Patrioitism

[Faction2008]

As Leftists should we be patriotic? I personally believe we shouldn't as it's a road to nationalism and as we don't choose to be born into a nation we shouldn't be proud of it? I in fact could barely give a shit about where I come from, I'm not ashamed to be what I am but I don't see why I should be proud as I didn't choose to be the nationality that I am.

[mikelepore]

I consider it a superstition. A person is born at some space-time coordinates. These coordinates have no inherent meaning, but an imagined importance may be assigned to them. If you believe your life should be ruled by the time coordinate of your birth, that's called astrology. If you believe your life should be ruled by the space coordinates of your birth, that's called patriotism.

[F9]

Of course and i am NOT!
my land-the whole earth!

Fuserg9:star:

[Faction2008]

I consider it a superstition. A person is born at some space-time coordinates. These coordinates have no inherent meaning, but an imagined importance may be assigned to them. If you believe your life should be ruled by the time coordinate of your birth, that's called astrology. If you believe your life should be ruled by the space coordinates of your birth, that's called patriotism.
That is quite an interesting theory. Another way you could see it as is that your nation doesn't love you, only your taxes.

[Decolonize The Left]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

Patriotism is indeed a last refuge, as it is an appeal to circumstance.

- August

[Chapter 24]

I am what someone I met before once described himself as: Pan-Earthist. I am a patriot only for humanity.

[JimmyJazz]

fuck no

[S&Y]

It depends in what sense.

If I was a Russian living in the Soviet Union I would be patriotic.

Or if I was a Cuban.

But since I am neither of those I am not patriotic.

But I voted yes because I can be patriotic I guess.

Oh ya and I don't care if this is consistent with Marxism or not.

It's how I feel.http://www.hwbot.org/blog/wp-content/0000-1404-4ussr-udarnaya-brigada-proletariata-vsego-avant-garde-posters.jpg

[cmbnd10]

I don't get excited about US Patriotism. When I hear "The Star Spangled Banner" do I feel something? Yes, because it is a very moving piece of music. I get more excited from ethnic Patriotism when it comes to Italy, France and Lithuania because of soccer and rugby, but thats about it.

[cmbnd10]

It depends in what sense.

If I was a Russian living in the Soviet Union I would be patriotic.

Or if I was a Cuban.

But since I am neither of those I am not patriotic.

But I voted yes because I can be patriotic I guess.

Oh ya and I don't care if this is consistent with Marxism or not.

It's how I feel.http://www.hwbot.org/blog/wp-content/0000-1404-4ussr-udarnaya-brigada-proletariata-vsego-avant-garde-posters.jpg


Well put.

[Sendo]

I miss America. Despite its flaws and all the neat little things about Korea, I miss the USA. Not the smog of the Southwest or the exurban sprawls or the rip off schools or the economic depression of the Rust Belt. It's the people and their diversity. Coming to Korea makes you really appreciate diversity. It's not just I miss my whitey town roots or I miss a rainbow of skin colors, I miss diversity itself and the incidentals: I miss the Caribbean ethnic mart by my rental from last year, I miss Chinese food (have to go to Seoul for that and American Chinese is far more authentic than Korean Chinese), I miss our bars and taverns (they don't have "bars" here, just a couple in each major city). I miss outdoor cafes and restaurants, no matter how inferior they are to Europe's.

It can be trendy to hate mainstream Americana, but you're really hating mainstream culture and capitalism. The things you hate about middle class America are also in every neck of the world that has a semi-bourgeois middle class. Despite the evils of the US, the people are against it, even if they themselves don't always know it. While Europe's brushes with fascism make them keenly aware of the silliness of "my country is #1!!--even when it isn't by any reasonable measure" the USA is not alone in annoying nationalist tendencies. We stand out in the Western World, but we don't stand in the world as a whole. We have plenty of company.

But #1 thing I miss is that people don't stare at you. They're used to seeing outlanders and the like. If ever I was pointed at in the States it was usually by girls. There's a world of different of difference between black girls going "Mm. Hey, white boy" and drunken old Korean men sputtering racist remarks that no one thinks might be offensive.

[Yehuda Stern]

Oh ya and I don't care if this is consistent with Marxism or not.

This pretty much sums up the outlook of all patriotic 'Marxists.'

[Charles Xavier]

I'm a patriot, all leftists should be patriotic. We want the best for our people, the working class in our nationstate. We struggle nationally for the advancement of our class. We are patriots. But not nationalists.

[Yehuda Stern]

Speak for yourself. You may want what's best for workers in 'your' state. I want what's best for all the workers of the world.

[chegitz guevara]

I consider it a superstition. A person is born at some space-time coordinates. These coordinates have no inherent meaning, but an imagined importance may be assigned to them. If you believe your life should be ruled by the time coordinate of your birth, that's called astrology. If you believe your life should be ruled by the space coordinates of your birth, that's called patriotism.

By this logic, you shouldn't love your parents or the rest of your family. You should have no special affection towards the people around you as you grow up, since it is merely an accident of birth that you are associated with them. Nothing has any inherent meaning. Meaning is simply a value placed on things by human beings.

As to whether or not someone should be patriotic, patriotism is loyalty to one's state. The only state we should be loyal to is the workers state, and only as long as it is necessary in order to keep the capitalists at bay.

I do admit to feelings of love for America, but I won't put America ahead of the rest of the human race, and I'm certainly not loyal to the American state or empire. But it's still my family, and I'm still human. But just as I'd fight my brother if he tried to murder someone, I will fight my nation when it is wrong.

[cop an Attitude]

I love the actual region of the united states. Partly beacuse of the geographical variety and the pop culture (ie movies, music ect) but as a nation, not at all. I would most likly never move out of the country but i dont consider my self prideful of my nation let alone my goverment. I like it here (and not just for the high standard of living) but i dont aline myself with a the US.

[Trystan]

No I'm not patriotic. I like my country, sure. But I also like France . . . that doesn't mean anything.

[Chapter 24]

It depends in what sense.

If I was a Russian living in the Soviet Union I would be patriotic.

Or if I was a Cuban.

But since I am neither of those I am not patriotic.

But I voted yes because I can be patriotic I guess.

Oh ya and I don't care if this is consistent with Marxism or not.

It's how I feel.

No, it isn't consistent with Marxism, that's why it's an incorrect position to take on the subject. By holding a sense of patriotism, you're ultimately rejecting the international solidarity of the working class. If you are proud of the gains made by these above-mentioned countries, yet are critical or even hostile to certain or all elements of the ruling party, that's different.


Speak for yourself. You may want what's best for workers in 'your' state. I want what's best for all the workers of the world.

Agreed, comrade.

[Black Sheep]

It solely depends on what you define as 'a patriot'.
If you mean 'love your country's people' then yes i am.I do 'love' them,as a fraction of the people of the planet.

If you mean it as 'love your country' then of course i am not patriot,i could care less for an artificial structure of power that arbitarily claims to represent and, in fact, be the people of its geographical characteristics.

[Comrade B]

Not under the definition patriotism has in the United States.

By US definition, patriotism is loyalty to your government.

[Pogue]

Nationalism and patriotism are just tools to divide the working class, always have been.

I celebrate culture and diversity, not nationalism or patriotism.

Internationalism is my thing. Race, ethnicity, nationality are all irrelevant. We need to break down borders for our revolution.

Theres ideas coming from people like Billy Bragg about reclaiming nationalism for the left, which is a nice thought, but its a useless thing to do, and only worthwhile as a means of gaining support.

Nah, internationalism is the only way.

No borders, no nations!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

Patriotism is indeed a last refuge, as it is an appeal to circumstance.

- August

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you and the esteemed Mr Johnson. Patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you and the esteemed Mr Johnson. Patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you here, faith is the first refuge of scoundrels (after all, there was massive persecution and faith-based violence before nationalism).

- August

[mikelepore]

By this logic, you shouldn't love your parents or the rest of your family. You should have no special affection towards the people around you as you grow up, since it is merely an accident of birth that you are associated with them.

I love my parents because they have done many kind things for me. The dotted lines drawn on the map have never done anything for me.

[eyedrop]

By this logic, you shouldn't love your parents or the rest of your family. You should have no special affection towards the people around you as you grow up, since it is merely an accident of birth that you are associated with them. Nothing has any inherent meaning. Meaning is simply a value placed on things by human beings.

Your family and close people around you should earn your love just like everyone else. Unconditional love is a bullshit consept. If your mother beats you while you grow up you should rigthly hate her, not love her because of the family bonds.

On the question of patriotisism I must say that I am quite fond of a lot of the quirks of the culture I grew up in. National borders are quite arbitrary, luckily not by rulers here, and have been changed countless of times throughout history so they don't really mean anything. As quite a lot of people think of me as a scandinavian rather than a norwegian, or even a european that also does it to shatter a national image.

