nations are just a historically determined piece of territory in which power has been exercised by a class over another. Its function is that of determining the identity of the lower classes over arbitrary abstract concepts which relates the self over the institutions which contribute to their own oppression and inhibit the rise of international growth of class conciousness.
National identity is just a spook (I'm not a stirnerite, its just a very useful term), not even an useful one. However, working class identity relates to tangible, material conditions which are universal to all the working class, and not purely abstract, trivial and class-cucking notions such as that of the nation.
Agreed. Nationalism is a foul lie that must be expunged from the minds of the proletariat.
Nations must evolve into cultural and ethnic territories based on the geopolitical realities of an area. Post-Colonial countries especially must rethink their borders in order to encompass similar groups of people.
Question for you guys: is patriotism and nationalism the same to you? Cause I see nothing wrong with patriotism, I consider myself pretty patriotic and afaik there haven't really been any socialist countries which weren't heavily patriotic.
It seems to me that nationalism of the colonized can be used for purposes of national liberation. Obviously nationalism of the colonizers is bourgeois and proto-fascist. Pic somewhat related
I agree but it's a process. You aren't gonna a turn the world into a communist paradise overnight. It's the goal, but to get there you WILL need to protect your nation from invaders who wish to sabotage our movement
Defending sovereignty of oppressed peoples =/= Nationalism
Nationalism is a hugely powerful force that is rarely overcome by a “pure” kind of communist internationalism as we was in the USSR. Even the Soviet Union created a form of civic nationalism, they just called it “socialist patriotism” but it amounted to the same thing. Many important leftist movements have been openly nationalist (Vietnam, Cuba, IRA, PLO, PKK, etc.) so clearly nationalism and communism can work together. Is nationalism ultimately a reactionary force in the grand scheme of things? Of course, but history develops over time, and the new order bears the birthmarks of the old society in its initial stages. When Marx said this he was of course talking about certain elements of the base such as income inequality, but it stands to reason that this would include elements of the superstructure as well, repurposed to the ends of socialism. With all this in mind, I have yet to see a convincing argument against the embracing of civic nationalism by communists, and it’s use as a tool to galvanize anti-capitalism. This isn’t to try to sanitize some Nazbol horseshit, this would be a strictly anti-racist and anti-imperialist form of nationalism similar to that practiced by Cuba or Yugoslavia. If, North Koreans, Cubans or Vietnamese can love their countries and also remain committed to the internationalist cause, then I don’t see why anybody else can’t do the same.
that is such a disingenuous use of selective fact that it does not merit a response besides dismissal, out of the gate you declare yourself a dishonest person
Internationalism doesn't necessarily entail the abandonment of national identity. It only means the abandonment of the retarded notion that belonging to one nationality or another means you are fundamentally more important than another human being. It means commitment to solidarity across borders and a struggle to turn these borders into nothing but lingering cultural artefacts.
To want to preserve your country's language, customs and history can only be commended. To believe being your country's interests are something to fight for above those of others, that's some of the most backwards thinking imaginable, and shouldn't be given a moment's thought to anyone committed to the flourishing of the human race.
sovereignty to be ruled by other porkies, theres no sovereignty under capitalism
Ridiculous, the primary material benefit of belonging to a national identity is the strengthened social relations you gain between yourself and other members of that nationality. Such a relation is supported by cultural and linguistic factors which inevitably lead to alienation between individuals of differing nationalities, which in turn causes people to value individuals of their own nationality over others. Such a mechanism of alienation exists between all group identities, and no exception can be made for nationalism.
Even if many of those countries objectively improve the conditions of its citizens, its national identity makes them identify with institutions of power which take away power and commodities from them, even if they are called the peoples institutions. National identity leads to the revolucionary stall at the dictatorship of the proletariat, because it almost metaphysically legitimizes institutions which should be aimed at their self-destruction over time, inhibiting the advancment of class conciousness and class struggle in favor or struggle for the nation, relating said institutions deeply to the sense of self of the proletariat.
A nation is just as much as a spook as class is. Just saying a nation is abstract does not make it so.
