What's wrong with Nationalism again?

What's wrong with Nationalism again?

Other urls found in this thread:

zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/bernie-sanders-world-rejecting-globalization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Supplies_from_other_countries
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist-controlled_China_(1927–49)#Bank_and_currency
thecurrencycollector.com/pdfs/The_Money_of_Communist_China_1927-1949_-Part_I.pdf
afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1900_farmers.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

imperialism and war

The bourgeoise pitting people against each other.

It's nothing but a bourgeois fantasy/mental sickness.

I have the same problem with it that i have with capitalism: It's quite a huge progress compared to what was there before (feudalism and theocracy), it was a tool for the emancipation of men but now it is holding it back. That being said, it can have several interpretations, not all of them absolutely antithetical to leftism. Large parts of French identity revolve around values i consider worthy of fighting for by example…

Nothing.

Today, when there are multiple nations, races, cultures, Nationalism is a perfect way to preserve those values.

Anti-nationalism means mixing everyone into one pot so that they're easily controlled, as they're nothing but mud.

Needless divisions of people used to weaken the working people of the world. Divide and conquer is easier to do if these people in the geographic location think they're separate from this group of people and wont work together for that reason.

Plus it a spook, one of the spookiest.

Literally nothing.

What people who are opposed to it are forgetting is that anything that can help motivate people into working together and subscribing to policy that is good for their society is something that should be promoted.
You don't build a bridge by air dropping cement onto a river. You need to build the supports first. One problem at a time.

Yall are on the wrong board

Hah, what? You are fucking retarded.

Leftism is opposed to globalism and monopoly. Therefore, Left is inherently Nationalistic.

...

Which isn't nationalism.

>>>Holla Forums

Excuse me, but the idea of Nationalism is to promote the values of the state and the community above the values of the individual. To that end, I don't see how collectivist ideals are opposed to nationalism. Like, at all.

If you really want, you can look at the "ONE WORLD ONE NATION" kind of bullshit too.

You dont know what nationalism is m8.

A-are you entirely sure you do?

This is correct
This is not


Then you dont know what nationalism is

There are several nationalisms to begin with. And the meaning of the nation have different subtilities depending of the nation…
Nationalsim as building the nation state? Nationalism as promoting one's ethny? Nationalism as promoting one's culture?
Look at the Kurds, you will have people arguing it's a nationalsit movement, some that they're not.

Nationalism is most defiantly not defined by an opposition to "globalism and monopoly"

Nationalism unites the people of a nation together in mutual cooperation across class divides
What leftypol doesn't like is fascism which is nationalism for the state
The nation is not the state, the state is the government and the armed forces
The nation is its people, its land and in some cases it's monarch who in the modern world barring Japan and Thailand are only despotic leaders in Asia and Africa
All modern European monarchs are supported by the love of their people
I also don't think leftypol likes nationalism because it has no set economic model
And of course its the direct opponent to globalist Marxist multicult being wielded by international oligarchs to speed up their plans for domination of the masses

the difference between this place and Holla Forums is that Holla Forums doesn't just resort to calling the opposition a bunch of retards.

You guys are a bunch of kids at a party smoking weed you bought and paid for out side of the government, thus including capitalism in your life with out help form the man, while you wax philosophical about imagine no possessions.

Please begin to hear all trust nothing. Dig for info and read it with out bias. find out the death that awaits us unless we badn together in this Nation of the US of fucken A. Global peace begins with peace at home.

lol


Fuck off retard

wew

"globalism" is more than a dirty word used against the CorpRat agenda, imagine what could be achieved if everyone had access to the essentials? (impossible, let's focus on bigger bombs)

The dictators don't want 'real' globalism, it's their polite code language for uninational dominion

We don't want 'real' globalism either. Even the softest of socialists like B████ ██████ knows this.

zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/bernie-sanders-world-rejecting-globalization

Thats exactly why we hate it, it forces the narrative that were all just X nationality and to ignore you class because were all in the together for the glory of the nation. Meanwhile, class doesn't go away, its still their spitting into the faces of working people who will continue to get fucked and exploited in cycle of poverty and wage slavery, but i guess if it for the glory of some fucking lines on a map and some false sense of identity from many different culture of people who just happen to be within those fake borders that you decide to call a nation i guess its all fucking hunky dory.

You cannot have a Nation without a state, if the state ceases to enforce the national boundaries and laws of a state it ceases to be a nation or a state.

The nation isnt anything, its an idea, a false construct imposed on a population of people within a national boundary. Lets take France, you wanna know how many different cultures and people are actually within the Nation state boundaries of France? Hundreds of distinct cultures native to the lands we call France, and the only thing really tying them all together is national borders and the force of the state to keep those boundaries.


That statement doesn't even need refuting as its clearly just wrong. Love of the fucking people? Are you fucking kidding me? The rest of the post if just bogyman "muh cultural marxists control the world" bullshit.

so,
don't want everyone having guaranteed access to life essentials
Dumb, I agree

Wastes money in the short term, absolutely unprofitable, no benefit
Rather, I say we WE NUKE THEIR GAS AND TAKE THEIR ASS

No it fucking isn't. It's opposed to capitalism.

Globalism has failed to provide anyone essentials.

"globalism" isn't the socialist concept of "international solidarity/communism"

its a slippery slope.

No, that can't be true, or else we wouldn't living in Jewish world communism right now!

worked for Britain didnt it

Belguim existed for 11 months without a state
Bhutan practically has no state they have a monarch who doesnt really do anything and then the rest of the population live without paying taxes, growing their own food, building their own homes and running tourism for outside currency
the nation always exists regardless, it exists for as long as it exists on a map, as long as its people still live and call it by its name

quite a few but apart from the Gallo-Roman and Germanic peoples of France noone should be there
the regional provincial differences are negligible the same as the reasons why the regional differences in England are negligible
the difference between a Breton and a Basque is no different than the difference between a Welshman and a West Countryman
because both are united by a shared belief in their nation

dont overstate its not that many
well maybe now but so many of them are foreigners from Africa and the Middle East where tribalism still exists

no what tied them together before was family, religion and after the revolution a shared belief in France, in the nation of France and the people of France
no retort just wah
look at Welsh and English Republicanism
its so minute its laughable

arent leftists promoting classwar?


what else?
If we live with each other overpopulation will be a problem as you see right know. Niggers bread like rabbits you know…


But people allways have been seperated by ethnicity, even before a working class was there. Dont you think that this seperation is natural and humans allways wanted it and allways will need it?


