Opinion on "socialist nationalism" or "leftist nationalism"?

Opinion on "socialist nationalism" or "leftist nationalism"?

I have seen a lot of socialists irl are against any form of in group preferences and cultural/racial identity. Do you have any problem with a country that is openly nationalist while at the same time having a socialist based economy?

I also got mentioned cuba has an exemple on this from people i talked to(as in fidel-cuban regime was socialist but also very pro nationalistic)

and if so do you have a problem with just racial based nationalism+socialism or you would be ok with "civic nationalism"+socialist economy/policies?

Attached: 34ypdsn.png (400x267, 17.81K)

Other urls found in this thread:

spartacus-educational.com/GERlabour.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=SDTyI20Ka94
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Racially based nationalism at least makes some sense since there would be a gimmick uniting the people. Nationalism based only on being born on country x seems more unstable, especially if it is a country full of mestiços.

Someone whip out the Tito quote.

yeah good comment,its just when i talk to people irl that consider themselves socialists they arent open to any form of nationalism per say. however i talked to some other leftists that considered the cuban regime to be somewhat "nationalist" and would be open to some form of nationalism has long has it was under a socialist based economy

most arent#

Nationalism is a cancer.

It truly is, but hey
I'd rather live under a nationalist socialist country than a neoliberal globalist hell.

it doesn't exist

There isn't any difference.

Yes… there is?

How so?

Greece and Turkey are effectively genetically identical. How would they reconcile that in a world that suddenly decides on race-based nationalism? Just wondering.

No… there isn't???

One is an expansionist corporatist bourgeois military dictatorship, and the other is an expansionist corporatist bourgeois military dictatorship.

And yet Not Socialism has been the most successful version of socialism.

An old nationaI socialist explained it to me very well: The reason why nationaI socialism works and internationaI socialism does not is because in NationaI socialism only gives money to people within the country. Who in turn spend it inside the country and contribute to the economy. With international socialism the money leaks out of your country and makes everyone there poorer.

Socialism is a fundamentally internationalist ideology, for nationalism is a bourgeois-liberal concept and only makes sense within the constraints imposed by bourgeois ideology. The class struggle occurs in all nations, across all ethnic, linguistic, and cultural barriers. Under socialism there is no need for the nation state, nor any framework within which it can exist.

Certainly, nationalism has been utilised by various governments as a means to unite the people against imperialist aggression; in this specific case, I can condone its use provided it does not involve perverse nativist rhetoric, and is instead a nationalism based purely upon the preservation of the revolution and the right of a people to self-determination.

Hmm…

Attached: IMG_3539.JPG (272x185, 22.89K)

lmao

sasuga

nut sacs confirmed for not fucking understanding economics

They lost a war but they didnt run up huge debts or try to replace the native population with migrants.


They may not understand economics but they certainly understand nationaI socialism. Which is the subject of the thread.

Socialism in one country was not "nationalist socialism"; it was simply an attempt to build a socialist economy within the bounds of a single state. Soviet Socialism remained internationalist, as evidenced by its support for proletarian liberation movements across the world.

In any case, National^ Socialism bore no resemblance to actual socialism; the Nazis simply coopted the term to profit off of the moral force of socialist rhetoric, while still maintaining and enforcing capitalist property and production relations.

pic is you rn

Attached: 547eb25e4e987c4c41b443be5e362c08.png (1024x768, 1.02M)

What are MEFO bills

I'll give you that, but then again, Demo-liberal states like France and UK weren't either.

Nazi Germany waffled on their big meme, racialism, constantly. Native fucking Americans were considered honorary Aryans because cowboy stories were popular in Germany at the time.

I give this post ten burgers out of ten

They German economy was essentially set to collapse in 1941, and quite simply their conquests saved them.

Welp, what more can be said

It also should be noticed that, despite the surprise attack and massive encirclement, capture of industry, and killings, they were still solidly outproduced by the Soviet Union.

That is an interesting point.
The entire world basically joined together to destroy them and yet they were more content than people in socialist countries today.

It seems like the most horrible thing you can do to a man is make him unnecessary and replace him.

I think that by nstional socialist he meant things like Ceaușescu romania and Juche

This is correct. NutSacs know nothing about running a country and everything about brainlet-tier tribalist ape shitflinging. Because if they knew anything about running a country they wouldn't be NutSacs and realize that every fascist nation was living on borrowed time in the form of unworkable explosive debt and doomed to fail from the start.

