[account deactivated]
Tsargon
Tsargon
Post rating:
~
IF ANYONE MAKES A NATIONALISM SOCIALISM JOKE ILL CRACK THEIR GODDAMNED HEAD OPEN
Tsargon
Tsargon
Post rating:
~
also: re: the op: agreed. hail America.
littlegreenpills
littlegreenpills
Poronto
Post rating:
~
mais l'Internationale sera le genre humain
animedad
animedad
Post rating:
~
nice OP. how do we, though, rise above raising the flag ironically? how do we construct something worth dying for? that's the real test. it used to be about flying the red flag but now you'd be hard pressed to find a leftist that isnt seeking exactly what the "adults" of society want -- pleasure and comfort-- something that is better left to neoliberalism...
parabolart
parabolart
Post rating:
~
lets say we shed the word Nation in favour for something a little more appropriate in a world where the socio-political condition of a place depends entirely upon who has $$ invested there. keeping this in mind, sure there are still places out there where that condition is more or less static... under some flag... waving high with pride, maintained by the people that live there. But there are also those places that are so deep in capital's black asshole sun that the condition of the place is purchased, and as a result the people that flock there are all consequences of the purchase. It's like if you buy a wallmart somewhere you're gonna get a bunch of wallmartians to move there. Stain the land with piss, much like the ants.
But that's not to discredit any of those former flags that are still holding on to a genuine kind of culture. this is only to say that you gotta be careful when you wave flags, cause sometimes those flags are designed in Adobe Illustrator without your knowledge. sometimes whole nations are scripted up and drawn. So if you're saying the lefties have the choice (& the necessity) to stand by a flag... to claim responsibility for the very nation-state that bore them... i'm saying Let The Splintering Begin. cause tho the "occupy" movement has made their flag a word... they have already set the stage for this Tagging System. the only difference is that their flag isn't a Noun but a Verb. (or a percentage sign, even better, it's Cool, it's like xkcd). then there are those terrified meek little Anons that roam the toobs searching for a Speech to pump them full of Hacker Venom. whatever. the only flag i'll ever wave is one that i can change every 15 minutes. so what would this word be, to replace Nation? Tribe: no longer associated with any specific chunk of land but with certain principles of life that they deem to be Wholly Good.
will this stop the wars? fuck no it's only going to make them worse. if tribe A wants the land of milk and honey but tribe B's Whole Truth states that this land Belongs To Them, then they're gonna shed some teeth over that land. let them. it's their own god damn business. i'm not an advocate for pride and i'm certainly not an advocate for trying to teach idiots how to live their lives. they will only turn around and stab you in return or if they do agree with you, you'll have their enemies on your back forever.
it's better to look at the bigger picture and to shed old flags than "reclaim" them. and does the bigger picture look like a One World of Peace & harmony? hardly. it looks like a planet of so many differences that you might as well bury yourself in a bunker and cry about it. but to deal with it is to accept that you are utterly alone. that all the cells are disbanding and the sooner you learn to hold your own the better you are off in the end. only then can you meet others who are equally needless but careful. only then can u forge a new flag that resembles nothing of the old. and that flag will probably be made of Bread
But that's not to discredit any of those former flags that are still holding on to a genuine kind of culture. this is only to say that you gotta be careful when you wave flags, cause sometimes those flags are designed in Adobe Illustrator without your knowledge. sometimes whole nations are scripted up and drawn. So if you're saying the lefties have the choice (& the necessity) to stand by a flag... to claim responsibility for the very nation-state that bore them... i'm saying Let The Splintering Begin. cause tho the "occupy" movement has made their flag a word... they have already set the stage for this Tagging System. the only difference is that their flag isn't a Noun but a Verb. (or a percentage sign, even better, it's Cool, it's like xkcd). then there are those terrified meek little Anons that roam the toobs searching for a Speech to pump them full of Hacker Venom. whatever. the only flag i'll ever wave is one that i can change every 15 minutes. so what would this word be, to replace Nation? Tribe: no longer associated with any specific chunk of land but with certain principles of life that they deem to be Wholly Good.
will this stop the wars? fuck no it's only going to make them worse. if tribe A wants the land of milk and honey but tribe B's Whole Truth states that this land Belongs To Them, then they're gonna shed some teeth over that land. let them. it's their own god damn business. i'm not an advocate for pride and i'm certainly not an advocate for trying to teach idiots how to live their lives. they will only turn around and stab you in return or if they do agree with you, you'll have their enemies on your back forever.
