We need to put nationalism to bed

This is fake leftist scum logic.
I am a nationalist and a anarchist. I am believe my country shouldn't be capitalist and shoudl embrace a path of descentralization of power and rejection of capitalism along with everything that spawns from it.
I like my country, i like my people. I don't want to live anywhere else. I don't want to see the cities filled with McDonald's and other american garbage.
Yes nationalism is the love for my culture and the people. Nazis often are pseudo nationalist, in which they believe Germany should rule over their country. This is not nationalism.
I want to live in a world rich in cultures. Not live in a worsld that looks liek downtown New York.
I remember when i was an early teen, i has 12/13…back in the early 00's seeing on TV leftists protesting G8 summits. They looked fearless and determined. What happened to those people? Why nowdays every leftist is a globalist supporter? i'm sorry…"internationalist".
Just because i want this for my country, doesn't mean that the rest of the globe has to follow. This is barbarian american logic of installing liberal democracy and capitalist economics everywhere.
Every nation should follow is own path. Nations who wish to reject western notions of organization should never be frowned upon as well.

not op, but there are nationalists around on this board for some reason.

Here's the issue with a solely class-based disposition that ignores nations: the proletariat in different nations is in different circumstances.

Like, if you compare the plight of an average American prole with a prole from a third-world country, the American is obviously better off. But then if you look at it you note that occasionally even some bourgeoisie from some third-world country are worse off than the American.

It's tempting here, if you refrain Nation as part of your analysis, to look at the third worlders, including the bourgeois, as the real "lower class" and the American, despite his proletarian status, as really "upper class". So, what ends up happening is that your natural coalition ends up including even the rich from third-world countries but not the poor from first-world countries.

What you end up getting from this is not actually socialism, but "reverse imperialism"; it's right for x countries to rule over y countries since x countries were once oppressed by y countries. Even worse, there's the tendency for upper-class liberals in rich countries to sympathize with those from poorer countries thanks to his education, and the reverse imperialist coalition will swoop him in to.

What you have to have instead is an understanding that yes, the American prole is someone we have to stand with, even though he has reactionary attitudes and he's richer than the prole from the third world. This is the only way you can actually have worldwide socialism, not just switching around who the oppressors are. And this requires a nationalist viewpoint; you want the various proletariats of each individual country to rise up, not just "the poorest" people who are more concentrated in some countries than others.

...

...

I'm oppressed by niggers and kikes.

Nations that wish to reject socialism should be "liberated".

You need to stop whinning against the right and purge the liberal left you fucking retard, people isn't going to the right because is a good choice but because liberals made it a better choice

Nat cucks need to learn their place.

...

...

Agree. Internationalism and National Liberation go hand in hand. Nationalism and internationalism do not.

...

Class isn't how much money is in your wallet. Class is your relation of production.

It is, in fact, nationalist feelings that cause proles in the third world to resent proles in the first world instead of uniting under the banner of their common class interest.

It really doesn't. Comparing the living standards of prole in X country vs. prole in Y country is ceding ground to capitalist arguments.
Instead of pressing them about exploitation regardless of the different proles' immediate circumstances, you're implicitly allowing that capitalism has made X's life better.

Gee, user, sounds like your grievance is with capitalism, not internationalism.

You realise all the biggest anarchist movements have been 'nationalist' in the sense that OP talks about to a great degree right? It is not contradictory

It also sounds like he doesn't know what the fuck culture is, where it comes from, or how it works tbqh

In the sense that OP talks about, which is generally accepted to be in the context of national liberation.

Not "nationalism", which is what the other user was speaking of. Learn the difference, it may save your life.

You need to realize that nations act as superorganisms, and that natural selection applies to them as it would a biological organism. "Anti-nationalist" nations/cultures increase their chances of being conquered by cultures that have more nationalist inclinations. How then do you stop this from happening?

...

The Amish are a culture, you know, and yet I bet one "internationalists" would have problems with.

The Left's biggest beef with the Amish is that they're religious fanatics and Luddites.

Otherwise, internationalists would generally support the Amish culture.

Sticky this.

So?

