Reactionary nationalities

t. unsourced infograph

marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

this, I am unironically triggered by the suggestion

OP My great great grandfather was starved to death in a Finnish death camp for your smug ass to suggest our nation is inherently anti communist

independence was declared, or given by Lenin in December of 1917, in January there was a socialist revolution. Red guards occupied all the major industrial centers and declared the Finnish socialist workers´ republic. Not to become a part of the Soviets but to create an independent socialist republic where democracy ruled but private property was outlawed. The founders of the socialist republic were inspired by American liberals, but applied the ideas with a socialist twang.

The republic was doomed when the bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, placing Finland in the German sphere of influence. The revolution was crushed by German trained Finnish "jääkärit", some Swedish weapons and officers and a German invasion force.

After the war 80000 of the red guards were put in gulags. Something like 25000 either succumbed to disease or starvation in death camps or were outright shot

thats why Finland appears "anti-communist" from your perspective

I would like you to apologize for your dumbass suggestion of inherently reactionary peoples and for insulting the legacy of my relatives who fought for communism in Finland

Also Ukraine has Makhno, was he a reactionary too lol?

I shouldn't be so surprised from someone who thinks infographics are ideological documents, but hey.

Sasuga /leftycuck/

Engels felt comfortable enough with the idea of "inherently reactionary nationalities" to commit his name to the idea by publishing an article about it, the concept of "inherently reactionary nationalities" is not revisionist at all, in fact arguing that the concept is revisionist IS in fact revisionist you're just going to have make peace with being a revisionist, revisionist ;^)

White communism will win

Kill yourself. You don't know shit about Marxism. What an absolute embarrassment that a fucking Nazicuck knows more about this than you.

Africans, by God these people are utterly stupid.

All nationalities are reactionary, only workers are revolutionary.

what a shame

americans
australians
israelis
serbs
italians

Reactionary nations:

"Israel"/"Israelis" (Zionist colonial occupiers)
Ukrainians
Croats
Greeks (Greek identity is Christian-supremacist and modern "Greece" was created by the West in order to destroy the Ottomans)
Estonians
French
Quebeckers
Sicilians (for the same reason as the Greeks, their identity is inherently Islamophobic and imperialist)
British occupiers in Northern Irelanad
All white "Latinos"
Mizrahi Jews (they side with Zionism over Arab liberationism)
White South "Africans"
Rhodesians
Gusanos
Venezuelan dissidents
All white people in North America

This is completely true that there are reactionary nationalities.
Some nations find themselves disadvantaged by any sort of progress, and naturally assume reactionary stance.

Denial of this, acknowledged by the classics of Marxism themselves like here or here , is pure infantilism, and well meaned but unrealistic belief that transition to socialism and socialism itself will be the paradise on earth, justice and happiness for each and every one.

That said, this is also pure fantasy. Most likely, Asia will dominate in Socialist humanity, and most white states will face collapse and ruin.

Arabs will dominate. Islam is inherently socialist.

shocking development

I wish more Nazis would know the truth about orthodox Marxism. Actual Marxists are (not race) but Nation realists. Few people, both on the right and on the left know, for example, that Leon Trotsky believed that nations would not disappear in communism, and the Russian nation will be domineering in the communist world while the rest would be subservient to it.

Nazism, however, is a pseudoscience and narrowminded egoism in a nutshell, while Marxism is a bold intellectual analysis.

Arabs aren't sovereign people since the Mongol invasion. Before you can dominate anything, you need to at least control yourself. Their self-consiousness is on the rise, but they've failed to achieve independence from foreign control as of yet and at large. Especially now that their independence sentiment is funnelled into organisations like the Caliphate.

go to gulag, revisionist

This doesn't make an ounce of sense.

What's wrong with a Caliphate? The original Caliphate had a socialist system.

I'm talking about ISIS obviously.
It's destroyed, for starters.

...

Neoliberals say that nationality doesn't matter.
Reactionaries say that race and nationality exist, nationality equals ethnicity/genetics, and is a fundamental subject of human race.
Marxists say that races exist but don't matter, and Nations exist and do not correlate with ethnicity/genetics, but are' instead, derivatives of natural social and economic forces and concepts.

Where am I?

reasonable, but I don't think we should be limited to working with existing or historical nations and whatever cultural/institutional frameworks they contain. these matters should not be ignored of course, but a far-sighted, forward-looking plan does not limit itself based on current, contingent states of affaires.

no surprise here

"Nations" are bourgeois constructs, plain and simple.

There is no such thing as a "nationless" person though. You either adhere to your traditions or someone else's.

Marxism is a bourgeous construct, plain and simple.

The guy in that picture was actually gulaged.
marxism.halkcephesi.net/galiyev/on galiyev.htm

He was right, and only spooked liberals or nationalist reactionaries would complain about this. Sad how many modern Trots and even MLs would consider this "chauvinism" today. Fucking retards.

This faggot sounds like he would have supported ISIS.

Islamo-Zionism, wonderful.

All of these countries (except Israel obv) had massive labor movements

Show me a ML party that gets a higher percentage of the vote in NA than in Quebec

The Ottoman empire was filth that deserved to be stomped out. Other than that, your list is pretty spot on.

key word there

...

Quebeckers, like all French, are inherently Islamophobic. Look at the recent face veil ban.

nation-states are a capitalist invention

liberal please

islam =/= socialism. islam is hierarchical, pro-property, and reactionary as fuck.

nation state =/= nation.

