Both of these are considered leftisms. How?

why is being anti nationalist necessary of leftism
you havent justified this claim
is being anti family also required?
what if you have a really big family of 18 siblings in each generation for an unbroken line of many generations?

Communists aim for anarchism in the long term
Anarchists want it now
One is realistic, the other isn't

Both want to oppress me.
t. Porky

tbh, i'm not sure anti-nationalism is a sine qua non condition of leftism, International solidarity doesn't neccerary means the deliberate suppression of the nations, but rather their cooperation.

It's not so much being anti family as being detached from it, or not seeing it as a sacred institution. Even more than the form of tribalism, the form of family is very dependent of the economical conditions. Wielding a particular model of family as a model to which society must conform is luddism-tier.

Uh, well, it's just in the definition, really. Probably because leftists are mostly materialist or (if not) some kind of universalist, so the idea of one nation being better than another for some kind of Volksgeist or purely selfish patriotism is anathema.

… no? What do you even mean by "anti family"?

I really don't see how that's a leftist issue, except that you probably don't have much money in your family if that's the case.

Nationalism runs contrary to the historical narrative of class struggle.

leftism is an overcast projection with no membership requirements. anarchist certainly is against nations and for your ease of digestion you may think of it as anti-nationalism.

Well, that seems to me just like the abolition of the state: a question of gradualism or spontaneism. Sure, an anarchist might say let's get rid of nations immediately and be "anti-nationalist", but even a Trot like me who emphasizes international cooperation, rather than competition, knows that down the line that will inevitably lead to merger and dissolution.

I'd just like to point out that the 'nationalsim' you describe is actually chauvinism. This distinction has been completely eroded by the media the past 20 years, the result being that as soon as anyone mentions nationalism they are dismissed as racist. There is nothing wrong with liking one's nation and culture, and wanting to defend them.

Except that the international proletariat have no nation or culture and the nation-state is an institution created to uphold the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

This

The International proletariat is a spook…

What has that got to do mwith my point? THe guy I replied to, and yourself it seems, makes the mistake (though I suspect in your case it isn't a mistake), of conflating culture with xenophobia. My point is you can be proud of things your nation does without hating others.

No, of the three things mentioned, the international proletariat was the only thing that wasn't a spook.

Since nations are in constant competition with each other (infinite demand for limited resources), I don't really see how the nationalism you describe wouldn't lead to chauvinism. If you're proud of your birthplace for whatever reason, surely you'd want your own nation to get all the goods, and would support it in imperialist ventures - c.f. the American public reaction to the Iraq War.

Anyway, "nation" and "culture" are kind of spooks in and of themselves (I read Stirner but I didn't like him and didn't learn much, so I hesitate to use that word) - rather, they're post-hoc justifications for "state" and "ideology". The former is an oppressive entity that needs to be done away with. The latter, meanwhile, is a coping mechanism to understand the unequal division of resources in society, which used to have material relevance but is now fossilized, overtaken by class.

To be sure, there's still "culture" in the sense of "aesthetics", but it's far more subtle than boundaries of ethnicity or nationality would have you believe. Meanwhile, nearly all "culture" that can be identified with a particular nation or ideology is propaganda for that ideology rather than an earnest aesthetic or personal commentary.

If you're interested in this topic, I'd recommend "Cultural Materialism" by Marvin Harris. It's a very well-done critique of culture from a leftist and materialist perspective, strongly influenced by Marx but incorporating current trends in anthropology and critical theory.

Only if it become a cause in and for itself.
This means it can be a spook for some but not for others.

But since it is my property and ultimately empowers myself and other voluntary egoists I choose to employ it.

1 your "nation" exists only in your head
2 it's absurd to take pride in the accomplishments of those you had no had in helping
3 the concept of the nation is xenophobic in itself because it assumes a separation from other "nations" or "cultures' based on entirely artificial and arbitrary divisions

Both derive from a rejection of natural hierarchy and identity. Add to those libertarianism. To understand leftism as a whole IS, you must understand what it is not .