it's better to look at the bigger picture and to shed old flags than "reclaim" them. and does the bigger picture look like a One World of Peace & harmony? hardly. it looks like a planet of so many differences that you might as well bury yourself in a bunker and cry about it. but to deal with it is to accept that you are utterly alone. that all the cells are disbanding and the sooner you learn to hold your own the better you are off in the end. only then can you meet others who are equally needless but careful. only then can u forge a new flag that resembles nothing of the old. and that flag will probably be made of Bread
[account deactivated]
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
i think the definition of nationhood can adn should be expanded beyond stalin's definition that is basically accepted by all people to be any sort of intentional community. nationalism as specified, non-exclusive collective solidarity, as in the egyptian's egypt, arab and islamic nationalities
internationalist
internationalist
Post rating:
-
Nationalism is a varation of an idea that is very human.
Most people believe anyone outside their race, family, tribe, or group who are weak and poor, can't look, act or sound like them and, in the case of nationalism, are openly hostile to their nation's national, strategic, and security interests are subhuman or at the very least deserving of fewer legal and political rights.
This way of thinking can be based on what family you're born into, skin color, political or religious affiliation, or nationality.
To transcend this way of thinking you need to understand there are powerful people and there are weak people. The weak, no matter who they are, need protecting from the strong. What group they belong to (national/political/religious/whatever) means nothing.
When you read that it sounds basic and amateurish; almost something you'd teach to a 5th grade social studies class, but guess what? It's the fucking truth and always has been.
By the way, anyone else notice how nobody will say they're nationalists anymore because the Nazis went a little overboard with the way most people think and now nobody wants to admit they're nationalists even though practically everyone is? Maybe it's just me.
Also, domestic progress in democratic societies do work gradually (women's rights, gay rights, civil rights movement), but internationally? The poorest minority in the worst ghetto this country has to offer receives infinitely more rights than the average Iraqi or Afghan ever received. Since filthy foreigners don't have the protection of America's nationalist Constitution, which gives special rights to the precious American race, liberals in the ACLU are forced to pathetically argue that those who may potentially be held in Guantanamo and Anwar al-Awalki have precious American blood running through their veins and should not be treated like subhuman foreigners.
Look at the Russian and Chinese revolution to see how fragile and difficult it is to do the right thing and become internationalist. At the beginning in 1917 and 1949 when the vast majority were illiterate peasants then yea, ok, they want international solidarity. Once some enter the middle and upper class or think they have a chance at entering the middle and upper class those ideals go into the toilet mighty goddamn fast.
You mention Lenin but note that the Internationale was changed to the Hym of the Soviet Union during World War II because Stalin knew people were more willing to fight for Mother Russia rather than for a world who saw the massive casualties on the Eastern Front and thought "good, at least the Nazis are weakening Stalin".
Nationalism is the easiest thing in the world to fall back into because it's a natural selfish state. Fighting it is the duty of every good human being. How to do it? Personally, I think the military should be targeted. It's their most powerful tool. Force them to die for international reasons and you'll see things start to really matter when soldiers start assassinating people they think are leftists making them die for a world they care nothing for.
Most people believe anyone outside their race, family, tribe, or group who are weak and poor, can't look, act or sound like them and, in the case of nationalism, are openly hostile to their nation's national, strategic, and security interests are subhuman or at the very least deserving of fewer legal and political rights.
This way of thinking can be based on what family you're born into, skin color, political or religious affiliation, or nationality.
To transcend this way of thinking you need to understand there are powerful people and there are weak people. The weak, no matter who they are, need protecting from the strong. What group they belong to (national/political/religious/whatever) means nothing.
When you read that it sounds basic and amateurish; almost something you'd teach to a 5th grade social studies class, but guess what? It's the fucking truth and always has been.
By the way, anyone else notice how nobody will say they're nationalists anymore because the Nazis went a little overboard with the way most people think and now nobody wants to admit they're nationalists even though practically everyone is? Maybe it's just me.
Also, domestic progress in democratic societies do work gradually (women's rights, gay rights, civil rights movement), but internationally? The poorest minority in the worst ghetto this country has to offer receives infinitely more rights than the average Iraqi or Afghan ever received. Since filthy foreigners don't have the protection of America's nationalist Constitution, which gives special rights to the precious American race, liberals in the ACLU are forced to pathetically argue that those who may potentially be held in Guantanamo and Anwar al-Awalki have precious American blood running through their veins and should not be treated like subhuman foreigners.
