The Fall of the Nation-State

A state indeed, though not a nation-state but rather a company-state.

Third world nationalism is just as shit. You can't pretend that the nationalism of the Philippines is somehow positive when currently it's only leading to the wholesale slaughter of drug users, and nothing in the way of leftist populism.

Megacorps already do that on a social level. Especially on the Internet. Social Media is a new form of totalitarianism, Facebook and Google permeate the sphere of life for the younger generation in an unprecedented way. Young citizens in powerful countries still feeling some sort of monopoly of power from their state institions, but millennials in smaller countries are more impacted by Marc Zuckerberg than they are by any shitty state official who are absolutely impotent in the face of global corporatism.

The only way to resist is to become as autistic as the DPRK, that's why I support them.

A resurgence in nationalistic sentiment doesn't mean that nation-states aren't declining or doomed. There was a resurgence in monarchism a while back (with NRx and whatnot) but that didn't mean absolute monarchy had a rebirth as a geopolitical reality.

They also entirely shifting their economic focus on Russia and China, which both pursue a very different economic endgame than the USA. You can't tell this doesn't have an impact.

As for the fighting of the drug problem, a lot of people there live in misery because of drugs.

...

I hope you're just being ebin. Just because people use facebook or google does not mean that they're under their control. I use facebook and it doesn't stop me from being a communalist. How is your idea any different from simply retreating to a hippy commune, except on a nation wide scale and with less equality?

It's also a spook to tell people what they are allowed to enjoy. You like buttfucking? Congratulations, you're spooked

read Rudolf Rocker

Both Russia and China are capitalist states controlled by Oligarchs. I in no way see how either one are capable or willing to bring about a socialist society when it's clearly not in the interest of either to do so. This idea that merely by the virtue they are not the US they will bring socialism is absolutely absurd and completely delusional.

So we should kill anyone who suffers from drugs? Again, your reasoning seems absolutely absurd.

This. Nation-states actually destroy cultures in their bid to create a hegemony.

I didn't tell him "what to enjoy". There is a big difference between liking an activity whatever it may be and considering it everyone's duty to serve an abstraction.

"Trump is not a nationalist because he actually doesn't give a fuck about Americans" is not an argument. Nationalism is based on worshipping the idea of the nation, not those who constitute the nation, because nationalism comes before the nation. Nations will be dissolved through class struggle, whether you class collaborationist retards like it or not.
Also thirld worldists are just edgy teenage Americunts.

I'm being 100% serious.

Hippies don't have an agenda.

No, fuck off. Vulgar reductionism. Reminds me on Bordiga who got himself imprisoned because after all, fascism is the same as a liberal democracy, I guess. If you refuse to engage in geopolitical and economic analysis because you clinge to 19th century redundant puritarianism you are useless for the left.

Killing drug lords isn't bad man. They are the worst part of capitalism and quasi-bourgeousie

That's an oxymoron. You can't have a nation without a state, as the latter gives birth to and maintains the former.

Way to twist the words I said. If you refuse to realize that the existence of unequal trade makes First World nationalism a perpetuator of the current global capitalist state of affairs (because they profit from it) while Third World nationalism is undermining the latter (because they get fucked by it) you are just closing your eyes and refuse to see the reality in front of you simply for the sake of ideology.

Mao was right, reading too many books is harmful, lmao

Duterte's edgy death squads aren't "killing drug lords", they're capping street kids who may or may not be be involved in the consumption of drugs.

How unfortunate
This is not enough of a difference. Like hippie communes, you will be unable to propagate yourself outside of the insular community within the community.
All capitalist states have the goal of maintaining themselves as capitalist states, yes. This alone disqualifies them from being agents of socialism.
Let's not be indigenous by asserting that only drug lords are being killed when clearly it's the least muh privileged drug user on the street who's being hunted down. Actual drug lords can insulate themselves using their connections and money.

Let me rephrase that.
*Hippie communes are incapable of spreading out and propagating themselves. Their limited to their small and insular communities, and it's for this reason that they're not effective agents of social change. Likewise, even if you see DPRK as being a desirable state of affairs, the idea that the system of the DPRK will somehow be adopted outside of its borders is foolishness.