[cleef]

Bertrand Russell- Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.

[Charles Xavier]

Speak for yourself. You may want what's best for workers in 'your' state. I want what's best for all the workers of the world.
Join the revolutionary movement in Somali and fight for their liberation. I'll be busy fighting for working people in my homeland and hope for the successes and victories of workers across the world.

[Yehuda Stern]

God forbid I should go help those darkies while you sophisticated leftists only help workers in 'your' country.
Here's the answer to everyone who says that patriotism is not nationalism.

[Red Rebel]

I love where I am from, I love my city, state and country. I fail to see how loving my country betrays my class. Nationalism is different than patriotism as others have mentioned.

[Valeofruin]

Im patriotic in the sense that I am proud to be a working class American. Im proud of the working people of my country, not of my imperialist government. Nor do i hold the working people of my country ABOVE those of other nations.

As you can see patriotism is all about opinion, we must answer the question "What is patriotism?".

[Valeofruin]

Nationalism and patriotism are just tools to divide the working class, always have been.

I celebrate culture and diversity, not nationalism or patriotism.

Internationalism is my thing. Race, ethnicity, nationality are all irrelevant. We need to break down borders for our revolution.

Theres ideas coming from people like Billy Bragg about reclaiming nationalism for the left, which is a nice thought, but its a useless thing to do, and only worthwhile as a means of gaining support.

Nah, internationalism is the only way.

No borders, no nations!

Again its subject to opinion. Patriotism is not always here to divide us like we see in say, racism, or nationalism. Patriotism specifically can be used as a unifying force as well.

[ernie]

I love where I am from, I love my city, state and country. I fail to see how loving my country betrays my class. Nationalism is different than patriotism as others have mentioned.

The only thing it betrays is reason.

What does it mean to love a country? Does it mean you love the people of that country? Or the geographical characteristics? The weather? The food? As you can see, you get into quite a mess by saying "I love my country".

That being said, I think it's normal to associate good memories with places and having a preference for being (or living) in those places. Whether or not they are in "your country" (whatever that means) is irrelevant.

Patriotism is a superstition, no less so than religion or astrology. As such, we must ruthlessly fight against it.

[Dust Bunnies]

Countries are basically scribbles by a bunch of immature politicians, the bad part is that those scribbles are enforced by loss of human lives.

[Charles Xavier]

"Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians? Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression and the humiliation our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these outrages put up from our midst, from the Great Russians; in that midst having produced Radishchev,[3] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm#fwV21E051) the Decembrists[4] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm#fwV21E052) and the revolutionary commoners of the seventies[5] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm#fwV21E053); in the Great-Russian working class having created, in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of the masses; and in the Great-Russian peasantry having begun to turn towards democracy and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed proprietors." - Vladimir Lenin, On the National Pride of the Great Russians

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/dec/12a.htm

[ernie]

"Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians? Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness..."

Yes, Lenin was patriotic. He lived in a time and place when and where it was progressive to be so. That doesn't change the fact that patriotism is a superstition. In today's advanced capitalist countries, it is our enemy and we must get rid of it.

[Charles Xavier]

Yes, Lenin was patriotic. He lived in a time and place when and where it was progressive to be so. That doesn't change the fact that patriotism is a superstition. In today's advanced capitalist countries, it is our enemy and we must get rid of it. So forget about the 9/10ths of the population that we struggle for and instead struggle for some bullshit international organization with no legs?

[#FF0000]

So forget about the 9/10ths of the population that we struggle for and instead struggle for some bullshit international organization with no legs?

I don't think that's what anybody is saying. Start making changes in your immediate environment first, by all means. Doing so doesn't make someone any more a nationalist or any less and internationalist. It's just good logistics.

Either way, I think we need a clear and precise definition of "patriotism". More specific than "pride in one's country", at least. After all, what is a country? The land within certain imaginary lines? The government? The people within those lines? Culture? I remember being asked by a friend why I "hate my country" and I couldn't really answer him. I don't really hate the country, per se. I don't like its government or economic system, but is that all a country is?

As far as I can tell, patriotism is bullshit. It's got no clear definition and it has been used in a million different and often contradictory ways. For instance, Thomas Jefferson thinks it patriotic to fight one's own government if it becomes tyrannical. If this is true, then being a patriot has nothing to do with supporting a government. Meanwhile, protesters and anti-government activists are seen as unpatriotic.

So, yeah. Define what "patriotism" is, first. And while you are at it, define what a "country" is, because I haven't been able to figure it out.

[Comrada J]

There's no reason why we can't be international patriots.

[Revy]

I would like to bring up the immigrant rights movement as an example. At the immigrant demonstrations, there were many American flags being held. And the U.S. national anthem was translated into Spanish as Nuestro Himno to promote immigrant rights.

They are using patriotism in a way that promotes unity and solidarity. This should be contrasted with the way that xenophobes, reactionary nationalists, far-right fascists and imperialists use patriotism. The two cannot be compared.

[Charles Xavier]

I don't think that's what anybody is saying. Start making changes in your immediate environment first, by all means. Doing so doesn't make someone any more a nationalist or any less and internationalist. It's just good logistics.

Either way, I think we need a clear and precise definition of "patriotism". More specific than "pride in one's country", at least. After all, what is a country? The land within certain imaginary lines? The government? The people within those lines? Culture? I remember being asked by a friend why I "hate my country" and I couldn't really answer him. I don't really hate the country, per se. I don't like its government or economic system, but is that all a country is?

As far as I can tell, patriotism is bullshit. It's got no clear definition and it has been used in a million different and often contradictory ways. For instance, Thomas Jefferson thinks it patriotic to fight one's own government if it becomes tyrannical. If this is true, then being a patriot has nothing to do with supporting a government. Meanwhile, protesters and anti-government activists are seen as unpatriotic.

So, yeah. Define what "patriotism" is, first. And while you are at it, define what a "country" is, because I haven't been able to figure it out.

I would like to declare that country is bigger than economic system or government. A country is a union of one or more nations under a common central government(such nations are usually brought into to the union without their consent and their national rights usually non-existent). A Nation is a common people who share the same culture usually though religion, ethnicity, language, and customs. There are many different nations across the world. Many which do not have their own government. They do not necessarily have proper geographical borders.

Left-Patriotism is the love of one's people (peoples in a multi-national republic) and culture or the love of the vast majority of ones people and wanting to see the democratic development of one's people.


Nationalism is wanting to see the supremacy of nation at either the expense of the people living their or working people of other nations.

These aren't perfect definitions but this is the basic ones I can give.

[Pogue]

I like this area, as in the cultures and many of its people, I don't recognise a country and thus can't be nationalistic or patriotic. A nation is a lump of rock. I feel affection for the parts of this lump of rock I have been too.

[Charles Xavier]

I like this area, as in the cultures and many of its people, I don't recognise a country and thus can't be nationalistic or patriotic. A nation is a lump of rock. I feel affection for the parts of this lump of rock I have been too.


If your nation is just a lump of rock, what would you do if a foreign country took over your lump of rock, said your people are ugly, the music they make horrible, that your cities are dumps? (ignoring the fact that us is imperialist)

[ernie]

Left-Patriotism is the love of one's people (peoples in a multi-national republic) and culture or the love of the vast majority of ones people and wanting to see the democratic development of one's people.
Again: what do you mean by "one's people"? The people that were born in the same nation (using your definition) you were born in?

Even by this definition, "Left-Patriotism" is still reactionary. We shouldn't "love" people, in general. Reactionary people don't deserve our respect, but our contempt. The same goes for cultures. I used to live in a third world country, whose culture was rich with superstitions: homophobia, sexism, racism, patriotism, etc. I didn't "love" that culture; I fucking hated it!

We should do what we can to accelerate history in a communist direction in our community, whether or not its inhabitants are "our people".

[Charles Xavier]

Again: what do you mean by "one's people"? The people that were born in the same nation (using your definition) you were born in?

Even by this definition, "Left-Patriotism" is still reactionary. We shouldn't "love" people, in general. Reactionary people don't deserve our respect, but our contempt. The same goes for cultures. I used to live in a third world country, whose culture was rich with superstitions: homophobia, sexism, racism, patriotism, etc. I didn't "love" that culture; I fucking hated it!

We should do what we can to accelerate history in a communist direction in our community, whether or not its inhabitants are "our people".

