No, simplistic "negation" is anti-Marxian and has nothing to do with scientific socialism
Socialist patriotism is the key to the solution of this problem with building beyond backwardness & chauvinism
Telling people they can't have love for their communities & families & countries is not socialism lmfao
There is no "transcendence" without negation of negation
You can't just undialectically "abolish" what exists in this simplistic way
What exists must be driven to extreme & the higher form emerges from the "womb" of the old
African countries have patriotic socialism too
You just aren't looking at what exists, you're choosing abstraction and simple negation instead
" Cuban history schoolbooks spoke of the “martyrs” who had died for “Patriotismo Socialista.” Mao Zedong also adopted a version of his own.116 In whatever remains of a worldwide far-left Marxist movement, the concept of socialist patriotism is still a current term. It can be found on left- wing websites, and in the press releases of the North Korean news agency.1"
"All Central and Eastern European countries developed their own version of socialist patriotism: in the DDR it was called sozialistischer patriotismus, in Romania patrio- tismului revolutionar socialist, in Poland patriotyzmu socjalistznego, in Hungary szocialista hazafisa ́g. Each party constructed its own variety, usually drawing exten- sively on existing national traditions, including those on the political right."
Socialist patriotism isn't something I defined, it exists/existed in all AES countries, including ones who were formerly imperialistic or had slavery & indigenous removal like Cuba & East Germany and others
Socialist patriotism isn't bourgeois patriotism/chauvinism, the two are anathema
No, it was socialist patriotism, which is an invention of socialist countries. It appeared before USSR, but only found practical application for the first time in USSR, as AES first took root there. Socialists are patriots in every AES context
East Germany did come into the fold, and it was patriotic throughout out the Cold War period. "Socialism in one country" didn't mean in ONLY one country, just one country at a time, which is the natural progression. Love of one's community & family & friends and fellow workers cannot have any other term to describe it outside of socialist patriotism.
not sure if you're trying to speak on substantive matters or meta-narrativize in this cringe post-ironic manner
your loss I s'pose
The first stage of revolution was in 1917-1924
Patriotic socialism was promoted through East Slav & Central Asian & Caucasus and Far East Areas
It wasn't socialist patriotism that began to fester, it was the idiocy of Great-Russians trying to fight against the Nazi-stoked chauvinism in the least effective ways throughout those areas
In each instance, it was the Soviet socialist patriotism at odds with this genocidal ethnocentrism in places like Crimea & Chechen areas & elsewhere
The purge was ongoing, and Soviet patriotism existed before the 1930s and after the war as well
Patriotism is exactly what USSR promoted, in a proletarian internationalist context
It wasn't the socialist patriotism that backfired, it was the anti-Stalinist turn
Marxian dialectics involves "negation of negation"... simplistic negation is just one-dimensional rebellion, not revolution
The USSR revolution was an actual outpouring of socialist patriotism, and "revolutionary defeatism" was employed in the larger context of building beyond the Tsarist backwardness... that process couldn't have been completed or even attempted without a love for one's country. As Lenin says, building on Disraeli's Sybil that Lenin loved dearly:
" There are two nations in every modern nation—we say to all nationalist-socialists. There are two national cultures in every national culture. There is the Great-Russian culture of the Purishkeviches, Guchkovs and Struves—hut there is also the Great-Russian culture typified in the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. There are the same two cultures in the Ukraine as there are in Germany, in France, in England, among the Jews, and so forth. If the majority of the Ukrainian workers are under the influence of Great-Russian culture, we also know definitely that the ideas of Great-Russian democracy and Social-Democracy operate parallel with the Great-Russian clerical and bourgeois culture. In fighting the latter kind of “culture”, the Ukrainian Marxist will always bring the former into focus, and say to his workers: “We must snatch at, make use of, and develop to the utmost every opportunity for intercourse with the Great-Russian class-conscious workers, with their literature and with their range of ideas; the fundamental interests of both the Ukrainian and the Great-Russian working-class movements demand it.”
If a Ukrainian Marxist allows himself to he swayed by his quite legitimate and natural hatred of the Great-Russian oppressors to such a degree that he transfers even a particle of this hatred, even if it be only estrangement, to the proletarian culture and proletarian cause of the Great-Russian workers, then such a Marxist will get bogged down in bourgeois nationalism. Similarly, the Great-Russian Marxist will be bogged down, not only in bourgeois, but also in Black-Hundred nationalism, if he loses sight, even for a moment, of the demand for complete equality for the Ukrainians, or of their right to forum an independent state. "
Rebellion is anti-dialectical without this recognition of primary contradictions. Rebellion and revolution in this context are at times even antagonistic