Thread: Patriotism and communism

Results 21 to 31 of 31

  1. #21
    Join Date Jan 2002
    Location Ireland,Cork City.
    Posts 3,441
    Independant Workers Union
    Rep Power 51


    A special kind of a bullshit:

    Lumping together internationalism and cosmopolitanism,two completely opposite to each other concepts!

    The difference between these concepts is fundamental because it is based on a different class basis. We can say that cosmopolitanism is "internationalism" of capital, "internationalism" of the bourgeoisie. Cosmopolitanism denies national sovereignty, rejects the right of nations to independence, calls for the fusion of nations by force, advocating in fact the enslavement of nations by imperialism.Ie cosmopolitanism does not reject the nationalism of the oppressing nations but stands on it's ground.

    The Marxists see the perspective of a gradual and free rapprochement and then of the fusion of nations ,they see as a long process that comes as a result of liberation and blossom of nations.
    I'm absolutely fine with inward migration to this small island where I live. However, when I hear the word "Cosmopolitanism" it conjures up images of a multi-cultural people too busy with Capitalism to get involved with class struggle, this benign Huxleyist, strangeness - Because their lives are just that hectic and interesting. I hate this word. I prefer multiculturalism, but cosmopolitanism is a very real thing, when you get an influx of people from another country they tend not to get involved in class struggles in their new country, due to fear, due to language skills....etc, etc - but some do, I've witnessed this myself and I can say honestly that some of the best people I've met as communists are foreigners living in Ireland. Multiculturalism not Cosmopolitanism.
    "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. " - Buenaventura Durutti

    "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth." - Ernesto Che Guevara.

    "Its Called the American dream, because you gotta be asleep to believe it". - George Carlin

    Tone ~ Emmet ~ Larkin ~ Connolly ~ O Donnell

  2. #22
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164


    I think it also depends on the motivation for migration. If someone moves to Dublin for a professional or tech job, they will likely not be as automatically inclined to see themselves as connected with local class struggle or concerns -- at least that's the stereotype in my area. But, on the other hand, Both internal migrants and non-native migrants have historically been at the forefront of US class struggle. This has partially been due to stronger class struggle in home countries but also from a need for a level of independence and group self-reliance due to being excluded from either official state support (and exclusion from official politics) or established informal community-based aid and support.
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:

  4. #23
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Posts 1,188
    underground resistance
    Rep Power 25


    nationalism can be great in the same way that slavery can be great, if its used to develop society out of barbarism, for example a house slave living in alabama was better off than a man dying of starvation in the jungle. Nationalism is the natural development of society out of feudalistic society and into a capitalist one. Feudalism still exists (depending on how loosely we use the term) in Africa the middle east and in asia. Chinese imperialism ended when the nationalists revolted and destroyed one of the oldest monarchies in world history. They united everyone under one flag despite religious, ethnic, and language differences and formed a democratic government guaranteeing rights for all citizens. This government was obviously destroyed following the chinese civil war and surely for good reason, but the national identity of china was developed they were no longer hans and uigher they were chinese. Now this does promote hatred between nations and discriminates against those not adhering to the national identity whatever it may be But this is nothing compared to the hatred and discrimination promoted inside a feudal system like imperialist china. Where you can be the same ethnicity, same religion, speak the same language, have the same beliefs etc, but because you are not royalty you are scum.

    The obvious fact that nationalism "can" be left wing aside, the apprehension that self proclaimed communists and socialist feel about encouraging nationalism is expected since its basically the same as encouraging slavery. Yet we cannot bring a society out of barbarism without slavery, just as we cannot bring a society out of feudalism without nationalism.

    So communists recoil at the thought of nationalism since it would be like asking us if should some Terena tribesman be made a slave. They will desperately search for some way to skip a step in their societies development because who would want to encourage slavery if it wasn't necessary? and who then is to determine if slavery is needed in the end? So yes in all honesty nationalism is necessary in certain pats of the world. Wherever a kingdom exists that still holds power, a sense of nationalism should be encouraged even in countries like england or norway where a king is still respected rather than hung for their crimes. Just as a system of slavery should be encouraged in a barbaric society in the Amazon. But if you could find a way to skip a step from barbarism directly into feudalism you should try it, so should you try to skip a step from nationalism to full communism.
    Your notion of "barbarism" is rooted in the Victorian/Eurocentric mode of thought which justified colonialism and racism. (Ironically, this way of thinking about "barbarism" is quite primitive, as it fails to take into account the relevant anthropological concepts such as cultural relativism and historical particularism which have led to an evolution in Western society's understanding of human social development since the days of Lewis Henry Morgan.)

