What's wrong with nationalism Holla Forums?
What's wrong with nationalism Holla Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
Under capitalism it encourages class collaboration.
Nationalism is a mental illness
It is justified by the ruling class to manipulate class against one another.
When was it exclusive to capitalism?
Do you mean workers against each other? You can be proud of your people and have solidarity with other workers
You can also be easily manipulated.
Nationalism has always been a disease that divided human from human ―”abstract” as traditional Marxists may consider this notion to be― and it can never be viewed as anything more than a regression toward tribal parochialism and the fuel for intercommunal warfare. Nor have the “national liberation” struggles that have produced new states throughout the “Third World” and in Eastern Europe impaired the expansion of imperialism or eventuated in fully democratic states. That the “liberated” peoples of the Stalinist empire are less oppressed today than they were under Communist rule should not mislead us into believing that they are also free from the xenophobia that nearly all nation-states cultivate or from the cultural homogenization that capitalism and its media produce. - Bookchin
You literally cannot measure what is "good for the nation". For nationalists, what is good for the nation is good for capital. If you call yourself a nationalist because you care about the people of a nation you should stop being a nationalist cause the interest of the people and the nation are not the same.
I can tell you are trying desperately not to use "volk." Hilarious. The bourgeoisie are not "my people" even if they are from the same country. I would gladly align with foreign workers in order to eliminate their role in society.
the nation state is a historically necessary creation for capitalism to flourish, thus upheaving capitalism would require upheaving the material conditions that give rise to things that capitalism creates, including the nation state.
But manipulation isn't exclusive to nationalism what if you use nationalism for communist purposes?
But the people make up the nation and shape the nation. What is good for the people is good for the nation
But I'm not even European lad you can be a nationalist and not go full nazi. My country was built on nationalist principles and most people are accepting of foreigners
Have we not have nations before capitalism though? And why is it neccesary for capitalism to flourish?
what's right about it?
nothing is wrong with being a nationalist as long as you don't believe in the reactionary ideas of; capitalism, monarchism, imperialism, or hitlerite Not Socialism(capitalism)
There were "states" before capitalism, but their political functioning was purely aristocratic whereas the nationstate seeks to ethnically unify its subject under one political entity. It was necessary to ideologically stifle solidarity in working classes.
A nation is shaped by the ruling class. The interests of the nation have nothing to do with the interests of the proletariat. See: war, austerity, strikebreaking, defending private property etc.
you can but a single nation is useless against the might of global capital
not how we mean it today
multinational empires (ottoman, austohungarian) were replaced by nation states
"people" is often used by communists
it's avoid in italy and germany for obvious reasons
Yes it can be a good tool for capitalism but what's stopping us from using it for communism? The USSR did it and so did national liberation movements like in Vietnam.
Um sweetie xx I'm asking the questions
But the nations culture is shaped usually by the actions of the common people so why can't we shape a communist nationalism?
read some Marx famalam
I have read marx just the idea of making a one world culture triggers me making me question fully adopting marxism
you literally can't
But by that definition you can't have culture and communism at the same time
but culture isn't nationalism.
That's already what's happening right now because contact between people and circulatuion of ideas is greatly amplified with modern technology.
The only question is wheter that global culture will be entirely molded by consumerism or if we can get something greater and richer, not wheter you can let cultures live neatly separated from each other in the name of some kind of cultural purity.
By virtue of having been born to a majority family in the United States of America, I can speak and write idiomatic English, allowing me to communicate effectively with the majority of people from the USA but also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. Even if I were to spend the thousands of hours of effort to the exclusion of other activities required to learn another language I wouldn't be nearly as eloquent in it as I am in English. Therefore, I am able to interact with people from these countries, as well as others, much more easily than I can with people from other countries. Culture is simply human interaction: hence, "culture" is tied to "nation", in my case and in the case of everyone else who lives in a country so linguistically monolithic as the United States of America.
What about them? A British person and I can understand each other much more easily than I can understand your average Mexican or Quebecois or he could understand your average Frenchman or Dutch person. Yes, the process of making it so this was the case took a lot of violence but why exactly am I supposed to be upset about something that happened in the past and that today allows me to share in the cultural heritage of so many people from multiple continents?
Nothing under the right circumstances
I really try to not feel contempt towards nationalists, but you fuckers are making it very hard.
In the short term, nothing, as long as nation states heavily cooperate. Over the long term the establishing of a one world state/open borders, or no states at all depending on your stance, should be our aim.