Yeah. Ive met a lot of socialists like that. The nationalist type and the regular ones.

Then don't make your only comparable ally in the East Asian theater as a European power idiot.

Which is why the Soviet Union, despite its multiracialism and large Muslim population, endured 3 years of savage occupation and went on to tear Germany's beating heart out of its chest, whereas there were dozens of assassination attempts on Hitler, right?
Shit, German citizens were already pussying out after the SU took Konigsberg.

I didnt think I would ever have to exaplain this but I have no influece over the policies of 1940s Germany.
You are telling me this now in 2017, even if I was born then I cant go back in time and change history. And even if I could why would they believe me?

Your quoted my post but nothing you said is a response to it.

Hitler's assassination attempts and Germany's breaking down/lack of production-enthusiasm is kind of proof of lack of contentment, don't you think?
Meanwhile if you think that internationalist socialism is so discontenting, then my rebuttal is that it's hard to imagine a very discontent people putting up with what the Russians did, is my point.

Attached: 424b1ef9555710a6729e742a20420c32a189821fdb1a17de9409219aa38725d6.jpg (438x454, 31.82K)

Lack of contentment is a given when you are losing a war.

If you look at the pre war Not Socialist period in Germany it was pretty good compared to now.
They were able to pay off debts instead of running them up and even had awesome programs like socialized car buying and socialized holiday camps Inb4 they were in Auschwitz.

I was comparing old socialism to modern socialism, not the soviet union.
If you read the old literature its all about building strong healthy communities and families. Now its about cramming as many single mothers in to a highly flammable tower block and paying them to have kids.

THEY LITERALLY MURDERED, STARVED AND ENSLAVED EASTERN EUROPE TO MAKE WAY FOR GERMAN SETTLERS YOU IMBECILE, YOU FUCKING MORON

Attached: 20953463_946969552109222_985611022028890889_n.jpg (675x625, 48.13K)

enjoy your night of the long knives, retard

The German Reich ran up massive debts as part of its rearmament program. Look up mefo bills. Effectively bank fraud perpetrated by the German government to rearm while holding off payments (i.e. debts) for as long as possible.

Even in the most internationalist socialist society possible those would still be a given.

Internationalism has always been a historic aim of socialism, so I'm not sure what your point is.

No it isn't?

The only reason why Nazi Germany could afford all these niceties was the widespread use of plunder and slave labor.

Whats the difference between internationalism and globalism?

Actually most of those programs were active only before the war. Where as the plunder and slave labor came after the war started.

Internationalism is the belief that all proletarians across the world share a similar class condition and should act accordingly. Globalism is a snarl world used by confused right-wingers who believe a sinister cabal has taken over the world.

Globalism is basically a modern day scare-term, but globalization is a function of capitalism. It involves market forces being the chief author of (for instance) immigration or industry relocations.
Internationalism is the coordination of groups of people based on their common interest as workers. Significant difference.

"Workers of the world, Unite!"

"Markets of the world, Unite!"

This deficit spending was balanced by the plunder of invaded countries' gold reserve.

Nationalism leftism, or nationalist socdem is undeniably more progressive than comprador regimes.

Globalization doesn't even unite anything, it simply allows capital's range of operation to cover the whole world. It actually requires the continued existence of nation-states so they can benefit from the existence of discrete regions of uneven economic development.

The deficit for spending on arms sure.

But lets say hypothetically there wasnt a war so no arms were needed.
The other socialist programs would pay for themselves in the long term. It doesnt cost a lot to set up a socialized car buying scheme.The huge payoff is that every working class person can eventually own a car. Instead of just the richest people. And of course more cars being produced means more jobs and more economic activity.
That is something they had in place in Germany years before the war which stopped in 1939 because of the requirement for arms.

Yes it does, it tend to slowly homogeneize rules to be the most accomodating to capital's interests, see TPP…

You say this like Porkies Needing Nation States would would prevent them from destroying Nation States…

funnily enough I just over the last weekend read historian Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction, wherein he specifically explains that
The Party itself was paying out of pocket for the Volkswagen project after it became clear that it was economically unfeasible.

Hmm that is a big blow for socialism if true.

> At any rate, the development of a rudimentary global society is, and is likely to remain, far behind the contrary effect of capitalist integration: the formation of many unevenly developed economies with varied and self-enclosed social systems, presided over by many nation states. The national economies of advanced capitalist societies will continue to compete with one another, while ‘global’ capital (always based in one or another national entity) will continue to profit from uneven development, the differentiation of social conditions among national economies, and the preservation of exploitable low-cost labour regimes.
> That increasing disparity between the global economy and the territorial nation state in no way signals the end of capitalism’s need, however contradictory, for a spatially fragmented political and legal order. On the contrary, that contradiction results from the persistence of that need; and for the foreseeable future, it is most likely to be met by something like the nation state. The strongest challenges to existing nation states, to their boundaries or indeed to their very existence, are more likely to come from oppositional forces of various kinds than from the agents of capital or the impersonal forces of the market."
— Ellen M. Wood, The Origin of Capitalism

No it isn't.
Socialism=/=government doing stuff

That's a complete meme that needs to stop. A nation state was simply the integration of an existing state or a cultural area made possible by the commercialization and integration of a given society. Nations work for a state (they are homogenous and cohesive and thus legitimising to the state and not so violent as culturally divided societies) but if globalization homogenizes the world into a brown english speaking society using plastic there's no reason we won't see one state arising. It would just be a neoliberal hellhole without identity. Some existing states nowadays are barely nation states btw (like Russia or most African states which are ethnically and or religiusly divided)

Capital also spreads unevenly within a state btw, hence the urban rural divide. Burgerstan's periphery is the Middle part, Russia has its periphery in the east.

spartacus-educational.com/GERlabour.htm

This is a bunch of gobbledy gook that doesn't mean anything.
This is nonsense.
I just
wait a s
oh nevermind.
Much like your posting.

They compromised with Russian nationalism to stoke up support for the war afaik, there was at least a reactiomary period after the war where they affirmed the right of different nationalities to exist and attacked 'rootless cosmopolitanism'. Read the Chernov speech and see the glorious NazBol that was post war Stalinism

You're not responding to anything I said. If what I said is so nonsensical, it should be easy to tear down.

I don't get what was meaningless about the first part but I'll clarify. A state, through direct citizenship, homogenized courts, internal markets etc, integrates a given area that it rules into one political society.

But if the socialized model failed and the free market model was a roaring success its not a great sign.

I still think there would have been a long term benefit to the working people being able to afford cars. It does take more funds initially but its still quicker and fairer than relying on the alternative of trickle down economics.

The Germany balance of payments under the NSDAP was a mess. They simultaneously tried to become self sufficient and build up a giant military, which are clearly contradictory goals when you're already reliant on imports for food and a wide range of consumer goods. They managed to get close to full employment without pulling any tricks like Mussolini did (he basically just shipped everyone without a job off to the countryside and claimed they were farmers so they wouldn't be considered unemployed), but real wages at the start of WW2 were still below 1929 levels and social spending, with the exception of money going to social clubs/indoctrination programs like the Hitler Youth and it's equivalents for women and every age group, was cut to the bone. Playing with hula hoops with a swastika in the background is not a replacement for welfare. By the start of the war, Germany's reserves of gold and foreign currency were virtually non-existent, the trade deficit stubbornly refused to shrink, and Hitler had to resort to bartering military equipment with his tinpot dictator friends in eastern europe and the Balkans in order to maintain some semblance of economic stability. If the war had been pushed back a few more years he would have been deposed by his own people as the house of cards crumbled.

The Soviet Union played a delicate social balancing act. The concept of national federationalism in the Soviet Union was Lenin's idea, as in the strictest Marxist terms the SU was ahistorical.
As you probably already know, Lenin believed that the Soviet Union had as its historic mission the task of building socialism, which is the foundational precept of Marxism-Leninism.
With that in mind, Soviet policy makers believed that the peasant and national questions, while extant due to material conditions, would go away on their own with the application of socialism. Even at the extremes the war forced upon the Soviet Union, Soviet orthodoxy and every Soviet policy maker agreed emphatically that internationalism was a fundamental goal of the Union.


There was have an entire architecture yet to be nationalized. Steel production, rubber, etc. were all privately owned. Second as an anarchist I obviously believe that truly democratic worker's institutions would out-perform the effects of the free market. In Nazi Germany the MOP were obviously by no means democratically owned.


He's right, the modern nation-state is by no means a natural institution.
I mean
just sounds to me like you\re the type of dumb-dumb who's idea of an identity involves larping as a country.

Attached: 72761603f05f47553132339860561bb646ab32a027700f02145927941ff3a86c.jpg (533x400, 33.36K)

EBIN

back to Zig Forums

You said a bunch of nonsense. There's nothing to respond to or "tear down."
youtube.com/watch?v=SDTyI20Ka94
This is you. This is how stupid you are. Every idiot thing you say doesn't merit a response.

