Patriotism and left-wing "nationalism"

FinnBol just made a video about patriotism and the communist/socialist movement.
youtube.com/watch?v=NJAlbiBgk20

I 100% agree with him. What are your thoughts on this, Zig Forums?

Attached: gayboys.jpg (736x516, 162.69K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm
mltheory.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/stalin-the-myth-of-the-old-bolsheviks/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Finland
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

We remember that Chernyshevsky, the Great-Russian democrat, who dedicated his life to the cause of revolution, said half a century ago: “A wretched nation, a nation of slaves, from top to bottom—all slaves."[6] The overt and covert Great-Russian slaves (slaves with regard to the tsarist monarchy) do not like to recall these words. Yet, in our opinion, these were words of genuine love for our country, a love distressed by the absence of a revolutionary spirit in the masses of the Great-Russian people. There was none of that spirit at the time. There is little of it now, but it already exists. We are full of national pride because the Great-Russian nation, too, has created a revolutionary class, because it, too, has proved capable of providing mankind with great models of the struggle for freedom and socialism, and not only with great pogroms, rows of gallows, dungeons, great famines and great servility to priests, tsars, landowners and capitalists.
We are full of a sense of national pride, and for that very reason we particularly hate our slavish past (when the landed nobility led the peasants into war to stifle the freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia and China), and our slavish present, when these selfsame landed proprietors, aided by the capitalists, are loading us into a war in order to throttle Poland and the Ukraine, crush the democratic movement in Persia and China, and strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Bobrinskys and Purishkeviches, who are a disgrace to our Great-Russian national dignity. Nobody is to be blamed for being born a slave; but a slave who not only eschews a striving for freedom but justifies and eulogises his slavery (e.g., calls the throttling of Poland and the Ukraine, etc., a “defence of the fatherland” of the Great Russians)—such a slave is a lickspittle and a boor, who arouses a legitimate feeling of indignation, contempt, and loathing.
"No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations,” said Marx and Engels, the greatest representatives of consistent nineteenth century democracy, who became the teachers of the revolutionary proletariat. And, full of a sense of national pride, we Great-Russian workers want, come what may, a free and independent, a democratic, republican and proud Great Russia, one that will base its relations with its neighbours on the human principle of equality, and not on the feudalist principle of privilege, which is so degrading to a great nation. Just because we want that, we say: it is impossible, in the twentieth century and in Europe (even in the far east of Europe), to “defend the fatherland” otherwise than by using every revolutionary means to combat the monarchy, the landowners and the capitalists of one’s own fatherland, i.e., the worst enemies of our country. We say that the Great Russians cannot “defend the fatherland” otherwise than by desiring the defeat of tsarism in any war, this as the lesser evil to nine-tenths of the inhabitants of Great Russia. For tsarism not only oppresses those nine-tenths economically and politically, but also demoralises, degrades, dishonours and prostitutes them by teaching them to oppress other nations and to cover up this shame with hypocritical and quasi-patriotic phrases.

I think that there is no harm in patriotism or the love for your own culture.
But it usually goes down a slippery slope when chauvinism is added to the mix (which is most of the time) and then you will have "people" that are fine with being slaves as long as the slaveholder is from their own country (or even worse in the case of americans, he can be from wherever if he's white)
Sadly I have never in my life met a patriot that doesn't have some chauvinistic thoughts like
etc…

Personally I believe that nationalism is only useful as motivation for national liberation from colonialism or imperialism, otherwise it is not necessary, and can lead to negative things.

...

based well-read poster!

Did you watch the video? This isn't necessarily in contradiction to anything he said about patriotism.

No. It would have been nice to write a few lines explaining its content.

I didn't say it was. I just gave my thoughts on this, like you asked.

Nothing wrong with it

hovv iz dis choovenisdick?
plz esplane

Even though it might be true to some extent, Serbia nationalism revolves around the hatred for mostly every neighbor to the extent it gets to Antideutche levels.
It poisons younger generation that weren't directly influenced by the 90s shitstorm.
The generation that took part in the wars is more tame in their views on Croats, Muslims, etc… than their children.

t. Garl max

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧successful🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

t. nationalist

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Successful🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 is just code-word for exploitator.

