Thread: National Flags

Results 21 to 40 of 71

  1. #21
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    The socialist world will probably more or less have these flags:

    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Q For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Join Date Aug 2011
    Location Atlantic Ocean
    Posts 421
    Organisation
    Al-Qaeda
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    What do you mean by "aesthetic illustration"?
    Symbolic illsutration of an idea or position.

    For example, the use of a flag not connected to any genuine sense of patriotism but used to express the idea that the proletariat of a given nation are apart of said nation, it is their country (not belonging to the bourgeois) and so forth. Nothing to do with national pride, culture or any sort of thing connected with patriotism.
    And if he start to scream, BAWM BAWM, have a nice dream, a true mothafucka going out for the loot.

    "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."-Col. Gaddafi.

    "Damnation seize my soul if I give you quarters or take any from you."-Edward Teach.
  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dzerzhinsky's Ghost For This Useful Post:


  5. #23
    Join Date May 2011
    Location South Ontario
    Posts 491
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    I'd say no.

    Geographically I think they are pointless as nations aren't based on geographical features and if they are changed to do so the flags would be off. Basically the flags represent arbitrary and invisible lines on the map and therefore are aribitrary themselves.

    Also when they are symbols of patriotism and nationalism they are anti-international and backward so for patriotism; I say no to.

    aesthetic illustration I agree with though. Thanks Dzerzhinsky's Ghost
  6. #24
    Join Date Apr 2011
    Posts 542
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Nah, screw the national flags.
  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Kamos For This Useful Post:


  8. #25
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 3,880
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I'd say no.

    Geographically I think they are pointless as nations aren't based on geographical features and if they are changed to do so the flags would be off. Basically the flags represent arbitrary and invisible lines on the map and therefore are aribitrary themselves.
    What about to show jurisdictions of worker authorities? So people can easily tell which worker governmental body is responsible for that area.
  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Psy For This Useful Post:


  10. #26
    Join Date May 2011
    Location South Ontario
    Posts 491
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    What about to show jurisdictions of worker authorities? So people can easily tell which worker governmental body is responsible for that area.
    Thats a good point but I don't think we would have the same sizes of nation-states now for the future fedrations or w/e will happen.

    In more clearer terms one federation (or worker governmental body) could comprise of the eastcoast of the U.S.A and the eastcoast of Canada therefore breaking the old national borders that corispond to national flags.

    I guess we'll just have to see how things end up
    Last edited by Luc; 2nd September 2011 at 14:26.
  11. #27
    Join Date May 2011
    Location Netherlands
    Posts 4,478
    Rep Power 105

    Default

    I see nothing wrong with patriotism (particularly left-wing patriotism), maybe in a more independentist line of thinking, and I guess the use of a national flag is useful in just that (in a modern society), to represent your country.
    Left-wing patriotism is ridiculous. The left ought to be internationalist. I thought this was elementary stuff here, apparently not.
  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tim Cornelis For This Useful Post:


  13. #28
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Northeast USA
    Posts 4,609
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Left-wing patriotism is ridiculous. The left ought to be internationalist. I thought this was elementary stuff here, apparently not.
    One can't be internationalist unless one recognizes and respects distinct nations...including one's own.
  14. #29
    Join Date May 2011
    Location South Ontario
    Posts 491
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    One can't be internationalist unless one recognizes and respects distinct nations...including one's own.
    What do you mean by "distinct nations"?
  15. #30
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Northeast USA
    Posts 4,609
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    What do you mean by "distinct nations"?
    Generally, this:

    A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
  16. #31
    Join Date May 2011
    Location South Ontario
    Posts 491
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    Generally, this:

    A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
    ah, thank you.

    now, what do you mean by "respect" and "recognize"? Sorry I should of put this in the other post
  17. #32
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Northeast USA
    Posts 4,609
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    ah, thank you.

    now, what do you mean by "respect" and "recognize"? Sorry I should of put this in the other post
    No problem...by that I mean the identification of one nation as its own nation and not another (the "recognize" part) and the defense of the right of nations to self-determination (the "respect" part).
  18. #33
    Join Date May 2011
    Location Netherlands
    Posts 4,478
    Rep Power 105

    Default

    Generally, this:

    A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
    How nonsensical. A "nation" is not a "community", a community is a society of directly interacting people. A school can be a community, everyone knows everyone. My language is of nothing but practical use, I do not have a "common economic life" with every resident of my country, only with my family and co-workers.

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

    Nationalism is a surrogate for the absence of a real interactive participatory community based on solidarity.

    Furthermore, I don't see how it follows from this definition that one has to respect "distinct nations" before being able to be an internationalist. I recognize there are distinct nations and I recognise they need to go. Patriotism and socialism/communism are not compatible.

    From this it follows that flags serve no purpose.

