Why does Holla Forums hate Nationalism?

Nationalism has always been the tool of the ruling class to solidify their rule over whatever land mass they can justify using whatever collection of ethnic groups are convenient to them. It's a lot of meaningless arbitration built on a false history that the people who are supposedly meant to be bound together by it had no real control or part in shaping. It has no place under socialism where the ruling class has been abolished and where the goal is global proletarian liberation: it only stands in the way through division. As has pointed out, if capitalism is interconnected and global, then so must we if we are to abolish it. Socialism in one country is not sustainable long-term.

...

Leads to a shitload of wars and terror.

I.E Nazi Germany, WWI germany, ISIS.

Far right wing terrorism is second to that of Islamic terrorism

JRA worked with PFLP tho.

...

Can you explain how the exploitation by the national bourgeoisie is any different than international exploitation?

also this

Nationalism isn't an inherently bourgeois phenomenon.

Wars were going on long before nationalism, bucko.

Let me ask you this: in a post-Revolutionary world, how do you propose to get rid of nations? Will everyone magically stop associating and feeling a sense of community with people who are like them?

We're talking about nations, not borders.

Anti-nationalism is for autists and sociopaths who can't identify with other people or feel like part of a community.

...

They aren't real, both are arbitrary fictions we engage in to spice up practical needs.

The first thing that dies in skeptical thinking is the "self," which is why philosophy is the domain of spoiled NEETs. Introspection becomes a poison the longer you engage it. The sooner you get over the fictional story of yourself and the spectacle of your own everyday life the sooner you can see reality for what it is.

It only benefits the bourgeois.

Why do you need borders and division to associate with with people you want to. I bet the removal of borders will allow people to associate with whom they would like to more than if borders were even more strictly enforced.

Autism.

So does everything.

HA

Doesn't stop it from being true. The more you learn about psychology, linguistics and philosophy mind, the more your realize there is no self behind the emotions and information.

Not him. So you saying nationalism was around before its explicit modern ideological elucidation in the ~17-19th century which accompanied conversion to industrial capitalism? Almost like its a fairly generic, primitive form of social organization?

Woah.

yup, looks like you've got some reading to do

Not him but see Cuba.

I don't, Nationalism is just a form of banter, borders are necessary among communities for workers to contain their labor for themselves, if they were open their labor would be anyones gain.

I didn't ask you to trust anything. The world isn't fake, our perception of our "self" is.

Define "culture".

It is. What we nowadays call "nationalism" in the West is largely a result of early 19th century revolutions and more accurately late 19th century compulsory education within the bourgeoisie-dominated States they spawned.

We don't "get rid" of them. They will inevitably disappear, just like modernization eroded religion.

I feel a strong sense of community with people who enjoy free jazz. Do we get to have a chunk of land and a flag, too?

You're assuming for some reason that nations are the only existing framework of belonging. It's obviously not. This is as retarded as your run-of-the-mill Christian conservative arguing there is no ethics outside of religion.

Cuba is not socialist, it is dominated by its own bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Your point?

No, but it's been primarily perpetuated and almost solely benefited the ruling class first and foremost. The bourgeois just happen to be the modern ruling class.

Yes, but nationalism gave a new casus belli so to speak. Calls of "we need to reclaim the land of our ancestors" or taking the fight to people because they're "threatening our way of life" when that "way of life" is facilitated through domination, exploitation, and imperialism.

People will associate with those who they have common material interest with first and foremost. For convenience sake, that's usually the most immediate community, but the point is that it doesn't have to be. The nation as it is enforced by states dictates that restrictions and barriers be put up when it comes to the interactions with most people outside their "nation". This of course does not apply to the ruling class, who may ultimately associate with whoever they please, but for everyone else things are far more limited.
The group you see as a "nation" is artificial: an even cursory look at things like the formation of German nationalism for example will show that it was a conceited effort to try and make those people identify as anything resembling a unitary people. National myths had to be made of legendary and ultimately ahistorical pasts, heroes had to be made out of figures coming out of that "nation," groups that were otherwise unrelated had to be either forcibly assimilated or shut out of the process entirely. Without the modern state backing it, those conceptions of nation fall apart once more, and more organic cultural interactions once again resume.