Nations are made up of people who share the same culture, language, history and/or religion.
You must have only read "National identity is just a spook" to belive that what you said adressed the point made in the post i any meaningful way
you complained about nations your point is very weak
If that was true it should be easy to approach and dismiss the other points made in the argument and reach a conclusion
Yeah you just saying nations are a spook because you're a utopian rather than having a material analysis of them and realizing they're as real as class is.
"nations are just a historically determined piece of territory in which power has been exercised by a class over another. Its function is that of determining the identity of the lower classes over arbitrary abstract concepts which relates the self over the institutions which contribute to their own oppression and inhibit the rise of international growth of class conciousness […] However, working class identity relates to tangible, material conditions which are universal to all (workers)".
About your ML nationalist countries: "Even if many of those countries objectively improve the conditions of its citizens, its national identity makes them identify with institutions of power which take away power and commodities from them, even if they are called the peoples institutions. National identity leads to the revolucionary stall at the dictatorship of the proletariat, because it almost metaphysically legitimizes institutions which should be aimed at their self-destruction over time, inhibiting the advancment of class conciousness and class struggle in favor or struggle for the nation, relating said institutions deeply to the sense of self of the proletariat"
except there is more to nation than that
"Nations are made up of people who share the same culture, language, history and/or religion."
do you have any proof of this? you just saying it does not make it true
who are you quoting?
he's an idiot
Nah, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.
ALLL NON WHITES ARE GOING BACK TO THEIR JUNGLE BABOON REGGATON NATIONS AND THETE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU OR YPUR POST NATIONAL NEOLIBERAL BOURGEOIS CAN DO ABOUT IT
Why not? All the best nations in history have been "ethno-states". Meanwhile you have trash like the Jewnited States and its melting pot bullshit which only creates instability and hostility.
I know, call me counterintuitive, but I am sure the Mexican drug cartels have a for-profit business plan that might "disrupt" efforts by a government bureaucracy to defeat them.
In places like San Diego where they have rudimentary fences, cartels simply bribe the Border Patrol. The Tijuana cartels were paying Americans $5K per run for a stolen SUV stuffed with migrants and drugs toward a friendly border booth and be waved through. The wall is the best way to ensure the cartels beef up their influence in our 300 crossings.
Everyone's a fucking humanist nowadays.
If you think nationality has anything to do with social relations you're spooked out of your mind. Any modern person will have tons of social relations with people of different nationalities than themselves. No one has meaningful social relations with the entirety of their nation. Why does sharing characteristics necessarily mean valuing each other more? This is something I've never comprehended. Isn't it equally reasonable to value people with different characteristics to your own, since you've got more to learn from them? It's all a matter of perspective. There are also plenty of mechanisms of alienation within group identities. Most people feel somewhat alienated from their own nationality. But sure, in as far as people identify with their nationality, they will identify with their nationality. What a startling fucking thesis.
So does the new B.O. allow blatant Zig Forums shitposting now?
yeah, calling everyone a jew and stonetoss comics totally btfo's any argument ever.
Those three posts he referenced are Zig Forums shitposts though. If they were discussing the national question, then they would be quoting Stalin or mentioning Lenin. Instead it's a post saying the best states were ethnostates, what I assume is Baboon poster, and a Stonetoss comic.
Because common languages and customs facilitates social interaction, it's clear you've never emigrated to a different nation before. The difficulty in trying to form social bonds with people you don't fully understand and can't effectively communicate with is immense.
do i have to mention every socialist state that has existed in the face of this earth?
myself motherufcker, i quoted myself to show that the user i was talking to didnt addressed nothing i said
ayyy fight me then, easy to talk shit at a comrade, make a point or gtfo.