You don't have a problem with a theocratic "culture" of male domination and practically institutionalized physical and sexual abuse?

Doesn't communism seek to create only one class?

No classes.

Are your serious?

If there's only one class, then there are no classes.

I love how nazi retards had to come up with this new "globalism" dumbass scapegoat they love to hate so much in order to avoid attacking capitalism AGAIN

good OP, I guess you now need to call Sinn Fein, ANC and so on and tell them they're wrong according to your definition

anyway, at this point nationalism is a buzzword siince various nationalisms does not even have common traits to form a definition.

back in 30s it meant supporting national unity (opposing division of it on ethnic/religious etc grounds) and autarky. today, polyp thinks that fascism was racist because his understanding of nationalism is the contemporary ethno"nationalism" thing (as you can notice, 30's nationalism and ethno"nationalism" are in direct conflict).

anyway fuck it

Class is a relation. Without multiple classes in relation to each other and the means/process of production there cannot be any class. Communism would make people independent, classless agents.

fuck you niggers
t. 4chan migrant

Ireland doesn't have national unity and sinn fein are right in demanding it. no idea why you're sperging.

Starting off factually untrue I see.
Your "nation" (however you define it) is defined as being your people, which is the point of nationalism.
Wrong. Class does not exist in socialism.
Wrong, it is fact that you MUST be nationalist to be socialist, else you are a delusional idealist to believe that by giving up your nation you'll put yourself into a position which enables you to force others to do the same.
And there is it. I see you got the invite reddit. Next time you shit post here please put your canary in front of your reddit-spaced paragraph.

90% of the time nationalists fucking hate their really existing nation, nationalism is usually focused on some mythical past before the nation was "corrupted"

Wew.

I believe in world communism where the world is governed by a single political entity, but I'm also fond of the culture and traditions of the people that live in my country, so I guess that makes me a nationalist :^)

A "nation" can literally be any group of people you regard as being in some way politically tied together. Then again, you never really argued against that because "your people" is even more vague than "nation".

Nations don't exist under socialism either. But the point that you're intentionally dodging is that the social analysis of socialist thought gives primacy to class over nation, and as such prioritizes class interest over any kind of national interest.

So your argument is "You must be nationalist to be a socialist because I personally cannot imagine people not being nationalists"

Okay then. I counter that people can identify with anything. The political concept of "nation" didn't even exist until around two centuries ago.

You're bad at imitating us, Holla Forums

If he is wrong then why doesn't an alternative to the nation model exist anywhere and why do even very left wing liberation movements take on the trappings of, and seek outright, nationhood?

...

Lol talk about "nation means whatever I want it to mean."

Cooperation between nations.

Pretty much, buddy. You only ever defined it as "your people", which can mean literally anything. If anything, I was being more specific than you.

It's called The United States.

I'm not who you were arguing with, dimwit.

Wew there lad, at least do a basic wiki search.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_internationalism

You didn't bother to point out you were a different poster

You know that old saying about assuming.

Read a fucking dictionary. And if you mean Communist or Socialist International then say Communist or Socialist International. And make sure you capitalize International because that has a different meaning than internationalism.

Oh, I need to ask every time someone respond to one of my responses if they were the same guy?

Why don't you just say that you're a different guy.

How is the USA not a nation state?

And do I really need to specify on Holla Forums that it's the socialist conceptualization of internationalism?

Why don't you just not make assumptions?

Why don't you just stop shitposting?

The government bases its legitimacy on the constitution and democratic representation of the citizens, not on the various ethnic groups within it. There is no actual American "nation."

Because you keep shitposting at me like a bottom burned little baby.

Mythical past and corruption means different thing to different nationalist. Either it means conservative and racist period for polyp and corruption means rejection of these; or the opposite, noble period since when nation has fallen into racism and ignobility in general.

Good post.

I think the variance between Nationalism and Patriotism is too often lost in the dialogue. The former being blind loyalty regardless of action and the latter being more what you described as "… a love for the culture and traditions of people who live in your country." in addition to a desire for making it better.

At least that's always been my perspective.