The peasantry, the artisan, the small business owner and such are reactionary, and they must be in order to maintain their position within society, those who are revolutionary are revolutionary seeing the fact that they will turn into the proletariat. The Peasantry do no deserve our contempt, they deserve our patients our unyielding stance to better them. We are left patriotic, we do not love bourgeioisie culture, we repute it, we love the resistance and the fights our people have made for us. I love the fact that Gabriel Dumont fought against the reactionary state, I love that my people took over the railway lines in the on-to-ottawa trek in a cross canada movement to force the government to us, I love my city was one of the biggest centres to get us universial healthcare, despite its shortcoming in Regina, I love the sciencitific discoveries my country has contributed to the world, I love the land and the people their discovery and whatnot. I do not love the racism, homophobia, subjection of years of oppression to native people and so on and so forth.

[JimmyJazz]

Im patriotic in the sense that I am proud to be a working class American. Im proud of the working people of my country, not of my imperialist government. Nor do i hold the working people of my country ABOVE those of other nations.

Who murdered millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis under the American flag? Was it rich kids? Or was it members of the American working class? Now I'm not saying that participating in imperial butchery is the same as orchestrating it, and it's certainly true that those who participate in it are also the victims of those who orchestrate it. But please don't let your affinity for Marx/ism lead you to some kind of fetishism of the working class that says because someone works in a factory for a living, he can't be a disgusting white skin/first world chauvinist, imperialist asshole.


Yes, Lenin was patriotic.

Lenin, who advocated and openly cheered for the "revolutionary defeat" of his own country in WWI, was a "patriot"? Not in any sense of the word. That is a bullshit statement, sorry.

Why do you (and so many others in this thread) so badly want to save the label "patriot"? To the point that you're trying to bend and twist the word beyond any recognizable relation to its true and former meaning? What is so appealing about that word?

[ernie]

I love the sciencitific discoveries my country has contributed to the world
Discoveries aren't made by countries; they are made by people. What does it matter what piece of land a scientist was standing on when he made a particularly important discovery?

[ernie]

Lenin, who advocated and openly cheered for the "revolutionary defeat" of his own country in WWI, was a "patriot"? Not in any sense of the word. That is a bullshit statement, sorry.
Going by the quote posted, I would say that Lenin was somewhat of a patriot. He grew up in the 1800s, so it's no surprise that he carried some of the superstitions of his time.


Why do you (and so many others in this thread) so badly want to save the label "patriot"? To the point that you're trying to bend and twist the word beyond any recognizable relation to its true and former meaning? What is so appealing about that word?
Please read the whole post before quoting me. I clearly stated that patriotism is a superstition that must be struggled against. GeorgiDimitrovII is the one that (for some inexplicable reason) wants to put a leftist spin on the word.

[ev]

I could be 'patriotic' if i was living in a socialist country which was annexing its neighboring states, installing similar socialist ideologies into that state and then annexing the state beyond that one until the entire world was consumed :lol: :rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

Going by the quote posted, I would say that Lenin was somewhat of a patriot.

Well, as I explained earlier in the thread, patriotism is a political phenomenon and not the same as national pride, at least in America. But maybe you're not from here so in that case I don't know how you may have heard the word used.

You can bet Lenin didn't pledge allegiance to the flag of the tsarist monarchy, and that is what "patriotism", in this country, means. It's being willing to swear to defend the current constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to follow orders from the office of the president. It isn't "national pride" (although it may be partially fueled by that).

[Charles Xavier]

Well, as I explained earlier in the thread, patriotism is a political phenomenon and not the same as national pride, at least in America. But maybe you're not from here so in that case I don't know how you may have heard the word used.

You can bet Lenin didn't pledge allegiance to the flag of the tsarist monarchy, and that is what "patriotism", in this country, means. It's being willing to swear to defend the current constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to follow orders from the office of the president. It isn't "national pride" (although it may be partially fueled by that).


That is what the bourgeioisie define as patriotism and something they do in every country. The kind of Patriotism we are against

But as an American, you cannot tell me you are not proud that the fight for the 8 hour workday started in the US primarily chicago and its success something that you are proud of? Tell me that you are not proud of the Americans who went and fought for the Spanish Republic in 1936 with the Abe Lincoln Brigade, that you are not impressed by the fact that your country has an amazing variety of sports, music, and what not, that hip hop music was primarily developed within the United States, the victory over slave owners in the civil war, the american revolution which made your country a republic, that your country fought fascism in ww2, that the biggest ever peace demostrations in the world occured in the US, with gay pride marches larger than anywhere else in the world, there is lots a Left Patroit can be proud of in the United States. This type of patriot does not exclude internationalist patriotism.

[BobKKKindle$]

But please don't let your affinity for Marx/ism lead you to some kind of fetishism of the working class that says because someone works in a factory for a living, he can't be a disgusting white skin/first world chauvinist, imperialist asshole.

This is coming from the person who wants the government to try and stop all immigrants from coming into the US by closing the borders, to preserve the interests of American workers - your reactionary position on immigration means you don't have any right to talk about whether someone should be patriotic or whether other members have been able to justify their support for patriotism, because your own position is based on the premise that American workers should have access to special economic privileges which are not available to other workers, and that these privileges should be maintained by using the coercive power of the state against prospective immigrants. This is a fundamentally reactionary position which disregards one of the most basic principles of socialism - that all workers are equal and have the same interests, regardless of nationality or any other arbitrary characteristic.

[Red Rebel]

The only thing it betrays is reason.

What does it mean to love a country? Does it mean you love the people of that country? Or the geographical characteristics? The weather? The food? As you can see, you get into quite a mess by saying "I love my country".

That being said, I think it's normal to associate good memories with places and having a preference for being (or living) in those places. Whether or not they are in "your country" (whatever that means) is irrelevant.

Patriotism is a superstition, no less so than religion or astrology. As such, we must ruthlessly fight against it.


fyi I'm talking about the Philadelphia area. But I love the city, it is a great spot to be. I love the city of brotherly love, the sports, the culture. I love the history that surrounds the city. The culture of the people, cheesesteaks, I love Valley Forge Park the foundations of the bourgeois revolution against imperialism. I love Happy Valley, white outs at Beaver Stadium, my fraternity, the people, and the local unions. I love the four seasons.

The idea that this love and connections should be combated is insanity. It is not promoting nationalism. I don't hate Pitt, New Jersey or New York. It is fun visting other countries but there is no place like Philly. I love it so much that I believe I should strive to make it the best place on Earth, and by that I mean socialsim and the abolishment of pirvate property and exploitation.

[JimmyJazz]

This is coming from the person who wants the government to try and stop all immigrants from coming into the US by closing the borders, to preserve the interests of American workers - your reactionary position on immigration means you don't have any right to talk about whether someone should be patriotic or whether other members have been able to justify their support for patriotism, because your own position is based on the premise that American workers should have access to special economic privileges which are not available to other workers, and that these privileges should be maintained by using the coercive power of the state against prospective immigrants. This is a fundamentally reactionary position which disregards one of the most basic principles of socialism - that all workers are equal and have the same interests, regardless of nationality or any other arbitrary characteristic.


Go die, you ignorant reactionary fucktard. Shot any immigrants recently?

:crying: :crying:









:lol:

[JimmyJazz]

That is what the bourgeioisie define as patriotism and something they do in every country. The kind of Patriotism we are against

OK fair enough, that's a good way of thinking about it. Then again, "the ruling ideas of the age are ever the ideas of the ruling class." A word only means what most people mean by it, and the overwhelming majority of people use the word patriotism to refer to the bourgeois kind.

[Charles Xavier]

OK fair enough, that's a good way of thinking about it. Then again, "the ruling ideas of the age are ever the ideas of the ruling class." A word only means what most people mean by it, and the overwhelming majority of people use the word patriotism to refer to the bourgeois kind.

We should take back our word, because its what the bourgeoisie tell us isn't patriotic its nationalism. We are the true patriots. We defend the interest of 90% of the population. And one thing we should also realize is that the US is a multi-national country, national oppression exist for some nations. I don't someone is going to tell me that an oppressed nation should not be patriotic.

[Junius]

GeorgiDimitrovII


Its not just the learning forum, the political forum is where a lot of new people go. But yes, It would be good to get people off in the right-direction. The Patriot discussion I thought is an Important one, to combat national nihilism. I don't have as much time to read as I used to. But take note a lot of these other comrades don't read at all and just talk anti-Leninist non-sense every which way.

Lenin:


During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government. This is axiomatic, and disputed only by conscious partisans or helpless satellites of the social-chauvinists.

What are the main currents of these turbulent sentiments? They are: (1) Horror and despair. Hence, a growth of religious feeling. Again the churches are crowded, the reactionaries joyfully declare. “Wherever there is suffering there is religion," says the arch-reactionary Barr s. He is right, too. (2) Hatred of the “enemy”, a sentiment that is carefully fostered by the bourgeoisie (not so much by the priests), arid is of economic and political value only to the bourgeoisie. (3) Hatred of one’s own government and one’s own bourgeoisie—the sentiment of all class-conscious workers who understand, on the one hand, that war is a “continuation of the politics” of imperialism, which they counter by a “continuation” of their hatred of their class enemy, and, on the other hand, that “a war against war” is a banal phrase unless it means a revolution against their own government. Hatred of one’s own government and one’s own bourgeoisie cannot be aroused unless their defeat is desired; one cannot be a sincere opponent of a civil (i.e., class) truce without arousing hatred of one’s own government and bourgeoisie!