Look at the Russian and Chinese revolution to see how fragile and difficult it is to do the right thing and become internationalist. At the beginning in 1917 and 1949 when the vast majority were illiterate peasants then yea, ok, they want international solidarity. Once some enter the middle and upper class or think they have a chance at entering the middle and upper class those ideals go into the toilet mighty goddamn fast.
You mention Lenin but note that the Internationale was changed to the Hym of the Soviet Union during World War II because Stalin knew people were more willing to fight for Mother Russia rather than for a world who saw the massive casualties on the Eastern Front and thought "good, at least the Nazis are weakening Stalin".
Nationalism is the easiest thing in the world to fall back into because it's a natural selfish state. Fighting it is the duty of every good human being. How to do it? Personally, I think the military should be targeted. It's their most powerful tool. Force them to die for international reasons and you'll see things start to really matter when soldiers start assassinating people they think are leftists making them die for a world they care nothing for.
Edited by internationalist ()
[account deactivated]
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
lol sunnis under saddam were way better off than native americans
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
palestinians have a higher life expectancy than black americans.
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
thirdplace
thirdplace
Post rating:
~
what do you think of devolution in the context of nationalism? that is, would the rough edges of nationalism be smoothed out by recognition of something like a right to secession and free migration of labor? would it even be tenable, or worth the trouble? obviously any time you start talking about free migration you're going to be in difficult-to-reconcile conflict with any first world nationalist, but the upside--nations chosen freely by their citizenry--is very attractive to me.
one problem that I've always had with american nationalism is that the place is just too big, too diverse. for example, as much as i like to think of america as the neat place that created rap, rock, stand-up comedy and the critically acclaimed television drama "breaking bad," it's very difficult, both practically and intellectually, to rebut the version that casts it as a the home of pentacostalism, country music, and monocultured front lawns. like, who the fuck am I to tell some jingoist that he's Wrong when really he's Just As Right As I Am?
speaking for myself, i'd be a lot more enthusiastic about a nation that only compromised, say, the upper midwest; i'd be way more willing and way way way more able to influence the perception of what the ideals of such a nation are or should be
and if the conflict of genuine identities isn't bad enough, america's unwieldy size makes it hard to genuinely identify with it which in turn makes it easy for people to artificially create disingenuous identities. the further you get from a human-sized community, the more powerful mass media becomes, and a nation whose identity is controlled via mass media is not a healthy one (it looks like the one we have because that's us get it U.S. haaaa)
if this sounds jumbled and inane that's b/c IT IS
one problem that I've always had with american nationalism is that the place is just too big, too diverse. for example, as much as i like to think of america as the neat place that created rap, rock, stand-up comedy and the critically acclaimed television drama "breaking bad," it's very difficult, both practically and intellectually, to rebut the version that casts it as a the home of pentacostalism, country music, and monocultured front lawns. like, who the fuck am I to tell some jingoist that he's Wrong when really he's Just As Right As I Am?
speaking for myself, i'd be a lot more enthusiastic about a nation that only compromised, say, the upper midwest; i'd be way more willing and way way way more able to influence the perception of what the ideals of such a nation are or should be
and if the conflict of genuine identities isn't bad enough, america's unwieldy size makes it hard to genuinely identify with it which in turn makes it easy for people to artificially create disingenuous identities. the further you get from a human-sized community, the more powerful mass media becomes, and a nation whose identity is controlled via mass media is not a healthy one (it looks like the one we have because that's us get it U.S. haaaa)
if this sounds jumbled and inane that's b/c IT IS
xipe
xipe
Post rating:
~
so when you have tribes & nations living within a certain region, how do they work out who has access to what, prevent conflict etc etc?
what are the best methods of governance - some kind of confederation?
imo this is an important question since its relevent to building flexible global movements as well as to cities
what are the best methods of governance - some kind of confederation?
imo this is an important question since its relevent to building flexible global movements as well as to cities
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
xipe posted:
so when you have tribes & nations living within a certain region, how do they work out who has access to what, prevent conflict etc etc?
what are the best methods of governance - some kind of confederation?
imo this is an important question since its relevent to building flexible global movements as well as to cities
the answers are probably to be found in cultural traditions, eg the jirga in afghanistan
[account deactivated]
jools
jools
Post rating:
~
im a brit though. No way I'm gonna be patriotic! Haha!
jools
jools
Post rating:
+
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
one day germans are going to have to decide which one they hate more: nationalism or turks
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
Also I was in the studio last night with my band and the producer and I got super stoned and we started talking about pan-caribean black nationalism, like DR/PR/Cuba/Haiti etc... but I guess one of the problems is that like even though almost everyone here is part black (except the rich white people who live in certain parts of the island) no one wants to admit it.