Leftism is opposed to globalism? could you eloborate?

It divides the working class and gives them false interests.

It starts war
Nothing wrong with respectful and civic patriotism though

unspook yourself or go back to Holla Forums

Holla Forums memes thread, post Holla Forums memes

Well not if you go back far enough in history. And this doesn't even necessarily divide people, it can, but only if people choose to make it so.


No, why would it, why do you think its so damn natural anyway, what possible proof can you have other than "i think so"? Lemme tell you a story, not sure if you'll get it but its worth a shot, i was told this once by on old polish woman. See their was this little border town in between Poland and Russia. Russia and Poland wanted to find out where the village actually was so they sent out people who did the mapping for these kinds of things. After a while the map people were done, and one of the villagers came up and asked them where they actually were, and the map guy said "this is Poland". So the villager got everyone in the village together for a big party. The map guy, being confused by this asked why they were having a party and the villager said "Were just so happy we wont have to deal with those terrible Russian winters anymore".

If I go far enough in history, I find tribalism.
Its still people having some who are closer to them and some who are not connected to them.

The story you told is a display of follishness of people. Not falseness of nationalism.

I dont know where this is going but yes, they do. Because there are people that they have common culture with, also outer apearance and charachteristics.

That's the big problem. People should unite based on class rather than nation. One is your relation to the means of production, and one is a spook.

Because Leftists need to erode anything that gives an individual a cultural frame of reference guiding them towards those eternal values like truth, beauty, law, and goodness that allow people and communities and civilizations to thrive.

To a Leftist, individuals must have no identity or sense of belonging and must become completely morally depraved before they begin starving from food shortages and start clamoring to be enslaved by whatever Leftist dictator steps in to fill the anarchic vacuum left by The Revolution™.

Nationalism is incompatible with Marxism because it places an emphasis on national unity before class struggle, which drains the entire movement's capability to dismantle capitalism. All the ML states turned (if they ever where anything else) capitalist.

Furthermore, nationalism inherently seeks to weed out divergent elements within itself, which is incompatible with the goal of liberating humanity from oppression.

you just believe that people should be united across class and not anything else
unification based on class sounds like a spook to me


tribalism is an extension of kin selection and family
its society at its basest most simplistic level

You've literally listed the most inconstant things imaginable, all those things change literally all the time.

Have you even ever read a history book in your life?

you know Nationalism doesnt really like capitalism in the sense of how its run today

Marxism and Liberalism are not friends of history lad

Pretty simple user.

Pretty sure you're talking about conservatism there lad, considering everything these movements have held for granted has invariably collapsed upon them.

How's that divine right doing for you? Racial biology is such an established science these days!


Except nationalists are fine with integrating in the neoliberal economy as long as their own power is maintained, look at Hungary.

In what fucking way? And who did ti work for exactly? The workers? They still get fucked in the ass everyday in thousands of different ways.

A state functioning poorly doesn't mean it wasn't there, it means it was deadlocked. Also Belgium*

And yet it still has a state. Funny how that works.
Still a Monarch. Dosn't matter if they dont do much. All the king of Sweden seems to do is wear silly hats, doesn't mean hes not a monarch or that the citizens of Sweden all love him.

total bullshit

So Yugoslavia still exists? Cause ive got a globe that has a Yugoslavia on it and a grandmother that's not very good with history so she probably still thinks it exists.
Oh wait, that state of Yugoslavia collapsed, it dosn't exist anymore, i wonder why that is? Is it because the State of Yugoslavia faild to keep its laws, it borders and pretty much everything else it had? So the Nation state of Yugoslavia no longer exists because theirs no longer state to claim that territory and enforce its laws? Weird how that works.

And whys that? Most of those people have lived their whole live in the boundaries of the Nation of France, some can draw their ancestry to the land, probably long before it was called France and just so happened to be stuck behind its borders as a result of geography and military conquest.

Why are they negligible? What possible reason do you have as to why these smaller pockets of distinct culture arnt their own seperate nations, by your own definition? Because they happen to be within the boundaries of another nation or because somehow in your head they all unanimously support the larger nation, which obviously isnt true with enough examination?

Its actually probably more than that, seeing as you've got a really loos fitting definition of culture and nation and people, why cant it apply to other people within a smaller geographical area and why cant it apply to people who may have only been their for a few generations, why are they excluded, because you say so?

Theirs alot of those, and alot of the hate alot of the other ones that are in close proximity to one another.
Theirs always been a mix of religious in France, and pretty much every other place on the planet.

You don't know alot about the French Revolution then if you think that's the case.

So you are a whiny little baby then? Your arguments seem to be of that intilectual level atleast. "ITS A NATION BECAUSE I SAY SO, THE DARKIES ARN'T PART OF IT, WAHHHH WAHHH"

...

The foolishness of people is Nationalism. Not my fault you choose not to see that.

>>>Holla Forums

they have no national GDP

dont give me that bullshit Yugoslavia was always artificial
6 angry slavic ethnicity that all hate each other for various reasons united by a warlord
Yugoslavia began to collapse the minute Tito died

Because they dont want to be
Catalonia wants independence because they identify as a seperate culture
there are no Navarran, Aquitainian or Breton calls for the same because they dont feel the need for one

who?
France has been France for more than a thousand years, even the Republic is just a continuation

its Theres* and France has been majority Catholic since the days of Genseric
before that its was the Gallic Celtic religion but the Romans wiped that out

well of course not everyone loves him
communists, republicans and muslims all seem to share a hatred for him
tell me why are monarchists of a nation almost always representative of the indigenous population?

half of your argument is just ad hominems


its not conservatism its romanticist nationalism
divine right doing pretty well for the leader of Isis tbh
gibs is gibs
like i stated earlier nationalism doesnt really care for economics and has no set economic model
whatever works at the time for the majority is good enough

rich capitalists getting their comeuppance

Only those who are weak in them selves try to seek a refuge in these old rotten ideals

...

what you said has nothing to do with nationalism.
But with false associations with countries.

What's right with it?

I'll wait

it's fine in small doses

too much can lead to spooks

your so close to understand but just cant seem to grasp it.

its already a spook. Infact its one of the original spooks.

When you put it that way, I don't see a problem tbh

What values? how do they benefit us? You can't just post a chick dressed up for Oktober fest and expect people to know what you are talking about.

How is nationalism good though?

