How would Holla Forums define a nation? At what point does a nation have a right for self-determination...

How would Holla Forums define a nation? At what point does a nation have a right for self-determination? This is how Stalin puts it:
I think this definition is very good. It doesn't have any ethnic spooks and evolves arround the categories of social life. How would you say does a nation exercise its right to self-determination? Is autonomy provided in a confederation enough, or is a nation state required?

Other urls found in this thread:


A country is not a nation.

Every community should have the right for self-determination, federation, secession, etc. without any considerations for any nations. A majority can't rule over a minority just because they see them part of their nation.

Then how do you define "community"? Looks like you draw an arbitrary line, while a nation constitutes a lot of distinguished things.

What is a country?

Fuck nations

I don't, communities define themselves. If any group of people decide that they want to secede, they should be able to regardless of nationality or anything else.

That is very vague. So is "economic life". Both can be stretched out to justify pan-nationalism.

I don't know. A nation with a state?

So do nations most of the time.
Even if that means balkanizing society? I'm sure you can't support every petty independence movement without societal collapse.

A nation are a people/ethnic group not necessary a country or could even be multiple countries.

You don't think it's important?

I think Stalin's definition is good, although I haven't really paid attention to any opposing views, or critiques of Stalin's definition.

I think talk about the "right to self-determination" makes sense mostly in the context of actual colonies (or similar). I think the idea, that some communists support, that black people in the US constitute one separate nation and should get their own nation state somwhere (and have all blacks move there), is fucking retarded and completely reactionary.



I think it's acknowledged that nations are usually hard to define and that therefore the definition has to be a bit flexible.

That's why so many had to be "united" by force? Nations were forced on people, they are not organic in any sense.

It's a semantic issue, nothing more. There is a nation and there is a state. A nation-state is usually defined as a "country".

I'm against a black ethno-state, but would you not say blacks constitute a nation within the US?

A nation doesn't have to be united. It either exist or it doesn't exist.
No, they pretty much exist since the dawn of civlization. Were the Vandals not a nation?Were the Alemanni not a nation?

No, they were not nations. Nations are a modern concept invented by the bourgeoisie in the 18th century.

I mean, kinda, maybe, but it's far from as clear-cut as most other nations.

They have a common language but they also have it in common with white americans, so their "common language" doesn't distinguish them as a nation from the rest of americans.

Common territory? They're spread out across the US, mixed with white americans, hispanics, asian americans, natives, etc. Like above, it's hard to distinguish them from the rest of americans based on just this point.

Common economic life? Pretty much the same as above, no?

Common "psychological make-up manifested in a common culture"? I think this is the only point where you can clearly say that black americans are "separate" from the rest of americans.

I think you're confusing the modern nation state with the more general concept of a nation, as defined in the OP.

Nations were literally described by the Romans who coined the very word we are using today. You are talking about states. Nations are not synonymous with states. "State" meant "status" for a long time and wasn't used by the Romans in that sense at all.

Idea of a nation has existed ever since antiquity.

The greeks recognized that they were greek, even if they happened to be theban, spartan or athenian.

And how did they describe it?

State with a history of Capitalism that was not fully incorporated into Commune - international Socialist republic.

When it self-determines to be Socialist.

Even if I don't mind calling myself a Stalinist (better than being associated with Trots or LeftCom), I don't really like it. Nation-state is primarily a Capitalist entity. It did not truly exist under Feudalism, and there is no reason for it to exist under Socialism. This bit needs to be part of the definition.

Moreover, I am not impressed by Soviet experiments with Nationalism. While it might've served them to some extent, I don't see much of a reason to elevate the question of nationalism to the level of necessity to Socialist state. Soviet Union itself was a nation. Being Soviet was different from being Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh or whatever else.

The way black speaks are different than the way white speaks.

It must be genetic because when a black speaks, people know he's black.

Nations as we talk about today is a modern invention. The Greeks had no "national consciousness."

Agreed, unless you think a certain dialect or slang is enough to constitute a common language.
They used to be an underclass as slaves. This distinguished their economic life quite significantly from whites. Not sure how this applies today. It's probably just history. Yeah, I don't think blacks constitute a nation within the US I guess. But I'm not a burger and know nothing about black history. However, if we apply the same logic to Jews, it is also ridiculous to say that there is such a thing as a Jewish nation that could manifest in an Israelian homeland.