Interesting stuff! Though Puerto Rican nationalism isn't even that big here either...
Interesting stuff! Though Puerto Rican nationalism isn't even that big here either...
consolation_prize
consolation_prize
Post rating:
~
god save the queen
Groulxsmith
Groulxsmith
drivel of drunken hags
Post rating:
+
good post
i used to say something like this fairly often, and the peanut gallery would always chalk it up to "concern trolling", but their callous rejection of what has historically been a vital aspect of just about every anti-capitalist movement struck me as odd.
for all the fetishism displayed by many leftists toward 20th century socialist governments (and the usually concurrent trotsky-bashing), they usually completely overlook the extent to which nationalism was co-opted in the process of building socialism, and instead denounce it as a reactionary relic. it would obviously be naive to suggest that nationalism isn't historically used just as often to repress and exploit, but if you decouple the bourgeois state from the organic concept of nation, it isn't so blatantly regressive.
you see a lot of leftists/radicals denouncing the direction the west is heading as being a slide into fascism, or invent scary/ridiculous terms like "christian nationalism" and "christofascism". it posits without hesitation that the ruling elite are easily caricatured flag-waving, god-fearing, corn-fed squares. in reality, they are much better described as abrasively cosmopolitan and degenerate (but that part is for another day). enough people on the left probably shudder at this because deep down, they feel that those things are supposed to be part of their identity.
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?
if anything, the united states (and english canada) are archetypically post-national. the useful aspects of culture are assimilated; other traditions are marginalized or scorned until withering away into irrelevance.
i used to say something like this fairly often, and the peanut gallery would always chalk it up to "concern trolling", but their callous rejection of what has historically been a vital aspect of just about every anti-capitalist movement struck me as odd.
for all the fetishism displayed by many leftists toward 20th century socialist governments (and the usually concurrent trotsky-bashing), they usually completely overlook the extent to which nationalism was co-opted in the process of building socialism, and instead denounce it as a reactionary relic. it would obviously be naive to suggest that nationalism isn't historically used just as often to repress and exploit, but if you decouple the bourgeois state from the organic concept of nation, it isn't so blatantly regressive.
you see a lot of leftists/radicals denouncing the direction the west is heading as being a slide into fascism, or invent scary/ridiculous terms like "christian nationalism" and "christofascism". it posits without hesitation that the ruling elite are easily caricatured flag-waving, god-fearing, corn-fed squares. in reality, they are much better described as abrasively cosmopolitan and degenerate (but that part is for another day). enough people on the left probably shudder at this because deep down, they feel that those things are supposed to be part of their identity.
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?
if anything, the united states (and english canada) are archetypically post-national. the useful aspects of culture are assimilated; other traditions are marginalized or scorned until withering away into irrelevance.
tam
tam
US
Post rating:
~
I don't have a nation so you guys figure this out on your own
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
Groulxsmith posted:
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?
Yeah but look at how many people consider the ideas of the constitution to be like the ultimate basis for any Good type of government ever. It seems to me like the national myth is quite strong in America, even though perhaps the language used isn't explicitly nationalist.
In my opinion nationalism can in many ways be for the most part good in cases of people outside of europe and the states as well as indigenous / oppressed populations within the metropole/euope trying to end their oppression. The problem is that unless it's like some fantasy land with no social differences the moment an idea of a nation or 'national' type identity is formed some subaltern population is usually excluded. It's pretty easy to recognize that process I think and that's why a sort of non-nation type idea wherein multiple cultures and types of people (in other words, nations) are except as part of the overall framework is so popular. That's why the myth of America is so strong and so many people uphold it as sacrosanct... even though the reality is far different from the rhetoric of the nation apparatus.
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
Plus multiculturalism = white supremacy and it don't get more nationalist than that. Brazil and my home of Puerto Rico are excellent examples of that.