Those who stand for the “neither-victory-nor-defeat” slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of inter national revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments, and do not wish to help develop such action, which, though undoubtedly difficult, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task. It is the proletariat in the most backward of the belligerent. Great Powers which, through the medium of their party, have had to adopt—especially in view of the shameful treachery of the German and French Social-Democrats— revolutionary tactics that are quite unfeasible unless they “contribute to the defeat” of their own government, but which alone lead to a European revolution, to the permanent peace of socialism, to the liberation of humanity from the horrors, misery, savagery and brutality now prevailing.

The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm)

Lenin:


There is a Latin tag cui prodest? meaning “who stands to gain?” When it is not immediately apparent which political or social groups, forces or alignments advocate certain proposals, measures, etc., one should always ask: “Who stands to gain?”

It is not important who directly advocates a particular policy, since under the present noble system of capitalism any money-bag can always “hire”, buy or enlist any number of lawyers, writers and even parliamentary deputies, professors, parsons and the like to defend any views. We live in an age of commerce, when the bourgeoisie have no scruples about trading in honour or conscience. There are also simpletons who out of stupidity or by force of habit defend views prevalent in certain bourgeois circles.

Yes, indeed! In politics it is not so important who directly advocates particular views. What is important is who stands to gain from these views, proposals, measures.

For instance, “Europe”, the states that call themselves “civilised”, are now engaged in a mad armaments hurdle-race. In thousands of ways, in thousands of newspapers, from thousands of pulpits, they shout and clamour about patriotism, culture, native land, peace, and progress—and all in order to justify new expenditures of tens and hundreds of millions of rubles for all manner of weapons of destruction—for guns, dreadnoughts, etc.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” one feels like saying about all these phrases mouthed by patriots, so-called. “Put no faith in phrase-mongering, it is better to see who stands to gain!”

A short while ago the renowned British firm Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. published its annual balance-sheet. The firm is engaged mainly in the manufacture of armaments of various kinds. A profit was shown of £ 877,000, about 8 million rubles, and a dividend of 12.5 per cent was declared! About 900,000 rubles were set aside as reserve capital, and so on and so forth.

That’s where the millions and milliards squeezed out of the workers and peasants for armaments go. Dividends of 12.5 per cent mean that capital is doubled in 8 years. And this is in addition to all kinds of fees to directors, etc. Arm strong in Britain, Krupp in Germany, Creusot in France, Cockerill in Belgium—how many of them are there in all the “civilised” countries? And the countless host of contractors?

These are the ones who stand to gain from the whipping up of chauvinism, from the chatter about “patriotism” (cannon patriotism), about the defence of culture (with weapons destructive of culture) and so forth!

“Who Stands to Gain?” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/apr/11.htm)

Lenin:


Neither group of belligerents is inferior to the other in spoiliation, atrocities and the boundless brutality of war; however, to hoodwink the proletariat and distract its attention from the only genuine war of liberation, namely, a civil war against the bourgeoisie both of its “own” and of “foreign” countries—to achieve so lofty an aim—the bourgeoisie of each country is trying, with the help of false phrases about patriotism, to extol the significance of its “own” national war, asserting that it is out to defeat the enemy, not for plunder and the seizure of territory, but for the “liberation” of all other peoples except its own.

But the harder the governments and the bourgeoisie of all countries try to disunite the workers and pit them against one another, and the more savagely they enforce, for this lofty aim, martial law and the military censorship (measures which even now, in wartime, are applied against the “internal” foe more harshly than against the external), the more pressingly is it the duty of the class-conscious proletariat to defend its class solidarity, its internationalism, and its socialist convictions against the unbridled chauvinism of the “patriotic” bourgeois cliques in all countries. If class-conscious workers were to give up this aim, this would mean renunciation of their aspirations for freedom and democracy, to say nothing of their socialist aspirations.

The War and Russian Social-Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/sep/28.htm)

Lenin:


After the coup d état, which marked the end of the revolution of 4848, France fell under the yoke of the Napoleonic regime for a period of 18 years. This regime brought upon the country not only economic ruin but national humiliation. In rising against the old regime the proletariat under took two tasks—one of them national and the other of a class character—the liberation of France from the German invasion and the socialist emancipation of the workers from capitalism. This union of two tasks forms a unique feature of the Commune.

The bourgeoisie had formed a “government of national defence” and the proletariat had to fight for national independence under its leadership. Actually, it was a government of “national betrayal” which saw its mission in fighting the Paris proletariat. But the proletariat, blinded by patriotic illusions, did not perceive this. The patriotic idea had its origin in the Great Revolution of the eighteenth century; it swayed the minds of the socialists of the Commune; and Blanqui, for example, undoubtedly a revolutionary and an ardent supporter of socialism, could find no better title for his newspaper than the bourgeois cry: “The country is in danger!”

Combining contradictory tasks—patriotism and socialism—was the fatal mistake of the French socialists. In the Manifesto of the International, issued in September 1870, Marx had warned the French proletariat against being misled by a false national idea[2]; the Great Revolution, class antagonisms had sharpened, and whereas at that time the struggle against the whole of European reaction united the entire revolutionary nation, now the proletariat could no longer combine its interests with the interests of other classes hostile to it; let the bourgeoisie bear the responsibility for the national humiliation—the task of the proletariat was to fight for the socialist emancipation of labour from the yoke of the bourgeoisie.

And indeed the true nature of bourgeois “patriotism” was not long in revealing itself. Having concluded an ignominious peace with the Prussians, the Versailles government proceeded to its immediate task—it launched an attack to wrest the arms that terrified it from the hands of the Paris proletariat. The workers replied by proclaiming the Commune and civil war.

Although the socialist proletariat was split up into numerous sects, the Commune was a splendid example of the unanimity with which the proletariat was able to accomplish the democratic tasks which the bourgeoisie could only proclaim. Without any particularly complex legislation, in a simple, straightforward manner, the proletariat, which had seized power, carried out the democratisation of the social system, abolished the bureaucracy, and made all official posts elective.

But two mistakes destroyed the fruits of the splendid victory. The proletariat stopped half-way: instead of setting about “expropriating the expropriators”, it allowed itself to be led astray by dreams of establishing a higher justice in the country united by a common national task; such institutions as the banks, for example, were not taken over, and Proudhonist theories about a “just exchange”, etc., still prevailed among the socialists. The second mistake was excessive magnanimity on the part of the proletariat: instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them; it underestimated the significance of direct military operations in civil war, and instead of launching a resolute offensive against Versailles that would have crowned its victory in Paris, it tarried and gave the Versailles government time to gather the dark forces and prepare for the blood-soaked week of May.

But despite all its mistakes the Commune was a superb example of the great proletarian movement of the nineteenth century. Marx set a high value on the historic significance of the Commune—if, during the treacherous attempt by the Versailles gang to seize the arms of the Paris proletariat, the workers had allowed themselves to be disarmed without a fight, the disastrous effect of the demoralisation, that this weakness would have caused in the proletarian movement, would have been far, far greater than the losses suffered by the working class in the battle to defend its arms.[3] The sacrifices of the Commune, heavy as they were, are made up for by its significance for the general struggle of the proletariat: it stirred the socialist movement throughout Europe, it demonstrated the strength of civil war, it dispelled patriotic illusions, and destroyed the naïve belief in any efforts of the bourgeoisie for common national aims. The Commune taught the European proletariat to pose concretely the tasks of the socialist revolution.

The lesson learnt by the proletariat will not be forgotten. The working class will make use of it, as it has already done in Russia during the December uprising.

The period that preceded the Russian revolution and prepared it bears a certain resemblance to the period of the Napoleonic yoke in France. In Russia, too, the autocratic clique has brought upon the country economic ruin and national humiliation. But the outbreak of revolution was held back for a long time, since social development had not yet created the conditions for a mass movement and, notwithstanding all the courage displayed, the isolated actions against the government in the pre-revolutionary period broke against the apathy of the masses. Only the Social-Democrats, by strenuous and systematic work, educated the masses to the level of the higher forms of struggle—mass actions and armed civil war.