Most if not all developed nations do that. Non of them base their legitimacy on the various ethnic groups within them.

Is or should be the same as everyone's else just as everyone else understands what you mean when you talk about Internationalism, capitalized.

Well gosh user, do you think that might be because they aren't nation states?

What exactly are you implying? That natural selection doesn't apply to societies? It's basic mathematics.

OP isn't wrong. Nationalism isn't simple affection for your national football team or local cuisine–nationalists often point to these innocuous things to pull some slick entryist shit.

Couldn't be more wrong.

This overly pedantic shit started on Holla Forums and I can only assume when one uses it here they're a fucking tourist.

Sounds more like Dugin than anarchism.

...

It's very basic math applied to very complex concepts.

...

Socialism and nationalism don’t contradict. You can be both at the same time.

Nationalists are nothing but shills for capitalism. The sole purpose of nationalism is to protect the state and the interests of the bourgeois.

No, it's still shit then. And before you say it, I hate both Israel and Palestine.

Every time that this has been tried, it has backfired. You'll notice that the Russian Revolution was internationalist, for example.

Nationalism is pride in your culture. Nationalism is an ideology. It wasn’t created by people for a reason. It just naturally happened as a reaction to the destruction of tradition in the face on the market. This makes nationalism inherently anti-capitalist. Thus making nationalism and socialism, not only compatible but as ideologies that should be one and the same.

The YPG/PKK is Kurdish nationalist.

Post/listen music and debate commie theory here:
dubtrack.fm/join/leftypol-comrades

No it isn't. They explicitly say they aren't, and you can't say that they are because one illiterate poster on here said they were.
They dropped nationalism when they dropped ML.

Most of the people in there ranked are Kurdish nationalists.

...

I like my country, i like my people. I don't want to live anywhere else. I don't want to see the cities filled with McDonald's and other american garbage.

Nope, you are a fascist, you just don't know it yet. So read more, start with pic related, also Evola.

Oops greentexted

lol and Holla Forums claims to not be basic SJWs.(USER WAS BANNED FOR BAIT)

the redditor who posts nothing but smug anime girls and strawmen is back

Yes we are of course a hivemind and one guys opinion represents all of us

Post your music + theory: dubtrack.fm/join/leftypol-comrades

He's not talking about patriarchy in the West as a whole, he's talking about the fucking Amish, can you not see an actual patriarchy where it does exist? Has Karl of Swindon really poisoned your mind this hard?

So once that nation-state achieves national liberation will it then become an oppressive state when it enforces its respective borders after revolution? When does that line start to blur? You are basically implying that patriotism is love for muh culture while nationalism is hatred/supremacist.

Leftypol really needs to learn nuance. This thread is appalling.

Nationalism is just pride in your people and culture. Also why couldn’t a nation state be socialist? Cuba, for example is both Socialist and a Nation-State.

...

Evola also said that nationalism leads to communism and socialism
juliusevola.net/excerpts/Modern_Nationalism,_the_Masses_&_the_Democracy_of_the_Dead.html

They just replaced the old elite with a new ruling class. All modern revolutions are inherently statists because they seek to build a new state on top of the old.

Destroying nationalism should be our top focus as we develop new communist theory.

Your even worse than nazis that tortured our comrades. Atleast they were loyal to their cause.

Nigger what?
Nationalism is the love of one's own volk and culture.
Socialism is the belief that the state should serve the people.
At what point are these incompatible, or do you want to argue semantics until you come out on top?

I disagree. The reason why it's called Not Socialism and not social nationalism is because nationalism comes first. In Not Socialism, the state is not a protected upper class like in capitalism or communism. The Not Socialist state is the will of the people expressed through elected officials, and it is the duty of those officials to hold those positions of power not for personal gain, but for the betterment of the nation. The state is only there to make sure that no one screws up everybody's nice things.

Please read the Ford translation of Mein Kampf and take a look at the 25 point plan of the NSDAP for a better understanding of what I'm saying. Thanks.

You can't destroy nationalism without destroying the phenomena that create and reinforce it. How do you propose to destroy national consciousness?

lmfao

The Jews have been doing a pretty good job of that with rampant miscegenation and propaganda.

