What did Marx think about Nationalism?

They didn't share much before the XIXth century, see , still nowadays in Europe, people near borders share a lot of customs with people from the other side, nations are not exactly cut and dry, culturally wise.
In middle age, the guy from the next village was more often than not seen as a filthy foreigner. The moderns Nations State were build by political decisions, they did not naturally emerge from the spooky People.

Just to add, , you would have a better point with using "tribe" rather than nation States, people get into groups, but the definition, scale and degree of sameness, inclusiveness or exclusiveness between and within each group is changing over time. It can go from the clan to Mankind, with city States, Nations , faith and races in between.

Scots didn't share a language, half spoke Scots/English and the other half spoke Gaelic. The highlands and lowlands had nothing in common except for having the same master.

The Kings of England spoke French for much of that period for fucks sake.

Why is idol/alt-right so obsessed with Nationalism? Honestly, when you look at Holla Forums or stormfront, so many of them seem so completely devoted, absorbed, and obsessed with Nationalism. It's almost cult like

because it's the inverse (in their eyes) to globalism

they worship hitler because he's made out to be the worst guy ever

you can't escape muh dialectic

Nationalism is about believing in the inherent inferiority of other nations, not merely their existence. It's not like racism caused humans to look different.

Is it wrong to have a nation-state with communism in it instead of trying to make everyone a communist? Or do you think it's not possible because capitalist will try to attack you?

Cite it.

Because neo-liberal globalism is the biggest threat to our continued comfy existence. The left has no solutions. So nationalism is the only way to fight back against the neo-liberals. If you think I'm wrong just consider how nationalism has become a dirty word in the west. It's cause {{{they}}} know it poses a direct challenge to their goals.

kill yourself in real life please

Google it.
Except, no, economics don't work that way. Neoliberalism is not just a shameless gambit by the rich, it is borne from necessity: capitalism needs constant growth, and the world economy's needs are simply impossible to placate with strong borders. The right will not acknowledge this because they have extreme Dunning-Krueger on the matter, since they are so thoroughly convinced that they are "the fiscally responsible side" that they put no effort into understanding it, even though in this case it is quite simple reasoning that they should have learned in fucking high school.
All nationalism will do is make capitalism less efficient. You cannot fix real world problems with good fee-fees about the country you live in.

No. Let's be honest here. You are for globalisation you are for degrading the standard of living in the west. There are many valid arguments for this but let's not pretend that globalisation means anything other than have nots = gonna gets.

problem, global elite gaming the system in their favour. Solution, place more power in the hands of nations than corporations. Ironically this would require some degree of international cooperation and probably be better for global relations in the long run than kike rats in the EU and US selling out their own people.

Which they already fucking control.

2. Questions of the Guidance of Inner-Party Affairs
Firstly, Lenin never said that national differences must disappear and that national languages must merge into one common language within the borders of a single state before the victory of socialism on a world scale. On the contrary, Lenin said something that was the very opposite of this, namely, that "national and state differences among peoples and countries … . will continue to exist for a very, very long time even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale" (Original Comment: JVS: My italics) (Vol. XXV, p. 227). How can anyone refer to Lenin and forget about this fundamental statement of his?

True, Mr. Kautsky, an ex-Marxist and now a renegade and reformist, asserts something that is the very opposite of what Lenin teaches us. Despite Lenin, he asserts that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the Austro-German federal state in the middle of the last century would have led to the formation of a single, common German language and to the Germanisation of the Czechs, because "the mere force of unshackled intercourse, the mere force of modern culture of which the Germans were the vehicles, without any forcible Germanisation, would have converted into Germans the backward Czech petty bourgeois, peasants and proletarians who had nothing to gain from their decayed nationality" (see Preface to the German edition of Revolution and Counter-revolution).

It goes without saying that such a "conception" is in full accord with Kautsky's social-chauvinism. It was these views of Kautsky's that I combated in 1925 in my speech at the University of the Peoples of the East. (Original Footnote: This refers to the address delivered at a meeting of students of the Communist University of the Toilers of the East, May 18, 1925 (see J. V. Stalin, "The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East," Works, Vol. 7, pp. 141-42)

But can this anti-Marxist chatter of an arrogant German social-chauvinist have any positive significance for us Marxists, who want to remain consistent internationalists?

Who is right, Kautsky or Lenin?