If you don’t see the obvious value in mobilizing nationalism to our cause then I don’t know what to say to you. Nationalism is simply an idea, and like any idea it can be used to any ends, much like religion has been used to justify both progressive and reactionary movements. Nationalism as a political force consists of four parts:


The key to creating a progressive/socialist nationalism is simply crafting a credible historical narrative that embodies socialist ideals, and adapting the symbolism of the nation to represent that narrative and those ideals rather than a reactionary narrative and ideals. If we were to take America as an example, then there is much to work with when building the necessary historical narrative:


I think given all these elements it would be fairly easy to craft a progressive historical narrative of the American character. It should be a given that the struggle against slavery, genocide, exploitation, racism etc are all just as much a part of the American story as those things themselves.

Attached: 382B10B0-5AFA-451F-A53A-39D165C95E47.png (1607x898, 2.05M)

Attached: 2b81bd8950b8fa0148df25b5b63fee2ddf914c4683d2b48991881cfe082c46fc.gif (500x281, 233.57K)

… doesn't exist. The only coherent communities are classes.

Giving proletarians a sense of belonging to the proletariat (class-consciousness) is the job of communists. Any false sense of belonging to an imaginary "coherent national community" hampers that goal.

The "ideals" of proletarians are the communist program: abolition of private property.

The history of the workers' movement is indeed inspiring.

The communist program can indeed been deduced from the observation of past and present struggles of the proletariat.

See pic related.

Attached: 360px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1955–1980).svg.png (360x180, 1.79K)

Let's not believe in anything, and simply use whatever principles we can to get people to flock to our side. Great idea!

Class is a material reality, but as a community it is no less imaginary than a nation. The vast majority of workers will never meet each other.


It’s not that I don’t agree with your sentiment, it’s that getting people to think in truly internationalist terms without a national lens is a pipe dream, it’s never happened. Even the USSR cultivated a civic Soviet nationalism. Even if it were possible, it will be far more difficult to do than appealing to pre-existing national identities, which the right definitely will do, and in doing so they will gain a clear advantage over us. My only concern is defeating reaction and establishing a socialist state, and any political tool that helps us to that is a good thing. Non-chauvinistic, civic nationalism will have to disappear in the long run, but right now it is an essential tool in mobilizing people. Refusing to use it is unnecessarily handicapping ourselves.

Attached: E612A5B5-F37F-49C7-A282-BB9DA19856D2.png (500x625, 174.68K)

If people are out actually building socialism why does it matter if they wave American flags?

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧successful🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

the idea that mobilizes the people does not have to be nationalism. has the right idea, if you purposefully create a national ideology that will eventually need to be destroyed for your ends to be achieved you're going to end up creating a sentiment of alienation and disenchantment among the population

There's no such thing. The idea that there is an identity between proletarians and capitalists is a bourgeois lie that must be exposed as such.

Bake at 350° take, grandparents were capitalists and if you are a capitalist you support fascism. Germany doesn't speak English so we sided with Anglo fascists.

why? it's not even heavy on theory or anything, something you can watch while doing whatever else, adressing outsiders
but i agree, it's always better to have the OPs take on something and not just a link with a question

I've given my thoughts on the subject: "Patriotism and left-wing 'nationalism'".

That reasoning also applies to national liberation, but you wouldn’t denounce Castro or Ho Chi Minh. The value of anti-imperialist nationalism is that even though it is reactionary in the long term, in that context it serves a revolutionary purpose. The same can be said I think, of any proletarian nationalism that has socialist ethics and ideals at its core.


You’re missing my point. I’m not suggesting that we erase class distinctions, rather I’m suggesting that we create a new sense of national identity that goes hand in hand with proletarian identity, and the bourgeoise are seen as parasitic, and antagonistic to the interests of the people.


Your take is hotter than mine fam. If you unironically think that liberalism is the same as fascism you need to read Gramsci.