Too bad Marx actually disliked utopians..

problem being marxism is an economic model attempting to be an all encapsulating philosophy
just like the Bible and the Qu'ran its a book written by a jew describing how to attain paradise thats caused more death than the Plague of Justinian and The Black Death combined
Utopia is unattainable in every sense

nationalism is unjustifiable from any ethical standpoint.

if you were an egoist, why would you care for your fellow countrymen?

if you were a utilitarian, why would you stop at caring for your fellow countrymen?

kek .

You mean Anti cultural

the traditionalists are the real utopians of this age, "yeah yeah we will take down the globalists and then we will live like our ancestors did for thousands of years doing our traditional cooking dancing etc… and saying only OUR customs being followed with no deviation or sub cultures "
IS there a more utopian believe ?

Believe it or not communism had its own problems
it is not a perfect world you will still have no gf in communism you will be the same loser that you are
communism won't give you a gf

from what ? economic models are not an ideal category like tradition nationality etc..
it is materialist struggle between 2 classes
it is no refuge seeking it is fucking class war

im not an egoist or a utilitarian im more of a hedonist tbh
nationalism is the protection and preservation of the people and culture above all else

seeing*

First of all, which one book that Marx wrote that caused these deaths?

Secondly, when did any even exaggerated estimates regarding the communist death toll come close to 130 million people?

Thirdly, what did Marx advocate or what did he put in place that caused these 130 million deaths?

Fourthly, how is this valid argument when its counter ideology, capitalism, is causing the literal death of the planet?

Finally, what does that have to do with nationalism?

back to >>>Holla Forums, shitposter

It is even when you stack your silly strawman against a refined and articulated argument for nationalism and traditionalism.

It's not so much seeking refuge in an economic model, it's more about striving for the technology that will facilitate a post-scarcity society that will liberate us from work.

In the same way the common Medieval serfs once worked 6 days a week from dusk till dawn (arguably 7) to barely sustain himself so shall we usher in a new era where we won't work at all, or at least our descendants.

Nationalism won't even entertain the question of whether we could do less work, let alone abolish it.

Traditionalism fetishises hard work for the most part as well.

so not the nationalists got it

already got one and I didnt have to do a degree in gender studies and let her bang me with a strap to get her either

I've yet to see class war exist beyond rioting and lynching spurred on by marxists and socialists


the one he cowrote with Engels his manifesto
it combines estimates of those killed due to famine, war, genocide and disease as a result of communist policies
30-60 million died in Maoist China to famine alone nevermind how many counter-revolutionaries aligned with the KMT or just not obeying the commissars got purged

holy shit what are you even on
how is capitalism killing the planet?

class war and worldwide socialist revolution

Because only time it got fused with socialism, you got retarded Nazis that were not even actual socialists.

and how does a marxist society help that progress when all the resources are being shared equally
when the biologists need agar for bacterial cultures but cant get it because its been requisitioned for starving refugees


so you're saying the entire spirit of Marxism is laziness
if noone does anything but pursue their own selfish interests society will collapse in chaos

30-60 million died in Maoist China to famine alone
Child's play compared to capitalist Britiain. Pic related.


But that doesn't answer my question. How does 60 million = 130 million which last time I check is the estimate for the deaths caused by the plague?

You might as well ask "whats global warming"

How does that make him personally responsible for all these deaths?

am I supposed to understand that one false association with a country means that all associations with it are false? That would be a logical fallacy

Insert "hitler wasn't violent enough" quote from Zizek

Oh India
blame Britain for all of it will you?
Famines routinely occured every few decades in India and killed millions because they breed like rabbits and didnt practice any of what you could consider modern agricultural practices
Famines were never caused by Britain in India they were just exacerbated by the uncaring capitalist Company that owned all the Indian Princes in their pockets

the famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Communist Ethiopia and Cambodia were directly the result of communist agrarian reforms and policies


60 million alone in China
combine that with the Soviet Union, all of South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa

i believe its climate change now and dont worry about it the drop in sunspot activity will compensate for the next thirty years

because he inspired it
you'd blame Hitler for all the deaths that occurred in Germany and WW2 but not Marx for all the deaths that have occurred because of marxism

still nationalists are utopian
"with small changes here and there we will fix this system it is ok we do not need any big radical change to face the problems that this system give us "
it is an interesting type of utopian thinking to me, Passive utopians

Here i identified your thematic background knowledge, i bet you relate class war as a leftist model of Nazi masturbation fantasy "fighting blacks/capitalists in the street etc.."

Class war is being fought today on places like factories, wage departments, corporations, unions etc..
the war is on the material power and freedom of 2 classes the capitalists and the workers and thus far the capitalists are wining

one of the ways capitalists split and weaken the Proletariat power is using nationalism, capitalism is a global system with global interest, so having a global opposition "internationalist workers" is dangerous on this system

so global system "capitalism" vs nationalist resistance = failure
global system "capitalism" vs global resistance "international workers" = a good chance of wining

note here that the capitalists are not the one who divided the workers nationally, it is the job of the state and in the interest of the state to have a weak and separated lower class work force and powerful capitalists body
the capitalists are not DA J00s kind of conspiratorial figure

When are you going to reference Black Book of Communism as authoritative source?

As opposed to communism whose death toll is the fault of Marx and Marx alone?

So how come you consider socio economic and historical factors here but not anywhere else?

Yeah. Is it 130 million?

This is why no one takes nationalists seriously.

Because he was in charge at the time. Even then I wouldn't rest the entire culpability on his shoulders. Obviously his other higher ups and the soldiers who performed the killings. Yet Marx is repsonbile for what happened in China even though he died 100 years earlier?

How come a famine in communist China is the personal fault and/or Marxist academics in charge of the countries but various famines in India are solely the fault of the Indians? Keep in mind you haven't even addressed the first info graph.

Again I have to ask, how come your tendency to discuss socio-economic and historical factors is limited to only non-communist countries?

Uh, I'm not here to discuss your brand of "Marxism" mate. Maybe you should read Marx instead of telling us about "Marxism".


Have you actually worked a day in your life?

Even if you have and enjoy hard labour, why don't you strive to be like your subsistence farming ancestors or the 3rd world factory workers that still work 6 days a week for squalor and rice, lentils and beans if you cherish hard work so much?

We want the machines to do all the work, it's a bastardisation of the word lazy when you abuse it in the way you have.


It's a selfish interest in that supporting the collective elevates the individual.

so no pure-breed indian = not able to be controlled?

and a nationalist state would refrain from trying to control the population?

This.


But what if I have a QT non-white wife? Would you deport us and our children? Why?

literally fucking semantics.