so there cant be those social characteristics without a nation? are you claiming that nations have nothing to do with mechanism of powers? nations have either one of these origins (there could be exeptions but i think this is fairly accurate), they are either born out of powers of long gone age, like china, which is a conglomerate of different cultures and ethnicities, united by imperial power; product of romanticism, as we all know, bourgeois nationalism which make working class class-cucks and instruments of their class interests, often times from uniting or transforming pre-existing nations; products of colonialism, example of which are africa and latin america, including very different tribes and ethnicities into them which have historically nothing to do with each other, some times mixed with romanticism; or product of ML revolutions, again no basis in local culture, like the USSR. Nationality are instruments of power, they take the place of real local identities for the sake of mass control, this is undeniable, but you might argue that is not bad. i argue that it is bad, because true socialism has not even place for working class identity because class would be abolished, everyone would be part of their community and REAL local culture as yall described in terms of nations, might arise. Other arguments of why i think is bad has been already been said in the OP and here:
You could have made a response to any of the other actual arguments regarding the national question, but instead you responded to the one post calling out actual shitposting. Why? There are actual good posts to defend in this thread.
sometimes mixed with each other i might add
So? You're right. If I'm put in a room with twenty people who speak only Swahili I'm going to have a bad time. This isn't how I relate to other nationalities though. I'm not a migrant. In most contexts in my life, we both speak English as a lingua franca. We're able to understand each other just fine. And when we're not, that's just something to bond over. I've found that difficulties in communication often help break down patterns of alienation. They enable you to interact on a much more human level.
This all being said, what's the problem with alienation? Why should you value someone who's hard to communicate with less than someone who's easy to communicate with? A healthy person likes a good challenge.
Every socialist state has had a stronger national identity than most capitalist ones today.
there was nothing to respond to
Can you give any examples of something that ties all this together and is not a nation? Culture is an instrument of power. Religion being the most obvious example, but a common language is a very powerful instrument, too.
BTW, I wasn't defending keeping nation-states, just saying I don't agree with OP's definition of nation.
i mean im arguing that it is counter-revolutionary to be like that, by displaying many arguments that you are seeminlgy incapable to read
yes there was, its just that it doesnt fit with your feelings about this issue
oh yeah, ethnicity, community, tribes, clans, religious beliefs, and many more specific examples, one of which is Ancient civilizations of the eastern coasts of the mediterraneum, Greece Persia and Egypt (before the mysterious sea people came and fucked up everything) which altough had very different cultures, had no significant identitarian (for lack of a better word) distictions between them, they didnt see each other as alien or belonging to a different civilization. I completely agree, but nation is a specially useful one because of the legitimization of many institutions which secure power for one class such as the school, the law, the military, the clinic etc. of course talking about in their alienated form like Hegel described (hope i get this concept right), if the military was an egalitarian non alienated institution lead directly by the people themselves such as in primitive and supposedly communist cultures it would be very different.
I mean nation-state, even if the nation in question doesnt currently have a state, such as Catalonia, Kurdistan (Rojava is not Kurdistan) etc.
is every socialist state now counter revolutionary?
there was no argument to counter so no there wasn't
But they didn't have a historically constituted, stable community of people. They had just the beginnings of written history and changed things like religion and tradition as often as they changed rulers or dynasties. They even changed languages, the Minoan Greeks, for example. I believe that not until Cyrus they fitted in what I said (not so much in the modern sense).
The process might have been faster because of a lack of alienated institutions, but i think you are exaggerating because you are unfamiliar with ancient dates, i can be wrong tho. Mycenaean civilization lasted 500 years for example and their alphabet was used for just as long.
lol the absolute state of liberals on this board
and also a tribe or a clan can perfectly fit the same definition of a nation given by stalin which is "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." I also disagree witht that notion because Catalonia and Kurdistan do not have soil and their psychological make up might not be that distinct from the nation which contains that of theirs (Catalonia –→ Spain; Kurdistan ——→ Syria, Turkey etc.), I bet hawaiian people feel American too for that matter. To me nation does not relate to any of that, its an identity which is purely abstract, it does not require soil, economic similarities, not even physical closeness whithin individuals in the case of jewish people for example, does not even requiere a common language, i give the example of china. This is because nations, unlike tribes clans or ethnicities, do not arise from the bottom up, as Stalin assumes, it is not by means of dialectical cultural interaction that nation rises, but it is from institutions of power. National identity only relates to power or the desire for it, as i said, a nation is just the exercise of institutional power over a territory by a class to a lower class, an identity made for class cucking people. This can then be interiorized by people who have no physical nation, and consequently no power held by this identity, but because being a nation is what people do in this culture, they desire one who more suitably represent their sense of self built historically, like Catalonian nationalism, but this is no more than a desire to be classcucked.
