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.
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