The working class is already divided by geography, culture, lifestyle, belief, economic situation and ideology. Any global movement would require these factors to be balanced before the fact, or you're going to be demanding group X take a cut to standard of living to supplement group Y's increase in standard of living. And this glosses over the spooks entirely assuming that they'll all just melt away.

Bottom line, the world isn't ready for communism cause some of the world isn't even ready for socialism yet. So what is wrong with focusing on our own nations and trying to come up with a working, efficient system that balances equality, democracy and freedom?

Every argument on here against nationalism boils down to 'it'll be imperialist'. You base this on historic precedent. Ironic given you dismiss any and every criticism of your ideology as a bastardisation of it.

if its not broken and isnt threatening dont bother with it
it doesnt believe in Utopia, hierarchy is inherent in a nationalist society so utopia cannot exist


Id believe it if Unions didnt serve the corporations in return for bribes and the government wasn't installing socialist policies to placate the pissed off proles and in effect aligning themselves with every liberal and socialist group out there

except when the institutions of internationalist workers are subverted
nationalism doesnt divide the working class as much as you think, nationalism is on the rise across the world but even then their enemies/targets are all pretty similar


definitely

compare how bad famines got in Russia under the Tsar and how bad famines got in Imperial China while under British administration then

sunspot activity is associated with mini ice ages
its gonna get colder over the next 3 decades because of the drop in solar activity
the carbon contents gonna keep going up but the Arctic sea ice wont be retreating anymore in the next 5 years

because dont marxists attempt to incorporate a marxist model?
Marxist academics ascribe to Marx, preach to the peasants/proles about a better life if only they pick up the rifle and do as I say


yep
so you do it for them do you?
utilitarianism is what guides you is it?

so you want to take the means with which they earn their beans, lentils and rice

supporting the collective suppresses the individual

Nationalism doesn't necessarily mean zero immigration. Skilled immigration to fill job gaps would still happen, as would some fugees. Ideally though it would mean ghettoisation is stopped. How do? An honest look at what groups tend to ghettoise then limit immigration from said group.

So why add nationalism?

So the world isn't ready and you want to exacerbate this problem by enforcing the divide?

egalitarian nationalism was a good tool for social revolution during the industrial era
now the whole thing is just a dumbed down ruling class tool for classcucks without any substance but muh national identity.
to the garbage it goes.

I would not deport but execute you for traitory, lol

What's definitely? That's not very convincing. Stalin had like max 30 deaths under his belt (why its under his belt personally I have no idea) so you still have an additionally 40 or so million people missing before its as bad as the black plague.

Why? I've already given India as an example and you critiqued it due to socio-economic factors. Shouldn't your next step be use socio-economic factors to critique the Stalin death toll and then explain how the Communist ideology made it worse than it should have been?

Because that would go onto to help your claim that famines under communist we're Marx's personal fault while famines under other regimes aren't.

Well yeah. But Hitler personally ordered gassings and forced marches. Its not a valid comparison.

So to repeat my question, how come a famine in communist China is the personal fault and/or Marxist academics in charge of the countries?

You're not adding anything. You're acknowledging reality and focusing your efforts somewhere you can realistically hope to achieve something.


Some cultures have to grow up a lot before they're ready. The internationalist/globalist top down approach (liberal interventionism) is doing more harm than good. Stop fucking with them. Let them develop. If they keep regressing then cut them out and wait for their natural revolution.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Supplies_from_other_countries


How was the British government not responsible to some extent?

I would never blame the British though, they've rarely ever have a government with the support of the majority, last one being Conservative Stanley Baldwin in 1931.

So was there substance at the start?

or halt it altogether when their crime statistics go way above the national average and begin to deport them once they continue to show evidence they are secretly hostile to your nation, people, culture and ideals

look at the nationalist/fascist movements of Europe before the wars
all sympathetic to one another, all working towards a common goal for each of their respective nations
the NSDAP got on well with members of the British Fascist party, the black shirts of Italy, Francos Fascists in Spain, the French Facisme who had strong ties to Mussolinis black shirts and the NSDAP, Japanese Imperialists and Chinese Nationalists in the KMT and Ukrainian Nationalists just to list some

So literally what we have now. Neoliberal elites benefiting from the importation of skilled immigrants while problematising and limiting the groups that are apparently causing problems we might have.

the fuck is wrong with you

yeah, they prefer the word "cuck" instead

Stalin used Soviet grain quotas to pay for the first five year plan and industrialize Russia
he used collectivization to appropriate all the grain from the silos of the Russian, Kazakh and Ukrainian peasantry who he viewed as nationalist sympathisers and enemies of the revolution
so he deliberately starved 9 million people to death in order to 'stabilize' the communist Soviet Union, because communism wasnt being accepted by the poor rural working class it had to be forced on them by killing them all to the point where they couldnt rise up to overthrow the tyranny of a Marxist society

Stalin tested nuclear weapons on rural Kazakh villages without their knowledge and starved approx 5-7 million people in Ukraine to death for 'anti-communist attitude'
nevermind his 'dekulakization' program which was arbitrary genocide

because its the Marxist academics that are the ones that lead the revolution
they order the intelligentsia killed, the land redistributed and then wonder why the thick peasants they've given the land to cant produce the necessary crop yields
whats happening in Zimbabwe now is exactly whats happened in every socialist country concieved

sorry I didnt realise it was Britains responsibility to feed everyone and be world police
when the home country itself is being starved by German naval blockades its not gonna give a toss about half a billion arrogant indians half a world away

No. The opposite of what we have now. Nation's governments putting the nation and people before their friends who own the multinationals. Punishing corporations that ship out jobs, hitting aggressive traders with tariffs. Ratcheting back massively the neo-liberal globalist sell off. It's plain for all to see that only the global elite have truly benefited from neo-liberalism (well, third world workers have seen some benefits[industrial labour over subsistence labour]). This has to stop. Governments that put their country and people before multinational profits is the ONLY feasible way to fight neo-liberalism at this minute.

But way to misrepresent me.

So when Britain does the same thing how come its soelly the fault ot the Indians that they tooks all their food? How come when any other regime does it its not the fault of the person in charge (in this case Stalin) its the fault of the ENTIRE system and partially the fault of two guys who wrote a book a hundred years earlier?

But you are accusing Marx. Why are you moving the goalposts? And so far you have ticked off 16 or so million.

And? Why is it their PERSONAL fault?

So it was the peasant's fault? Don't peasant's normally grow food?

What about Sankara's Burkina Faso?