The Romans described natio as uncivilized people. natio originally means "birth", as in like: A nation is an extended family where the people are "born together". The Romans would never describe themselves as a Roman nation - they thought civilized societies don't have nations but merely a populus, a civitas (the city) and a res publica (the public affairs = the state).

Romans confirmed for being proto-materialists.

Indeed they do, they banded together to beat the persians.

Oh user, they clearly did. So much.

So their concept of nation was totally different from the modern concept or Stalin's concept. Why did you even bring it up?

Right wingers used the same concept as nation, as Hitler did.

The germanic nation expands to everywhere that has germans.

all baboon people to the zoos!

bye bye baboons!


It's kinda hilarious because racism was even more prominent under feudalism.

You can get stoned to death if you belong to certain nationality.

I don't think the concept was that different. They saw that there are collectives of people which are bound through social, economic and cultural similarities. Looking at anthropology, I don't think the assessment of nations being a modern concept can hold, surely states are a modern invention but nations are not. Etmyology tells you a lot about the history of ideas.

I don't think so. You have an example of that?

Being jewish for example.

So what do you think Marx and Engels meant when they said that working men have no country?

It's clear what they meant. Does that mean that they thought nations were a "spook"? Engels was the first one who would write about national self-determination. Internationalism =/= denying the existence of different cultures

I think that this mostly had religious reasons. I also don't know the story of Jews being stoned to death in the middle ages. Care to provide an example?
no example of being stoned, but being burned at least.

Rolled 3, 6, 3, 4, 5, 3 + 6 = 30 (6d6)
Inner cities as a whole collectively speak AAVE
Source: I'm surrounded by whites AND blacks who speak AAVE

What is internationalism?


Anyway, you can clearly distinguish between black and white speak.

Even if a white tries to speak black, he will be found out.

Robert Downey Jr. tries really fucking hard, still sounds white.


For your information, northern Italy were conquered and colonized by the lombards who are a germanic people.

They clearly meant blood relations outside Rome. That's not similar to the modern concept at all.

But Hitler used that definition.

Being Jewish was a religion, not a nationality - not until recently.

Are you claiming Northern Italy to be Germanic? If not, then you are just mucking around.

Hitler used a biological definition. I don't think anybody during antiquity did that.

The jews identity themselves as an ethnic group.
Uhm, yes? It's historically true.

Northern italy were conquered by the Ostrogoth, then the lombards.

But the nation during antiquity is about blood, which is as biological as it gets.

It wasn't meant to be taken literally, as in, the actual blood of a group of people. Blood refered to someone's heritage only.


That's not what I'm asking. Was general population Germanic? Or did conquerors get assimilated - not unlike Mongols in China?

I'm sorry, but someone's birthright/heritage is blood.

Blood plays a huge role in feudalism and antiquity.

The Roman concept posted by tankposter is about family relations and being uncivilized.

Since the nation of Judea, no.
The germanics settled and intermixed with the italians there.
Their entire population migrated there.

And the mongolians and manchurians intermixed with the northern chinks too.

Family relation is about blood.
The germanics would appreciate that.

Modern concept of race tries to use biological/genetical generalizations. Such as: You are white, blond, blue-eyed. Therefore, you belong to ethnicity XYY.

For the Romans, this wasn't the case. They thought in terms such as someone's personal relation to a mythological progenitor, from whom he descends, not his genetical features.

Family has nothing to do with ethnicity though.

For the romans, they notice their physical differences between them and the germanics too.

A germanic would be called a germanic for his appearance, they wouldn't literally trace his ancestry just to identify a slave.

Yes. You stopped being a Jew if you stopped being Jewish religiously. Only in 19th century does the Jewish nationalism develop (as a secular "Jewishness").

I.e. you were just mucking around.

That's strange, unless you racemix, your family has to do with your ethnicity.

No, since the nation of Judea, the jewish ethnicity has existed. A jew who rejects Judaism does not stop him from being a jew.

There is no such thing as nation.

Is there such a thing called an ethnicity?

Marriage is a family relation that has nothing to do with blood.

Can you read?

That's what I'm saying. The Romans didn't give a shit about racemixing.

But the ancient Isrealites didn't have such an ethno-nationalist concept either. They cared more about family bloodlines, such as the line of David. I mean, there are black Jews.