Which as I stated before, the modern national identities are only propped up because of measures like borders.

I want my interactions and identity with my community to be based on my actual interactions with that community, not because I was born into it and thus owe it an immortal debt; I am not a serf condemned to be shackled to the land upon which I was born. It's one thing to take pride in collective achievement when I'm actually involved in that achievement, but why on earth should I feel any pride in the accomplishments of someone who lived and worked 1000 miles from anything I've ever known long before I was even born. That's lazy: my accomplishments are my own and those who collaborated to achieve those results, not that of some reactionary piece of human garbage whose only tie to me is supposedly being a member of the "same nation." The nation is meaningless in that regard, I am technically of the "same nation" as some of the wealthiest capitalists in the world, but I have almost no common interests or goals with them; on the contrary, my self-interest runs entirely against theirs. What reason do I have not to associate with anyone who shares my common interests and goals if it means we can both achieve those goals more effectively? If nationalism stands to get in the way of that, why shouldn't I be opposed?

LOL. Rootless westerners speaking for the world about how culture, tradition, regional values and ethnic identity don't exist.

The only thing more pitiful than your idle pseudo-intellectualism is your arrogance.

Aren't you past your bedtime there Jason?

wew

Just because we reinforce traditions by constantly doing them, doesn't mean they're immutable facts of reality that cant be changed.

I cant change an entire language to suit my own ideas. Sorry friend, Some metaphysical ideas are implied in our everyday speech. It's hard to escape. "I've" never read New Scientist is it a good publication?

Then what (who?) is being tricked? Turns out there must be something stable, an identity, that remains constant over time for any such statement to have meaning. It's I who is sorry. All that learning and it amounted to naught, but a strictly meaningless conclusion, or infinite regress at best.

speak for yourself cantonese peasant
enjoy having absolutely nothing in common with your ancestors thanks to 'cultural revolution'

Its shit and I am glad neoliberal is destroying it

Only a global movement can end cappies

It destroyed the USSR. No other reason.

Nations only exist in contrast to what is outside of them. To claim that your nation is uniquely moral, if follows that all other nations must be more immoral that yours. To claim that your nation is uniquely innovative, it follows that all other nations must be less creative. So on and so forth. National supremacy and national struggle are the natural conclusion of this, as is the division of the working class on national lines. This couldn't be more removed from "workers of the world, unite!"

That is, if said "nationalists" even like their countries and the upheld form of nationalism isn't one that fetishes some fabled nationalist past, and is thus inherently reactionary.

How is that a bad thing??
Are you happy being nothing but another waste of sperm a duplication of the past generation?

it's a reactionary spook that divides the working class and is directly responsible for dismembering the International

Nah.

You don't. No one's advocating that.

This is Holla Forums-tier nonsense. You can't just look at something that reminds you of nationalism and call it nationalism.

Looks like you've got some growing up to do, bucko ;)

No, national consciousness is an organically occurring phenomenon that is the natural product of education mixed with the human desire for community. Whether or not a particular iteration of nationalism is bourgeois, aristocratic or proletarian is not set in stone.

This is where we disagree. I think the human desire for communities means that nations will always be around.
No, because basing human communities on musical taste is impractical.
No, I'm not. Pull yourself together.

This seems like a clear admission that nationalism isn't inherently bourgeois. If it isn't inherently bourgeois, then we have the potential to make it proletarian.

Again, you're admitting that nationalism doesn't inherently cause war. Most of the world's countries nowadays are nation states that accept nationalism, and yet the world isn't exactly being engulfed by war.

