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.
Lenin calls you a lickspittle and a boor. :PIGPOOPBALLS:. Tells you explicitly not to eulogise the history of the US just as he told Russians explicitly not to do it in Russia.
Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for “national culture” in general?—Of course not. The economic development of capitalist society presents us with examples of immature national movements all over the world, examples of the formation of big nations out of a number of small ones, or to the detriment of some of the small ones, and also examples of the assimilation of nations. The development of nationality in general is the principle of bourgeois nationalism; hence the exclusiveness of bourgeois nationalism, hence the endless national bickering. The proletariat, however, far from undertaking to uphold the national development of every nation, on the contrary, warns the masses against such illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalist intercourse and welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege.
Also Lenin, telling you explicitly not to be a patsoc dickhead. :PIGPOOPBALLS:
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).
Fuck it I'll throw this one in there too from the same source.
This own goes so hard. Imagine Lenin calling you out personally 3 separate times a whole century before you were born. What level of liberalism do you have to be on to withstand this heat?
That's true but if you go ultra orthodox marxist to the full extent of left-com book worship you literally can't come out with anything other than being against the patsoc bullshit.
They explicitly fail to understand the difference in class-character between proletarian-nationalism and bourgeoise-nationalism. It's a fundamental part of their ideological distortion, they combine the two types of nationalism by omitting class analysis from national identity in order to distort writings into the position that they hold which is just bourgeoise-nationalism with socialist aesthetics. As soon as you correct this and properly apply class analysis to determine the class character of the nationalism being discussed their entire ideology falls apart. They rely entirely on ignoring class analysis of the nationalism in order to portray the nationalism with a proletarian class character vs the nationalism with a bourgeoise class character as one and the same.
The thing is that for a lot of people it is a symbol of the people, not the state. National identity is messy like that.
You can't explicitly reject the symbol that most people associate with being a symbol of themselves, that would just disconnect you from any kind of popularity with the people.
But at the same time, you don't have to celebrate that symbol when it's a symbol of the state, and you don't have to actively defend that state and everything it has stood for historically.
We can go back and forth on it I don't mind, I doubt we will disagree a huge amount. A big part of these responses leave out nuance due to necessity of keeping things readable and brief. When people tend to chat about these things at length it usually reveals that everyone involved agrees on the various complications and problems that required mixed approaches that conform to different settings.
Before this post disappears
Lenin calls you a lickspittle and a boor. :PIGPOOPBALLS:. Tells you explicitly not to eulogise the history of the US just as he told Russians explicitly not to do it in Russia.
Also Lenin, telling you explicitly not to be a patsoc dickhead. :PIGPOOPBALLS:
Fuck it I'll throw this one in there too from the same source.
This own goes so hard. Imagine Lenin calling you out personally 3 separate times a whole century before you were born. What level of liberalism do you have to be on to withstand this heat?
Terminator fan reboot, but its Lenin traveling forward into the future to own patsocs.
:lenin-sleeping: :cyber-lenin:
deleted by creator
That's true but if you go ultra orthodox marxist to the full extent of left-com book worship you literally can't come out with anything other than being against the patsoc bullshit.
They explicitly fail to understand the difference in class-character between proletarian-nationalism and bourgeoise-nationalism. It's a fundamental part of their ideological distortion, they combine the two types of nationalism by omitting class analysis from national identity in order to distort writings into the position that they hold which is just bourgeoise-nationalism with socialist aesthetics. As soon as you correct this and properly apply class analysis to determine the class character of the nationalism being discussed their entire ideology falls apart. They rely entirely on ignoring class analysis of the nationalism in order to portray the nationalism with a proletarian class character vs the nationalism with a bourgeoise class character as one and the same.
deleted by creator
The thing is that for a lot of people it is a symbol of the people, not the state. National identity is messy like that.
You can't explicitly reject the symbol that most people associate with being a symbol of themselves, that would just disconnect you from any kind of popularity with the people.
But at the same time, you don't have to celebrate that symbol when it's a symbol of the state, and you don't have to actively defend that state and everything it has stood for historically.
deleted by creator
We can go back and forth on it I don't mind, I doubt we will disagree a huge amount. A big part of these responses leave out nuance due to necessity of keeping things readable and brief. When people tend to chat about these things at length it usually reveals that everyone involved agrees on the various complications and problems that required mixed approaches that conform to different settings.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod