Daily reminder

...

I could ask you the same thing considering your flag literally advocates for capitalism with a human face.
The current strategy of internationalism hasn't been working at all. So I could ask you the same question.
I have no problem with encouraging people from other countries to have their own proletarian revolutions. With that said, your definition of nationalism seems to differ from mine. It sounds as though you're assuming that I'm for complete political isolationism.

See above.

But I thought Hitler wasn't a socialist :^)
You can't have it both ways.

There is more then one internationalism, you idiot.
There is this "i don't care for the countries and the nation is spook" one, but there is also another that recognizes every nation right to exist and be independent.
Nationalism simply means "only ting that matter is my nation, an nothing else". If you want to build your political project on ideology that ruined Europe a couple times, then go on, but don't call yourself a leftist.

But that's entirely the point. You can't mix nationalism and socialism anymore than you can mix fascism with democracy; it's either one or the other.

so tired of that, gonna get rid of the flag so people learn to fucking read the arguments properly.
It hasnt been working, correct, but its better than turning nations on nations when the working class struggle is a universal fight, tell me, what if on nations proletariat has a different set of ideals because they had different circumstances in which their revolution thrived (maoists), but your nation is more technologically advanced and so your revolution is vastly different (bolesheviks), how do you unite them? you dont, because their whole worldview is different thanks to the short sited nationalists like you. explain how you arent for isolation, because you would be, not out of choice, but necessity.

So, you propose going full tankie?

Or just brownshirt?

good post tbh

lol no, a contract has no physicality to it nor power, only what people who believe in it do in its name.

Name calling. No wonder most people see the left as petulant children.
What's your point? Or do you even have one. Not to mention, your second definition relates to nationalism.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Like I said, I don't give two shits about someone living 2000 miles away. I care about what happens to my family first and my countrymen second. Everything else is unimportant to me. I care about my countries' best interests, just as most people do.
Unless the left can adapt, it's going to die and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
The only real attempt at Marxism lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. You can apply your argument to just about anything.
I'll call myself whatever I want.

That's not necessarily true. You can encourage other nations to overthrow their bourgeois but still have clearly defined borders between individual nations.

I read your argument. You asked me why I was here, so I asked you the same thing. I'm sorry if you can't take a dose of your own medicine.
Who said nations can't engage in cooperation?
This isn't even worth addressing. Although I will say that you can't necessarily unite different left wing ideas. That's why nationalism is necessary. It allows individual countries to live in a way to meet the demands of the local population.
Give me your definition of isolation and I'll give you a rebuttal.

You don't necessarily have to engage in authoritarianism to maintain the sovereignty of the nation state.

tenks bebbie :*

The community exists as a social contract, even if it is an unspoken one. You can call literally anything a spook, including communism. It's pointless semantics and gets the conversation nowhere.

If you are proposing nationalism, you propose patriotism in its extreme, state endorsed form and so proclaiming that it is the best and to be thankful for all its given you, and so too nationalist nations are unlikely to co-operate at all, just look at india and pakistan. No youll probably say
because those two nations, who exist in close proximity both have complex histories leading to the point they are in now, close to nuclear war, you expect them to co operate as proletarians driven by a sense of nation, which is also a state structure? when both nations dont want either to exist? crazy. this was my point about maoists, different circumstances lead to different conclusions, no matter the movement.

But someone living 500km away from you (in the same country) is okay? What if you live in a country like Russia where someone 2000 miles away is still your countrymen? What is the distance at which you can feel empathy? Or is it the imaginary lines on a map that limit your empathy?

What if the country expands, do you then gain empathy for more people? Will it happen the same instant the lines of the country are redrawn or will you need to look at a map first?

What if the country becomes smaller, do you lose empathy by the same mechanic? What if a person you care about has dual citizenship and renounce the one they share with you? Do you stop giving a fuck about them?

You see how your position doesn't make sense right? Nationalism is silly and I have the capacity to care about any human, no matter how they're classified on some piece of paper.

Nationalism is very close to fascism and is completely unnecessary for leftism to thrive. Having a cultural identity is not the same as being nationalistic, for example. In fact, chances are within one nation-state there are several different cultures and historical tribes. Look at Hutu and Tutsi within Rwanda and what happened there.

Culture is a beautiful thing that includes songs, dresses, food, music, etc. and should be developed and encouraged. Nationalism is just a lazy way of having a culture and has nothing to do with history but has everything to do with preserving capitalism and helping the bourgeoisie maintain ownership of the means of production and capital.

but that's wrong you fucking retard.

what is it about spooks that idiots just can't wrap their heads around?

Sure. Sacrifice personal liberties, individual rights, and rights of everybody else, for the sake of some group of people who for some reason i see as similar to myself. What is wrong with that? You see now why You may be considered and idiot?

So let it die. I'd rather have no left then become something as stupid, like guy who thinks that for some reason only my nation is worth living. And what is this nation again?

So either way it is nationalism(extreme ideology that dosen't make any sense) or marxism? Great.

lul no.

Actually, nations get along surprisingly well assuming they have a shared interest. Look at the United States and Saudi Arabia. Two radically different nations both geographically and culturally. Yet they maintain an alliance in the name of free trade. I don't necessarily agree with the reasons for their alliance but you get my point.
No I don't but you're the one making the assertion that internationalism is preferable to nationalism. The fact is, there's no way you can unite two radically different cultures that have been feuding for decades.
That's my point, internationalism is utopian and unrealistic.
You originally said that nationalism leads to different ideologies. I'd assert that it's more or less related to material conditions but I don't deny that culture can play a role. With that said, why does it matter? If another country doesn't want to subscribe to my (or your) special snowflake brand of socialism (or in your case social democracy) why should it matter?