Read a book.

Holy shit this picture, this is shopped r-right?

Clearly, they would never let a teacher write "ass" on the chalkboard.

I'm from Ireland, where our Nationalism is considered more acceptable among the Left than the Nationalism of most other nations.
That being said, I am against Irish Nationalism as it inherently entails Class Collaboration - in its essence it endorses the domestic Capitalist Class over the foreign Capitalist Class.
Whilst this preference may benefit the Working Class on a cultural level (ie: the lack of Penal Laws), it means very little for the domestic Working Class on a material level.

Upon the establishment of the Free State in 1921, anti-Imperialist Nationalist Capitalism was the order of the day. This did not mean much for the average Irishman, as emigration continued in similar volumes to previous decades under the thumb of Britain. Those that stayed did not experience a higher standard of living.
.
The tune of the state changed in the 1950s, where the domestic Capitalist class endorsed American Economic Imperialism, but simultaneously committed to investing in the communities of the Urban Working Class (a policy which did not exist beforehand). It is no surprise that the population increased for the first time with the Census of 1961 (largely because of reduced emigration). Upon joining the EEC in 1973, the population continued to grow over the coming decades for largely the same reason.

For previously-occupied countries, Nationalism serves to obfuscate Class Relations under this occupation. Right-Wing Fianna Fáil-sponsored history textbooks loved to perpetuate the falsehood that all Irishmen were equally povertous, and that prosperity was only achievable under National Liberation. This is false, as many Gaelic/Catholic individuals became wealthy under British occupation. These same individuals were the Wealthy upon independence.
When the 26 County Free State was established, neither Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael expressed any interest in running candidates in Northern Ireland, and they still don't. The main reason for this is because Northern Ireland served the economic interests of the British Bourgeois, rather than an Irish one. The suffering of the Working Class in this areas was no concern to them, Republican or otherwise.

For the Working Class, Nationalism is simply replacing a foreign Boot with a domestic Boot. Whilst it seemed like a very useful tool in the 19th Century, it has actually become a hindrance to the establishment of a 32 County Socialist Republic.
I am a Republican and a Patriot, but upon further reading I am no longer a Nationalist. The Working Class of all countries should oppose this.

Attached: republican.jpg (640x884 588.29 KB, 129.43K)

The only thing Connolly was wrong about was that it would be America that ruled Ireland after the Brits pulled out.

I don't get nationalism at all as an ideology. What kind of policies do you want as a nationalist? No immigration?

The only 'nationalist' policy I can get behind is self-reliance like in juche.

how the fuck can we end this stupid meme once and for all

He died in 1916, the Free State would not be established for another five years. While it is true that American capitalists were invited to rule in the 1950s, this was not the case beforehand. During these decades, the indigenous Upper Class was granted supremacy, and it was them who were the primary oppressors of the Irish Working Class. For this reason, Nationalism is largely bogus and being a Nationalist functions as choosing a Local Boot over a foreign one.

Pic related, Taoiseach (PM) Seán Lemass received Time's Man of the Year because of the fact that he helped hugely in opening up Ireland to the American Capitalists. This was a very big deal in establishing a truly Global Capitalist Class, whilst the Irish Working Class suffered and remained in poverty.

Attached: sean lemass.jpg (400x527, 56.96K)

LMFAO, crack open a book any time

Probably works better than forced multiracialism of today, especially in Europe.

Imagine thinking NutSac has been successful when the only country that implemented it fell within 12 years, and went back on any pretense of being socialist early on by banning trade unions, attacking left sympathisers and privatising most key industries.

Under nationalism socialism will always be sold out to the highest bidder under the pretense of "securing the nation".

Just because your daddy trump cucked you doesn't mean you can start shit smearing here, go back to Zig Forums.

No fuck off

Come the fuck on man

The Nazi's played inflationary economics, they were constantly in debt.

Attached: FascismAndBusinessII.png (1487x843 50.22 KB, 4.79M)

Hitler really really cared guys, he wasn't just using their capital to fund a war effort!

haha what the fuck

Nationalism from oppressed and exploited people's is generally good as long as it still recognizes the class struggle and isnt racial in rhetoric. To the contrary nationalism in imperialist nations will almost always harbor racism and class collaboration.

Attached: DVRtHjpXcAEHQ7e.png (940x788, 520.2K)