    The purpose urine serves to a monkey marking his territory is the same as what a flag is to nation. Animalistic, primitive and obsolete.

    EDIT:
    "the defense of the right of nations to self-determination (the "respect" part)."
    Nations do not "self-determine", elites do.
  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tim Cornelis For This Useful Post:


  20. #34
    Join Date May 2011
    Location South Ontario
    Posts 491
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    No problem...by that I mean the identification of one nation as its own nation and not another (the "recognize" part) and the defense of the right of nations to self-determination (the "respect" part).
    thanks for answering!

    I agree with recogizing nations based on that definition given by comrade File Cabinet (some parts I'm a bit ify on) but I disagree with national self-determination as I don't think a Community could possibly be that big also, soemtimes nations are arbitrary i.e., the U.S.A., Canada, and the UK. We share a common hsitory, language, culture, territory (Canada and the U.S.A atleast), economic life.

    But, we remain divided into nation-states (I assume post revolutionary it would just be nations) and within these so-called nations there are many different minorities with their languages, cultures etcetera. Do we consider these people apart from the nation?

    Expanding on that should we consider China Town or Little Italy nations because they (the people in them) have a common terriorty, language, culture, economic life?
  21. #35
    Tectonic Revolutionary Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 9,090
    Organisation
    Socialistische Partij (NL), Communistisch Platform
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    Expanding on that should we consider China Town or Little Italy nations because they (the people in them) have a common terriorty, language, culture, economic life?
    Zing!

    This hits exactly the nail on the head regarding my issue with the Stalin definition. I believe the "checkbox" definition is too rigid, too formalistic. Crucially in understanding what a nation is, is the self-conception of the people constituting itself as one. So, a nation may or may not exist based on a common culture, language, etc. Social factors, history, etc all play a part.

    Also Stalin's "checkbox" definition is problematic regarding the future: How are we supposed to overcome nations in communism if we (presumably) still have a diversity of language and culture? This circle cannot be squared with Stalin's concept. It can only be understood within the context of awareness. I.e. the awareness of having a common identity based on culture, language, history, etc can come, but it can also be superseeded by a new identity.

    This new identity, a class identity, can only be constructed in the long term on the basis of equality, voluntary unity and respect for each others cultures. This is also why Lenin supported the right of self-determination up to and including independence; not because he propagated disunity, but because only with that freedom could the "prisonhouse of nations" that the Tsarist empire was, remain united under working class rule. And to a large extent this succeeded (that is, besides the Baltic states and Finland, which became independant shortly after the revolution).

    In a more modern context, pan-Arab national identity is progressive because it sets out to unite the vast Arabian world, with its 20+ states and 300 million people living in it. As the capitalist class (most famously under Nasser) completely failed in this task, it is up to the working class to complete it, therefore giving this identity a working class content. Nation questions undoubtedly play a part in this issue, but like Lenin we should defend that right of self-determination up to and including independence, but at the same time propagating for the greatest possible unity of the working class, i.e. against disunity if we can. National ruptures are always a concession, never to be desired by communists. And even if the concession is made, we should always propagate the unity, as equals, of both nations.
    I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branch
    Marxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
    Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
    Educate - Agitate - Organise
  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Q For This Useful Post:


  23. #36
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Northeast USA
    Posts 4,609
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    thanks for answering!

    I agree with recogizing nations based on that definition given by comrade File Cabinet (some parts I'm a bit ify on) but I disagree with national self-determination as I don't think a Community could possibly be that big also, soemtimes nations are arbitrary i.e., the U.S.A., Canada, and the UK. We share a common hsitory, language, culture, territory (Canada and the U.S.A atleast), economic life.
    Well, don't forget the definition...if we apply it, then the USA isn't just one nation. Blacks, for instance, are a distinct nation because they have an historical experience (the Middle Passage, chattle slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) and common culture that are both distinct, as well as an historically pivotal geographical region (the so-called "Black Belt" that was so important in the formation of the Black identity). Indian peoples, as another example, are a no-brainer...they are clearly formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. They have their own languages, their own cultures (art-forms, etc.) and so on and so forth.

    So from that, we can see that the USA is a country but not a single nation...it is a multi-national country, much like Canada and the UK.

    But, we remain divided into nation-states (I assume post revolutionary it would just be nations) and within these so-called nations there are many different minorities with their languages, cultures etcetera. Do we consider these people apart from the nation?
    First, you are precisely right, the revolution will eliminate states but not nations*. Second, we consider those minorities their own distinct nations, and as progressives we promote the self-determination of these peoples.