If they weren't so focused on destroying the 'other' ,whether it be muh privilege, state-power, or inequality , they'd have to face themselves. And why things never happen as they should in their head. And that can't be allowed to happen.

Leftists come in two types: they either are the 'inner party' who know full well what they are doing will in the end put the as kings of the trash heap, or the useful idiots.

thats not the general definition of nationalism
just like "likes big government" isnt true for leftism either

What is the nation, then, if not a state with a bogus Volksgeist attached?

The material conditions of 99.9% of the earth are a reality. That this group is a homogeneous mass to be used as lefties see fit is the spook.

whos doing that though?
im for my family, why would i need to tell others how to deal with theirs?

oh God you must think you're so smart

by what definition, and why do you avoid the family?

i reject your claim
you've failed to prove it

good question
why must you ask me to repeat myself?
return to my post and answer my family question

how is culture = ideology?
culture is a set of doing things and ways of behaving within different environments
ideology is based on fundamental ideas and built from that - if all synonyms meant exactly the same thing we would have about 10^16th less words in the english language

you cant get rid of nations any more than you can get rid of your face, your bones, your blood
get rid of gravity, or air
what nonsense…

Nations are weak before the productive forces. They were allowed by technical and social evolutions and will likely die because of them.

are we talking about the same thing?
all government is cancer
nation means group of people

The family is irrelevant.

I'm gonna make a shifty OV for this

...

thats a claim
prove it

I disagree. For me, not jewing over the entire ME is more important than cheap oil which by the way never even fucking happened.

Personally it's not even so much about being proud of my birthplace as seeing what it (ostensibly) stands for as being something worth preserving. These intangibles (Spooks, maybe we should just dismiss them huh Spurdo-poster?) are ideas like liberty, equality, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, empiricism, rationality are worth defending to me. You be tempted to ask 'defend from what'. Happy to answer, but this is a kinda dishonest question. So yes. For me, the things I mentioned above, along with some others are the things that make up our 'culture'

Yes, but being proud of the bourgeois cultural hegemony is hardly lefty.

It has nothing to do with our theory.

See here for the basics:

A group of people is not enough to characterize a nation. Or else a bunch of dudes in a room or Steven Universe fans could be considered like nations. The mythified People, the Nation as either a common culture or blood didn"t pop up out of nowhere. Education plays a big part in what goup you identify with, and education is very tied with how society works (how much time you spend in School versus family versus work or surroundings; what is taught), and technical level (accessibility of sources of knowledge, communication in general).

So can I make the same self-interest defense of the nation?

your living family has everything to do with your current situation

The idea that the workers of the world must unite to overthrow capital. Wow. Much complex. Such smarts.

nation as a group of people yes
country (incorrectly referred to as nation due to the denial of biology) no, defending a government is retarded

I'm not talking about my current situation. We're talking about political economy and historical social development.

...

thats literally what nation means

they might be if they are related, they could be the whole nation, or part

you cant be educated to have shared genes with others
it doesnt matter what word you use - the semantics are making you sperg out so dismiss the word and consider the fact

I fail to understand the problem with that. You don't think the oppressed should overthrow their oppressor?

we were talking about the family indeed
you are incapable of having a dialectic and instead choose to claim things a true (or false) and then fail to prove or argue them

no
those who consider themselves oppressed are still too psychologically dependent on the oppressor and are identifying themselves as inferiors to their master - they remain slaves
only once they acknowledge their own sovereignty and the claimant the wrongful heir of themselves and their things can they properly overthrow the injustice

The family has nothing to do with the critique of political economy, has nothing to do with historical or dialectical materialism, and has nothing to do with theoretical socialist organizations.

It's irrelevant to the discussion of leftist politics. Which is what you came here to do.

The current Western ideology is all about being in denial that your master is actually your master.

and do you see slaves freeing themselves?
i only see them cheering as new masters are put in front of them

i came here to discuss why being anti nationalist should be necessary
if you are ill equipped to participate then sit aside

So you consider these bourgie values?

