Do not separate material change and social condition; they are borne of the same thing: matter in discourse.
The USSR and Yugoslavia were little more than capitalist, and dissolution was welcomed by national capital because with it and liberal reform, capital could expand better. It was little more than a bourgeois stratagem, and the idea that the USSR was dissolved because people made them do so is absurd; especially as in the USSR dissolution was autocratically decided upon, with provisional government established by it in all post-union liberal democracies. Particular identitarian sentiments were raised by the dual force of nostalgism (resting upon prior material conditions) and individual bourgeois bodies igniting it as ideological edifice to weaponize their aims (in Yugoslavia, this is how the firms that always existed in it pushed for it).
Well that's rather convenient. It seems like when material explanations don't work you change the definition to include social conditions too.
This is a very round-about way of ignoring that nationalism was a primary force in breaking up both countries; and has been universally accepted since in both the former Yugoslavia and post-Soviet space.
Nostalgia for…a Russian republic that existed for a few months in 1917? For Serbian, Croatian and other republics that most people had never lived through? No, they just wanted independence and self-determination.
Agency is nothing without structure. There was a vast well of national sentiment that elites were able to tap into. Where did that national sentiment come from, in a country that made it illegal for decades?
Juan Carter
You're too ignorant to have a discussion on this about. Educate yourself lest you expect people to spoonfeed you on every little thing when you want to talk to them about things that require prior knowledge.
Tyler Cox
Nostalgia doesn't have to relate to actually existing things. See US nostalgia for 50's/60's.
Juan Ward
I've made a fool of you. Learn from your mistakes, buckaroo.
Noah Morgan
He's right you retard, the base determines the superstructure.
Elijah Bell
I've provided two concrete counter examples to that, so feel free to debunk them. Otherwise you're just shitposting based on some jpeg you saw once. Once you've done that (you can't and won't though) then you can start explaining why other national minorities have developed and sustained national consciousness in political environments that are hostile to them, and in which fostering that consciousness directly harms their material prospects.
James Hill
What's wrong with a leftist nation who is friendly towards immigrants but still has a very strict immigration policy? Having a generous welfare system AND a lax immigration policy is just asking for a hugely unsustainable amount of migrants to pour into the country from poorer countries (not blaming them, I'd do the same), and that puts a huge amount of strain on the infrastructure of the country and causes public services to fail, and also contributes to the destruction of our green spaces due to ever-increasing demands for house.
Leo Howard
There is nothing wrong with it "as such" (assuming it actually does what it promises, but that's an entirely different problem). But since most people here are Communists of one sort or another, our goal isn't having a friendly nation-state, with borders and possibly even classes. maybe if you're a socdem, maybe you want something like this, but most people here aren't.
You have ignored every argument until noe and have been utterly destroyed. Why do you still insist on being taken seriously?
Jace Lewis
Personally I think it's the only realistic solution until every state is economically equivalent and freedom of movement really is just based on wanting to experience a different culture or climate. That's why I favour very strict border controls (as well as foreign aid to help poorer countries reach their potential). I've spent more time on regular Holla Forums though and only just come around to the idea that I'm a lefty at heart, so I'm still developing my ideas.
