Leftism and Philosophy

Different clusters of people are less or more compatible with other clusters of people anonmalous

As simple as that

For example uniting latin america or the Ummah seems easier than Uniting Subsaharan countries and African countries, or the north parts of latin america with the anglosphere, etc.

rude

nations don't exist, but the violence done on their behalf does

Okay, and why is that

It depends
South sudan was because Muslims discriminate to non Muslims
Yugoslavia I'm still not sure, I only know that Serbs are fucking savages
Ukraine was because contention
Catalonia because Spain is made of the corpses of different cultures
Clusters disagree

I would totally sign up for unified cultures of peoples though, like in pic

Sounds rad af

yugoslavia died because the west just didnt want a stable country in this area
so they started fueling unstable elements in the region
reminder that serbia never took part in the civil war in yugoslavia
it was only people who didn't want to be part of these new made up borders

On what? Muslims living with non-muslims happens across Africa and yet it doesn't universally result in conflict. In fact some of the most contentious appear the most homogeneous.

It clearly can't be simple cultural differences. France's "racial" and cultural makeup is quite diverse, yet despite the disparities there isn't yet a South France, North France, etc.

It depends on how much do other clousters hate or disagree with each other and are willing to do something about it.

Humans are naturally attracted to the abstract concept of in group and out groups user.

Which country are u from user.
Do people miss the Tito era there?

serbia
and its so and so
most people have a hate for Tito
and no matter who you ask they would say
that Tito fucked up their country especially and gave everything to the other countries
without a mistake thats what you'll get when asking, be it Croat, Serb, Bosnian and I imagine the worst would be Slovens

I kinda liked the way post tito yugo was structured

Shame shame what happened

Hopefully reunification will come

some day

some how

the children of the people who fought in the civil war are even more radicalized than they are
titos yugoslavia could have never survived past the cold war anyhow
shame though
and don't trust anyone who says that there are "communist" parties in these lands
it's basically just thieves dressing the best way to get votes

Badiou wrote a cool translation of the Republic that is very faithful but explicated in a more communist way.

So far all you keep saying is "people fight when they don't get along and they don't get along because they fight." What is it that is making these groups fight? You don't seem to know beyond "they're different." Yet we see similar or greater differences between groups repeated elsewhere without conflict.

Your theory doesn't seem very sound.

is that you netaslichu

mayb

I don't understand it very much as well.

You can see clusters of people hating each other but being one country and others that doesn't have anything against each other but being separated.

It seems kind of "roll the dice" situation tbh

it's more of a outside influence than role of the dice thing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Here this might help

picture made me kek
why do normies see philosophers as being retarded

Because they're retarded. Sometimes they think whatever superficial wikipedia article they read on this or that subject is "common sense" or "I thought of that all by myself socrates isn't so smart" because they have no idea how suffused their fucking culture is with these ideas.

Nation-States constitute nothing more than the boundaries of governance between various competing parties of the bourgeoisie. To think that the modern nation-state is anything more than that is falling for som particularly bad propaganda. Nations have never been formed by the common people, they're formed by bourgeois governments to legitimize the bourgeois dictatorship. In reality, they only serve the ruling class, the proletariat has no nation.

Catalonia, Zapatist Chiapas and the USSR had a state m8.
Something that can be pointed out in a map and drawn.
Even during war you can still point out the zones that are under the control of your cluster m8.
Syria is a good example.

Nations claim to be more than just lines on a map. It would be one thing if bourgeois states admitted that the "nation" was merely their government and the territory it controlled, but you know as well as I do that they claim a hell of a lot more than that. While there might be wrokers' states in the short term, the ultimate goal of socialist revolution is the abolition of national boundaries and the eventual withering away of the state after class society has been abolished.

After Marx philosophy became mere pedantry (especially within the anglosphere.)

I doubt you an really get past the language barrier but you are welcome to try

just don't hurt ur self when trying to make 1 comunism

Don't bother reading Plato, or look into anything classical for that matter, it's all dog shit.

Armies don't exist, it's just a bunch of people and things.

Yeah, sure, m8.

Well, you can see OP's comic and see a rebuke to that.

"army" is a name given to a group of people that uses organised violence. the name is an abstraction, the violence is not. really not difficult to understand

Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, Checkloslvakia, Poland, and East Germany were all socialist nation-states.

So does the army exist or not?

Because a unreal thing cannot generate violence.

the material beings that constitute the 'army' exist, with material objects called weapons, and those beings can generate material violence. the army can be said to 'exist,' but one cannot touch an army as one can a tree or rock