> be me
> be patriotic socialist
> use sinophobia and american exceptionalism to fuel support for my “patriotic socialist” org
> write manifesto called “my struggle”
> org starts receiving a lot of money mysteriously
> membership skyrockets
> start going by “PatSocs”
> get cool uniforms and armbands
> start patrolling neighborhoods
> a lot of those neighborhoods are minority communities
> idpol is an op though so we don’t care
> gain support in the suburbs
> now backed by the country’s most powerful unions
> it’s the police union and prison guard union, but whatever, they’re workers too, right?
> now being called “Patzis” for short
> mfw the actual people’s revolution comes and we’re the baddies
> smdh as I’m lined up against the wall for being a fucking nazi
Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the “most just”, “purest”, most refined and civilised brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes with every mile of railway line that is built, with every international trust, and every workers’ association that is formed (an association that is international in its economic activities as well as in its ideas and aims).
Some bald boy
Nah this ain't it chief. Marxism and nationalism can coexist, as Stalin writes here and Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and the rest of the third world liberation movements have demonstrated. You can be both nationalistic and build up your own nation while supporting the workers of the world. Where nationalism cannot work with Marxism is in settler colonialist states like the United States, whose entire national identity is built upon genocide and death.
This is a great distinction, thanks for making it. My critique of nationalism is very much focused on when it manifests in the imperial core, which has a “national identity” entirely dependent on imperial conquest and exploitation.
:stalin-heart: Yeah I find it's very easy to go down the track of "all nationalism=bad" as a Western leftist, since it's very obvious that any nationalism in the Global North is very very bad and often leads to genocide. There have been and continue to be examples of countries outside of this core that have built up a "nation" and socialism together, wedded nationalism to socialism in an internationally oriented manner, and have succeeded. China is the perfect example that comes to mind, the only caveat being that the era of China supporting revolution outside of China seems to have come to an end after the normalization of relations with the United States since the 70's. They won't hurt any revolutionary movement, and are more than willing to work with you when you succeed, but don't want to rock the boat and risk being seen as a bad actor on the international stage. This is the bad part of nationalism, but as the Great Satan falls further into obscurity and collapse I have a feeling this is going to change :xi-shining:
It’s a tactical concession to attract national bourgeoisie (or peasants :vivian-shrug: ), nothing more
I don't think Mao would agree with you here. It's definitely more nuanced than you're implying.
Is it though.jpg
Like it’s an obvious shortcut in a war of liberation, sure, but say there is no war?
There's never been an actually existing socialist state without a long and drawn out war of national liberation, whether that be a civil war or otherwise, so that hypothetical doesn't interest me too much.
Russia inside ussr? They didn’t give too much shit about patriotism
It is very dangerous to give concessions to reactionaries.
deleted by creator
:lenin-shining:
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word
Some beardy boy in small unknown manifesto
:marx:
I'd like to fr fr this comment.