You literally have no idea what happened to India do you?

inb4 railroads and cricket, it's not like Japan and Iran had to flagellate themselves into destitution to build any infrastructure.

I agree

How? And why limit to individual countries to fight?

If you think that's infeasible then how is the restructuring of the system that cuts out the "job creators" and the elite supposed to work? At that point, if you have that much influence over what people think and feel and how the whole thing is supposed to work, why not go full communist?

You didn't say a single fucking word that made me think otherwise.
You are literally describing the current system.

In Australia during the 90's we had a labor shortage which resulted in an influx of immigrants. This prompted a reaction against the "flood" of "bloody asian migrants!"

In the 2000's we had a labor shortage. Now we have a "flood" of "bloody sand niggers!"

What the fuck are you talking about?

See this is how I see it working out. But you have to stop the nationalism/patriotism moving into chauvinism. This is the only real hurdle I see, giving nationalism a friendlier face.

I dont really care, the Company never properly owned India they rented it from the Maharajas and if they cared at all about their people they could have done something about it

yeah having a dictator that possesses common sense can work wonders
I wonder how Burkina Faso is doing now that hes dead

oh ffs
its not moving the goalposts
all marxism stems from marx, all dominant socialist countries ascribed to marxist theory
how could anyone follow Marx if they hadnt been influenced by his manifesto
he was a bourgeois social parasite himself

yeah enough for themselves
they sell the rest at market for profit
that excess feeds the cities
when currency is being phased out wheres the motivation to produce excess?
nevermind Maos batshit insane idea of backyard furnaces that caused the famine in China

the ENTIRE system operates on ideas THEY push on the people/working class
when those ideas cause untold death and suffering and dont work out as planned they hold responsibility for it because it was their idea

Only a fraction of industrialization costs was paid for with grain. Moreover, grain exports were higher in the late 20s than in early 30s.

You are posting Nazi (and, subsequently, Cold War) propaganda.

Because different countries are at different stages of development. Countries that have zero labour laws and zero envirnomental controls obviously have an unfair advantage over countries that have some rights and protections. So the shitty slave countries enjoy and benefit from (at least their elite) neo-liberalism.


Things are always easier on a smaller scale, especially the geo-political. What is good for the UK at this stage may not be the same as what is for China.


So this would require a ground-up restructuring over the course of a decade or so to build up talent and skills domestically. Currently businesses have little incentive to train up their staff when Pajeet has an engineering degree and will work for little over minimum wage. Another aspect of the neo-liberal globalist order.

British nationalists often contend that the way India was left behind at independence (despite having a similar level of development to Japan and Iran upon conquest) was good because of the railroads.

Yet those countries were far better off in 1947.

This point was raised pre-emptively to an ignorant Brit poster who wasn't aware of Britain's involvement in capriciously running India.

I'm posting what I learned at uni lad
Stalin used grain exports to the west to pay for his steel manufacturing industry
when the great depression happened the stock market crashed and Stalin had to export more grain at a lower cost to get the same return
one bad harvest in 1931 and another in 1932 and the NKVD were taking everything edible
Ukrainian peasants resorted to eating clay and tree bark, cannibalism and an entire generation of children died from malnutrition

missing the points where Pajeet most likely got his engineering degree from a mail order college in Karachi, cant read or write in English and has a warrant outstanding for rape in Punjab which is why he came to Britain in the first place

Well then, that clears everything up

So the killers are completely absolved in this?

And? That seems about right. So did Sankara kill people? If not clearly all out armageddon doesn't ensure all the time

Shouldn't it be, according to your logic, as bad as Zimbabwe or China? If not, why not?


Might as well say Adam Smith is personally responsible for both Marxist related deaths and capitalist related deaths tbh, its not very strong logic

But you said the problem was that the peasant's we're "thick" not that they struggled to produce enough food due to lack of incentive.

Wait, didn't they still have a currency system in communist China? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist-controlled_China_(1927–49)#Bank_and_currency thecurrencycollector.com/pdfs/The_Money_of_Communist_China_1927-1949_-Part_I.pdf

Wait, weren't most people in communist China peasants anyway? afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1900_farmers.htm

Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

So who is personally, as in completely limited to their fault and their fault alone, responsible for the homeless crisis in capitalist America?

And nationalism solves this how?

On hundreds of small scales, on a global scale?

And why in your new system if you just have to import cheaper labour overseas?


You've got a couple of hundred years before that bro. Also citation needed.

Yes
no but negligence is different from targeted for destruction

Burkina Faso is a country ruled by regional warlords now
without Frances corrupt colonial influence this African nation goes back to whoevers got the most child soldiers rules the nation diplomacy

maybe not in China but thats the case in Zimbabwe

yeah but Kampuchea didnt

dont know dont care, im not american and dont consider homes and property a human right

a nationalist system wouldnt allow businesses to import cheaper labour from overseas

(different user here, not your re)

That's not true at all. You're talking about a democratic system with strong solidarity amongst all people against exploitation, and capitalism - in which case all local regions (calling themselves nations, or not), would be against exploitation by local wealth hoarders, that want their domestic population to be nothing but a subsistence consumer 'class' for their pez dispenser machinery (which of course contradicts itself by the very fact that they won't inevitably be able to even afford being consumers, but that's just the fucked up nonsense that capitalism leads to - it needs to always grow, and always expand into new markets).

"Nationalism" as you're referring to in that sentence that I cited there, really doesn't mean anything, it's just a slightly more propped up domestic capitalist elite, with friction towards the other elites of other nations, it doesn't change the way capitalism works.

A socialist system wouldn't allow 'businesses' to import 'cheaper' labour overseas or setting the labour force of one nation up against one of another.
I'm not really sure what you think nationalism 'as a system' entails that somehow magically does that. I suppose you mean something like the 'ethics' of the rulers were they to be truly 'nationalistic' would stop them from screwing over the people of their own nation, but that's the same thing Adam Smith hoped for.
The whole idea then seems to be to (forget the term nationalism) hope and appeal to some sort of solidarity and goodness amongst the rich and powerful, based on… being a part of society?

So… why isn't it happening, now? We already live in these 'nationalist' states, and people within them are being screwed over by their own elites. Again if you want rules for less labour exploitation, it's socialists you're looking for - and increase in labour rights, worker solidarity (including with the 'cheap workers' - include them and all join in strike, there you go).