    This notion of "barbarism" plays straight into racism because by positing that the most "advanced" capitalist countries evolved according to a universal schema of stages of human social evolution, non-European peoples were depicted as lagging behind the "civilized world", and in need of a "civilizing mission." This is the same thing you are doing when you imagine that indigenous Amazonians are equivalent to the stone age ancestors of Europeans and need to go through the same steps of slavery and feudalism before they can reach the state of "advanced capitalism", before they can reach (advanced) communism. Keeping in mind that the word "savage" has historically been on par with the N-word as a tool of colonialism and imperialism and etymologically comes from the notion of being "from the woods", you sound like a chattel slavery apologist when you suggest that a slave in the "civilized" USA/CSA was better off than his/her "jungle" ancestors or cousins in Africa.

    This idea that so-called "primitive" people need to be enslaved is preposterous for a couple of reasons, and it is pretty crazy to read it on a communist forum. First of all, contemporary indigenous communities or "uncontacted tribes" living in the types of conditions commonly referred to as "primitive (communism)" or "savage/barbaric" are relatively small in numbers and there is the practical concern of contagion of illnesses due to lack of immunity, so outsiders should be encouraged to leave them alone, not f*cking enslave them. Secondly, because they are economically independent of the world capitalist system (although it threatens to subject them and encroach on their lands), the rest of the world could enter into a state of advanced communism characterized by high social equality and technological development with a small part of the world still living in a state of primitive communism characterized by social equality and, basically, less machines. In that situation, the indigenous communities eventual contact with and voluntary incorporation into the technologically advanced communist world would in no way presuppose passing through a stage of development involving slavery, feudalism, capitalism, or any other system of classes and exploitation. Why would it? That would be the ultimate example of "permanent revolution"--most famously encapsulating the idea that a semi-feudal Russia could reach a state of communism without first sustaining an "advanced capitalist" stage comparable to that of Western Europe, but here taken to mean the revolutionary transition in which a people would go from a situation of primitive communism to one of advanced communism without any sort of prolonged intermediary phase of class divisions. Like with Trotsky's employment of the phrase ("permanent revolution") to describe Russia's possibility to proceed directly to communism from semi-feudalism as ultimately being dependent on the success of revolution in Western countries, the possibility of peoples which have thus far avoided incorporation into class society to enjoy some of the nice aspects of technological advancement without being subjected to exploitation and genocide also depends on the outside world to change, unless the new Third Worldism will be Harvard students glorifying “actually existing primitive communism in one jungle” as the only path to communism. Rejecting the necessity of world revolution or postponing the urgency of it (i.e. positing a nationalistic stage of socialism or Patriotic People’s Democratic New Capitalism in one country as a prelude to world capitalism’s ouster or to the patriotic bourgeoisie’s eventual “class suicide” and the establishment of socialism in one country) was ultimately a fundamental factor resulting in the class collaborationism embraced by the institutions which began taking shape in Russia and China in the first half of the last century, including the ideas of people's democracy and the bloc of four classes, which by virtue of theorizing an alliance between the "patriotic bourgeoisie" and the working class to "regulate capitalism" as the path to socialist development, becomes relevant to the subject of this thread.

    Like its name suggests, "patriotism" is intimately linked to patriarchy and male-domination. If subsidizing and sanctioning the bourgeois family is the means by which the capitalist society instills its authoritarian values, with the national leader supplementing the head of the household as the national subject matures from childhood to adulthood, then the nation-state, or fatherland, is to humanity as the bourgeois family structure is to the individual.

    Someone else mentioned “globalism”, the alt-right’s new boogeyman word. Maybe the left should embrace this term. Think about it. Is internationalism not predicated upon a set of nationalisms? Why is the opposite of nationalism internationalism but the solution to racism isn't "interracism"? The bourgeoisie under neoliberal capitalism/globalization develops more of an internationalist mindset than a truly globalist one, but why can’t the workers and poor of the world develop a globalist mindset? Cosmopolitanism, in the sense of “global citizenship," doesn't seem bad either.
  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lacrimi de Chiciură For This Useful Post:

  6. #24
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164


    Patriotism is a natural ally of communism. Only we shoud not forget that patriotism is not communism, that the patriots who objectively are on the side of progress, can pull with them a whole mess of reactionary prejudices and all kinds of national weaknesses.We should educate,form people,we should strive for patriotism,separate it from reactionary rubbish.

    "Patriotism is one of the most deeply ingrained sentiments" and this great force shoud be used for serving the interests of revolution.
    How do you define patriotism?
  7. #25
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 126
    Rep Power 2


    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
  8. #26
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164


    I was asking because I don't understand what is meant by things that. The description is abstract. What private and public interest? Whose interests or which cultures?
  9. #27
    Join Date Jul 2016
    Posts 73
    Rep Power 2


    Good god people, lower the pitchforks.
    It was a jab at the stalinist antisemitic campaigns of the 40s to which purported to fight "rootless cosmopolitanism" accusing mainly intellectual jews of "lack of patriotism" among other charges.
    True internationalists would've probably been purged as "rootless cosmopolitans".