Even if true, the exercise of power produces commonalities between the thus-governed (language, customs, national heroes, etc) which are NOT spooks. And then there are commonalities existing prior to the national state, which have often produced the national state.
Mycenian civilization wasn't stable at all, they shared lots of cultural features, sure, but this doesn't make up for everything I said before. You may be thinking they were all very much like in Homer, but Homer didn't live at the Mycenian period, Greek culture will "take form" in the Archaic and Classical periods.
i dont see the connection there, how are they not spooks? and thats not even the issue at hand, many things are spooks but not all of them are inherently bad. However, i belive national identity to be a specially bad spook.
How are language, customs, and national heroes spooks? The abstract nation, existing apart from the individual people who make it up, as a kind of demi-God I sacrifice my life to- is a spook. The commonalities among people, which produce a natural solidarity / affinity, is a different thing.
"Languages, customs, and national heroes" are artificial impositions of meaning onto objective phenomena, rather than descriptions of the phenomena themselves. They're your own selective interpretation over your own limited exposure to external stimuli. Insofar as they can be said to exist at all, at best they're the dimmest shadow of whatever it is you think you know.
Were one a common Belgian, one might believe that Leopold II was a "national hero." He enriched "their country," industrialized it, modernized it, and even had a tremendous statue built in his honor for his trouble. Conversely, the average Congolese probably has a much different interpretation.
Neither the one nor the other knew Leopold or likely would have even were he still alive. Even if they had actually met, they both know nothing more as a matter of fact concerning Leopold beyond their immediate experience in the short time they spend together. Whether he's a hero or a villain is up entirely to whatever is imagined of him and nothing more. It's a delusion, like your pitiful nation.
when those things form a national identity which the self identifies himself with, then they become spooky, in themselves they are just tales and cultural artifacts, but the spokiness comes when one belives they define their own self.
everything which makes oneself identify with anything other than his own unique self is a spook, but i digress, thats not the problem, working class identity is a spook if we want to be strict, but i advocate for it because it is arosen from economic conditions which are real and it is useful for political struggle. What i have repeatedly argued here is that nationality is a PARTICULARY bad spook, and that is not arosen from "commonalities between people" but from the particular set of commonalities held by the most powerfull set of institutions in the area.
t. post-modern pseud
The argument that tradition, culture, customs, and 'shared history' are artificial impositions of meaning doesn't come from postmodernism at all. Isn't that what Marx is presupposing when critiquing religion?
if you are referring to socialist states: Even if many of those countries objectively improved the conditions of its citizens, its national identity makes them identify with institutions of power which take away power and commodities from them, even if they are called the peoples institutions. National identity leads to the revolutionary stall at the "dictatorship of the proletariat," (centralized democracy vanguard party bureaucracy) because it almost metaphysically legitimizes institutions which should be aimed at their self-destruction over time to archieve communism (never once a state archived it, never once a state had the intetion to, reaching at best a social democracy with centralized economic planning characteristics) inhibiting the advancment of class conciousness and class struggle in favor or struggle for the nation, relating said institutions deeply to the sense of self of the proletariat, or whats worse, relating the working class identity to a state which operates with the same institutions and mechanisms of power that a capitalist state does, only slightly changed and centralized.>>2903872
Yes it does you dumb nigga. The post-modern view of nationalism sees the nation as a false construct shaped by power etc. in the same way as race, gender, etc. Maybe the idea has history before that, it's still the post-modern view.
its a commonplace thing to think ever since hegel came around with historical dialectics, but i digress, you did not make a point you just alluded to the fact that these arguments might be PoMo
There's no point to reply to until they phrase their statement better. Shared language is obviously an objective fact, not an imposition of meaning.