That's the point.

You weren't talking about nationalism, you were talking about the family.

Anti-nationalism is necessary because it runs contrary to the narrative of class struggle. That is, it creates a narrative of nation against nation, rather than class against class.

...

You meming me lad?

No.

interesting. So why are so many people globally keen on blasphemy laws? How do you rate 'liberty' in China or Iran? Where in African traditional medicine does empiricism or rationality come into play? Now sure, you can say that the people who enforce and cheer-lead these laws are themselves brainwashed. But I ain't sharing a nation with them til they're properly deprogrammed. So how about you tell me how you plan on doing this before retreating to your morally superior 'internationalist' position.

One does not need to be a nationalist to be opposed to reactionary ideology.

First, I'm unaware of "liberty, freedom of expression and rationalism" being unique to any one nation. Second, if you're implying that these are somehow uniquely Western values, I'd remind you that the West has its own home-grown anti-liberty, anti-free expression, anti-rational forces. Ones that are gaining power while you distract yourself with possible reactionary sentiment among immigrants.

You gotta have a bit of leninism and a bit of anarchism. You can't just have one or the other. We need libertarian leninism :^)

It's like leninism but more emphasis on social freedoms

Is that compatible with segregation?

Well they are related by sharing a room atm and by a common love for a children cartoon, respectively. So you heard it here first, SU fans are officialy a nation. Unlessthere is a particular criteria to call people related?

you cant be educated to have shared genes with others
Yu can be educated to think sharing that gene or that meme matters and justify standing with that guy over this one. That is the start of tribalism, and nations are subcategories of this mindset.
Look at wars, in some case people from each side of the border, very close genetically side with the guy from the other side of the country (usually further genetically related), rather than standing for the guy next to the other side.
Believe it or not, the nation owe a lot to the upbringging rather than being a natural fact.

let me post

The universal condition of the proletariat is an objective fact. You must either sell your labor or you do not. So the entire proletariat both benefits from the dissolution of the domination of capital.

Your nation is nothing but imaginary and is situated on no material basis whatever. It is and can only be a spook.

In all fairness, classes are the material consequence of a spook.

That sounds retarded.

To be replaced with socialism, obviously. Not just abolish it and leave it at that.

Moldbug pls go.

You say it like there is no link between the two. I am not saying that Europe is exceptional. Simply that as things stand, Europe IS a beacon of progressive in an otherwise darkening world. I happen to think these values that I've mentioned are worth standing up for, whoever threatens them.

There isn't.

The anti-immigrant right are the very same people who'd like to take away those progressive values.

anarchism isn't against private anything dummy

Are you retarded or pretending?

Maybe you're "an"-cap, which would mean the former

Goddamnit, Holla Forums, lurk moar.

anarchism's the rejection of rulers, this does not preclude owning things.

Even Proudhon rejected private property. What absurd theory of anarchism are you using that doesn't?

…Wait, what do you think "private property" is?

Try reading a book

Anarchism has always been against private property due to the hierarchical and oppressive society it entails

That spook being private property.

Meaningless drivel. Try thinking in terms of physical reality rather than empty metaphors. Europe is aservice-based economic center of global capitalism that is fed by the industrial periphery and resource extraction nodes.

So what you're telling me is that anarchists are retards who think that everyone will share without coercion?

Newfag, what do you think that "private property" is?

At least spend a few minutes reading this marxists.org/reference/archive/henry/1894/conciergerie.htm

gender

No Nietzche, I am the superhuman, not you

Private property is enforced by the state, hence why anarchists are opposed to the state.

esse est percipi
if you are perceived to own something you own it.

this was an interesting read. I place freedom at the top of my ideals and the separation of property and action although fucking naive does give food for thought.
If you wouldn't mind humouring me how would such a society prevent hierarchies from arising and prevent men from claiming property?

so you can't protect what you think is yours without a state?

This is just in your mind user. Your thought process is a bit like this.