Anyone who disagrees with the video is american

not only that, but according to lenin, this type of nationalism should be encouraged. the shit-for-brains "leftists" whining about ☭TANKIE☭s' defending dprk, assad, etc., dont know what the fuck dialectics are.

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm

fucking youtube porkies

Finnbol is a retard.
mltheory.wordpress.com/2016/12/20/stalin-the-myth-of-the-old-bolsheviks/

actually Finnbol has to set that, because the courts ordered him not to electronically communicate with children as part of his parole.

Not just V.Lenin, but by logic, it's as simple as 2+2=4 that countries suffering from imperialism should embrace soft nationalism.

What's the problem with this?

it's retarded shit written by a sophist redditor.

lel

OP here. He's definitely said/written a few things that sound really stupid and dogmatic to anyone who's not an ultra-orthodox ML, but he seems to get more reasonable and mature with each video. I still think many of his videos are worth watching if you're a socialist and you're bored.

We sure did.

No. Anti-imperialism serves a revolutionary purpose of it is proletarian anti-imperialism, ie: if it is internationalist. Such an anti-imperialism requires to always expose and mock the lies of the bourgeoisie, especially when we are fighting along them against imperialists. Because as soon as this fight is won, we will have to fight against them, and we sure as hell won't win this fight if proletarians are fed up with nationalist lies and illusions about class-collaboration.

I know the interests of my class, the proletariat. And I know it is antagonistic to those of the bourgeoisie. But what the hell is "the people"?

Then you’re stupid, because they are some of the most important and effective revolutionaries of the 20th century.


Except it usually isn’t. Most anti imperialist struggles have nationalist elements to them, and there is nothing wrong with this. Nationalism is not incompatible with proletarian internationalism so long as there is no chauvinism involved. Proles of different countries can maintain a unique sense of identity and still cooperate with one another. The strength of people’s (including proles) nationalist spooks is undeniable, you can either try to dispel them or you can try to co-opt them. The latter is simply a more practical option and better for getting rid of capitalism in the short term. We can worry about it’s long term implications once capitalism has been destroyed.

Effective how?

Like I said, there's nothing wrong in fighting imperialist powers alongside these elements. What is wrong is to give in (and let proletarians give in) to the illusion that this alliance will last one second after the imperialist powers are gone.

No. Co-opting the false idea that proletarians and capitalists share common interests because they're part of some imaginary "community" isn't more practical and better to get rid of capitalism.

I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that nationalism can go hand in hand with socialism, where capitalism will be seen as antithetical to the ideals and historical values of the nation, and the bourgeoise as unpatriotic, parasitic, traitors, etc. There is no alliance with any kind of porkies here, simply a merging of the ideals of socialism and national identity, where to be a member of the nation is to be a prole and a socialist.

Please unban him mods, I’d like to actually have a discussion for once without somebody getting silenced for mild breaking of orthodoxy.

this please
comrade just needs education but he did seem sincere and simply falling for misconceptions
such as the imperialists simply being "gone" after the struggle for national liberation
and also obvious poor judgement on historical important and great comrades
i'd like to see where cat-comrade was going

Except that's not what "to be a member of the nation" means to anyone. And you don't get to change that. What will happen is that, in your efforts to "trick" proletarians into becoming socialism by presenting socialism as compatible with their (supposed) nationalism, you'll end up changing… your socialism, in order to make it compatible with said nationalism. Yes, it is complicated to make communist propaganda; yes, more often than not, workers may seem desperately spooked and uninterested; but no, there's no way around it, because what we are telling them is the truth, plain and simple.

Anyway, look like I've just been banned, so good night.

Its not a parole but suspended sentence. Don`t talk about this shit since clearly you`re not familiar with Finnish juridical system.

Attached: 6f1ae6b50a9720f44e37cce11179938677fd94721d035da5aef3a77662ebc096.jpg (387x398, 19.37K)

What the fuck is wrong with americans

...

Fuck didnt mean to greentext that last paragraph.