The Social-Democrats were able to shatter the “common national” and “patriotic” delusions of the young proletariat and later, when the Manifesto of October 17th[4] had been wrested from the tsar due to their direct intervention, the proletariat began vigorous preparation for the next, inevitable phase of the revolution—the armed uprising. Having shed “common national” illusions, it concentrated its class forces in its own mass organisations—the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, etc. And notwithstanding all the differences in the aims and tasks of the Russian revolution, compared with the French revolution of 1871, the Russian proletariat had to resort to the same method of struggle as that first used by the Paris Commune—civil war. Mindful of the lessons of the Commune, it knew that the proletariat should not ignore peaceful methods of struggle—they serve its ordinary, day-to-day interests, they are necessary in periods of preparation for revolution—but it must never forget that in certain conditions the class struggle assumes the form of armed conflict and civil war; there are times when the interests of the proletariat call for ruthless extermination of its enemies in open armed clashes. This was first demonstrated by the French proletariat in the Commune and brilliantly confirmed by the Russian proletariat in the December uprising.

And although these magnificent uprisings of the working class were crushed, there will be another uprising, in face of which the forces of the enemies of the proletariat will prove ineffective, and from which the socialist proletariat will emerge completely victorious.

Lessons of the Commune. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mar/23.htm)

Lenin:


Does that mean that Nashe Slovo’s entire idea of uniting the internationalists has been wrecked? No, it does not. While there exist ideological solidarity and a sincere desire to combat social-patriotism, no failure of any conferences can check unity among internationalists. At the disposal of the editors of Nashe Slovo is the great instrument of a daily paper. They can do something immeasurably more businesslike and serious than calling conferences and issuing declarations; they can invite all groups, and themselves start: (1) to immediately evolve full, precise, unequivocal and perfectly clear definitions of the content of internationalism (it being a fact that Vandervelde, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lensch, and Haenisch also call themselves internationalists!), of opportunism, the collapse of the Second International, the tasks and the methods of combating socialpatriotism, etc.; (2) to rally forces for a severe struggle for certain principles, not only abroad, but mainly in Russia.

Indeed, can anyone deny that there is no other way towards the victory of internationalism over social-patriotism, and that there can be none? Half a century of Russian political emigration (and thirty years of Social-Democratic emigration)-have these not shown that all declarations, conferences, etc., abroad are powerless, insignificant, and empty, unless they are supported by a lasting movement of some social stratum in Russia? Does not the present war also teach us that everything that is immature or decaying, everything that is conventional or diplomatic, will collapse at the first blow?

The Question of the Unity of Internationalists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/may/01b.htm)

Leninist enough for you?

[KC]

I'm proud of my family and my friends and everyone that's done anything great with their lives and that's about it.

[Charles Xavier]

GeorgiDimitrovII

Lenin:
The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm)

Lenin:
“Who Stands to Gain?” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/apr/11.htm)

Lenin:
The War and Russian Social-Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/sep/28.htm)

Lenin:
Lessons of the Commune. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mar/23.htm)

Lenin:
The Question of the Unity of Internationalists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/may/01b.htm)

Leninist enough for you?


Thanks for the sources for my argument,安藤鈴 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=18004) you are a true Leninist to help my argument against bourgeioisie "patriotism" and for Left-Patriotism

As we can see here Lenin talks extensively against the bourgeoisie "patriotism". He even puts it in quotes because it is patriotic in name only and anti-democratic in deed.

[Ramachandra]

Honestly i love my country.That doesn't mean that i beleive my country is superior than any other country but it is natural having somekind of a bond towards the country u born.In that sense i see no harm in patriotism.But indeed i have to add ultra patriotism is harmful and especially when it becomes a weapon in the hand of the reactionary ruling class the effect will be really harmful.(I guess that is what's happening in the US)
in a third world perspective the term patriotism takes a different shape.(as i feel)Well if you study the history of anti imperialist uprisings patriotism did played a progressive role in those.Even when we come to the cuban revolution the vietnamese struggle and the chinese revolution no one can deny that patrioism had a significant role in these political struggles.As far as it is under the control of the class leadership well i feel dat it can be used to acheive productive results.

[KC]

The stumbling block of all that support nationalism or patriotism is the ability to define the nation itself. Benedict Anderson was correct when he said that a nation is simply an imagined community that doesn't exist outside the mind. In that sense it is very similar to racism, in that they are both ideologies that presume the objective existence of a subjective and undefinable construct.

Ask five different "patriots" what they love about their country and they will give either five different answers or a few similar incredibly vague and meaningless ones.

[mikelepore]

Affection and disaffection must always be relative to one another. It's impossible to like chocolate cake "more than any other kind" without simultaneously liking vanilla "less." This must be true of all relative evaluations. Therefore I find it disingenuous when the people around me commonly say, "I don't hate anyone -- I'm just devoted to whatever is best for the USA." The assertion shows an error of the same sort as saying that you want one portion of an apple to be made greater, but in such a way that the other portion shall not be made correspondingly smaller. It seeks the impossible from an inverse relationship. Consider the border between the U.S. and Canada -- how reasonable is it to declare an extra measure of love for the people who live on a particular side of a line that someone has decided to draw at 49 degrees north latitude? I don't see how it could have any more moral defensibility than when members of racist movements say they that don't hate anyone but are merely dedicated to the cause of white people. The conclusion is inescapable. Patriotism is a form of bigotry, and it should be listed with the other forms. We should customarily make our references to the various forms of bigotry, including racism, sexism, and patriotism.

[Charles Xavier]

The stumbling block of all that support nationalism or patriotism is the ability to define the nation itself. Benedict Anderson was correct when he said that a nation is simply an imagined community that doesn't exist outside the mind. In that sense it is very similar to racism, in that they are both ideologies that presume the objective existence of a subjective and undefinable construct.

Ask five different "patriots" what they love about their country and they will give either five different answers or a few similar incredibly vague and meaningless ones.

I love my language, I love my country's humour, I love my country's struggles, I love my country's music, I love my country's natural beauty.

And its not correct that a nation is a figment of one's imagination, that is national nihilism. Nations do exist, they are a grouping of common peoples, with common language, land, culture and in some cases ethnicity as well who share a common identity and history. Communists are not national nihilists. For one that have a picture of Lenin(regardless if you are a trotskyite) in their display should know this.


Affection and disaffection must always be relative to one another. It's impossible to like chocolate cake "more than any other kind" without simultaneously liking vanilla "less." This must be true of all relative evaluations. Therefore I find it disingenuous when the people around me commonly say, "I don't hate anyone -- I'm just devoted to whatever is best for the USA." The assertion shows an error of the same sort as saying that you want one portion of an apple to be made greater, but in such a way that the other portion shall not be made correspondingly smaller. It seeks the impossible from an inverse relationship. Consider the border between the U.S. and Canada -- how reasonable is it to declare an extra measure of love for the people who live on a particular side of a line that someone has decided to draw at 49 degrees north latitude? I don't see how it could have any more moral defensibility than when members of racist movements say they that don't hate anyone but are merely dedicated to the cause of white people. The conclusion is inescapable. Patriotism is a form of bigotry, and it should be listed with the other forms. We should customarily make our references to the various forms of bigotry, including racism, sexism, and patriotism.

Why don't you fight for the rights of the Canadian labour movement? You may offer advice and show solidarity, but you cannot unless you live here fight for the rights. Because its not your struggle, your struggle is to fight for the rights of the American Labour movement. I do share a similar culture with the United States, but in this its still different, its a different political, economic and cultural struggle. Its like when the US says, Iraq has a bad president we should overthrow them and install our own. Well no, thats imperialism, the people of iraq must determine the struggle for removing a bad president and whole political sphere. Are the people of Iraq Bigots for asking another country not to invade?

[KC]

In your entire "response" to what I have wrote, you keep saying what you love about your "country" (technically "nation" as a country is merely an arbitrary geographical designation on a map) without actually saying what your country is. I want you - a nationalist - to define what a nation is general, and then define the Canadian nation specifically.

[Charles Xavier]

In your entire "response" to what I have wrote, you keep saying what you love about your "country" (technically "nation" as a country is merely an arbitrary geographical designation on a map) without actually saying what your country is. I want you - a nationalist - to define what a nation is general, and then define the Canadian nation specifically.


I'm not a nationalist, I'm a patriot, I work for the Canadian Working Class. A nation is a peoples with a common identity and history. Many nations aren't even on maps, I do not see the Iroquois Confederacy on the map, nor the Metis, nor the Cree, Blackfoot, Arcadian, Canada isn't a nation its many nations. A country is a peoples under a common government which will have one dominate nation ruling over the rest.

[KC]

A nation is a peoples with a common identity and history.

This is so vague it's meaningless. You still have yet to respond to anything I wrote.

[Charles Xavier]

This is so vague it's meaningless. You still have yet to respond to anything I wrote.
Which part haven't I responded to?

[KC]

Which part haven't I responded to?

The entire thing. The definition you gave me is completely meaningless.

