the working class and human liberation.

[Zeruzo]

That there wasn&#39;t anything going on about nation or nationality?


Of course it did, they wanted to broaden they&#39;re own nation. Thats why it happened a lot that rich people from different countries married eachother, to broaden the nation.



And I stated a million times that patriotism is always opposed to proletarian internationalism as you can&#39;t support division of the working class while you are opposing it.

You stated it but haven&#39;t backed it up. As it is perfectly compatable, and patriotism will inevitably LEAD to proletarian internationalism&#33; For being proud of socialism in you&#39;re country makes you proud of socialism in general and thus will make you a proletarian internationalist. Or am i making it too complicated here?



No, it is the ruling class. A workers shouldn&#39;t have a "common identity" with his boss. That&#39;s the whole point of class politics.


If they hadn&#39;t had any common identity the boss would&#39;ve already been kicked out. Thats to start with, and secondly as i stated before the differences between the proletariat in Indonesia and the proletariat in the Netherlands are tremendous. But for some reason you fail to acknowledge this...



No, because "false (national, religious etc.) consciousness", as it is called by Marxists, does not have its roots in the material conditions of the working class but they are a result of bourgeois indoctrination.

Indoctrination is a very big word. Even if it is the result of the bourgeouisie telling them it should be this and this way, it still is a huge (if not fictional) gap between different sections of the proletariat, and overcoming this gap wont happen from 1 day or another. Therefore trying to ignore countries as a whole is utopian, and jet you haven&#39;t replied to this specific point but start stating the exact same again, if you would just like to reply directly to any of the things i said above i would be pleased so that this discussion can actually develop itself instead of getting stuck at this very easy point.




No and never will be&#33;

Nationalism, patriotism, religion, national &#39;liberation&#39;, nations, states, border controls. All of these things are the polar opposite to communism, class struggle of the working class and human liberation.

Ohw, damn you bolded these words... I must&#39;ve been wrong all the time... i am so sorry, this was just too convincing...