To suggest that nationalism isn't ductile or malleable is fundamentally untrue. Once upon a time Batista told Cubans that to be a proper Cuban you had to be a reactionary, no most Cubans (gusanos excluded) would probably argue the opposite, and that the revolutionary spirit defines the Cuban nation. Indeed with is what Castro argued, and he did so successfully. Alternatively we could look at how Hitler altered German nationalism away from the traditional, aristocratic nationalism of the German Empire, the Junkers and the Kaiser, to the absolute loyalty to the Nazi party, the fascist state, antisemitism, or other elements that were absent or less emphasized under previous iterations of German nationalism. It's not as if we would have to rewrite history either, it's simply a question of the kinds of rhetoric we employ. Something as simple as referring to "the people of the nation" rather than the international class, while specifically condemning capitalism as the enslavement of our countrymen, and the porkies as traitors. Many people, especially in some countries, already feel this way about bankers and bourgeois politicians.

I think the simplest way for me to describe what I'm getting at is to emulate the rhetoric of anti-imperialist nationalism, except national bourgeoisie play the role of the foreign invader. It's a question of taking the innate love many people profess for their nation and countrymen, and showing them how the bourgeoisie are antithetical to that. It seems like an obvious pairing to me tbh, since if nationalism is the love of the nation, and the nation is its people, then any true nationalist would also be a socialist.

i get it, yet i'm not all the way with you
i think there's more capable MLs around than me to set that right, but i still appreciate your posts

Does anyone know how old finbol is?
Depending on his age being in a relationship with a 16 y/o is either pretty shitty or not that bad
I've assumed he's about 20, in which case it's a bit weird but not inherently immoral

Whats the context here?

early 20's iirc

The age of consent in Finland is 16, as specified by Section 6(1) (Sexual abuse of a child), which reads: "A person who has sexual intercourse with a child younger than sixteen years of age … shall be sentenced for sexual abuse of a child to imprisonment for at most four years."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Finland

poor fucker

meant for

It reminds me about thread few weeks ago about Stalin having child with 15 year old girl.

didn't he meet her when she was 13?

Yes, but If I recall correctly they had a child when she was 15.

according to Stalin's Great grandson, she had one child when she was 13 which died a year later, and his grandfather was born when she was 15.

you go, finnish bolshivik

lmao

Sorry I meant IRA

there's a word for that
national chauvinism
and there's a reason why they're a splitter and not simply taking the whole thing over
but i guess you use a shitposting flag for a reason, i simply fail to grasp the joke again

Attached: 89u75.PNG (442x511, 69.61K)

You clearly did not watch the video. Naturally we should be aligned to oppose feudal barbarism especially when it comes to religious practices and traditions. Islam in its current state has not theologically evolved to modernity but it has only managed to regress thanks to religious institutions backed by oil money of gulf states.

What are you on about?

The 1970 Split of Sinn Féin was a result of Seán Mac Stíofáin's dislike of the Leninist policies of Seán Garland and Cathal Goulding, along with Ruairí Ó Brádaigh's dislike of Seamus Costello's policy of abolishing the Abstinence of seats in the Dáil, Stormont and the County/District Councils.
The INLA split from the Official IRA because Costello was dissatisfied with Goulding/Garland's policy of abstaining from pro-active violence against Loyalist Paramilitaries.

Continuity IRA split from the Provisional IRA after the 1986 Ard Fhéis, where they passed a motion to sit in the seats they won in the Dáil, Stormont and the Councils. Again, this was led by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh.
Real IRA split from the Provisionals during the Peace Process.

There was never a split in the IRA over a disagreement over Patriotism. There is not one single active Dissident Republican Paramilitary that has a policy against Muslims.

Attached: seamus costello wicklow.jpg (1024x823 73.8 KB, 588.29K)

Also, Irish Republicans never hated the dreaded Brits as a whole - they hated their capitalist state apparatus, their imperialist system, their soldiers and their police.
Hatred against the British Working Class would be considered bemusing and misplaced, the propagation of this lie is for the benefit of those who wish to simplify the matter into one of religious conflict/revenge, and to remove all Class issues from the situation.
Keep in mind that the United Irishmen were founded in Belfast, and that every initial member was a Presbyterian.

Attached: james.jpg (850x400 129.43 KB, 56.38K)