Except it's done by merging of one blood with another.

They do though, you don't see much black romans.
Their nationalism even surpasses the romans.

They combat the romans for their persecution and refuse to assimilate unlike the gauls. They are comparable to the germanics when it comes to national consciousness.

I guess what we are trying to say is, that in antiquity, if some Vandal would pork a Nubian princess in Africa, his offspring would still be considered part of the Vandal nation due to their common progenitor, ignoring his ethnical diversity.

Except you know, racism exists, and even romans made fun of race-mixed children between roman and germanic stocks.

Laws were treating Jews not by nationality, but by religious affiliation. It was possible to stop being Jew by changing to Christianity: you were no longer treated as a Jew both by Christian community and Jewish.

The question was if HRE was based around being German - or just convenience. Whether or not some Ostrogoths invaded Northern Italy is irrelevant, if it is not represented on the level of population during HRE.

Explain the nation of Judea then?
But it absolutely does, germanics populate the Lombard league/northern Italy at the time.

Because there aren't many black people in Italy in the 1st century, smartass. The Romans had a suprising amount of non-Roman emperors, including mixed races.
Their "nationalism" was based upon religion, not ethnicity.
The reason for that was that they were monotheistic and absolutist in that, and not integrable into Roman, polytheistic society which was open to foreign religions. Same happened with the Christians really.
omfg, the Germanics fucking envied the Romans and tried to be like them.

There is a difference beteween banter and actual racist autism and to try to draw some biological conclusions about other ethnicities.

Do we have an agreement that for at least a thousand years Jews weren't a "nation"?

Also, you need to explain why do you think Judea was a "nation", if it had a very strict policy of murdering the fuck out of anyone who worshipped other gods.

What aren't there that many black people in Italy in the 1st century?
Understandable, roman blood becomes less-pure as it goes on.
Their religion is based upon their ethnicity, romans cannot convert to judaism and become a jew.
Which is why the visigoths and ostrogoths peacefully integrated into the roman empire and "tried" to be like them. Not.
That "autism", you know, was actually written so we all know today. And no, there were stereotypes of different races back then too.

No, because it's called the nation of Judea.

It's not a country, it's not a state, it's not a cult, it's a nation of Judea, where jews live.
So it's an ethno-nationalist state?


There barely was any province with a significant amount of black people.
Or they were just pluralists and didn't care about ethnicity when it comes to competence. Trajan, one of the most succesful and liked emperors, came from Spain. If you read Roman texts about bloodlines, it's almost always about a specific family bloodline, not about race.
Again: How do you explain Ethopian Jews?
Of course they were tribal, but they didn't care for their "authentic" germanic lifestyle of anything, they weren't hippies or desired to be savages, they wanted Roman civilization. Why do you think Odoacer tried to declare himself Roman emperor?
I'm saying that a conversation Cornelius Tullius and Marcus Gaius had in a taberna in Bologna the year 124 about some Nubian sex slave is not evidence of a racialist concept inherent in Roman society.

No, there was Egypt, which frequently had nubian slaves.
Except you don't see arab emperor, or egyptian emperor, or jewish emperor.
The family bloodline is directly connected to race though.
They explain themselves, never mind that black jews are hugely persecuted by jews.
They do, their system of governance, their culture and their languages stayed germanics, they didn't want to become romans, they want to surpass the romans. And no, they did not see themselves as savages.
Because he wants the authority of the roman emperor.
And I'm saying the evidences left behind show that races matter in Roman society, they notice.

SLAVES. Not free citizens. How many black citizens did the Roman Empire have?
Cherrypicking. There were African emperors.
Why? My girlfriend is Indian yet has a Portugese last name. Her grandma speaks Portugese at home. Yet they identify as Indian.
Modern Israelians being racist fucks has nothing to do with the fuck that blacks have been taking into "God's people".
They noticed that some people look differently. That's not a modern racialist concept.

I dunno, if some celts can become citizen and some germanics or thracian can win his citizenship through martial accomplish, why can't black?
Which miraculously ignored these ancestries, despite them being widespread in Africa.
Probably because your girlfriend looks and acts like an indian?
Except that the black jews have been persecuted since ever, and Israel only allowed them back in after Israel is re-formed.
They noticed how people looked and acted and devised stereotypes upon them, judging entire races as a result, that's like the modern racialist concept.