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
DRUXXX posted:Groulxsmith posted:
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?Yeah but look at how many people consider the ideas of the constitution to be like the ultimate basis for any Good type of government ever. It seems to me like the national myth is quite strong in America, even though perhaps the language used isn't explicitly nationalist.
thats veneration of a specific state, not nationhood.
Crow
Crow
Post rating:
~
DRUXXX posted:
Groulxsmith posted:
i'm really not sure how nationalism in the context of the united states really works though (i've even argued in the past that nationalism can't really be a thing here; even the national founding myths are really nothing more than generalized and universal ideals. the concepts usually cited as part of the american character even by its most ardent supporter are things like individuality and multiculturalism. how do you get any more anti-nationalist than that?
Yeah but look at how many people consider the ideas of the constitution to be like the ultimate basis for any Good type of government ever. It seems to me like the national myth is quite strong in America, even though perhaps the language used isn't explicitly nationalist.
In my opinion nationalism can in many ways be for the most part good in cases of people outside of europe and the states as well as indigenous / oppressed populations within the metropole/euope trying to end their oppression. The problem is that unless it's like some fantasy land with no social differences the moment an idea of a nation or 'national' type identity is formed some subaltern population is usually excluded. It's pretty easy to recognize that process I think and that's why a sort of non-nation type idea wherein multiple cultures and types of people (in other words, nations) are except as part of the overall framework is so popular. That's why the myth of America is so strong and so many people uphold it as sacrosanct... even though the reality is far different from the rhetoric of the nation apparatus.
- The People's Champ
can't the subaltern become the national bourgeoisie?
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
Yes of course I was referring to like indigenous people specifically but I would posit that usually when the subaltern become the bourgeoisie it's because of the intervention of some other force from the global power structure compared to which the new bourgeoisie and the new underclass are both subaltern.
Crow
Crow
Post rating:
+
DRUXXX posted:
Yes of course I was referring to like indigenous people specifically but I would posit that usually when the subaltern become the bourgeoisie it's because of the intervention of some other force from the global power structure compared to which the new bourgeoisie and the new underclass are both subaltern.
well, i was asking about the reverse. if nationalism is founded on exclusion of the subaltern, can't the bourgeoisie be designated as the new subaltern? is the nation founded on exclusion? and can the exclusion be ideas? ie. the restoration of capitalism, revisionism
not approaching this from stalin's theory, if we approach it from the theory of 'imagined communities', can't a nation be an imagined community of ideas ?
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
+
like the ummah...
AmericanNazbro
AmericanNazbro
Post rating:
+
thank you, OP, for spreading wisdom and knowledge about national bolshevism to people in your daily life. i appreciate it my friend.
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
nazbol over lf
Crow
Crow
Post rating:
+
aerdil
aerdil
Post rating:
+
Crow posted:
that hit a lil' tooo close to home
Lessons
Lessons
Post rating:
~
DRUXXX posted:
Plus multiculturalism = white supremacy and it don't get more nationalist than that.
that's a very strange way to look at it honestly.
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
Crow posted:
well, i was asking about the reverse. if nationalism is founded on exclusion of the subaltern, can't the bourgeoisie be designated as the new subaltern? is the nation founded on exclusion? and can the exclusion be ideas? ie. the restoration of capitalism, revisionism
not approaching this from stalin's theory, if we approach it from the theory of 'imagined communities', can't a nation be an imagined community of ideas ?
I think that's sort of what I was saying? I could give a fuk about Stalin's definition of what a nation is
Lessons posted:
that's a very strange way to look at it honestly.
In what way? Are you saying that you don't think multiculturalism is white supremacy (lol) or are you saying that white supremacy =/ nationalism?
Lessons
Lessons
Post rating:
~
DRUXXX posted:Lessons posted:
that's a very strange way to look at it honestly.In what way? Are you saying that you don't think multiculturalism is white supremacy (lol) or are you saying that white supremacy =/ nationalism?
the former.
DRUXXX
DRUXXX
el area metro
Post rating:
~
Ah. Multiculturalism is just bullshit. It's a tool of the white supremacist power structure for moving the discourse away from statistical and systematic evaluations of racial/social inequality and more towards some sort of wishy-washy definition based on Liberal values of inclusion and etc... This process is pretty apparent in most of the Western world, my favorite examples being the United States and Brazil where the multiculturalist discourse of inclusion is more or less totally dominant and has been for decades. Nonetheless, social inequality remains and is in fact ignored by the general population due to the widespread presence of multiculturalism in the societal discourse.