X has a GB flag in his rear window
X must be a xenophobic thug
X must also want to ban abortion, execute homosex and get in a war with China

Some people oppose immigration because they can take the longview. 100 years time, Europe is 50% muslim. You think that nothing has changed or that the change is for the good? If so you're a fackin mug.

This honestly sounds like the first in a long series of posts that devolve into a Murdoch media induced victim complex.

No, what you are describing is the concept of ownership. Private property is a specific category of property, namely that property which is held by a private (as opposed to public) entity who does not personally make use of it.

For example, an apartment complex with a landlord or ownership group is private property. The ownership group extracts the surplus value of the complex in the form of rent paid by the tennants who actually live there, and the complex is off-limits to anyone whom the ownership group does not specifically invite.

Both marxists and anarchists are opposed to that form of property. In the marxist model, the afore-mentioned apartment complex would be collectively owned by the tennants who live in it. Each would contribute to its upkeep in whatever way that he is able. Anarchists will either employ a similar model or some other use-based structure, but in all of them ownership of the building will be in the hands of the tennants.

If we work with that definition you're going to have to be more specific about the boundaries. What if the landlord lived in the complex? Suppose he used the whole complex, how long would he have to not use it for to be considered not using it? If you were to build a house in your own time and not use it frequently enough to be considered personally making use of it then would it be considered ethical in an anarchistic society to forcibly establish tenancy there?

Do you think that there is a meaningful difference between muslims and christians? No, religious beliefs slways change to match the socio-economic realities of a given society. Religions have a long history of fundamentally reorienting their values systems in order to be more in line with contemporary values. Look at how wildly Christianity has changed from what it was a hundred years ago.

You can't protect large and extensive property without a state. Capitalism, of course, depends on large and extensive property.

So if I had a lot of things, too much to deal with myself, couldn't I exchange some of my things with other people and have them help me protect it without involving a state?

That is a state.

so any more than one person acting toward a goal for mutual benefit is a state?

An organization with a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence is a state. Like what you'd set up with your guards.

What do you mean by legitimate? If there was a larger group doing the same thing would they not have the monopoly and be the state?

Do I need to post pics from Syria, Saudi or Iran next to some from Europe? Yes, Christianity is fucking cancer. It set back humanity hundreds of years. And they got over it. Not because some ivory tower liberals tolerated them but because of dissent from within. This self-critical voice is far too small and quiet in Islam.

You're saying liberal/lefty 'shutting down' of 'dangerous' opinions is just in my mind?

Are you using their services? Then yeah, they're the state. If not, and you're using your own set of guys and they're using their own set of guys, then what you have is two adjacent states.

Then the apartment that he lives in would be his personal property while the rest of the complex which he does not personally use would be private property.

How? By making the entire thing a mansion? What would be the use of such a thing?

In capitalism or socialism? If it were socialism he would not be a landlord.

Why would a single person spend months of hard labor building a structure that he does not use? And where did he get the land and resources to do so? Hypothetical scenarios are only useful in so far as they describe something that is plausible.

Uhhh…

So even with no citizens, just me and 2 other guys all aiming to protect one set of property, not taking any aggressive action, my group is a state. This does not fit with any definition I've ever seen.

Let's assume he let's his family use it, how long can they not use it and still count it as personal property?
The discussion was actually about anarchism.
if it makes the question easier to answer assume he is a generic man.
You'll find plenty of people build things they never use. Say you put a gazebo up in your front lawn and you never once got any use out of it. You might still object to the neighbours setting up camp on it.

The left right dichotomy is retarded. Is it on the basis of economics? Then NazBols are leftists. Is it on the basis of libertarian vs authoritarian? Then AnCaps are leftists. Is it on individualist vs collectivist? Then Mutualists are rightists and Fascists are leftists.

The entire dichotomy is fatally flawed outside of its use as a colloquial term for a general collection of ideological positions.

Of course there's going to be "citizens". What exactly do you figure that extensive property covers?