Testing to see if they've filtered Not Socialism our of butthurt that people might see the better path.
Nạtịọnạl Sọcịạlịsm

Yeah sure kid.

We've heard of it outside this board newfag. The filter is for lolz and immaterial to discussion since most of us are well read on the subject already. It's actually kind of embarrassing how often natio.nal socialists come here and get btfo by people who know more about their ideology than they do

How would that work even in theory?

It's not like Brazil, Cuba or the Dominican Republic don't have national identity despite being mixed as fuck.

It doesn't matter.

Both are fantasies.

Commie faggots

Wew lad.

I bet you're not even fucking German you massive fucking faggot.

Read a book anytime.

imagine being this gullible

No one capitalizes "internationalism"

"International" is only capitalized when you're talking about a socialist international.

Can we grade and rank nations by categories such as

1) Human rights
2) Animal rights
3) Children's rights

For example in many nations in Africa children are openly sold as sex slaves.

Would you rank African nations

A) Higher grade than western nations

OR

B) Lower grade than western nations

Another example. In many African nations, albinos are eaten under ritual magic cannibalism.

how would you rank nations that practice this tradition?

They all fail to varying degrees. Only global communism passes the test.

You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.
Nationalism the too the rulers use to exploit that pride into service of the state. Your pride in your culture will take a backseat to the state's goals.

culture

Wew. This thread really drew the fascists. For the people who were asking "why is this thread needed?" Well, there ya go.

The core of his theory was a belief in god-king sorcerers.

magic is real
fool

Why? Trying to destroy nationalism will just make left-nationalist hate you.

You rank nations passed on how democratic they are and do the workers own the means of production. Enlightenment values are bullshit.

Left nationalists are idiots and we shouldn't want anything to do with them.

How so? Socialism is comparable with nationalism.

If you want your revolution to actually be the proletariat rising up against the bourgeois and not just another war between previously existing powers you better fucking get used to them, because the left is totally dead in most rural and post-industrial areas in the first world and the best chance of reviving it is with the sorts that voted for Trump and Brexit.

I too like my country's cultural heritage and wouldn't want to smash historical buildings but natonalism is cancer.

No it isn't. The Internationalism inherent in socialism and your stupid bullshit are completely incompatible.

It is but it's a deal with the devil. It's entirely possible for a socialist and nationalist revolution to succeed momentarily but that success is temporary, eventually the "nationalist" aspect will come to dominate whilst the "socialist" aspect is marginalized if not outright forgotten. It generally just offers the bourgeoisie a massive weakness in how they can potentially sanitize the revolution and bring the proletariat back into the fold of global capitalism.

If you use nationalism to seduce the proletariat to socialism, the bourgeoisie will have no difficulty using it to seduce them right back into capitalism. This is why we cannot tolerate that kind of non-materialist irrationalism in socialism.

If my goal was getting the proletariat on my side by any means necessary even if it means compromising the long-term success of the revolution I would not be a communist, I would give up on the revolution all together and be a liberal.

We shouldn't just pander to irrational desires just because it'll make things easier. We need to stay 100% dialectical.

Why exactly would defending the private ownership of the means of production make you more likely to attract all of the proletariat than not doing so?

Because it's what the proletariat are used to and taught to believe is good.

Convincing them otherwise is a struggle.

It's not just about not alienating any proletariat but also about engaging them, which liberalism does not do because it doesn't solve any problems. Socialism, however, even with a veneer of spookery actually does have promise to solve problems and thereby engage the proletariat, which is what is necessary.

Don't assume that just because things are currently one way means they have to be that way going forward. Trump and Brexit got much of their support because they were "anti-establishment".

We're entering the far reaches of autism here

Internationalism is stupid. As Stalin said. “Socialism in on eCountry.”