You're retarded. Truth, Beauty, Laws, Good, change, but they are always ideals that we strive towards. Wouldn't expect a leftist to understand transcendent values. I doubt you even understand Neitzche. "God is dead" is not an excuse to become a degenerate. He meant that we must now find a replacement for God after we experience Godlessness, the best examples of Godless states btw are Leftist regimes. You stupid fucking leftist retard.

Because. Their undercutting our prices via slave labour gives them an advantage over British firms. So they'd be tariffed to the hilt. May not help developing nation, that depends how they choose to play it. But it will help Brits.


Yes. Each country gets its own house in order first. If Marx was right then once capitalism has done its thing some kind of socialism would happen anyway.


This would be deterred. Incentives for staff training or punishment for companies that rely solely on importing cheap imported labour., The nationalist government will put onus on every corporation and entity in the country to put the country and people before profit. This is obviously anathema to the current global elite which is why it need overwhelming support of the population, who must also understand that some things (mostly imported trinkets) will become more expensive.

we dont live in Nationalist states
states that serve the interests of minorities and foreigners above the interests of the majority are not nationalist states

what elite?
the enemies of nationalism around the world are men like George Soros, the Rothschild family, pan-national organisations like the European Union (globalist capitalist elites), NATO (an unequal military pact that costs America billions and steals democratic rights from European nations) and the UN
how is nationalism supporting the capitalist elites when we're baying for their blood?

back to economics Im not arguing economics just pointing out a nationalist nation would never accept hiring cheaper labour from overseas or exporting industries to third world shitholes
vid related really

in Britain the rulers would be the monarchy and Parliament
Parliament is a hive of capitalist/socialist bourgeoisie traitors who couldnt care what happens to the nation or the people as long as they can stuff their pockets and moneybags
if the SHTF they'd jump ship to Europe and live in luxury in Switzerland while the land burns in chaos

it used to have substance during the anti-colonial fight. all who were oppressed by the french-algerian piednoir outpost of the ruling class became equally algerian during the fight regardless of being black, arab or berber.
today this could not be possible within nationalism, as it simply became narrowed down to ethno-nationalism. and ethnicism is the enemy of marxist insurgence. it always was.

I don't disagree that tariffs aid domestic producers, but you seem to not understand who it is that is causing labour rights to be wittled down, and outsourcing to be done… it's not "these other nations with no labour laws"; it's the capitalist elite, within your own nation and the globalist attidude amongst them is merely market expansion.

Outsourcing and moving production outwards, is what happens after local resources (both human and otherwise) have been squeezed dry and the rate of profit sinks, as it naturally does, and new explosive markets open up elsewhere (by force, or otherwise). Capitalists will always seek to find cheaper labour, and higher rates of profit. The accumulated wealth within your own nation amongst this elite, is what affects the political system and climate. The very same domestic elite - the rich within your own nation - that you'd blanketly include in the 'us' of nationalism (while externalizing the ones that 'transcended' nationality and belong to a comsopolitan uber-rich class presently, as part of some foreign 'other'), is completely ignoring the machinery of capitalist society which is yielding all these kinds of results.

You're not wrong on some ideas of labour rights, and yes the people that live a place should be given primary consideration on decisions in relation to that place, and some form of civic 'pride' or notions of nationalism in a socialist sense (not nazbol, but more like pride in the achievements of building a good society for all, etc. things like that, and appreciating all the various styles of folk music, lore, etc. - nothing wrong with that), but "nationalism" isn't going to solve the problems of capitalism. In fact, previous to the global era of capitalism, nationalism was a tool of capitalism. And the public got screwed over by their elites back then, too.

Everything about it is economics. You're citing problems, that are economic, and you want a solution that is an economic change of circumstances and matters at hand - that relate to working economic life. The tool that you're using as the bridge to get, from here, to there, though - is something that you seem to feel is separate from the realms of economic thought.


I agree, except for the socialist borgy part. They're capitalist.
You still seem to skip over the way capitalism actually functions, though. It's wealth, and money, that rules the day. The old monarchy, and the british empire, was incredibly nationalistic. How did they treat their own underclasses?
Like shit.

What you seem to want (and I guess with some added distaste for foreign immigrants or something?) is socialism. Somehow the word nationalism just got stuck in there. Nationalism doesn't factor into any of this, at all, not the nuance of it that you seem to be thinking of. Socialist solidarity, does, and socialist policies and positions do.

We call you cucks and post smug anime grills, you try to tear apart the fabric of traditional society, and get us fired because left is in right now.

Today's oppression is more discreet but just as real. The vast majority of Europeans have the right to die in the class that they're born, and that's about it. Today's oppressors are the globalist multi-nationals who coerce and bully governments into ceding them more and more power.


That's your opinion. And not dislike me saying socialism will never work cause it has failed in the past and is today just a SJW front. How about civic nationalism for example?

You seem to think you're arguing SJWs on reddit.

which ones are you referring to?
because our system of monarchy is very very old
Victoria and George V were kind to the people in many ways
commissioning opera houses and hospitals for the poor and attempting to bridge the divide between people and king
of course this was first put forward by early labour in Britain that did represent the working class
they dont anymore but every single socialist organization in Britain takes a leaf out of their book for their manifesto

not really
I might have ended up a socialist a long time ago but not anymore
I've seen how corrupt socialists are whenever they get into power and cant trust them, and cultural marxism is causing untold suffering amongst the working classes of Britain

True. Capital will go where labour is cheap and unrestricted. A proper nationalist government would sanction these corporations AND invest in it's native industries.


I'm not disagreeing with you here. I am suggesting we use the nation state to stop this.

If British elite choose to hide their monies away in tax havens and cheat the system (and nation) then they are enemies of the nation.

The way I see it, nationalism at least offers practical solutions to the issues of neo-liberalism. Socialism is too abstract and many actually consider the globalisation to be worthwhile and the harm inflicted on (mostly blue collar workers) to be an acceptable price for 'improving the lives of millions'. Whether the near slave situation in the far east is an improvement is up for debate.

This

There's nothing wrong with it. It's just that some people abuse it to use as an excuse for Imperialism.

But it's the real power that the concentration of wealth and ownership of the means of production that the domestic capitalist elite has, which affects and shapes the state… you want a strong 'nationalist' mindset, that still engages in capitalism and sees socialism as 'too abstract', to use the legal framework - while allying with the domestic elite (that you don't even distinguish) - to strike down hard against specific types of symptoms of capitalism in the stage it's in now.

It's not just that Capital will go to where labour is cheap and unrestricted, it's that if there is no where to go it will make labour cheap and unrestricted. It either creates it domestically, or if that well's run dry (or too much resistance has shown itself in the populace), it then hops overseas.