This is just where we differ. I think nationalism is predominantly an organic phenomenon, and I think the voluntary cultural interactions that you're talking about will be indistinguishable from nations, even after the Revolution.

Because they're the achievements of a community. A community that accepts you as one of its members and invites you to share in those achievements. Do you also not take pride in the achievements of your family?

You don't. By all means go for it.

You should, and we all should. The problem is throwing out the revolutionary potential of nationalism just because most current iterations of it are bourgeois.

None of this is inherent to nationalism. Go ask the Portuguese, the Canadians or the Irish if their nation is uber alles.

Don't forget Yugoslavia. Non-nationalist entities are always doomed to fail.

This fam knows what's up

...

I don't hate nationalism. Nationalism is great when it's anti-imperialist.

Read Rosa.
marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/nationality/index.html

First, I don't think these nations are all universally nationalist. Second, I'd probably ask why they're nationalists if they don't believe there's anything unique and exemplary about their nation.

The USSR was transparently Russian despite being a huge federation. The problem was Lenin, IIRC, created ethnic SSRs within the USSR. Consequently we had new nations appearing from the corpse of the USSR, and of course Russia itself fought a protracted war against Chechen separatists.

In any case, putting the failure of the USSR down to a lack of nationalism doesn't make sense. If anything it was a failure of federalism; Yugoslavia too.

Can you not criticize Chinese for eating cats and dogs when you have no qualms eating burgers.

t. vegan

...

do they keep burgers as pets where you are?

Yes.

Burger is the greatest achievement of the human race.

What do you mean by "Universally nationalist"? They're nation states that believe in and support national consciousness and national self-determination.
Because nationalism is common sense to most people in the developed world nowadays. It makes sense that people of a similar culture, speaking the same language, living together with similar values should identify with one another and want to form a community together.

On the contrary - that trend of korenizatsiya was the only hope the USSR ever had of overcoming national separatism.

why even live?

I'm almost certain this is a false-flag, but even so, user has a point. We only mock them for eating other animals because it betrays a sense of cultural superiority. If the roles were reversed and Americans kept cows as pets and ate dogs as cattle whereas the orientbros ate cows, we'd all be having a different conversation right now.

Not an argument.

Burgers were once sentient animals, like cats and dogs.

why do you allow yourself to suffer the guilt of the crimes of the capitalist system

I don't

As in they don't all believe in the spooks.
Except that this is largely a falsehood. I can understand why, for instance, the Irish might now want to live under a state that historically oppressed them like that of the United Kingdom, but even then that's not the same as nationalism where, as you claim, everyone is supposed to have the same culture and values. What exactly is "Irish culture" and "Irish values"? Who gets to decide what this is? Do all Irishmen simply agree about it, or is there some other authority? What about "Irish culture" and "Irish values" makes them incompatible with other nation-states?

Im first globalist and then socialist. Its extremely important for humanity to get rid of national states because of possible nuclear wars.

Holla Forums is just a bunch of anarkiddies aka cryptoliberals

I'm not suffering, I've never been happier being the healthiest person I can be. I'm taking personal responsibility in my health and the side effect is not contributing to this environmental disaster. Eating a whole foods plant-based diet is in your best interests, if you think otherwise you're emotionally attached to burgers, a useful idiot for the agricultural porky.

Also, people would still want consume animals in a socialist system, meaning such a system can be unsustainable and bad for public health.

...

...

My nigga…

It's so "organic" and "natural" it didn't exist until the second half of the 19th century.

Not "education" in the abstract. Bourgeois education, an historically-located form of education.

Implying the only framework of belonging is the Nation.

vegan """logic"""

Enjoy the Parkinson's and future dementia in thirty years from chronic Rotenone + pyrethrin ingestion from your organic hipster produce, faggot.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21402100

When will this "nations didn't exist until the enclosure acts and unifications of 19th century lmao" meme die?

