Nationalism and Leftism?

I have been under the impression that leftism is opposed to nationalism, or that nationalism is inherently a Right-wing idea, especially racial nationalism. So why is this flag associated with the left if it's a African nationalistic straight-up Black Nationalist symbol?

Other urls found in this thread:

Nationalism is a good thing if you need a spark for a revolution. It is also not inherently imperialist, as with nations who have been oppressed by other nations. I see no reason leftism can't incorporate nationalism into its ideals, with internationalism being the end goal where everyone gets their own nation and everyone cooperates. Ethnic nationalism is the same thing, but supremacy must be avoided.

Depends on how nationalism is used pragmatically.

For instance, look at how AnPrimms and Turd Worldists keep going on about the US, Canada, Australia, etc. being "colonial-settler states" which need to be "decolonized" ASAP. What do they mean by this? Does it mean we need to tear down the cities, wipe out most "colonial" forms of modern life, revive indigenous languages and social structures/tribal affiliations, and return to the mythical past of the Natives? (Notice how similar their program is to Zionism.) At this point it would be impossible, even if justified from a moral standpoint.

There is such a thing as leftwing nationalism. The left was dumb to take up the up the cause of national liberation whole heartily and ignored the reactionary shit that came with it. There is such a thing as reactionary socialists. A lot of earlier black nationalist movements had Marxist rhetoric even if they weren't explicitly Marxist. Despite the claim that Holla Forums loves all nationalist, I couldn't imagine that they of all people would hear out the grievances of black people

It means that they believe that indigenous peoples should have the ability to exist independently from their colonizers, imperialist.

So we create a bunch of mini-indigenous ethnostates across the Americas? Sounds Zionist to me.

It's better than the alternative. The United States is going to balkanize soon anyways, when the bubble pops, why shouldn't natives get their own state? Whites in the north will. African Americans in the south will. Your point is?

You're assuming ethnostates will be the end result of a "socialist" revolution. Why?

Because that is generally the way revolutions work. You never saw anyone from Cuba killing political leaders in their country because they love people in Spain.

Cuba isn't an ethnostate. A Mohawk state or independent black belt would be.

Because ethnostates are reactionary garbage.

That wasn't the point. The thread is about nationalism, farmers in Cuba didn't care about Spain, they fundamentally cared about Cuba.

Sure. But things don't always happen the way you'd like them to, do they?

Your impression is incorrect.

But you are specifically talking about ethno-nationalism and racialism.

It all started when

Said as follows;

So what does "decolonization" really mean? Especially since when activists use the term they're not just talking about island territories like Native reservations but the entire country. Do we tear down Boston and send Bostonians to the fields so they can live like the Abenaki did 500 years ago? Do we destroy Los Angeles and give its land back to the Tongva?

Well, since throwing all Europeans out doesn't seem realistic, i would say that decolonisation in this context would mean that all native tribes get their own autonomous "reservations" if you will, free of capitalist exploitation. I would support this treatment for all oppressed peoples across the planet.

Their reservations already have a large degree of self-governance. The problem is, islands of indigenism can't exist in a sea of capitalism.

If only there was a system that promoted local autonomy for everybody without segregation based on ethnicity.

I don't disagree. The problem is, even with self-governance, they're still being exploited, whether by their own people, or outside forces. They're mistreated. Also, the risk of them losing what autonomy they have is always there. Look at what Brazil did to its indigenous reservations for an example. Until they have some semblance of legitimacy, people will never treat them as anything more than cogs in the machine (which, by the way, nobody should be treated like this).

Nationalism doesn't stop exploitation. It's not an antidote to capitalism when the entire fucking world has been completely consumed by capital.

Nationalism isn't a mode of production, But it can be a spark for a socialist fire.

Nationalism can be a revolutionary tactic so long as it exists within the confines of national liberation. As with any weaponization spooks, you still have to tread carefully.


You may as well say ban miscegenation

And when has that ever happened in history? North Korea, Vietnam, etc. were never socialist, just nationalist.

Most indigenous peoples in the Americas are already heavily miscegenated. just look at all the 1/16th Cherokee princesses as example, or all of the lily-white French Canadians claiming to be a quarter Abenaki/Mohawk.

there still some pure blooded ones that will take you out in the woods and shoot you if you touch their women.

Miscegenation wouldn't matter if people lived in communes and never had to stay around other communes for extended periods of time; literally nobody would really care to mix with other peoples for no reason whatsoever. You may as well say ban belonging to a certain non-mixed ethnic group.

Multiculturalism benefits the bourgeoisie the most. Cheap labour and distraction to prevent revolution. Killing 2 goys with one stone.

Daily reminder Gaddafi's Libya was nationalist and pan-Islamic and was the most successful socialist state in history.

Says the white male who got to benefit from the after effects of colonialism his entire life.