[Pogue]

If your nation is just a lump of rock, what would you do if a foreign country took over your lump of rock, said your people are ugly, the music they make horrible, that your cities are dumps? (ignoring the fact that us is imperialist)

?

I'd be angered that presumably the democratic sovereignty of my country had been undermined and things had been occupied/stolen. My oposition would be purely logical and leftist i.e. that stuff had been destroyed and stolen and people attacked etc. Nationalism is baseless, i'd base my opposition on concerete facts and stuff.

[Charles Xavier]

?

I'd be angered that presumably the democratic sovereignty of my country had been undermined and things had been occupied/stolen. My oposition would be purely logical and leftist i.e. that stuff had been destroyed and stolen and people attacked etc. Nationalism is baseless, i'd base my opposition on concerete facts and stuff.


Exactly.


The entire thing. The definition you gave me is completely meaningless.
What are you talking about?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I think that the term patriotism in most leftist circles has a charge which is probably undeserved... I'd call myself patriotic, but in doing so I'm probably communicating something different to what many people on this forum would take from that.

I like the country where I live. When I say that, I mean that I like travelling up to north norfolk and spending the week staying with friends, walking 4 miles to the beach and just chilling there all afternoon. I don't really want to make an appeal to emotion, or cite the old "warm beer and cricket" reasoning many people give as to why they like England... I think to many different people England is many different things. In part that's due to the benefits of multiculturalism, which I think we should celebrate.

I'm not a nationalist, I don't consider my nation to be superior to any other. In many instances, such as government policy I consider it to be inferior to other nations. However, I'd like to drive home that I'm not eliciting support for my government, the economic system, past atrocities or anything like that - all of which is far removed from what it means to me.

I believe Patriotism is a personal feeling; not of pride, but to merely be happy living where you are. It should not be forced upon others, or arrogantly flouted, just enjoyed.

[JohnnyC]

You can be "patriotic" about your neighbors and your neighborhood, but it's stupid to be patriotic and proud of "your country" and "nation".If you live in London for example, what connects you with someone who lives in Liverpool? (Beside maybe culture and the imaginary country you both belong to)You can love and be proud of only what you see and know, and since none of us met all members of his nation or seen his whole county he can only feel "patriotic" about humans he know and the places he saw.

[Sankofa]

Patriotic about what? The USA? As in AmeriKKKa? Like getting a warm fuzzy feeling when I hear the national anthem and they raise the good ole' stars and stripes? Hardly.

How can you feel patriotic about a nation built on a lie? On the genocide, rape, theft, slavery, and oppression of millions? Especially when it's my people that were being exploited to build this "great" nation.

I tend to agree with Malcolm X's line that says if you're an African, it's unintelligent to believe that you're somehow an "American".

Having said that, I don't think it's wrong for someone to feel a connection to their actual homeland. However, I would hope Internationalism is at the forefront of everyone's beliefs, especially on this board.

[apathy maybe]

I think that the term patriotism in most leftist circles has a charge which is probably undeserved... I'd call myself patriotic, but in doing so I'm probably communicating something different to what many people on this forum would take from that.
...
I believe Patriotism is a personal feeling; not of pride, but to merely be happy living where you are. It should not be forced upon others, or arrogantly flouted, just enjoyed.

So you love your country. What has your country done to deserve your love? You are devoted to your country. What has your country done to deserve devotion.
You aren't patriotic, you don't love your country. You love the place you live, that isn't a country though. You love the culture, that isn't a country. These things would continue to exist without any countries at all.

Don't call yourself patriotic, because you aren't. (Assuming that I'm correct in the way I'm reading what you've written.)

Of course, I could be wrong. Anyway, what you have written suggest to me an essay, < http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/lionunicorn.html >, I suggest you read it.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I voted yes, i'd be lying if I said i didn't feel patriotic towards my country

[gorillafuck]

No, I'm not patriotic

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I dont believe its wrong to be patriotic once in a while... I think really its more of a patriotism to the people of my country like the military people... I mean yeah their going out their and fighting and such but.... its not like ALL of them of have that choice you know? I mean the people going out to fight the war on terror no matter how crappy a war I believe their is still some duty to respect those people. And well the fact we can talk about revolution in America without getting executed or beaten or having our hands chopped off is at least one good thing to be happy about lol.

[JacobVardy]

The question was, are you patriotic? I answered yes. I grew up in Sydney, Australia. Thus: i drink beer; i think football codes other than rugby league are silly but i still like it when the Socceroos win a match; i ride on the left side of the road; and i get annoyed when spell check changes words to the yankee spelling. These are entirely arbitary habits but by long aquaintance they have become part of my character.

In the same way, after 200 years of propaganda, identifying with a nation has become second nature to many people. When culture is an arbitary matter like this, a nostalgic attachment and idetification to a time and place it should be embraced by the left as a force too strong to fight (for now aleast). When one set of arbitary choices is gaged as being superior, that is the lefts fight.

[FreeFocus]

I'm not a nationalist, I'm a patriot, I work for the Canadian Working Class. A nation is a peoples with a common identity and history. Many nations aren't even on maps, I do not see the Iroquois Confederacy on the map, nor the Metis, nor the Cree, Blackfoot, Arcadian, Canada isn't a nation its many nations. A country is a peoples under a common government which will have one dominate nation ruling over the rest.

You don't see these First Nations on a map because Canada occupies indigenous territory. Canada is not a "tapestry of nations" or however you'd like to spin that (Americans do the same thing). It's the same old "multiculturalism" disguising systemic racism.

All the people saying that they like spending time with other people who live around them, it's not difficult to simply say, "I love and appreciate my friends and family." When you say things like "I love the culture" and "I love my country," you are tying yourselves to legacies that you may not want to - such as racism, imperialism, social decadence, etc.

[Oneironaut]

I dont believe its wrong to be patriotic once in a while... I think really its more of a patriotism to the people of my country like the military people... I mean yeah their going out their and fighting and such but.... its not like ALL of them of have that choice you know? I mean the people going out to fight the war on terror no matter how crappy a war I believe their is still some duty to respect those people. And well the fact we can talk about revolution in America without getting executed or beaten or having our hands chopped off is at least one good thing to be happy about lol.

I cannot respect soldiers. I understand why people join the military and the incentives involved. I, however, would rather be on the streets than being an imperial pawn. But that's besides the point...

Patriotism for your own countrymen will be at the expense of the well being of all other people in the world. In reality, we are divided by class and not nationality. It is fundamental for leftists to be internationalists. Patriotism serves to divide the proletariat, not unify us in our struggle. Of course, our struggle is firstly to liquidate the capitalists here in America. But we do this under an internationalist proletarian banner and give our support to workers' struggles in all countries.

[Oneironaut]

Nations do exist, they are a grouping of common peoples, with common language, land, culture and in some cases ethnicity as well who share a common identity and history. Communists are not national nihilists.

Of course nations do exist, but that does not make them credible in any way. Don't pretend that everyone in a particular nation is more related to those of their own nation than someone south of the border. Common peoples with a common language and culture is a bourgeois conception of the nation. You and I are united by our proletarian conscious and struggle. We are common people- the proletarian. We are not divided by the fact that I live in America and you Canada- it is these notions that we must attack.

[PostAnarchy]

I believe patriotism, in other words the love of one's country presumably over or at least more so than other countries is inherently a reactionary position as it assumes that there are certain distinct qualilties about your own country that justify supporting it more than others.

[Revy]

The concept of a nation is increasingly obsolete in the face of social-globalization. Meaning, the increasing integration of the world beyond boundaries of ethnicity, language, culture, religion, and other categories that nations were created out of.

In the future, and especially in a socialist future, there will be one nation, the human nation, Earth. A world socialist federation is our goal. Nation-states cannot exist under socialism in anything but an authoritarian Stalinist pipe-dream.

Still, nations exist under our current $y$tem and people may feel the need to feel pride in it. That's their choice. It doesn't make them racist, or fascist. It is possible for left-patriotism to be somewhat legitimate, but not nationalism. For nationalism implies that the nation is somehow still a legitimate concept worth continuing in the long run and emphasizes the allegiance to that ideal above everything else, often with hegemonic and irredentist purposes. I can't agree with that.

[ZeroNowhere]

The concept of a nation is increasingly obsolete in the face of social-globalization.
Why the hell is everything 'social' nowadays? Social-self-abolition, social-proletocracy, social-globalization...
Though yes, I'm an anti-patriot.

[Revy]

Why the hell is everything 'social' nowadays? Social-self-abolition, social-proletocracy, social-globalization...
Though yes, I'm an anti-patriot.

lol :cool:

[Post-Something]

I don't think Marxists can ever call themselves patriots. I'm an internationalist.

[Killfacer]

I will answer the same i do to all these questions. In sport i am patriotic but that is as far as it goes.