If you meant to say national-feeling artificially attaches meaning to these things, which on their own are meaningless, I would still disagree with you. Ingroup feeling will tend naturally towards people who share my own language, and away from people who do not share it.
The way you describe it is very Nietzschean, seeing "power" at the origin of it all. Postmodernists did indeed draw heavily on Nietzsche. Marx would frame it in terms of economic interests instead.
Why not both? Cats hiss and meow, and bugs cry, people talk in certain patterns that can be classified as 'languages', this is an objective fact, yes. But disregarding that collective language is itself sustained by an imposition of a collection of meanings and their relationship to phenomena, how is a statement such as 'Germans speak German' not an imposition of meaning? What is 'Germans'? Why would the entire body of people who have learned and perform a specific way of life have to speak German? Is it, perhaps, because the institutions which constrain activity into that specific way of life also teach German as a tongue of the Germans, and as somehow intrinsic to that way of life? Perhaps to form a 'national feeling' of the Germans, and reify this 'national feeling' via the material reality of their way of life and of the differences between the Germans and the Other, and use this 'national feeling' whenever necessary, to excuse their economic exploitation and use of the Germans as weapons of war? The point isn't that national-feeling artificially attaches meanings to abstractions, but rather that national-feeling itself is the meaning attached to an abstraction. You getting along better with people that share certain characteristics with you doesn't mean much ironically enough, just as you feel you are more 'ingroup' with people who you feel share 'your own' language someone else can feel more 'ingroup' with someone who speaks some language other than their native one but likes the same band as them or some other bullshit. Nation being more than an abstraction doesn't follow from that truism, in fact you could say it abuses it in order to mark itself as objective truth. Inside nations themselves you see plenty of subgroups and communities that don't necessarily feel 'ingroup' with each other (not just in the case of immigrants), and there is resulting tension, even disregarding (or because of) the already existing class division. Also consider that things being imposed meanings or abstractions doesn't necessarily mean they're bad or don't have power behind them.
and also geographic conditions and such, obviously
Seeing that you're currently posting on an international imageboard, this seems incredibly unlikely to me. If your ingroup feeling was tied so strongly to sharing a native language, you wouldn't be drawn to this kind of community. My impression of nationalists isn't that they're drawn to commonality, but precisely the opposite. Their nationality is something alien and exotic to them. Identifying with it is a form of self-denial. They really hate themselves, and nationalism is a useful fantasy to escape from who they are in real life.
Image board culture is one of the first cultures to emerge internationally via the internet. It's a radical negation of national identity like has never existed in the past. Isn't it telling how nationalist its politics have become? It should at least make you suspicious.
Shared language is an objective fact defined by mutual intelligibility. The boundaries may be slightly 'fuzzy' but it's a fallacy to infer that makes them non-existent.
This isn't relevant to anything that person said. Learn to read.
It's an English-speaking imageboard. If there were people posting in Japanese I wouldnt like them. They'd be taking up my space. I would desire a mono-linguistic Volkenimageboardt.
Language creates some ingroup feeling on its own, I don't pretend to know how strong it is.
Se fode ae cuzão, português a língua do futuro
Pra ser sincero, a leftypol em particular é uma das poucas boards internacionais multilinguais, mesmo que tenha uma única thread (fio?) com língua diferente do resto, a galerinha do Brasil aqui é significativa e a /br/ é movimentada.
How does this have any relevance to nationality anymore? There are way more non-native English speakers than there are native English speakers. Anyone who speaks English should lose any effect shared language has on national identity.
It didn't call that into question brainlet. It's asking whether you should accept or reject the common identity. Again, learn to read.
A question for you user, why are you such a cunt?
C'est ce que tu crois rosbif!
Yeah, as I said. You've never had to move country before.
A nation is just as much as a spook as class is.
Just saying a nation is abstract does not make it so.
Nations are made up of people who share the same culture, language, history and/or religion.
why don't you actually answer what they said rather than vaguely avoiding it?
Total horseshit. There are many things standing in the way of progress in Cuba and the DPRK, their national identity isn’t one of them. National identity can only disappear once the conditions that create it are abolished, in other words once capitalism has been defeated.