Why are so many modern leftists also fervent nationalists...

It's got nothing to do with the color of their skin.

There is no point in internationalist line if even national line won`t work. Pro-immigration stance only hurts the workers and unions, strengthening the capitalist economy with new low skill workers.

Patriotism is proud of a country’s virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, “the greatest,” but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.

Demanding "international solidarity" across seven billion humans is an empty gesture. At some point you need to break people down into smaller groups in order to get anything done.

This position that "global movement" = total support for immigration and the abolition of borders, is the stupidest and least productive part of leftist thought today.

this post is reaching levels of retarded that shouldn't even be possible

This is literally only your own opinion.

Man, it almost seems like tankies, who masturbate over a corporatist authoritarian regime, has no interest in the implementation of communism? But rather… nationalism + socialism, hmmm.

Keep waiting for your spontaneous international revolution comrade, I'm sure it will happen any century now!

It has nothing do with ethnicity, you can have multi-ethnic nation(Swiss confederation,Finland etc.) but you can`t protect the workers rights with immigration that hurts unions.

You are the one bringing ethnicity to question, pandering to identity politics instead of trying to build workers movements. Unions mostly work on national level due to nature of economics and how national laws and tied to them.

Patriotism is nationalism-lite, you tanktard

...

People here confuse national protectionism, as a strategy to garner support and achieve socialism, with nationalism.

Also this.

International spontanious revolution did not happen back then, it is highly unlikely to happen again, especially since 80ish% of the human population do not know who marx is (assuming most chinese do know).

Which is why they're a dead end in contemporary radicalism. Major industries can today move elsewhere, or are competing with the exploitation rates found in PRC, India, South East Asia, or Africa. Unions are now fighting to keep jobs in the country, they don't have the leeway to argue for the conditions.

It's not "immigration that hurts unions" but that their very tactic is (like the entire socdem project) ineffective under globalization.

That's not even getting into the territory that (falsely) admitting immigration as to blame, will only strengthen rightist solutions, not radicalism. Ever heard of a thing called "class conciousness", I remember you MLs being quite fond of the term?

Marx is a pretty big name in places with much more extensive industrial labour, India South America etc. Don't presume every country is Western Europe and the US.

Now, said movements are of course generally just social democratic, but it's worth remembering that was the situation in the early 1900s as well.

You're implying some dichotomy of either internationalism or local/national forms of organizing, which is absolute bullshit.

It is more effective than just allowing nothing to be done. Only viable solution is national protectionism otherwise there is no path to revolution nor victory for the left. Organization is always going to tied down to national level due nation states and their structure and I don`t see any signs of them dying out in this century(only exception being EU).

There is literally nothing wrong with nationalism. So called "internationalism" and globalism are bourgeoisie pipe dreams and detrimental to the working class.

It is an objective fact that immigration of low-skilled workers hurts the wages and conditions of native low-skilled workers in a capitalist society. Immigration of low-skilled workers is thus, as long as society is capitalist, against the interest of the majority of workers.

It's far from bullshit. I would agree that nation-states and nationalism are too dangerous to be allowed to continue, but the solution has to come from the local, regional level. Decentralizing government and the means of production are the only real counter to globalized industrial capitalism; it returns political power and control to the people, and undoes the dependency on global trade and order that undermines the proletarian cause today. Regionalism would help defang nationalism and make it harder to mobilize large armies or conduct global war.

Internationalism can be useful as a pledge of solidarity or encouragement for revolution across borders, but that's about it. The creation of a "global proletarian identity" is a project for AFTER global revolution, where class and unjust hierarchy are dissolved and populations' basic needs are secure. Promoting internationalism as a counter to nationalism, or as a organizing strategy beyond the most basic level, will alienate the vast majority of working people, and is the exact kind of spooky NWO shit that right-wingers have been blasting communists for for decades.

guys, check how Zizek btfo this idpol cuck
youtube.com/watch?v=NuwtmlGFdic

Where does this fucking meme come from? You have never heard of vanguardism?

internationalism is the reverse of globalism i.e. people against the elites

Quite the contrary user.

Who is the "people"? I have never heard of "people" in my life. What is the nation of "people"? What is their history, their cultural background? I know of Italians, I know of Chinamen, I know of Germans, Spaniards, Slavs, Bushmen, Hottentots, Dravidians, and countless others. But I have never heard of "people", nor does such a thing really exist.

Who are these Italians, Chinese and Slavs you are talking about? Are they proletarians? Capitalists? Peasants?

You think happening to speak the same language as a local capitalists' group and living under its rule gives us anything in common?

What Germans?Germany is a modern construct that didn't exist until Bismarck.What German history?Most of German history was the history of German kings and priest, not of its people.

Nationalism is just a tool of the modern liberal bourgeoisie, which is something muh heritage faggots don't realize.It destroyed hundreds of identities and dialects within Germany, as it became standardized.Do you really think that a 16th century Holsteiner would love to see his Platt and way of life erased for some greater German glory?He'd be horrified by that thought, he doesn't give a fuck about the rest of the HRE, places he's never been to,patriotism used to have a local character.Likewise for the 3000 Saxon men, that tried to stop the Franks and their kikestick meme, to see one day his area to be populated by Protestant buffoons in those retarded outfits…Well, Protestants themselves destroyed the tradition set by the Roman church and came up with new shit.
There is no authenticity

Not only a racist, but also a local xenophobe, still I really hate those ethno-romantics, that delude themselves in their cultural homogeneity as much those "cultural marxist" that think that because there is no authenticity, let's destroy everything and make consumerism of popculture our new identities.