[Raúl Duke]

While I may have some little nostalgic feelings about where I'm from...I'm hardly patriotic. In fact, I'm one of the first who don't feel offended when something bad (yet true) is said about the island (a completely different attitude from the norm when there was furor over 2 articles about Puerto Rico from the Economist, which mentioned the truth that and National Geographic). Hell, sometimes I'm the one who brings those bad things up in a conversation and acknowledge the problems that Puerto Rican society faces and has. I have no wish to remind/return to Puerto Rico, for many reasons.

However, moving to the U.S. wasn't as sweet as I thought. Miami was ok but when I moved to the Southwest of Florida I somewhat began to have this feeling of "not belonging" (although in a way I was percieved to "fit in" with the crowd, no one really thinks I'm a foreigner) and I really wasn't impressed by Southern (or Floridian) culture/customs. Maybe I would have a different impression if I lived up North...

Maybe I should try living in Europe...

Either way, this experiences makes me think that patriotism/nationalism is dumb. I surely didn't pick where I was born and I surely don't like it...why should I be obligated to love it?

[Invincible Summer]

I made the argument on another forum that being born randomly (as in you didn't have a say as to where you were born) into a randomly named geographic location is by no means a good reason to be nationalist or patriotic.

I got replies like "Oh well if it's so random then move to North Korea!" and "Don't you like the freedoms you have in your country?" all stuff that totally misses the point.


Would acknowledging the pointlessness of patriotism/nationalism be part of class consciousness?

[Rjevan]

No, I'm a citizen of the world.
I don't think that I could ever be a patriot, maybe if I had been born in the "right" country, but I dont think so and I'm certainly not dreaming of becoming a German patriot. You don't choose the place you get born in and I have absolutely no reason to be proud of things done in the past by people who accidentally lived there, where I accidentally now live.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I dunno about myself. I am honestly torn. How would "patriotism" be defined anyways? I think I have more of like a feeling of "honor"? (probably not the best word) for certain aspects of my country (America) yes its very imperialist, and extremely capitalistic, but I am happy or have a sense of honor for America for my freedom of speech (although it is occasionally stifled) not all countries (like I said before) can we have huge rallies, and shout "REVOLUTION!" and all that jazz (even if the cops do tend to break them up in a nasty way....... but we arn't being executed, for the things we do.) for those kind of things I feel a bit of a sense of pride I suppose. I think I will feel proud for any "GOOD" thing this stupid government does. I have a few friends that where in the army and served time over in Iraq, and I just cant bring myself to "hating" them for it. One of them was a army chaplain assistant, and became a medic after he finally retired from the national guard. Granted being a soldier is a voluntary thing, but once your in your pretty much IN so I just cant bring myself to "hate" these guys for being "forced" into fighting some war that a few people in washington decided to start.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I'm anti nationalist but i feel as if i have to be patriotic for the soldiers who are brain washed to fight in lost causes.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I'm anti nationalist but i feel as if i have to be patriotic for the soldiers who are brain washed to fight in lost causes.

you just summed up in one sentence what I tried to say in like a paragraph thank you.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I see patriotism as wanting what is best for your country, so being a communist and being patriotic kind of go hand in hand.


I made the argument on another forum that being born randomly (as in you didn't have a say as to where you were born) into a randomly named geographic location is by no means a good reason to be nationalist or patriotic.

I got replies like "Oh well if it's so random then move to North Korea!" and "Don't you like the freedoms you have in your country?" all stuff that totally misses the point.


Would acknowledging the pointlessness of patriotism/nationalism be part of class consciousness?


I'm not trying to argue that people should be patriotic/nationalist, but I think that argument is kind of dumb. You don't get to choose your parents, brothers, etc so is loving your family pointless?

[walterrich]

I find it a silly concept.

I'm proud of my achievements. If I work really hard on something and it turns out great then I feel pride.


What is the logical basis for being proud of the fact that, when you fell out of your mother, you landed on one patch of Earth instead of another? What is the reasoning behind loving a rock sticking out of the sea covered in mud and trees?

All it seems to do is divide people. I can remember many occasions when friendly conversations have been ruined by stubborn patriotism (e.g., we were about to see Defiance and a friend who's father is American starts blithering on about how "we" saved Britain's ass. I wasn't too bothered, even though I could've pointed out where he may have been wrong, and most were annoyed but were content to make friendly jabs at him. One patriot, however, couldn't bear to be around him anymore and left.


I mean, wtf? You avoid having fun with friends because of your unrequited love for a rock?


I think it was Michel de Montaigne who said "I embrace a Frenchman as I would a Pole." I like that quote.

[StalinFanboy]

By this logic, you shouldn't love your parents or the rest of your family. You should have no special affection towards the people around you as you grow up, since it is merely an accident of birth that you are associated with them. Nothing has any inherent meaning. Meaning is simply a value placed on things by human beings.

As to whether or not someone should be patriotic, patriotism is loyalty to one's state. The only state we should be loyal to is the workers state, and only as long as it is necessary in order to keep the capitalists at bay.

I do admit to feelings of love for America, but I won't put America ahead of the rest of the human race, and I'm certainly not loyal to the American state or empire. But it's still my family, and I'm still human. But just as I'd fight my brother if he tried to murder someone, I will fight my nation when it is wrong.
Except that your parents raise you...

[black magick hustla]

i hope, most sincerely and adamantly, that all nations and borders and national flags burn burn at the prospect of the world proletariat establishing a global socialist state. i will never be a patriot because i am a communist.

[Akim]

No I am not patriotic at all. Thats one of the reasons why I am going to civil service instead of the army. Fighting for a conservative rightwing coverment , NO THANKS!

[Raúl Duke]

You don't get to choose your parents, brothers, etc so is loving your family pointless?

Are we obligated to love our parents?
What if they treat the person like shit...should that person love their parents?
Puerto Rico and the U.S. have "treated me like shit"...so obviously I should feel no love for either country.

Although, personally I think the "parent-country" analogy is probably not a good one.

[Mala Tha Testa]

Neah, I'm not patriotic at all.

[Foreigner]

Well, I think I'll go ahead and throw in on this issue, being new to the place.

For the record, I consider myself an internationalist, a citizen of the world, with no allegiance to involuntary (i.e. by characteristics such as location, race, sexual, and so forth) human groupings, though I am in sympathy with groups that are oppressed. I believe that suffering has a universal nature, and a threat to anyone anywhere is a threat to all of us everywhere. But I think it is extremely important to never let localized affinities cloud the issue.

That said, I have a somewhat different perspective, coming from a slightly different philosophical angle, but I find it very useful for understanding "patriotism" and "nationalism."

I'll split this into two posts; I tend to make long (though I hope thoughtful and insightful) posts, but I think I have the, or at least one important, key to understanding this whole nationalism/patriotism thing. (And, for the record, "patriotism" as far as I see it is merely the positively-associated euphemism for "nationalism.")

First off, as a historical preface, I understand nationalism as being the modern successor to religion, with much of the same raisons d'être and appeals for both the exploiting classes and the exploited. It's all linked to the legitimacy of the ruling class and its ability to rule without constant application of force.

In ages past, that legitimacy was obtained by the ruler claiming actual divinity. However, this sort of thing cannot even last reliably among unsophisticated people -- how many utterly human, utterly fallible gods can one tolerate before one ceases to be impressed with gods?

The obvious next, and more sustainable, step was for the ruler or ruling class to claim affinity with divinity. Divine right, the mandate of heaven, and so forth are good examples. Thus, though dissidence remains horrific impiety, the ruling class can maintain a more logically-consistent position.

There have been many variants of this, and it seems in many cases to devolve into a sort of assumed divinely-sanctioned superiority of one group over the rest -- say, the Great Men of of the British aristocracy. But overall, as human societies evolved socially, politically and scientifically, such conceits could not last.

Eventually, the legitimacy of the anciens regimes was crumbling in the second half of the second millennium, and a new way of mystifying and legitimizing the ruling class was necessary.

Enter nationalism. Instead of any sort of identifiable mythological anchor, nationalism hijacks popular sentiments and feelings of opposition to exploiting groups (both outside and inside the society) and creates a sort of secular religion in which the new deity is the collective self. Being a mixture of demagogic flattery of the people and sheer social obfuscation (i.e., we're all one group, social class irrespective), it created a new legitimacy behind which ruling classes and their interests could hide.

Before, we were driven to repress our fellow men and murder others for god and king. Now we do it for the People, in our reverent adulation of the collective self. It is a terrifyingly effective Wizard of Oz, with many layers of curtains for its beneficiaries to hide behind.

Of course, it gets more complex in a more explicitly global order in which there has been clear hegemony of one set of nations. Nationalism is not only effective for mobilizing and stabilizing an empire. It is also highly effective for resisting one, and so third-world countries are forced into a devil's deal in resisting the hegemonic powers: religion or nationalism, often both in alliance.