I'm certain most other posters here can see you for the disingenuous poster you are but this takes the biscuit. You believe this is representative of the people's by and large? I'm not going to get into a contest of cherry-picked images with you so let's just leave it at the fact that Iran, Pakistan and Saudi have punishments ranging from flogging to execution for blasphemy.

Are you under the impression that the material differences between Europe and the Middle East owe themselves to the differences between Islam and Christianity?

Why not compare pictures of Europe with pictures of Qatar and the U.A.E.? That would be more apt, since they are both in the post-industrial economic center. It should jump out at you just how similar they are.

It's a bunch of garbage in a storage lot, me and my 2 guards and sitting on the roof.

Qatar and UAE are both richer than the west, correct. So if ALL shoddy behavior is indeed a result of the material then why are Qatar and UAE so socially ass-backwards? Slavery in Qatar and general oppressive and regressive shit it UAE. But crack on like you've just made a good point m8. Really you've just made my case tronger. Even with MORE MATERIAL WEALTH than Europeans, these people are still largely backwards. Why is this?

One is authoritarian, one is libertarian.

Keep your vagueposting and "muh union jagg!" shit to facebook and just tell me what you're talking about.

The left and right political spectrum scale is deeply flawed.

There are four spectrums, like a compass.

Left,Right,Authoritarian, and Libertarian.

Anarchy is absolute libertarianism, the opposite to authoritarianism. It really has no ground in left or right. It's neutral in that regard and is only concerned on authoritarianism.

You said compare pictures, not ethics.

I thought this made you look like a big fucking retard because the Saudis especially are rich as fuck.

Well glad we've cleared that up. So what do you say now that we're on the same page?

Qatar and the UAE both have fairly tolerant, liberal standards while turning a blind eye to the horrid conditions that make their societies possible.

Kind of like Europe.

You said my post sounded like the start of a 'Murdoch inspired oppression rant'. While I see what you are getting at, dismissing people's concerns cause they're pleb tier is pretty fucking snobbish.

Qatar has fucking slaves building their 2020 venues. Just cause tehy've learned to tart it all up, do not be fooled. They are essentially satellite states of the KSA and have been THE leading backers of certain groups in Syria.

If members of his family are using all of the apartments, then those apartments are the personal property of the family members living there.

Anarchism is a form of socialism.

So the question is, "How long can a property be abandoned for before it can be used by someone else?" That would have to be determined communally, although going on a month-long vacation does not mean that a person will lose his house or the personal property that he has stored inside of it. A person's dwelling is his.

Then it is on your lawn. Your lawn.

That right there is why Qatar and the U.A.E. look like Europe–they are wealthy. Wealthy places all look like other wealthy places, no matter what continent they are on or what their religious belief systems are. Culture and social structure are all just economics under the skin.

Europe also has slaves, they just keep them at a distance.

And, while I don't know about Europe, the CIA certainly had a hand to play in the rise of ISIS.

The myth of the reactionary white working class wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/12/pers-n12.html

This identity-based presentation of Tuesday’s election is a false narrative exploded by the most basic analysis of the data from the election.

Anarchism is, as the name would suggest, an absence of rulers.
So the community's enforcer then seizes his property. Is this enforcer not exactly the state we are trying to avoid.
So I'm allowed to lay claim land?

And Europe has slaves making their clothes. Economic centers are wealthy precisely because they utilize labor that they do not pay for. Generally speaking, in capitalism the more a person produces the less property he has. It is an upside-down meritocracy.

I know that you do not see it now, but if you keep analyzing the flow of goods and services you will.

Yes, and it utilizes a socialist mode of production.

It is only his property if he uses it. Ownership in socialism is based on use. If a person lives on or works on a piece of land then it is his. If he neither lives nor works somewhere then it is not his land.

Of course. All land and natural resources are communally owned. If a person wants a particular plot of land for his own then he goes to the community, in whatever form that may be, and he states that he wants that land and tells everyone what he intends to do with it. They agree or disagree. If they agree, then it is his. It is similar to how land claims were made in the American Old West.