If Kautsky is right, then how are we to explain the fact that relatively backward nationalities like the Byelorussians and Ukrainians, who are closer to the Great-Russians than the Czechs are to the Germans, have not become Russified as a result of the victory of the proletarian revolution in the USSR, but, on the contrary, have been regenerated and have developed as independent nations? How are we to explain the fact that nations like the Turkmenians, Kirghizians, Uzbeks, Tajiks (not to speak of the Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanians,- and others), in spite of their backwardness, far from becoming Russified as a result of the victory of socialism in the USSR, have, on the contrary, been regenerated and have developed into independent nations? Is it not evident that our worthy deviators, in their hunt after a sham internationalism, have fallen into the clutches of Kautskyan social-chanvinism? Is it not evident that in advocating a single, common language within the borders of a single state, within the borders of the USSR, they are, in essence, striving to restore the muh privileges of the formerly predominant language, namely, the Great-Russian language?

What has this to do with internationalism?
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/aug/27.htm

Secondly, Lenin never said that the abolition of national oppression and the merging of the interests of nationalities into one whole is tantamount to the abolition of national differences. We have abolished national oppression. We have abolished national muh privileges and have established national equality of rights. We have abolished state frontiers in the old sense of the term, frontier posts and customs barriers between the nationalities of the USSR We have established the unity of the economic and political interests of the peoples of the USSR But does this mean that we have thereby abolished national differences, national languages, culture, manner of life, etc.? Obviously it does not mean this. But if national differences, languages, culture, manner of life, etc.; have remained, is it not evident that the demand for the abolition of the national republics and regions in the present historical period is a reactionary demand directed against the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Do our deviators understand that to abolish the national republics at the present time means depriving the vast masses of the peoples of the USSR of the possibility of receiving education in their native languages, depriving them of the possibility of having schools, courts, administration, public and other organisations and institutions in their native languages, depriving them of the possibility of being drawn into the work of socialist construction? Is it not evident that in their hunt after a sham internationalism our deviators have fallen into the clutches of the reactionary Great-Russian chauvinists and have forgotten, completely forgotten, the slogan of the cultural revolution in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat which applies equally to all the peoples of the USSR; both Great-Russian and non-Great-Russian?

Thirdly, Lenin never said that the slogan of developing national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a reactionary slogan. On the contrary, Lenin always stood for helping the peoples of the USSR to develop their national cultures. It was under the guidance of none other than Lenin that at the Tenth Congress of the Party, the resolution on the national question was drafted and adopted, in which it is plainly stated that: "The Party's task is to help the labouring masses of the non-Great Russian peoples to catch up with Central Russia, which has gone in front, to help them:

a) to develop and strengthen Soviet statehood among them in forms corresponding to the national conditions and manner of life of these peoples;

b) to develop and strengthen among them courts administrations, economic and government bodies functioning in their native language and staffed with local people familiar with the manner of life and mentality of the local inhabitants;

c) to develop among them press, schools, theatres, clubs, and cultural and educational institutions in general, functioning in the native languages;

d) to set up and develop a wide network of general-educational and trade and technical courses and schools, functioning in the native languages." (Original Footnote: See Resolutions and Decisions of CPSU Congresses, Confrences and Centrla Committee Plenums; Part 1, 1953, p.559).

Is it not obvious that Lenin stood wholly and entirely for the slogan of developing national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Is it not obvious that to deny the slogan of national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat means denying the necessity of raising the cultural level of the non-Great-Russian peoples of the USSR, denying the necessity of compulsory universal education for these peoples, means putting these peoples into spiritual bondage to the reactionary nationalists?

Lenin did indeed qualify the slogan of national culture under the rule of the bourgeoisie as a reactionary slogan. But could it be otherwise?

What is national culture under the rule of the national bourgeoisie? It is culture that is bourgeois in content and national in form, having the object of doping the masses with the poison of nationalism and of strengthening the rule of the bourgeoisie.

What is national culture under the dictatorship of the proletariat? It is culture that is socialist in content and national in form, having the object of educating the masses in the spirit of socialism and internationalism.

How is it possible to confuse these two fundamentally different things without breaking with Marxism?

Is it not obvious that in combating the slogan of national culture under the bourgeois order, Lenin was striving at the bourgeois content of national culture and not at its national form?

It would be foolish to suppose that Lenin regarded socialist culture as non-national, as not having a particular national form. The Bundists did at one time actually ascribe this nonsense to Lenin. But it is known from the works of Lenin that he protested sharply against this slander, and emphatically dissociated himself from this nonsense. Have our worthy deviators really followed in the footsteps of the Bundists?

After all that has been said, what is left of the arguments of our deviators?

Nothing, except juggling with the flag of inter-nationalism and slander against Lenin.

Those who are deviating towards Great-Russian chauvinism are profoundly mistaken in believing that the period of building socialism in the USSR is the period of the collapse and abolition of national cultures. The very opposite is the case. In point of fact, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form for under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary "modern" nations, but socialist nations just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures.

They apparently fail to understand that national cultures are bound to develop with new strength with the introduction and firm establishment of compulsory universal elementary education in the native languages. They fail to understand that only if the national cultures are developed will it be possible really to draw the backward nationalities into the work of socialist construction.