I'm going to type this in big red letters because it's important but others will ignore it

In the age of instant communication, all nations are becoming similarly attached, borders are becoming less and less clear if communication between them without crossing or without telephone is possible. And this is done in great number. All people can communicate with one another about the grievances they have with how the world works under Capitalism; and too, all people can become educated on how and why Capitalism is failing. Nationalism puts boundaries and borders on those they think are rapidly disappearing, and in a way, they are right. But the only people defending those borders are the federal government, a government that is corrupt, Capitalistic. In order for any nationalism to work, it requires a new nation be made, and the argument could be made that it is preferable. However, the internet makes others empathize with their plight, and empathy is a tough nut to crack. It creates confrontation. If all of these problems exist, why are we not rejecting the whole idea of borders in this world under global market, and not working to point out the simple truths of capitalism to the best of our ability?

After all, the internet is not only presided by the very rich, but people all over the globe who are confused why the world is going so wrong. We have an answer that has motivated millions of people to stand up for themselves

The internet has created an opportunity for all kinds of international effort to change our governments for the better

But as of now, nationalism is useless and only works for the neoliberals elected to manipulate them, making scapegoats or others to focus on while they create policy that makes our window of opportunity to convince others poor and needy understand, and where to go from there. Nations also do far more harm from creating lack of little rights the worker has. And don't suggest these problems can only be solved by electing a nationalist leader, like Le Penn. They are the very same as the neoliberals in goals, they will not make the world a better place.

Except it isn't at all.

There's no such thing as "left-nationalists" outside of those seeking national liberation.

People only cling to god and country because they have nothing else to hold onto. If you create a proper, progressive program that works to empower the people, they'll drop the nationalism like a stone.

I think it's also worth noting that people cling on to old nationalist ideas simply because those ideas go all but unchallenged, and those few who do challenge them are typically anarchist edgelords who do little more than desecrate national symbols and shout edgy slogans without ever attempting to really sell proletarian internationalism to the public.

And Stalin's system collapsed.

Nationalists present nationalism as the natural conclusion of 'tribalism' and love for your 'home', and love of your 'culture'
this misses that the 'nation' is uttery artificial. 'America' isnt my home. New england is my home. Not even all of it, only a certain region of it is. I do like my home pretty well, especially my city, but the midwest, or the south, or california, why should I feel like they're my brothers any more than I should feel that way about canada?
Morover, human 'tribalism' is not some magical ability to perceive heritage or genetics. Its nothing more than the people you know. historically, you're born into a hunter gatherer band and you grow up knowing, seeing the faces of, hearing things about, etc etc the other tribesmen. This is the only thing that "tribalism" comes from, basic community, your innate ability to have some measure of awareness of and knowledge about some number of individuals.
And their version of 'culture' is always an artificial fairy tale construction. Its very telling that the same assholes talking about "europepan culture" might also tell you not to drink. They spit on real culture.
TL;DR: love for the actual region or town you come from, the actual community you live in, and actual culture, not "The nation", "its people", and superficial propoganda "culture" ok.

The average Texan has more in common with you or even people from the UK, NZ, Canada, or Australia than he does with the average person on the other side of the Mexican border, despite the Mexican being physically much closer to him than any of you are.

This is blatently untrue and simplified. Hispanic people aren't fucking aliens. And even if this observation is true, it is just that, an observation. It offers no way to fix or take advantage of this "problem". It is no different than explaining, "These people have differences."

No shit, but so what? Where do we go from there?

I find this user much more a compelling answer to us and our goals than just surface examination of changing demographics.

I'm still not sure that a "proper, progressive program" that has to shout the necessity of opening the borders or ending "god and country" with even a thousandth of the intensity that it uses to attack unproductive middlemen owning the means of production or advocate for meeting the needs of countrymen really will lead to nationalism being dropped, though.

go back to reddit, capitalist bitches.

...

That's actually not true at all and proves that you've never been to Texas.

Fuck off snowflake, you're literally a tumor.

...

Stop posting lad.

Reread the original post you responded to.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I love seeing y'all crying fascist like Holla Forums uses the jew boogy man. So because I read a right wing novel it actually means that I'm a fascist? I bet you'll cry "cultural fascism" or something else retarded along those lines

He believed in a lot of retarded shit but he brought a lot of valid criticisms towards nationalism and other collectivist societies