Because both advocate for the abolishment of private property and the establishing of ownership of equity among the workers.

Because this obsession with flags in the UK almost exclusively emanates out of the right wing press and has been adopted by groups like Britain First.
It's just fantasy, baseless, it's not real.

And nobody's genuine concerns in this country get addressed. When was the last time someone in your family had a genuine concern addressed without it being deliberately sabotaged further by the government? The NHS is collapsing, deliberately sabotaged to be sold off, the DWP have turned into tyrants and have just been given access to your browsing info, the police are inept, underfunded and corrupt, we could see a mass breakout at a prison at this rate, the media and the Tories are clearly in league to asset strip every inch of this country and all people in this country can give a shit about is Genuine Concerns™, which seems to just be a clever rebranding of the immigration debate, which we have fucking endlessly if people could be arsed to watch things like QT, they just don't like the answer they keep getting, so write it off as unaddressed.

Why? Because of that immortal fucking scrotum Rupert Murdoch. Where are all those Romanians, whom we were going to receive 100 gorillion of? I've never even seen a Romanian. Where are the Romanians I was promised? And Turkey joining the EU, they were next. A hundred thousand trillion kebabs turning your pub into a mosque! It could happen! Why? Because constantly shouting it means you can blame everything going wrong with the country on that ever expanding entity, The Immigrants. Not his sheister ally, the Tories.

They are compatible if everyone is feeling exceedingly cooperative, but they aren't tied.
Does it seem just that if I put the man hours into building some shit that I don't get to decide the terms of its use? I understand that ideologically all would work communally, but when people create it is usually selfishly, thus disallowing people from setting their own terms of use when on their creations, it de-incentivizes creation. The whole system relies on everyone sharing your herd mentality, so what do you do when someone dissents and you have no state to gulag them?

You do not seem to know what socialism is. Socialism is an economic system in which the working class controls the means of production. It is not a state structure.

The only form of anarchism that claims to not be socialist is anarcho-capitalism, which is neither anarchy nor capitalist. It is a nonsense system with no coherent theoretical basis. Don't let them fool you; they are not anarchists.

Think this hypothetical through. Through community agreement, a man acquires a piece of communally-owned land to be utilized as his personal property. He then acquires and utilizes materials and resources to produce a house on top of it. It takes him many months of hard labor to do so. For whatever reason he then leaves the property to live elsewhere.

Where does he go to? Does he make a claim on another piece of land upon which to live? Why should the community grant him a second piece of land if he already has one? He can only live on one at a time. What, then, is the use of the first piece of land? What good is a house with nobody living in it?

It makes no sense.

That is only true in the current economic system. Any anthropologist will tell you that creation in pre-capitalist communities is usually done for the sake of others.

Ha! Creativity is stifled by private property and especially by that branch of private property known as intellectual property. Creativity in capitalism does not benefit the creator but rather his investors who then trade his creation among themselves as a commodity. Eliminating that will improve creativity.

Says the capitalist laborer without irony on his way to work. Get along little doggy.

Dissent how? What is there to rebel against?

I'll tell you its more than just owning the means of production.
Suppose he decided to build some band stand in the public park for everyone to use but wanted to decide for himself what was done there. Maybe he built hostel but wanted to make it exclusive to women because he felt they lacked safe hostel elsewhere.
This is true, intellectual property laws do tend to do more harm than good, but don't deny that the incentive of wealth and power has not sped along engineering and science.
I guess I'm a fucking idiot for not being a NEET huh. That didn't answer my question.
your ideology. Someone would claim a monopoly on something at some point, and thus accrue more power than everyone else. They hire protection with their strange hold on a good and suddenly they're your king, what now?

If you are going to use a definition of socialism that is not used by socialists, then you need to define the term.

So, he wants to take a piece of public land and put it to his own use? What would convince the public to sacrifice their park to this man?

One single man is going to build a hostel? What would be the sense in that? Such an endeavor would require a construction crew.