They fail to understand that it is just this that is the basis of the Leninist policy of helping and promoting the development of the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR.

The current crop of politicians are traitors. If somebody came along promising to put the country first you'd find they do pretty well in the polls. Course Trump isn't that guy. But a serious politician with Trump's basic message isn't far off.

It may seem strange that we who stand for the future merging of national cultures into one common (both in form and content) culture, with one common language, should at the same time stand for the flowering of national cultures at the present moment, in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But there is nothing strange about it. The national cultures must be allowed to develop and unfold, to reveal all their potentialities, in order to create the conditions for merging them into one common culture with one common language in the period of the victory of social-ism all over the world. The flowering of cultures that are national in form and socialist in content under the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country for the purpose of merging them into one common socialist (both in form and content) culture, with one common language, when the proletariat is victorious all over the world and when socialism becomes the way of life—it is just this that constitutes the dialectics of the Leninist presentation of the question of national culture.

It may be said that such a presentation of the question is "contradictory." But is there not the same "contradictoriness" in our presentation of the question of the state? We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state-power—such is the Marxist formula. Is this "contradictory"? Yes, it is "contradictory." But this contradiction is bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics.

Or, for example, Lenin's presentation of the question of the right of nations to self-determination, including the right to secession. Lenin sometimes depicted the thesis on national self-determination in the guise of the simple formula: "disunion for union." Think of it—disunion for union. It even sounds like a paradox. And yet, this "contradictory', formula reflects that living truth of Marx's dialectics which enables the Bolsheviks to capture the most impregnable fortresses in the sphere of the national question.

The same may be said about the formula relating to national culture: the flowering of national cultures (and languages) in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country with the object of preparing the conditions for their withering away and merging into one common socialist culture (and into one common language) in the period of the victory of socialism all over the world.

Anyone who fails to understand this peculiar feature and "contradiction" of our transition period, anyone who fails to understand these dialectics of the historical processes, is dead as far as Marxism is concerned.

So we should just blindly assume he will be telling the truth? This is the same stupid mentality that led to tankies.

This can be said for anyone on any platform.

salty faggot just had to vent and used a cheap uncreative and random insult

typical anarkiddy

>:^)

someone asks specifically about marx views on nationalism

noone has the capacity to give any sources on Marx saying something directly on the issue or even just deductions

it's just short opinion and evaluation shitposting based on the posters vague general knowledge without delivering anything of substance

this is what you're feeding people having genuine questions on theory
good fucking job you stupid self absorbed lazy faggots

someone asked about marx, better start a discussion without contributing anything of substance while i just throw in infos without backing anything up, hurray Holla Forums!

the next best thing posted here is stalin, who at least was people's commissariat for nationalities, citing lenin
so you can at least go on from there for own further research
a bit uninspired but at least an obvious choice for a quick and well founded reply

basically, nationalism in white countries = bad. Nationalism in brown countries A-ok

basically no, even what you shortened out there doesn't remotely imply anything you nazi-conspiracy faggot come up with

sorry
not even quotemining
your greentext i didn't even pay real attention to isn't quotes but just more straight out of your ass bullshit

gg faggot, you're more retarded than i gave you credit for

Seems pretty clean cut to me. I'd argue that modern nationalism is a response to corporatism, but I'll just get a bunch of spookposting and meme arrows.

if it's such a clear cut
you would actually quote and not just shitpost like a Holla Forumstard
just continues to talking out of your ass
fuck off, faggot

That doesn't make any sense nigger

Nationalism is what insecure people cling to because they want to feel part of something. They're the people who like to claim credit for things other people have done

Etc.

Though Nationalism is really just a cancer that brings about war

What's this leftist obsession with insecurity being the root of everything they don't like?

*anarchist
not "leftist"

user is a faggot who is talking out of his ass, as explained before here

primitivist wannabe materialism so shit it's oozing with metaphysics
typical anarchist faggotry

The National Question and Leninism
Reply to Comrades Meshkov, Kovalchuk, and Others
March 18, 1929

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm

Wow user, you're quite the sensitive one, aren't you?

I never claimed to be an anarchist

"Nationalism and Internationalism" and "Why Nationalism?" by Michel Lowy.

Source for the quote: Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol 7, p. 92

...

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Why the fk do you people think this?! Why?!
Plenty of working class people feel a strong connection to their nation, even more so than capitalists. Pro-capitalist intellectuals have spewed internationalist rhetoric since capitalism really started taking hold in the 17th and 18th centuries. National pride and honor was seen by conservative folk of the time as "above mere commercial profit"

Just why on earth can you only see economic conspiracy behind patriotic sentiment?

Nationalism paves the Road for Fascism so no.
fuck off.