Lies.

nytimes.com/2017/10/09/opinion/muslim-communism.html?_r=0

Bolsheviks also promoted Islam as a revolutionary religion.

sure they did fam

youtube.com/watch?v=5L3sy2eLD6Q

Demography is destiny. The comparison to Zionism makes no sense. Zionism was a settler colonial movement right from the beginning and white supremacist too whereas Islam promotes socialist goals and is liberating.

The US had to actively suppress marxist movements in Italy post ww2

the fuck are you on about?

pretty much all of them.

Half of "Italy" is Muslim land.

That user seems to have been with us for quite a while.

How was Islam not proto-socialist? The Qur'an even describes Historical Materialism.

Any religion can be coopted by any political ideology and social formation.

Islam isn't proto-socialist, because there was nothing proto-socialist in Muslim states. The only thing fundamentally different about them was their advanced approach to managing the empire and legalism in general, and, you could say a proto-representative democratic ideology. But if anything was proto-communist, it was Christianity, obviously.

Eat a dick, Islam is even bigger reactionary garbage than most religions.

Lies. Why did the Bolsheviks promote Islam over other religins on the basis that Islam was revolutionary?

They didn't. Mosques were being closed and imams were persecuted, as they should be.

Muslim states are a pretty recent invention. Islam is per definiton universal and rejects nation-states. Ba'athism itself had to reduce Islam to a cultural oddity, because orthodox Islam and Arab nationalism is totally incompetible with each other.

You see, the only radical Muslim states are not really states in the strict sense of the word, Saudi-Arabia is a kingdom with an economy more akin to a slaveholder society or clan structures than to a standard capitalist state, and Iran is a theocracy with its completely own theory on statecraft.

On the other hand, in the very seed of Christianity is the dualism between church and state, and it is also more transcendent in its epistemology (eschatology). Christianity is competible with capitalist nation-states, whereas Islam is less so.

Islam is an Arab-centric religion by default. Every aspect of Islam is Arab.

Yeah that's absolute bullshit. Arabs completely appropriated Persian culture, and moved their center into the former Sasanian Empire first chance they got. After the Caliph lost his power de facto, Turks like the Seljuks became the vanguard of Islam without any problem. The destruction of Bagdad by the Mongols did far more damage to Islam than the Turkish takeover.

The Ottomans however were disliked because they were seen as statist and the Sultan was a Sultan first and a Caliph second.

must be those damned bourgeois capitalists who allowed these people to live at least a semblance of a dignified life instead of massacring them

Capitalism doesn't need the conventional nation-state model anymore, son. A pan-Islamic state could easily be capitalist.

Muslims hold to linguistic hierarchies. They believe you can ONLY pray in Arabic. Hijab is Arab. Circling the Kaaba is a pre-Islamic pagan Arab ritual.

Because might makes right.

I disagree. The absolute state neoliberal globalism is in seems to inspire the bourgeoisie more and more to go back to the old model. A "pan-islamic" state is an oxymoron. Everything under the rule of Islam is already considered dar al-Islam, the house of peace. Let's look at Iran - it surely is capitalist but it does have strong socialist influences, like a welfare state and a local council system.
Because that's the language of the prophet and Muslims are obsessed with anti-revionism of their scripture so much that they prefer it untranslated. They believe Christians and Jews got the message wrong.

So why is Islam so factionalized? The anti-revisionism thing isn't being put into practice well.

Also, Jews leave their texts untranslated for the most part too. Plus, Christianity used to prioritize Latin until the printing press.

Where the fuck does this retarded dichotomy come from? Did you just pull that out of your own ass?

It doesn't. Nation-states were the result of the development of capitalism. They weren't fully formed until the late 19th century.

I wish "reformed" Holla Forumstards would leave.

inb4 zakat is literally full communism

...

Because it still suffers from the catastrophic destruction of Bagdad and the 500 years of the Ottoman Empire was bandaid and the Muslim world went to shit right after it disbanded.
The vulgata of Hieronymus is already a translation and was partly revised even. The reason they had the mass in Latin was functioning as identity building against the orthodox Byzantine Empire. After the Byzantine Empire was gone, there was no need for that anymore.

>

That never fucking happened my dude. Usually one tribe (nation) triumphs over the others and erects a nation-state on top of it, which then centralizes culture and assimilates the others. This is why barely anybody speaks Occitan in southern France anymore.

I'm not saying that nation-states are as old as nations, but you can not deny that all the 19th century nation-state building happened roughly arround along the borders of the already existing nations.

The etymology of state and nation should be another give-away. State comes from status which attained its modern meaning of state only recently, while nation is a world which is over 2000 years old. The Romans didn't refer to their state as state, they saw it as res publica, the "issue concerning the public".

Explain to me how Stalin personally raped your mother. It's a very good and succinct definition, you have quarrel with it?

The Finns had a proper revolutionary civil war in the wake of the Russian revolution with Reds and Whites going at each other. Make of that what you will.

Ah yes, thankfully there are national identities we have to protect, after all

...

Eat my fucking ass you reactionary swine. Neck yourself you anti-marxist.

Engels is not real communist theory, exactly.

Mizrahi here.
No, many of us tried to side with Arab nationalism. The Arabs rewarded us by launching pogroms and expelling all but 3000 of us, our population in those days being near a million. And who else but Israel was willing to take a bunch of (often politically radical) dirt-poor Jews?

Pure idpol. There is no such thing as a reactionary nationality, there are reactionary people, but nationalities are a fucking spook.

As is every kind of nationalism
I agree. But also apply this to every other country on the planet.

This.

...