I will do exactly that. The private sector only manufactures those products which have a ready-made market for their consumption. Scientific advancements have primarily been either public projects or, historically, the passtimes or commissions of otherwise idle individuals.

If anything, the pursuit of wealth has stunted technological development. How long has the carbon combustion engine been in use now? Why are power plants still burning coal? How much effort is spent on creating treatments for diseases instead of vaccines or cures? Why is outer space so under-utilized?

You did not ask one.

Who gives a shit? It does not matter if a person believes in nonsense so long as he does not inflict any injury on others.

How? Without a state or private property, how could an individual possibly establish a monopoly on anything? It is impossible.

That is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, not anarchism.

Why would anyone want your fucking garbage?

We're talking about means of production.

Why do white people believe soicalism is their idea? African were practicing it in villages long before white people "colonized" us. The idea that Karl Marx penned this "original thought is a waste of everybody's time. Thanks,

T.

Go back to my top post, you only have to click back through replies if this is confusing you.

Why would nationalism create this? A claim without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Yes, it is in the DNA.
Do you know anything about evolution?

...

private property

Yeah typically. Everyone who asks questions we've gone over too many times already is probably new to this board.

if you dont want a discussion why are you even posting, go elsewhere

Members of the society must refuse to participate in hierarchy, following only their own conscience, never orders. They must never respect private property rights, even if they are coerced or bribed to.

Not a good and accurate description of master/salve morality

do you own yourself?

Obviously not, for what, if not 'yourself' would be doing the owning? Can something own itself? Tjat sounds like nonsense to me.

Leninists love "national liberation"

The question isn't a trick.
If you own yourself, do you own the right to eat, the right to live?
Who decides what you need to live?

I didn't see anything that countered that point.

Nationalism and class struggle are two incompatible conflict theories. Either you are loyal to your nation in opposition to foreigners or you are loyal to your class against the ruling class, wherever they may reside.

No you don't "own" yourself. You are yourself.

That was some top drawer cherry-picking there lad. Choosing one sentence to make it appear I am in agreement with you when the rest of my post was about how I very much am not in agreement with you. I'll say again. Qatar, the richest nation on earth is also one of only two State Salafist nations on earth. Salafism is the ideology of Al-qaeda, who Qatar support to this day. Everything tolerated in Qatar (in terms of modernity) is tolerated only under the knowledge that it is the will of god. They are ass-backwartds regardless of how many shiny skyscrapers they can put up using literal fucking slavery.

theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/24/un-gives-qatar-year-end-forced-labour-migrant-workers

Drop the whataboutism and answer directly. Material conditions are much the same in Qatar and Europe. So why such drastically different values?

The point is that they don't have drastically different values. If anything, Qatar is simply less hypocritical about it.

Anarchism is considered left because that's the direction where Marxist academics are going, and everything that the Marxist academic echo chambers reverberates is always "on the right side of history."

Because nations can only exist in contrast with what is beyond their borders. Nationalism is at its heart a competition with teams including those who live within arbitrary boundaries.

Neither was his answer. A person cannot own himself, because he is himself.

No, jackass, you asked for a picture to compare with Europe, and SURPRISE they look largely the same. The E.U. and the U.A.E. are remarkably similar.

What exactly is the difference between European rich fucks legislating morality in their country and Qatari rich fucks legislating morality in theirs? What those particular morals are? Who cares? The effect is exactly the same. The poor work their asses off in accordance with the arbitrary morals that the rich fucks themselves ignore.

And thus follow these questions, do you fear the answers; that they may negate your ideology?

If you own yourself, do you own the right to eat, the right to live?

Who decides what you need to live?

Except that they do. Showing the skyline as proof of similar values is not valid. Skyscrapes are neither cultural nor about values. They just show that the rich who put up buildings in the city happen to use similar aesthetics.

They both more or less want the same end result, they just have different ways of getting there

...

There is no way "defend your culture" isn't xenophobic. It's a logical impossibility.

Depends what is meant by "defend your culture".