What is wrong being a nationalist can someone explain why? i heard you guys hate nazbols

This tbh, a lot of liberals have adopted weird "western nationalism" in opposition to Russia and whatnot.

Cato institute for starters

Apple, Facebook and 100+ other CEOs signed a letter to congress urging for immigration reform as well

Okay?

/thread

I believe you may be operating on an inaccurate definition of nationalism.

They just want to exploit cheap labour for their nations

Honestly this is operating on the wrong premise and giving too much credit to nationalism. Even within the context of a single country, nationalist policy and nationalist ideology without exception means the interests of that country's ruling class. It's denying the class structure of a society in favor of some manufactured idea of a people sharing common interests and it's denying the REAL culture that corresponds with a certain geographical region in favor of the culture pushed by the capitalist nation-state and the rulling class i.e. bourgeois ideology.

Based and redpilled.

Related question. Do you guys consider Socialist Patriotism to just be civic nationalism + socialism?

George Soros

Well Yugoslavia was filled with dozens of different ethnicities and peoples, so yes.

nation states divide the global proletariat

We can have the global proletariat with nation states

And Yugoslavia ceased to exist when Tito died, so much for socialist patriotism.

We can all be comrades while conserving our own culture, what's wrong with that?

Nazbol is just a meme its not even a political theory.

Also there are no problems with nationalism as long as it isn't capitalist nationalism

Continued to exist for 11 years after Tito's death.

Why does Tito trigger ☭TANKIE☭s? Is it because Tito killed Stalin?

is that a dogwhistle?

National borders are economic borders. The reason why fascists love borders is because they want national excellence, not international co-operation.

I don't hate Tito, I just think that one of the problems that lead to Yugoslavia's fall was the forced clash of cultures and ethnicities

I just want national self-determination in a socialist world while maintaining each nation's culture and values. Where's the fun in a world where everyone speaks the same language, everyone wears the same clothes, eat the same food, etc?

Imagine thinking different foods and clothes are "fun" enough to be the basis of political organization.

so you're okay with honor crimes and stoning in Muslim countries?

Nationalism means war and slaughter of millions. Your culture has nothing value compared to the threat of WW3 and nuclear war. Only with international communism can we achieve world peace.

Of course I don't agree, but it's up to them to change it.

Multinationals are known for their generosity towards their home nations. What, you think they'd just uproot at a moment's notice just to evade taxes?

With nationalism come with an in-group and out-group. With the in-group treated as "superior" in the most extreme and priority at minimum but no mater what it will lead to the in-group taking from the out-group, because their is the assumption that the in-group desrves it more. Like two ant colonies the in-group will take and destroy what the out-group has if the in-group has the power to do so. This is why nationalism is evil because it brain washes inequality in people and the premise of nationalism is that it is only natural to take from fellow man.

"I know that there are, of course, sages who think they are very clever and even call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense."
People seem to acknowledge that there are national differences and that, as a consequence, progress away from liberal capitalism isn't uniform or static. Operating as if the entire world has the ability to be international is foolish: there has never been an international 'ism' working in such concordance. The only thing that comes to mind is the great discordance with respect to the rate at which different countries decide to pollute their environments. Unifying on specialized lines doesn't mean that you don't care about the plight of other people around the world: acting as if you ought to orientate your thoughts internationally is how you show that you don't care because Vietnamese peasants won't be impacted in any meaningful capacity, regardless of whether one is 'national' or 'international'. The only way for, say, the Vietnamese be liberated is if they liberate themselves.