Because black nationalist orgs in America were often leftist. Which is pretty stupid, as there were also many rightist orgs and Black nationalism outside the US was pretty consistently trash. Also, the most prominent leftist black nationalists, the Black Panthers, ended up disavowing Black Nationalism and considered it to be a reactionary ideology during their later years, so yeah.

nationalism was originally leftist you morons.

Loving your socialist country is CAPITALIST you SPOOKED IMBECILE


you really should read Stalin on that issue, it's a lot more complex than "this is a good/bad thing and done"
it gets a lot more depth to it with the struggle between imperialist nations and independence movements, the marxist state and internationalism and relations between socialist nations, the rights of different ethnicities and cultures within those and so on.
the "racial" component has its background in european colonialism and insofar understandable, however it's a bastardisation of national liberation when it becomes maoist third worldist attacks against the whites as a races rather than the foreign landowners.
there's a balance between going full retarded deeply triggering and problematic black national bourgeois bootlicking and strategic positioning in alliance with the national bourgeoise during the antiimperialist struggle with continued fight against the uncle toms, sellouts and the like.

What did he meme by this?

"strawmanning" is a spook

Nationalism was invented with the French Revolution, before, feudalism meant people were tied to the land they and their immediate neighbors used while giving a share to the lord who would protect them. The lord doesn't give a fuck about the language you speak or what spices you use or what songs you sing.

semi related

Capitalism wants this. Capitalism is globalist in nature. Capitalism rewards greed, the most "jewish" human traits. Capitalism has an overwhelmingly jewish elite. Globalist capitalists (usually "centrist" liberals), when entering any racial conversation, always say some shit like "in the future, there will only be one race" and claim moral superiority. How do you "nationalist" fags defend this?

Nationalism has meant different things in different contexts. Italian Nationalism during the Risorgimento was associated with the left, German nationalism during the 20's and 30's with the right. White nationalism is a fascist ideology, using all the old terms and ideas, like race mixing, purity of the blood, degeneration, etc. Black nationalism though has been associated with a reaction against colonialism, neo-colonialism, Jim Crow, the KKK, etc. As such, it tends to have a left wing character.

Dude, you forgot your nazsucc flag.

Dude, you forgot your IsraeliCap flag

That flag is a pan-African flag, it's not a black power or black nationalist symbol. Pan-africanism IS NOT black nationalism.

Nationalism has come in different waves, the first wave was a part of the original 'left' from which the left-right dichotomy was derived from.
A nationalism that makes citizens out of subjects is leftist.
A nationalism that makes 'nationals' out of workers or the bourgeois t: new democracy is rightist.
but this is more an academic-historical interest than anything relevant. The underlying logic of nationalism is essentialist and right-wing.

back to reddit pls, if you want to argue in favour of ethnostates then make an argument rather than just slinging around liberal ad-hominem attacks


brainlets actually believe that nationalism wont turn imperialist once a nation develops away from a superpower

Not if the entire point of the nation is to end greed. Socialism is meant to end profit, if a socialist country is created the borders should be based on historical significance and it should end there. If it wants socialism to expand (therefore stopping imperialism that would threaten the nation) then it can fund it elsewhere (internationalist style).

are you fucking stupid m8? The entire point of all nationalism is to organize along the lines of national identity, for that nations benefit, no matter what the benefit is

As the material circumstances of a nation change, so will it's goals

Nationalism will always be a tool of the bourgeoisie and it will always turn to targeting those outside the nation

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The Soviet Union is an example of a nation that did not do things solely for that nation's benefit and was not a tool of the bourgeoisie.

Go back to school and study the French Revolution and its aftermath famalam. It was driven by nationalism, you had the Paris Commune and other radical movements within it, it resulted more French imperialism.

I don't know if you know this, but every (true) revolution is driven by nationalism. Otherwise, it's probably being influenced by an outside country. The proletariat will revolt to stop their own permanent wage slavery, sure, but they will replace the capitalist country with SOMETHING, which usually ends up being their own vision of what their old country SHOULD be like.

It's black nationalism so it's ok, only white nationalism is bad.

Do you need reading glasses? Or are you saying that the USSR was founded on nationalist principles?
As I recall it was at least supposed to be an internationalist association.

Left wing is in direct opposition to capitalism but in every single revolution its nationalists vs leftists. Its a cancer that needs to be removed.

hot tank take

not sure if youre saying the USSR was nationalist but if you are then that just proves how fuckin ill read tanks are

How do I benefit from it? As far as I’m concerned all it’s done is created a racial division among the proles that is driving some of them to think ethnonationalism is the solution.

The USSR had pretty strong civic nationalism. Just look at the rhetoric surrounding WW2, they literally call it the “Great Patriotic War” and any time it’s mentioned everybody stands up and goes “UUURRRRAAAAA MOTHERLAND!!!”

I mean the USSR before Stalin turned it into a mockery of itself


No. Left-wing nationalism is a thing and left-wing movements have always been friendly to national liberation movements. As far as I know, IRA is socialist and the FLQ was a Marxist-Leninist militant group.