A country is more than a map. It's a group of people working towards a common goal, often with a shared language. You're naturally going to have less empathy for someone that you can't even understand. Keep in mind, my family comes before my country but my family could very likely be dead if the organizational structure inherent within the nation state did not exist. Mainly because we'd probably be killed by bands of raiders led by a warlord.
The fact is, the nation provides security. That is the shared interest of the people.
If people are willing to assimilate sure. Why not. Although it's not all related to empathy. It's mostly related to material self interest.
No, I'd be angry at whoever it was that decided to invade my country.
No because I know them on a personal level. Although it might make me lose some respect for them. The point is that you're not going to have as much empathy for someone who holds cultural values that do not reflect your own as opposed to someone who shares your own cultural values.
It makes perfect sense if you're interested in your own self interest.
The nation is more than a piece of paper. As I explained above.
Fascism is such a vague term that you can call almost anything "fascism". Right wingers use it to describe communists. Lolberts use it to describe the government. The left wing uses it to define right wingers. The fact is, fascism can describe a very wide variety of ideologies. Ranging from [email protected]/* */, to Stalinism, to Hitlerism and everything in between. It's a pointless term that has lost all meaning.
Fair enough. Although the nation plays a large role in the overall culture. Plus there's a big difference between modern industrialized nations and third world nations in which poor material conditions lead to conflict.
I'd say it's the complete opposite. Nationalism is the only thing standing in the way of international free trade and wage depression through the free movement of labor. There's a reason that most modern capitalists are cosmopolitans and are doing everything in their power to prevent the rise of nationalism.

You sound like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.

Learn to use proper grammar before you start calling people names. Not to mention, you're strawmanning. I said nothing about institution authoritarianism.
So you're more opposed to nationalism than you are capitalism. Says a lot about your personal convictions as a "leftist"
I've already explained that.
Doesn't matter. Marxists and anarchists want the same general end goal. They just have different means of reaching it.

i know you are but what am i

And my point is proven. Thank you.

ikr

internationalism aka imperialism

wrote:
meant to write:

you obviously haven't heard of gommunism my friend :^)
my point was, the nation is a state structure, and to promote nationalism is to promote the state.

The EU started out as a trade agreement between countries. In the 70s, Leave voters spoke of the threat of 'ever closer union' 'political union' and 'supernational government' were dismissed as paranoid.

Just sayin…

Why are you advocating for communism if you're a socdem? You know that's not the same thing as a demsoc right? I'm not even saying that to be a dick, I'm genuinely asking.
Fair enough. Although I don't have a problem with a state anyway.

wew user

i dont have an issue with the state either, because i believe under the right circumstances the state can serve the proletariat better then they can themselves, communism is the IDEAL, Socdem i feel is the pragmatic option, for me anyway, got in enough fights about my lil pixel flag.

Globalism has created class divisions on a scale never before imagined.

Well, than we agree on something than.
I was a communist for a while, until I started examining my own ideology. It just seems too utopian and unrealistic for me.
I used to post with a nazbol flag. So I know how you feel, albeit for radically different reasons. Word of advice m8. Just post anonymously, it draws less attention to yourself.

Let's also have a left church to solidify the christian pride of the proletariat. And a left genocide to solidify the racial pride of the proletariat. And so on…

Not what I said at all actually.

might take that advice, had more fun that way when i did it, was also taken more seriously surprisingly.

you were clearly doing it wrong

Mein Gott, nein!

I was making a goof. In all serious, it just makes no sense to try and counter nationalism with more nationalism - and it never works.

Unless you're of the opinion that nationalism is a good thing - that's untrue. Nationalism is anti-revolutionary. We need World Revolution. You cannot have socialism in one state - it will be destroyed by outside capitalist forces every time.

afed.org.uk/against-nationalism/

Agreed.

nationalism is nearsighted, we need social conservatism.

anarcho-communists don't wear bow ties…

Social conservatism is bullshit.

Those groups you mention will be shot.
Any anarchist who doesn't go after Islamist Sharia Law-supporting groups because of "muh minority groups" really is a liberal.

Not unless they strike first. But I suppose that's a moot point because they will strike first.

Conflict with them will be inevitable.

Who? You're talking to an international board.

Than can be said with regards to anything though, so yes, its' moot.

It's moot with reference to Jihad because it's predetermined. That meming Slovenian is on point with this. But it doesn't necessarily follow with other groups. So while it can be said it more or less won't follow.

Ok, I can actually agree as far as that we shouldnt be antinational or antipatriotic. This trope of our kind has often scared of others and is one of the reasons why leftism is beeing unpopular in some areas. But we should still condemn blind/overtuned patriotism. This whould make us appear more centered, even though we whoulnt buckle. This is one thing that made the "alt-right" strong: They are perceived as less radical than they are by some people. This whould give us the possebility to do the same, without betraying our on intrests and ideals.

let me explain you

the nation belongs to the capitalist
what is nationalism under capitalism?
chauvinism in order for justifying foreign exploitation and division of workers amongst nationality.

what does socialism do?
the worker has no fatherland. just as much as he doesn't own the means of production. through the dictatorship of the proletariat and owning the state as an apparatus to fight off the reaction and organizing the transformation into communism, the working class becomes owner of the nation.
can a worker of a socialist country be anything but a patriot? of course not.
only socialism enables a patriotism that is in the workers interest.

...

...

Nazi turbo-nationalism is shit, socialist patriotism is fine. There is nothing wrong with a collective pride in a people's achievements in throwing off their bondage. I disdain nations, but using them to destroy them is a valid tactic for communism.

I always cringe when Holla Forums uses this buzzword.

unlike "spook" this is actually a thing that you'd say when understanding materialism and not being a metaphysic little faggot being wishy washy because you can't even into

kek

...

you dont know what a spook it

Isn't the nation one of the spooks he gives by name?