You want anti-capitalism, but not entirely, and see a tool of capitalism traditionally, as the solution to capitalism, confusing the romantic notions it has with the real solidarity that you would find in socialist and communist thinking.


So do socialists… sieze the power of the state. They have an economic theory to go by, though, not just the hope of - from what I gather - ethnic solidarity. (which is worth exactly 0, when money is involved - see all of history)

Put it in other words, if you are a nation under occupation, a colony, forcefully displaced, etc. it makes sense to have a strong sense of unity based on whatever is available (and a high tone of nationalism - in that sense, rarely based on ethnic nationality of any sorts), but in this case you are fighting against your own elite, and their class-allies cross nations.

They are engaged in a class war against pretty much all of society, and while they bicker amongst each other at times, the form of exploitation is one in which they unite on historically.

'Neo liberalism', is just capitalism. The only use it has as a description of anything is to point out people who still try to appeal to belonging to 'the people', but are just using words to build up sympathies and fake solidarity while still engaging fully politically on the side of their own class, as marked by economic classes.

Much like most populist nationalists, in non-occupied, non-colonized and peace time (well, not necessarily to other nations) nations.

I see socialism as too abstract, at least for the issue that requires a fix. A nationalist government once self-sufficient,. or as near to as can be, may well choose to pursue some kind of socialism. Hell I'd argue that this would be easier without mass migration and cultural ghettos.


The issue I have is it is too abstract, too diverse. Hell on this very board you cannot agree beyond 'worker owned means of production'. And even this there is no agreement on how to do this, how it would operate or how other functions of the government would operate. As to the economic theory, it has so far lost to capitalism. A few of these instance have been entirely rooted in the desire of some to solidarity, resulting in shit like Gadaffi supporting the fucking IRA. The guy was pretty fucking based but make enemies of the elite in the west, you get dead. And I can't even begin to imagine how a global revolution would work.

As I keep coming back to, I believe you need to get your house in order before trying to socialism. And this is much easier a nation at a time.

I wouldn't call it class warfare. Just selfish cunts in a position to enrich themselves at our expense. You probably feature very low down their list of 'things I give two fucks about'.


True that neo-liberalism is more a buzzzword than a concise theory but essentially it is internationalist super-capitalsim.

How would it magically become self-sufficient while engaging in capitalist policies? Let's go through it.

Food production, given the current business models, is currently tied into global markets. The price as it appears is dictated by that market (in other words, by capitalists and the biggest players), while down the chain there are several layers of exploitation behind each profit cycle.

If you were to say, support local farmers and producers via tarrifs on higher amounts of imported goods which could come into conflict with local production, you still need that local production. They still export out, and engage in the same market - as well as serve the domestic market. It's usually consolidated at this point in the 'game' of economics, for more developed nations, a few trying to form co-op like structures, but you'd typically be dealing with a handful of domestic capitalists controlling most of the game, owning most of the arable land (directly or indirectly), and certainly most of the stores and control of the produce.

So… you'll help people who have and own, in your nation, get richer. Yes.
How does this then aid towards the path of self sustainability?

How is that food then applied to covering the hunger and needs, of the people at large? Well, you could setup massive state farms, directly hiring people… you could support worker-coop like inclinations, you could use the state to - using the tools available (as in, you're still in a monetary using state that has a pool of taxes to go on) apply the best scientifically available automation and machinery… in the meanwhile you'd need to really push for welfare and equal rights for all who live within your nation - not just higher wages (surplus labour is kept around systemically, that you'd remove 'foreign' groupings of it wouldn't change that if you keep capitalism), as they'd still need to be able to actually pay for the prices the capitalist system sets for them for their subsistence. But none of that would be included or inherent to "Nationalism".

That'd be socialists.


Take energy. You could support some type of public works, or 'nationalizing' (in this usage of the word - taking it out of the hands of private ownership, and placing it under the control of the state as a public service) it, but again - not inherent to nationalism…
And if you just want "foreign investors" out, again same issues, it's connected to the capitalist market. Still costs the same. A lot of domestic power companies, under private ownership, whine about the overuse of power and the lack of electricity generation, whilst at the exact same time selling off as much as they can to the foreign grid.

'Nationalism' doesn't solve, any, of that.

It's not an economic policy, or even an economic theory. Socialism, does, and I still say you'd find what you refer to as 'nationalism' to merely be a confused version of solidarity amongst all. You really do seem to want what socialism offers, but seem to think you can get 'nationalism' (like comparing apples to oranges) to do it.
Or you have some mythical notions of ethno-nationalism, in which case I don't see this discussion ever going anywhere.


No, it's deliberate class warfare. The business community attempts to - quite succinctly - and intentionally, destroy labour movements, human rights, civil rights, legal rights, environmental protections, welfare, unemployment benefits, social aide programs, public education, healthcare, etc.

It's most definitely class warfare.


It's capitalism in its current (foreseen, and written about) state. "Globalist" is market expansion, movement for the capital owner. It's just capitalism as time passed by, doing its thing.

'Internationalist' is misapplied here, as that is related to (in this context, rather, economic theory, socialism, capitalism, etc.) international solidarity amongst the people.

What is wrong with expanding the ingroup to more and more people who share your culture, history and language? I don't know but it is a lot better that endless tribal wars or the petty disputes of feudal lords, and given time it will perhaps grow to encompass in one global nation of Earth.

What bourgies are actively promoting nationalism? They are all, as far as I can see, anti nationalists in the current year.

I'm not opposed to direct state ownership of a couple of entities in each strategic sector. So there could be a government owned farm chain operating alongside private ventures.

I'm also all for higher top level taxes, even a wealth tax to fund a UBI or something similar.

It seems I can't emphasise enough that the government in my scenario will put the people and the nation way, way out in front of capitalists.

The reason I say nationalist over socialist is the primary focus is on the nation, not trying to fix a world some of whom may not be interested in my fix. My nationalism also takes into account the different levels of development there are around the world and instead of trying to shoehorn the world into a 'one size fits all' internationalism it does it's thing stepwise, a nation at a time.

As for my economic theory, there's be elements of protectionism, nationalization, state enterprises.

You keep saying that nationalism and socialism are so different but I still don';t see why they would inherently be. This is down to the action and intent of the government, one that I've repeatedly said would put the people first.

Just little known corporatists like Trump and Clinton. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of them since they're not well known.

You would have been a beta serf in feudal Europe, and you're an angsty, unfuckable beta nerd in this century.

