How will memechiners and nazbols ever recover from this?

How will memechiners and nazbols ever recover from this?

Other urls found in this thread:

democracynature.org/vol2/bookchin_nationalism.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

yeah nationalists got destroyed, but how does he "btfo" bookchin?

you mean Bookchin folks? they'd probably agree with that

democracynature.org/vol2/bookchin_nationalism.htm

Neither are the qualities I would describe when being asked what I love about my loved ones, my loved ones themselves. Can we conclude from this then, that I cannot love them because the answer to the question what I love about them, will never be themselves?

The entire argument is basic on this linguistic misunderstanding.

Uhh, why not?

If it was reducible to the nation state, wouldn't one love every country?

There's a meme going around that Democratic Confederalism is nationalism which means Communalism is because reasons I guess

Yours is an ontological understanding. Those attributes come from your loved ones, they produce them in some concrete manner. Ideas don't come from thin air, and it's up to use to interrogate those which seem to in order to discern where they come from and what they truly are.

A nation is an idea which is essentially a lie. What does it represent in the real world? A population living in a certain area? No, some in this area are excluded. A certain culture, people who perform customs in a certain manner? No, we have seen people excluded from a nation on the grounds of their heritage, and some of a different culture included thanks to their political and economic connections. A nation, then, is artificially created by state and similar institutions, it is nothing more than an expression of power, completely detached from any greater truth.

Bookchin and Communalists are both pretty much rabidly opposed to nationalism.

*ontological misunderstanding

But aren't my loved ones produced as well then, by their atoms and energy and further still, until we arrive at pure information? Where can we set the ontological boundaries between a thing and another thing?


A colour is an idea which is essentially a lie. What does represent in the real world, can anyone define the colour red to me?

Here, the linguistic misunderstanding strikes again, there are no complete and ultimate definitions, since words don't derive their meaning from other words, to conclude from this that a nation is a lie, is to declare that your entire post is a lie.

that's how

hint: didn't read lol

then why even post?

What you just described are material things. A nation is not material.

Colors are ranges of light wavelengths. The boundaries of colors may often be arbitrary, but they describe a single, internally coherent, real thing.

I can show you the colour red, can you show me your nation?

That's not red comrade, that's #ed1b24 which looks like a different not-red color to colorblind comrades.

:^)

If you want to translate my shitpost into theory you can make the point that the argument that a nation isn't "material" is based purely on semantics. The main reason why you can't take a picture of a nation is because it's so much bigger than that and that doesn't make it fake.

I can easily post a picture of something bigger than a nation for it contains all nations invented by mens.
"It's too big to post" is not an argument.

Wew I didn't mean it's too materially big I mean there's more to it than can be captured in one image. In some ways a nation is quite literally a feeling and how are you going to picture that?

Point being?


I still have no idea how the colour red looks like after you told me the science behind it, you haven't defined it's meaning.


I asked for a definition, not an image, I'm colorblind, I can't see it.


Sure, what kinds of activities do you like? I'll show you around the place.

Light with a wavelenght around 650 nanometers.

Fair enough, but the distinction between material and immaterial is still purely semantic.

this nigga knows his dasein

Had literally never heard of that before. Going to have to look into Heidegger now.

It's like a cavalcade of every stereotype imaginable about Trotskyists and their disgusting ilk.
The gulag's were too good for them.

light of a wavelength of about 700 nanometers

A loved person is an idea which is essentially a lie. What does a loved person represent in the real world? A fixed arrangement of matter within clothes? No, some matter is inserted, some expelled. A certain clothing, people who perform actions in a certain manner? No, we have seen people excluded from intercourse on the grounds of their heritage and connections, even though they had the same clothes and suggested the same sex maneuvers. A person, then, is artificially created and nothing more than an expression of power, completely detached from any greater truth.

Then you've just described a dynamic arrangement of matter within clothes. A human being. A human being is a real, material thing. I can point to the person I love and say "I love them". If a person fantasizes about something that doesn't exist, (e.g. a waifu) they are aware, assuming they are sane, that this person in the fantasy is at least not real. You can't say the say of a nation, which has no material basis. You do hit at something that is, some people do mistake the fantasy for reality, they think they're idealized version of the one they love is the real version. It is actually a very similar situation to nationalism, the nationalist may cite some vague examples of the material basis for the nation, saying "oh it is my neighbor, it is my people" even going so far to point to actual people on the street. But those aren't a nation, they are Gregg, Jones, from down the street. They are just individuals. Nationalism is indeed based on love, but a love for a fantasy which has no basis in reality.

You're distinguishing between the range of wavelengths of light that by convention correspond to "red" and your mental image of said wavelengths.

Lol have fun, that shit is fucking incomprehensible. Most overrated philosopher of all time.

t. brainlet

I Like the false dichotomy between internationalist cosmopolitanism and nationalism
Cosmopolitanism belongs in the trash. The nation is artificial but the tribalism nationalism appeals to is good.

Theres nothing wrong with loving the region or town you grew up in, and the community you live in.
People doing so will be necessary for a decently functioning socialist state.

Does Ocalan denounce nationalism as harshly as Bookchin does? Something tells me he might have been a bit more sympathetic

From the few lines i read, he seems to decry the Nation state as something fundamentally unadapted to ME context. About the feeling part and tribalism, i don't realy know.