    Also I don't know what you understand as cosmopolitanism, it's too vague a concept to be particular to a single ideology. The mentioned above stalinist kind of cosmopolitanism? The snotty liberal intellectual dilettante kind of cosmopolitanism? The touristic propaganda kind of cosmopolitanism? Or political and philosophical forms of cosmopolitanism?
    I'm sure many neo-liberals could be seen economic cosmopolitans (globalized capitalism) while say, the Soviet Union, could be seen as a sort of cosmopolitan project, that is a political structure which transcended traditional national and ethnic boundaries and formed a community of peoples (ukranians, russians, jews, etc.) united in a shared political emancipatory project.
    Cosmopolitan literally means "citizen of the world/universe", I don't see how communists could be hostile to the idea of adopting the word in this respect.

    Someone else mentioned “globalism”, the alt-right’s new boogeyman word. Maybe the left should embrace this term. Think about it. Is internationalism not predicated upon a set of nationalisms? Why is the opposite of nationalism internationalism but the solution to racism isn't "interracism"? The bourgeoisie under neoliberal capitalism/globalization develops more of an internationalist mindset than a truly globalist one, but why can’t the workers and poor of the world develop a globalist mindset? Cosmopolitanism, in the sense of “global citizenship," doesn't seem bad either.
    Yes! Thank you! "Globalism" only exists in the minds of conspiracy theory crackpots and neo-nazi wackadoodles, it's just another mystification of the antagonisms wrought by globalized capitalism. We "need" to set ourselves apart from it as much as Jews "need" to set themselves apart from the protocols of the elders of zion.
    Last edited by Radical Atom; 18th May 2017 at 17:41.
  10. #28
    Join Date Feb 2012
    Location Poland
    Posts 95
    [ex] Polska Socjalistyczna Partia Robotnicza
    Rep Power 6


    Bourgeois Cosmopolitanism and its reactionary role
    Proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism
    [FONT=Times New Roman]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. (The Communist Manifesto)[/FONT]
  11. #29
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164


    By these descriptions, Marx and Lenin would have been labeled "anti-soviets"
  12. #30
    Join Date May 2017
    Location Illinois, North America
    Posts 2
    Rep Power 0


    Being a communist requires some form of patriotism, not in the traditional sense where it means to have fervor for one's national origin, but rather in the sense of being patriotic of your ideological fervor, fervor for the revolution, that thing most of us hold so dear. You have to be patriotic in your love of the Proletariat, in your love of the good fight, in your love of fellow comrades. Yes you live in a nation, but like countless micro-nations and stateless governments have demonstrated you can be part of a thing with no borders, no set ideals, no homeland. You are capable of showing patriotism for an idea. In the end, all nation states are just ideas that enough people believe in.

    Demonstrate a patriotic fervor for your ideals, and you'll find that people are often so much more willing to jump in behind you.
  13. #31
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,063
    Rep Power 164


    Much of this description of patriotism is a combination of different things: comradeship, conviction, etc. So why "patriotism"?

    The root of the word comes from "countryman" "father land" or just 'father". The pride or confidence in this description do not describe patriotism, these are the claimed resulting effects of patriotism.

    The closest, I suppose, is comradeship... so why patriotism instead? Comradeship means the relation of people involved in the same struggle or common goal. Patriotism is the relationship of people to a place, a territory. So who runs the territory?

    So really, patriotism only means support, love, or pride in a territory, a country... and by extension the devotion to preserving the way the country runs or is supposed to run.

    In the end, socialist patriotism simply plays the same role as patriotism in market-capitalist states. The only question is if you support that state as a form of socialism.

    But I take my cue from Marx on this: workers have no nation. We should not follow an abstract nation-myth, we need to unite through doing, through collectively determining how we live and what ideals we strive together for. The working class is not fit to rule itself if it still looks to a father.

    Demonstrate a patriotic fervor for your ideals, and you'll find that people are often so much more willing to jump in behind you.
    We should be lifting ourselves up, not getting people to follow.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 23rd September 2010, 07:15
  2. Patriotism and communism
    By Red_or_Dead in forum Learning
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 6th February 2008, 01:58
  3. Nationalism and Communism
    By AlwaysAnarchy in forum Theory
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 12th November 2006, 13:11
  4. Patriotism and Terrorism
    By fickle_indeed in forum Learning
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 20th February 2006, 07:23
  5. Religion and Communism
    By Abood in forum Religion
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 22nd January 2006, 16:26

Posting Permissions

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