    * On edit, to quote Marx in the Manifesto, "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

    Expanding on that should we consider China Town or Little Italy nations because they (the people in them) have a common terriorty, language, culture, economic life?
    Good point...those are immigrant communities, which aren't nations onto themselves but communities that include one or many nationalities living in another country. NYC's Chinatown, at least for most of the 20th Century, was composed primarily of Cantonese (IIRC), and so we can count it at least partially as a Cantonese community living in the United States. The same goes for, say, El Salvadorean or Hmong communities.
    Last edited by manic expression; 2nd September 2011 at 15:51.
  24. #37
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Northeast USA
    Posts 4,609
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    How nonsensical. A "nation" is not a "community", a community is a society of directly interacting people. A school can be a community, everyone knows everyone. My language is of nothing but practical use, I do not have a "common economic life" with every resident of my country, only with my family and co-workers.
    That's not a reliable definition. I didn't know everyone in my high school or middle school or elementary school. In my last job I didn't know everyone working there.

    Language is not merely of practical use, to say as much basically ignores what language does for us on a daily basis. Do you listen to songs with lyrics? Do you read literature or poetry? Yes? Well then it's not just practical, it's also artistic. If it can be artistic, then it's also cultural. If it can be cultural, then it is part of one's identity.

    Furthermore, I don't see how it follows from this definition that one has to respect "distinct nations" before being able to be an internationalist.
    Break down that last word: there's "inter" and then "national" then "ist". "Inter" means something between various entities (as opposed to "intra", which means inside one entity). "National" means that which pertains to nations. "Ist" is easy, it signifies a certain tendency. Thus, internationalism doesn't mean you want to get rid of nations, it means you stand with the people of all nations, and so internationalism is predicated on nationality.

    The purpose urine serves to a monkey marking his territory is the same as what a flag is to nation. Animalistic, primitive and obsolete.
    Taking that quite errant allusion, urine among animals marks territory because it smells differently than another animal's urine, because one animal is not the same as the next...it says "I'm not that monkey, I'm me". Well, national flags serve this same purpose, they show where we come from, what our experiences are. This is something that will not disappear when the working class will, in Marx's words, constitute itself the nation.
  25. #38
    Join Date May 2011
    Location South Ontario
    Posts 491
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    [QUOTE=manic expression;2223269]Well, don't forget the definition...if we apply it, then the USA isn't just one nation. Blacks, for instance, are a distinct nation because they have an historical experience (the Middle Passage, chattle slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) and common culture that are both distinct, as well as an historically pivotal geographical region (the so-called "Black Belt" that was so important in the formation of the Black identity). Indian peoples, as another example, are a no-brainer...they are clearly formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. They have their own languages, their own cultures (art-forms, etc.) and so on and so forth.

    So from that, we can see that the USA is a country but not a single nation...it is a multi-national country, much like Canada and the UK.

    "Indian" (sic) as in the First Nations or Indian as in from India?
    But I don't see a point in creating these "identities", does it not only divide us for arbirtrary reasons? Is there not one nation, the Homo Sapien nation?

    [QUOTE=manic expression;2223269] Second, we consider those minorities their own distinct nations, and as progressives we promote the self-determination of these peoples.

    But are white people in the "black belt" apart of the nation and are black people not in the "black belt" not apart of this nation?

    damn, sorry I'm not good with quoting
  26. #39
    Join Date Nov 2006
    Location Northeast USA
    Posts 4,609
    Organisation
    Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    "Indian" (sic) as in the First Nations or Indian as in from India?
    As in First Nations.

    But I don't see a point in creating these "identities", does it not only divide us for arbirtrary reasons? Is there not one nation, the Homo Sapien nation?
    The identities are already created, and they were certainly not invented arbitrarily. For instance, it's not someone woke up one morning and decided to make Wales different from England...it's a circumstance carved into the present by hundreds of years of history.

    But are white people in the "black belt" apart of the nation and are black people not in the "black belt" not apart of this nation?
    It's more of a general area in which the core experiences and cultural aspects first developed. We can't draw a line with a pencil and say "this is exactly where the nation ends" because it doesn't work like that, as with so many other instances, peoples overlap.

    damn, sorry I'm not good with quoting
    Haha, don't worry about it, it messes me up too.
  27. #40
    Join Date May 2011
    Location Training Camp No. 4
    Posts 1,028
    Organisation
    Proleterrorist Liberation Front
    Rep Power 26

    Default

    Sorry but some of the definitions of "nation" here are just going to lead to a Yugoslavia-style split and fuel nationalist sentiments. I hope to see the day where nations, states and borders are done away with altogether.
  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Zealot For This Useful Post:

    Luc

Similar Threads

  1. Flags
    By The Man in forum Practice
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 1st May 2011, 17:05
  2. Flags!!!
    By Sand Castle in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13th May 2010, 04:28
  3. In a Socialist Country, what happens to national flags?
    By Socialist Guy in forum Social and off topic
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 26th October 2009, 03:16
  4. SSR Flags
    By Phugebrins in forum Cultural
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28th August 2006, 17:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread

Website Security Test