Nope.
Nations will just rearrange along broader Ethnoreligious lines.

Which, why, how? Care to give some examples?

What good does it do to escape totalitarian corporations only to succumb to a totalitarian state? State control is only preferable in so far that at least some states are nominally democratic. I can vote for my parliament, I can't vote for the manager of fecebook.

I support this reference.

You should go outside once in a while.

Thirld World nationalists don't undermine capitalism. They simply increase the profits of the local bourgeoisie and create new relations of subordination with the First World. Nationalism undermines class struggle through national unity (class collaboration and spooks). If you were an actual communist you would see that the 3rd World proletariat has nothing to gain from supporting brand new nation-states.
I'd rather be a masochist then.

Source: Your ass

Strawman. I'm not against technology or something. DPRK has their own operating system called Red Star.

Not necessarily. That depends on the bourgeoisie being in power. Do you think the USSR during the NEP aimed to maintain itself as a capitalist state? Again, this is vulgar reductionism devoid of political analysis. You know that Marx supported the 1848 nationalist revolutions? Those revolutions weren't agents of socialism either.

But your ideology will?

DPRK has a parliament which elects the governing body of the economy which is entirely nationalized. You have de facto more power over the economy in the DPRK then in the West as a citizen.

This is a pretty undialectic statement. A nationalist revolution in the Third World will take over the productive forces in the country by the national bourgeoisie which then can accumulate wealth, which then can induce socialist revolutions. Most likely nationalist liberation movements have left-wing rethoric or straight up socialist currents anyway. The problem is you can not really avoid an overlapping of interests between the proletariat and the local bourgeoisie in these countries during a national liberation movement against imperialism.

The Iranian people had nothing to gain from someone like Mossadegh who wanted to put the oil industry into the hands of Iranians instead of the hands of corporations and a CIA-backed tyrant? Wow you are a patronizing idiot who unironically uses the word "spook" in an argument.

I'm sure you have some source if you're going to be so serious about it.

My source: a Pulitzer-winning article by an Austrian photojournalist published in the New York Times

nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/07/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-drugs-killings.html

I never mentioned technology, I merely pointed out that the two are by nature insular and therefore incapable of spreading out.
The USSR did maintain itself as a capitalist state for the entirety of it's short existence, the intentions of the party being ultimately irrelevant. You can't hope to achieve systemic change through the good intentions of those at the top of the system, as if their good intentions change the nature of their roles. It's rather utopian to think otherwise.
The two are incomparable for numerous reasons, but the most immediate one is the fact that it's not insulating itself purposely contrary to what you want.

The number people killed by police is not that extraordinary compared to the amount of people shot by the police in the US, and the Philippines have a significantly higher crime rate. Remember the article doesn't mention what the reason was for killing these people, it just shares one anecdote for the liberal fee-fees. It's also the fucking New York Times.

You know, the prisons in the Phillipines are so overcrowded that it's better to just shot convicts by firing squats. Nothing wrong with this.

Not an argument. A documentary about the Al-Qaida branch of the so-called "White Helmets" won an Oscar.

tl;dr, the usual tankie nonsense:

Reminds me of nazis tbh.

No

Rodrigo Duterte was elected by his people to do a job. he inherited a huge problem with violent crime. Tragic situations are solved with tragic measures.

While some cultureless faggot aussie rather look at the deaths of some useless capitalism loving drug dealers, there's areas in Manilla where people are no longer affraid to go to ;)
Fuck off you american shill. You are not the world police you cunt. Why don't you worry about the indians in Dakota? Or the arabs tortured at Guantanamo Bay. BTFO american shill

There's multiple things wrong with your post.
1) it creates a strawman that because someone is against the wholesale slaughter of drug users (the man said himself he wanted all 3 million of them dead) with condoning US intervention
2) it ignores that all drug users are fair game and in fact drug dealers are better insulated from the slaughter to do their money and influence.
3) it completely ignores the original absurdity of attributing this program and Duterte's presidency as somehow leftist and progressive when there is nothing to indicate as much and much that indicates the opposite. No, being opposed to america does not automatically make you a leftist. By that logic, ISIS would be a leftist organization.