That's not very effective, though.
youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

I'm not saying that nationalism and socialism are so different, I'm saying it's like comparing apples to oranges. Nationalism is not an economic system, nor does it inherently have any plans towards one type of economy. It's typically allied with capitalism, as well.

The things you associate with nationalism have nothing to do with nationalism. If you want a government that puts people first, I'm all for it, but just having someone doing that based on (again - I assume) ethno-nationalist sentiments doesn't make any sense. The political climate within a nation, or any community, is affected and in the worst cases becomes completely dictated by the concentration of wealth and power which resides within that community - enabled by the economic system which they have.

Capitalist states, are inherently acting against the idea of democracy, as the system itself gives ground to accumulation and hoarding of wealth and power. The politicians, become marinated in this, the political 'class' is almost entirely reflecting of the capitalist (and the rich overall) will, and drive towards what benefits them and garners them more business and money and profits.

The chances of someone who screams out that they're 'nationalists' and will put the 'people first', but then sees the initial enemy being the foreigners, and even probably feels a romantic solidarity towards their own domestic economic exploiters and owners of the means of production - at the expense of others also within their same community, probably isn't going to lead you to where you think you want.

If you want a government that puts the people (and the 'nation') 'way way out infront of the capitalists', then it's not a nationalist you want, it's a socialist.

International socialism also would include building up domestically, nation by nation, for the benefit of those that live there. In other words, the entire wording - the rhetoric, that you're using, seems like this strange perverse diversion away from the core (anti capitalism, socialism) into another realm that has it more aligned (by omission, and not seeing it as the primary concern) with the ruling capitalists and the overwhelmingly hegemonic capitalist world in which we live in, today.

nations are literally an old and dying concept leftover from feudalism where kings wanted to brag about how much territory they had to massage their own huge egos

its the fucking 2000s, why do we need to divide north america into "burgers and fatties land", "burri

seriously, if the us government was using drones strikes on civilians in oregon, people in tennessee would throw a shit fit, but if they performed a drone strike on civilians in cuba (which is physically closer to tennessee than oregon), those people in tennessee wouldn't blink an eye: its literally another "us vs them" narrative that the ruling class feeds us

if you think nations are fine, you're falling into porky's trap

Nations are fine, but there are several 'nationalism' and 'nation' definitions in play, in this thread. A nation as defined by a shared economic life, group language (or at least, ability to communicate in one shared language), and shared dominant presence in a region - is an observation. A description.

It's not exclusive, and it molds and forms with history and the movement and travels of peoples. Integration occurs, their culture changes (back and forth), and sprouts new hybrids. (what traditionalists want to go back to, is typically not even what would be their traditional culture if by lineage; even the traditionalist meme, was a mixture to begin with).

As they engage in the economy, and share time and space together - as generations pass, people become included.

There's one.

Then there's nation states. The legal body, and borders, of a state.

That's another.

Then there's "Nationalism", in the sense that at least I - am arguing against - here.
A 'ethnic nation' set in stone appealing to an old mold of culture with grandiose, mythical and romantic notions about its identity as its bestowed upon the citizenry via blood lines.

I'm open to civic nationalism too. That is come here and adopt the good aspects of British values, and we'll get along swimmingly.

I say GOOD aspects cause muzzies are great at raping kids, a great British pastime

I disagree that nationalism is inherently capitalist. Maybe it's just ma case of my special snowflake nationalism has never been tried…

I gotta go now, but this has been interesting and refreshingly good natured. Take care commie faggots.

the first one you described is fine, although i wouldn't even call that a nation

the other two (nationalism and the concept of the nation-state) are both garbage

lines in the dirt only serve to help the ruling class and the capitalists: you and i and paco south of the border get no benefit from the borders between us

Look what it did to yugoslavia

Can we create a nationalism, racism and other spooks containment thread? This is getting tired.

I'd say the mental sickness is not wanting to be decimated from the sands of time as distinct people is healthy.

All those thick uneducated hill billys Paul Krugman derides are the sane ones, they have survival instinct.
Krugman wouldn't care if they disapear because he'll be straight off to the walled compound of whites or off to Israel when the country turns into Equador.
Nationalism is the only thing standing between the destruction of the West by globalist states with no identity.

...

The Globalist State is the Corporation State.
An actual state is meaningless, a Nation is what matters and that willl only ever be a people.

Yeah I guess we were all just amoeba until someone came up with the concept of dirt lines.

wew, someone hasn't been paying attention

No shit, why do you think Fascism is popular?>>965219

You got that backwards, it's like the retarded notion America existed before the monocultural philosophy of what America was and should be was made. America is a Nation, or it was. Now it is a State, the two are not the same.

'America' is continens which do exist independent of mind, what you think about it. The joke has nothing to do with states proper. But you're wrong on that account too. The transition to a nation state is indeed the impetus for which they [US] threw off the monarch, but the colonies from which they had to transition were still belonging to the Metropolitan state of the British Empire.

You went full retard

YOU TAKE THAT BACK YOU FUCKING NAZI

...

fuggin spoogy :-DDD

is for cappies

nothing at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

This. Not sure why some forms of nationalism aren't compatible with Socialism. Borders may be a spook but they serve a purpose insofar as to protect a native population in the early stages of becoming class-conscious. Class-cucked proles aren't exactly going to buy the whole "Hey guys I know these thousands of people don't speak our language or anything required for proper communication about marxist theory but they're workers just like you so yeah whatever get along" argument.

Neither are nationalists. Trump is a populist paleocon and Clinton is a globalist neocon.
How the fuck anyone could think they are nationalists is beyond me.

if trump isnt a nationalist no one is

It's generally shit, but left-wing nationalism can be quite good.

Its not going to be received well here

It's a bourgeois spook that happened because of newspapers.

Plus it doesn't make any sense. 50% of US graduates aren't born here.

Most of people on Holla Forums are too retarded to read up about it without basing on any preexisting assumptions and memes. Kind of like Holla Forums and anything related to communism.

What you're referring to is the night of cristal you fucking retard.
The night of long knives is the Nazis purging their most socialists elements.

Don't be stupid. Trump has already reached agreement with Mexico about making Mexico great again too. And Clinton has promised nuclear war with Russia and China. Way to go Clinton, nuclear annihilation is a great way to preserve the nation!

I'll stop being patriotic when niggas stop blaming me for slavery.

And neither are they citizens.

...

We can only be retarded together.

Killing people is in the human nature, yeah.
Communism did it too.

...