>implying any of those count as a nation aside from perhaps ancient Egypt (aijhss.cgrd.org/images/vol2no2/4.pdf)

'nation' is not a synonym for 'the state'

try picking up a book before commenting again

i mean tbh…

this board is full of retards confusing nations with nation-states

From the abstract

Also, implying

Why yes, clearly it's the vegans who are demented.

...

I never implied that, just that bioaccumulation tends to affect animal products MORE, due to the apex predator effect. Consider organo-mercury in fish products for example. In a blind fury you squirted out an abstract that does not really support your contention in any way, one can only surmise as due to your urge to not feel morally culpable for your flagrant disregard for sentient suffering.

I agree that nation is not synonymous with nation-state. Just that the concept, in various forms, has been around for a long time. The article you posted uses Smith's criteria for nation state: "citizenship, a unified economy, a world of compact nations, and mass
education", and argues Ancient Egypt indeed met this modern criteria. Which means it's not a uniquely 19th century European phenomena which then swept the world.

Because you can use nationalism to justify anything, it's composed of dead people's baggage, and it puts the nation on an altar. I have no problem with nations in and of themselves though.

What a uniquely shitty meme.

nod an ugooment

I don't know, I think the cyan is aesthetic as fuck. Like you're looking at satellite TV through an old CRT.

Substantively, what I've been trying to argue over the course of my posting career here, is that some form of return to nationalism in the West is probably inevitable. Multiculturalism has met its match, as neoliberalism (which multiculturalism was largely an ad hoc justification for, along with predicating the future economy on replacement of birthrate shortfall), also went hand in hand with neoconservative US foreign policy (in concert with their allies, the Wahhabists), which has now created an untenable situation, where we're seeing real culture shocks, and people are realizing what this will actually entail for their countries if continued. Pan-European experiment has been all but a complete disaster. So it's either bourgeois, reactionary nationalism while hoping capitalism collapses in the meantime, or trying to formulate a proletarian nationalism of some kind, and trying to pull it leftward, as the better of the two options. The majority leftypol proposed strategy, however, which appears to consist of smugly screeching "you're spooked cuck" and memeing Stalinism, in comparison, seems ill-considered.

You might be able to make that argument in Europe, but the U.S. is an entirely different matter. Good luck getting people to divide themselves across arbitrary lines. Stirner is much more useful here.

Where's the version of this with Hitler?

I fail to see how the US is much different, but fine. Europe is still important. You can still meme FALC at the same time as this is all happening, you know. It doesn't mean glorious 1000 year reich, it's a temporary arrangement, after all, that's all it can be. Technology and globalization won't stop. It's simply called planning for the medium term.

It's stupid because it does not produce a net benefit for humans. It's literally a scaled up version of gated communities.

When did I imply this? I pointed out how sustainable a plant-based diet is and how unsustainable producing meat is. Also, if you know fuck all about agriculture you'd know the broccoli industry is the least of our worries; it's highly mechanized process requiring very little labor where as slaughter house workers get shit like PSTD.

And the vast majority of pesticides are consumed by livestock anyways, enjoy that, plus heart diseases, diabetes, cancers, and overall mortality; you emotional faggot.

nutritionfacts.org/topics/heart-disease/
cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00062-X

If we're talking civic nationalism, then maybe. Even that is iffy, since there are a lot of disillusioned people here after all the useless wars it's been used to justify.
People in the U.S. love individualism and take pride in it, but it's a bourgeois form of individualism. If socialism can be turned into as much a force for individualism as capitalism pretends to be, then we may win something here.

My little Holla Forums can't seriously be this naive.

Post disregarded.

jbc.org/content/280/51/42026.full

scientificamerican.com/article/parkinsons-disease-and-pesticides-whats-the-connection/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19385059

nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-finds-two-pesticides-associated-parkinsons-disease

nature.com/articles/npjparkd20152

pdf.org/en/science_news/release/pr_1371214107

The vast majority of pesticides end up as run off in the rivers and aquifers from which you draw drinking water. Enjoy it. :)