Dude, are you this regarded? Do you think the DPRK imposed sanctions on itself? What the fuck? Liberal universalism is cancer.

Nevermind that, you actually are retarded.

I never did that and you keep strawmanning the living fuck out of me, institutions of unequal trade are material circumstances which lead to political actions.

Holla Forums- Leftist politically correct

Propping up the New York Times and a circlejerk of liberal intellectuals is disgusting. Take your annoying moralism and your article about muh arbitrary tragic event elsewhere.

I think it does a lot to insulate itself from the rest of the world, like the fact that it has it's own internet and doesn't allow for any foreign media, all foreign travel etc etc.
Never abolished the commodity form, therefore not socialist. Simply making the state the prime/only capitalist is not abolishing capitalism m8
Then you should understand that a capitalist state cannot abolish itself.

*or foreign travel

So is the anti-Brexit resistance in the UK some kind of class action?

All I have to say is read Deleuze

It seems the main priority of power is to ensure the stability of flows (commerce, information, people) and maintain what some call the phenomenological order.

The new nationalism is useful for the powerful (because), it does not constitute a geopolitical force. It just adds to the spectacular confusion.

Nation-states have in a sense stopped being the core entities already, because of the inter-penetration of the corporation and the state.

You honestly expect minor reactionary nationalism to overcome liberalism? the ideology that destroyed both fascism and communism?

What's wrong with that? Is the US-media some sort of peak of human development? Every country has their own media. Facebook deliberately datamines you, I don't see why we should allow this.

Bullshit. Production for use instead of production for exchange is not the commodity form. You could even argue that revisionist post-1956 USSR didn't really have commodity form since the exchange of commodities in value form happened between state firms which all had the same owner, therefor no real exchange was committed (if you exclude the export industry or course).

I'm not advocating a capitalist state. I'm defining national liberation movements and their anti-imperialist struggle to undermine global capitalism. I don't see a capitalist nation as an end in itself. I adhere to communism, same as you.

Left shitposting flag on

You're making an argument for why self imposed insulation is OK, not denying the fact of self imposed insulation. Please try harder to be more consistent in your argument
Except the USSR produced for exchange throughout it's entire existence both internally within their own market as well as exporting to foreign markets. Why do you think they had a currency if not to facilitate market transactions?
Then you should not be ascribing to what is an essentially class collaborationist line that states one bourgeois is our ally against another bourgeois, as if one bourgeois is more progressive towards the goal of socialism when really you're only empowering the same class under a different banner.

yeah, cultivated by the national bourgeoisie–as all nation states originally were–in reaction to the predations of international bourgeoisie. their only hope to not be made serfs "in their own country" is to exclude international competition, but this is doomed to fail because generally speaking any single nation is incapable of competing with a true multinational corporation.

you're a dumb asshole

Anti-Brexiters want to abolish the British nation? And no, hwite genocide doesn't count.

You just clicked another you clumsy oaf.

This. That's the exact same reason the national ruling classes of each nation-states in Europe flocked to Fascists en masse in the '20s and '30s. Except now this won't work anymore, protectionism won't offer them any protection in the face of all-mighty globalized capital.

Future economic crises and shortfalls, coupled with waves of mass migrations caused by climate-induced natural disasters and famines, will cause the future collapse of many nation-states, or at least the "retreat" of existing states into defensible, productive cores while leaving much of the less productive countryside effectively ungoverned.

No. National consciousness is an organically self-constructing phenomenon that will continue to exist regardless of material conditions. Nationalism in the future will take a different form from contemporary and past iterations of nationalism, but it will still exist until humans "evolve" a more advanced form of community.

...

This is what you sound like, chum.

only if you're missing a hemisphere of your brain

I mean, national consciousness isn't even a "geopolitical framework". It's a sociological and psychological phenomenon. How do you manage to be so self-assure while being so demonstrably wrong?

because i'm not the sort of dumb fuck that says
did you have to take classes on being wrong or are you just naturally talented at being incorrect