The alternative -- international ideological democracy (real democracy, as in international socialism) has been so demonized, so viciously pursued and persecuted, and faces such constant harrowing from the imperial powers (and from local bastions of culture and social power), that church and nation are really the only viable options that won't get one tortured and killed by one's own local elites.

It's a tough situation, but it's clear that nationalism is a method of maneuvering the proletariat into checkmate. It's important to not get too high and mighty in judging local resistance movements for falling into it (contempt for ignorance is its own form of damnable self-righteousness, after all), but it is a vicious trap.

And the reason it is such a vicious trap is that it fools us into reliance upon sympathy, rather than empathy. It shares the same fatal flaw as all forms of identity politics. I'll explain more in my next post.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Are we obligated to love our parents?
What if they treat the person like shit...should that person love their parents?
Puerto Rico and the U.S. have "treated me like shit"...so obviously I should feel no love for either country.

Although, personally I think the "parent-country" analogy is probably not a good one.

For one thing, a country and it's government are two different things. But I didn't say anything about being obligated to love your country or anything like that, so it doesn't really matter. I just said that just because you don't pick which country you're born in doesn't make loving it pointless.

Like I said, I see patriotism as wanting what is best for your country, so being a communist and being patriotic go hand in hand. The meaning of patriotism has been distorted by associating it with nationalism.


Although patriotism is used in certain vernaculars as a synonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym) for nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), nationalism is not considered an inherent part of patriotism. .[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-books.google.com-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-2) Among the ancient Greeks, patriotism consisted of notions concerning language, religious traditions, ethics, law and devotion to the common good, rather than pure identification with a nation-state.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-3) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-4) Scholar J. Peter Euben writes that for the Greek philosopher Socrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates), "patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-5)
During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment), the notion of patriotism continued to be separate from the notion of nationalism. Instead, patriotism was defined as devotion to humanity and beneficence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficence).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-books.google.com-1) For example, providing charity, criticizing slavery, and denouncing excessive penal laws were all considered patriotic. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-books.google.com-1) In both ancient and modern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) visions of patriotism, individual responsibility to fellow citizens is an inherent component of patriotism.
Many contemporary notions of patriotism are influenced by 19th century ideas about nationalism. During the 19th century, "being patriotic" became increasingly conflated with nationalism, and even jingoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriotism&oldid=271273663#cite_note-books.google.com-1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

Is it really so hard to understand why we haven't found favor with the working class when we go around saying stuff like this:


i hope, most sincerely and adamantly, that all nations and borders and national flags burn burn at the prospect of the world proletariat establishing a global socialist state. i will never be a patriot because i am a communist.

What exactly do we hope to achieve by acting like a bunch of rebellious teenagers and going around chanting juvenile things like "Fuck America!" or "Fuck Britain!", burning flags, and telling people communism is anti-patriotic? Take that somewhere else where it can't harm the fight against capitalism.

[Junius]

An old forgotten Marxist once said: "In the name of a greater civilization, we curse those who for the sake of their ambitious dreams, brought about the massacre of so many young lives. No matter how brutal the crime, you'll always get glorification of its heroism and tradition from the eunuchs of bourgeois culture!"

[Blackscare]

I am big fan of celebrating and taking pride in one's culture, that is social expression. No one wants to live in some drab homogeneous planet with no diversity. Patriotism, however, is political. We don't need political divisions. You can want solidarity with the international working class, and fight for communism world wide, while still participating in and enjoying your own culture, or the unique cultures of others. I dunno about you guys but the idea of living in some weird world where everybody is the same shade of tan and speaks esperanto is a little strange to me. Not that anyone is saying that, but we have to be careful we don't try to stifle healthy expressions of our uniqueness and differences we have.

[Dóchas]

shit i chose yes by accident. i meant no but i do think you should be proud of your background and know where you come from but not take it too far and turn it into mindless nationalism

[l.b.h.r]

the word patriotic is assosiated badly especially in left wing politics the reason for this is that right wing parties such as the bnp have used word and twisted it. its almost as if they have the monopoly in middle class britain were they target the type of people that would call themselves patriotic. well i belive in fighting fire with fire so would i call myself patriotc the answer is yes. love britain love freedom hate racism.

[dmcauliffe09]

Patriotism is a corrupted word. It now pretty much means you have to sell yourself to your nation. In the U.S. anything you do that is anti-government is considered anti-patriotic. But what's more patriotic than fighting an oppressive government?

[Dr.Claw]

If you are patriotic it means you are loyal to the state.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

If you are patriotic it means you are loyal to the state.

Sounds like something a right-winger would say.

[NecroCommie]

Depends on how one defines patriotism. I am a patriot to the international working class movement. However I am definately not a nationalist patriot.

[Dr.Claw]

Sounds like something a right-winger would say.

I'm not a right winger and I'm not patriotic because that would mean I'm loyal to the state and I'm not.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm not a right winger and I'm not patriotic because that would mean I'm loyal to the state and I'm not.

I meant that's how a right winger would define it. Patriotism is not loyalty to the state.

[Dr.Claw]

I dont know any other way to describe it.

[FreeFocus]

I meant that's how a right winger would define it. Patriotism is not loyalty to the state.

I disagree. I would define it the same way.

Nationalism, on the other hand, can be good or bad. In the word you have nation, which is little more than a social organization comprised of people of a similar background with a shared language, regional origin, etc. The nationalism of the oppressed has the potential to be anti-capitalist and is obviously anti-imperialist. Such nationalists would also target their own bourgeoisie, because they sell out their communities. Nationalism of those in dominant cultures/nations is little more than chauvinism and usually approaches open racism. Their cultures are not in danger and are, in fact, threatening others.

[Kernewek]

"a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary"
-George Orwell

I don't see patriotism so much as being proud of an accident of birth but being proud of your roots. I love my country because I grew up here and it's part of who I am, not because I was born here.

Of course, as with any country, there's some things in the UK which are nothing to be proud of, our government for example. But I still love this country and want to make it better, in to something we can be proud of. As far as I'm concerned the ruling classes and those who support them aren't patriots, they don't want what’s best for the people of this country, they just want to use the country for their own personal gain, that's not patriotism

[Dr.Claw]

"a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary"
-George Orwell

I don't see patriotism so much as being proud of an accident of birth but being proud of your roots. I love my country because I grew up here and it's part of who I am, not because I was born here.

Of course, as with any country, there's some things in the UK which are nothing to be proud of, our government for example. But I still love this country and want to make it better, in to something we can be proud of. As far as I'm concerned the ruling classes and those who support them aren't patriots, they don't want what’s best for the people of this country, they just want to use the country for their own personal gain, that's not patriotism

Never really thought of it that way,but i was born and currently live in the U.S. which was stolen from the Native Americans and was founded by the exploitation of human beings, not really a rich history, but i guess you can say that I'm happy to live here and that i like the landscapes and some of the people, if that accounts for anything. as for my roots... I don't really know where exactly any of my family is from.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I disagree. I would define it the same way.

Why? It obviously meant something different in the past. If you're just defining it that way because it is used that way nowadays, then are you going to define anarchism and communism by how they're used nowadays as well?

[Invincible Summer]

"a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary"
-George Orwell

I don't see patriotism so much as being proud of an accident of birth but being proud of your roots. I love my country because I grew up here and it's part of who I am, not because I was born here.


But what do you define "country" as? The actual physical nature of it? The social structure?

And what you are saying is that you're not proud of being born in an area, but you're proud of growing up in an area because it's part of who you are. It's the same thing in my opinion.

[FreeFocus]

Why? It obviously meant something different in the past. If you're just defining it that way because it is used that way nowadays, then are you going to define anarchism and communism by how they're used nowadays as well?

The way it is used now is most relevant, because people being "patriotic" in imperialist states enables mass murder. I explained my reasons in my last post for drawing a distinction, much of it coming from my own experiences and understanding as a minority concerned about cultural subjugation and disintegration.

[Invincible Summer]

Why? It obviously meant something different in the past. If you're just defining it that way because it is used that way nowadays, then are you going to define anarchism and communism by how they're used nowadays as well?

Can't you treat different words differently? Or does it always have to be an all-encompassing approach? :mellow:

[Kernewek]

But what do you define "country" as? The actual physical nature of it? The social structure?
bit of land inhabited by a group of people who share a culture



And what you are saying is that you're not proud of being born in an area, but you're proud of growing up in an area because it's part of who you are. It's the same thing in my opinion.
I don't see how it's the same at all, being born somewhere is meaningless, but growing up in cornwall had a big effect on who I am now, if I'd grown up somewhere else I'd have had a different life, different belifes and I'd be a different person