Is there a real difference between nationalism and national liberation?
Other urls found in this thread:
Not in practice.
Multiple Nazi's admired Sankara so in a way you proved his point, nationalism and national liberation are very similar although sometimes they can be different. It would be exponentially hard to pinpoint a difference that stands however.
Why would Nazis admire an anti-imperialist who believed deeply in women’s equality and was an avid reader of Marx, Engels and Lenin?
For the same reason Anarchist admire Proudhon and Bakunin, two white men who were Hitler levels of anti semitic.
Oh and Stirner who was a white supremacist.
Can't forget him for the individualist ones.
No, but nationalism isn't the leader of one country. In practice national liberation has given us the same capitalist states that nationalism has, only run by the left wing of capital instead of the right wing of capital.
The same reason they align with anti-war activities or Zionism or pagans or lolberts.
Nowhere have I heard any nazi admire Sankara for theory or anarchists admire Bakunin or Proudhon for improving their homelands.
Tends to be exclusionary and supremacist
Tends to be democratic in reaction to totalitarian acts of suppression
Both can certainly lead to similar results
Because nothing that they do follows any logical pattern.
That's the point that's not why they admire them, it's for different reasons, people aren't autists who need a perfect person to follow that has no flaws.
So there is no difference?
There is none. Read Perlman.
Ok interesting thank you.
In theory, yes. In practice, no.
Simply put: The problem is not the UN, nor NATO or globalism as such. The problem is the system: capitalism.
Of course, swedish-style immigration fixes absolutely nothing and, until the revolution finally suceeds, it's preferable to shut down the borders and not allow any form of immigration, legal or not, (that's like 99.9% of the reasons for nationalism), since the porkies use immigration as their pressure release valve and no action is taken in other countries to combat capitalist imperialism.
The thing is, nationalism is merely a fascist tendency for porkies to consolidate corporate power. Notice how Trump pays lipservice to the populist right wing, but continues to expand globalism under an american supremacist ideology. He continues to benefit multinational companies via tax breaks and corporate welfare, but brainwashes his cult followers. You might call his ideology mercantilism, because that's what it is.
That's the modus operandi of fascists. It worked for both Hitler and Mussolini, and the respective corporations, and did jackshit for the working class.
Cultured Thug made a pretty positive video on him that was well received by his fans, yeah he isn't a nazi but he's third position.
Cultured Thug is a degenerate weed-smoking atheist moron
your mom is a degenerate prostitute who loves when niggers give "her" a Cleveland steamer
Sankara was ok but the women's equality thing was one of his flaws. women will never be equal to men, in nature. which is where we all belong.
lel somebody should shoop cameras into her hands, also good thread, OP. I dunno where I'd draw the line so sadly I have little to contribute
inb4 that one pencildick pops up to give me that pre-rehearsed speech of his about self-reliance and the value of hard work
I laughed and almost spit out some realy good beer you faggot
Mental deficiency, opportunism, feels-over reals cargo cultiness to over-idealized versions of the past, and no ability to make, only to pervert?
you sound upset
This thread is a genuine attempt to distinguish between the two. I appreciate that you like the theme. Seriously, how do some people on the far left reconcile nationalistic tendencies in certain left-leaning places. The three that come to my mind are Sinn Fein and Irish republicanism, Catalonia and Basque nationalism. Do you people allow these movements to be nationalistic simply because they have an our guys mentality? or is there a genuine difference between national liberation from a left standpoint and nationalism seen as reactionary claptrap?
Nazism isn’t synonymous with nationalism.
Nationalism is what it's called when white people benefit and national liberation is what it's called when white people lose power. That's the difference.
Because he was a not socialist in the sense that his rationale for socialism was the prosperity of his people, and he was humble to a fault.
How do anarchism and anti-semitism relate to one another in the sense that it would be strange for an anarchist to be pro/anti/neutral-Jew?
That was where I learned about him.
His whole approach to fun is based in the virtue of moderation.
Thanks. Don't know why I let that slide.
I swear to God Zig Forums for the last time that is not what I meant with that statement, the Jew thing is irrelevant to anarchists as gender equality is to Nazi's.
I just hopped in this thread and I didn't read the replies. Anyway it was an honest question. What did you actually mean by the statement then?
What happens with Sinn Fein then? Both sides are white people. Same could be said for Catalonia.
I'm only doing this one more time.
Nazi's like Sankara even though Sankara is a Marxist and is for leftist ideals, for the same reason that anarchists like their figureheads, because they ignore the parts they don't like about a specific person.
It's probably called nationalism (the word with the bad connotations) because the elites of all white countries are basically in lockstep on the internationalism/globalism issue and breaking away from that is a threat to internationalism/globalism and also an offense against a large coalition of allies (The EU/UN) that could btfo any nationalist army that wasn't very disciplined and also very high in morale.
So is Irish Republicanism an example of nationalism or national liberation to you?
My original point was that they were both the same thing and are only spun in different ways based on how the neoliberal/Judaic elite view the movement. I am accustomed to calling my views nationalist, although it's also obvious why Ghandi, who the mainstream adores, is not called a nationalist by the mainstream media despite his motivations being entirely nationalist. If you just want to know my opinion on Irish separatism, I am in favor of Ireland being a sovereign nation-state, ideally an ethnostate.
literally nothing and Marx agrees
all nations are enslavement constructs and nothing more. So-called "national-liberation" movements are merely capitalist tools to divide and conquer
There are only the oppressors and the oppressed. We are all human beings
What is an ethnostate to you? What the fuck even is an Irish ethnostate? Have you ever heard of the Irish Travelers? They are basically gypsies who have lived in Ireland for centuries. Do they fit into this ethnostate?
But that's so common it doesn't tell us anything about the reasoning why someone with views directly opposed to Sankhara would like him.