progressive nationalism, marx and engels

http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml

Here are Marx and Engels quotes that seem to justify a perceptive difference between progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. "Revleft" fake Marxists like to pretend that all nationalism is reactionary regardless of the material conditions and arrangements. But Marx and Engels themselves seem to be distinguishing here.

Engels wrote:No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.

Marx wrote:The nation that oppresses another nation forges its own chains.

It's quite clear that there is a difference between nations that oppress others for capital and nations that don't.

Do people on revleft read Marx and Engels?

Metal Gear wrote:http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml

Here are Marx and Engels quotes that seem to justify a perceptive difference between progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. "Revleft" fake Marxists like to pretend that all nationalism is reactionary regardless of the material conditions and arrangements. But Marx and Engels themselves seem to be distinguishing here.

Engels wrote:No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.

Marx wrote:The nation that oppresses another nation forges its own chains.

It's quite clear that there is a difference between nations that oppress others for capital and nations that don't.

Do people on revleft read Marx and Engels?

They dont care there far to busy follwing there narrow and discriminatory cosmo ideas on whats good for the working class.

Metal Gear wrote:http://www.isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml

Here are Marx and Engels quotes that seem to justify a perceptive difference between progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. "Revleft" fake Marxists like to pretend that all nationalism is reactionary regardless of the material conditions and arrangements. But Marx and Engels themselves seem to be distinguishing here.

Engels wrote:No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.

Marx wrote:The nation that oppresses another nation forges its own chains.

It's quite clear that there is a difference between nations that oppress others for capital and nations that don't.

Do people on revleft read Marx and Engels?

These quotes have nothing to do with Nationalism. All they are is Anti Imperialist. Marx and Engels were definitely Anti Nationalist based upon what they wrote in their Manifesto.

Those quotes have everything to do with the national question.

You are a buffoon if you disagree.

Metal Gear wrote:Those quotes have everything to do with the national question.

You are a buffoon if you disagree.

All they talk about is that its wrong to oppress other Nations. That has nothing to do with Nationalism in itself. Also you should try to avoid using ad hominems. Because if anything is buffoonish, its calling someone a name on an online forum.

I have to agree with Rebel Warrior 59 here, upon my readings of Marx and Engels I have never come across anything that can be seen as Nationalistic. In fact, only the opposite.

Marx in The Communist Manifesto said himself "The workers have no Nation" and in The Principles of Communism Engels states "The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property."

It is impossible to be a Socialist-Nationalist and agree with everything Marx and Engels have to say; although we can value their critique of capitalism as one of the best in history.

Most racial nationalists differentiate between the state and the nation, but I don't think Marx did. To him the state and the nation were one in the same and I believe that statement reflects the fact that the workers were alienated from their Governments.. I don't think Marx would have argued against a populist style viewpoint in which you aren't trying to oppress others but to uplift people, if it was coordinated in a greater internationalism.

I don't think Marx would have a problem with French people considering themselves French, Irish people considering themselves Irish, etc, so long as people of all races and nationalities sought to collaborate in class struggle.

I don't see internationalism and nationalism as opposites. I see individualism and nationalism as opposites.

Metal Gear wrote:Most racial nationalists differentiate between the state and the nation, but I don't think Marx did. To him the state and the nation were one in the same and I believe that statement reflects the fact that the workers were alienated from their Governments..

If to him, the state and nation were one in the same than that only proves our point that Marx and Engels were not nationalists. If nation is the same as state and according to them the state withers away than so does the nation; that means they are anti-nationalist.

"The state is not abolished, it withers away" - Friedrich Engels

I don't think Marx would have argued against a populist style viewpoint in which you aren't trying to oppress others but to uplift people, if it was coordinated in a greater internationalism.

Most cosmopolitan marxists are under the impression that since capital has free range around the globe; so should labor and people. Many marxists are under the impression that the only reason for a nation is for the ruling class to protect their capital and compete with other nations on a global scale. So like capitalism times 100. Marx himself is not here today, so any claims of "What Marx would have supported" are irrelevant, only the conclusions that people draw from his works are.

I don't think Marx would have a problem with French people considering themselves French, Irish people considering themselves Irish, etc, so long as people of all races and nationalities sought to collaborate in class struggle.

Yes, but what to do when the working class of another nation infringes upon the national self determination of the working class of another nation? Do we abandon our national interests for class struggle, or do we abandon class struggle for our national interests? Mass immigration into America and European Nations is a very real threat, and a prime feature of the global capitalist system. While collaboration with them to a degree might be necessary we can not abandon the thought and the very real reality that these are our fatherlands. Our homelands, our culture, our future, our folk. They are alien to us. So we may ask them, how much do they respect US? Europeans not only need to rise up and overthrow the capitalist system but also reclaim our homelands. Any "communist' who follows the commandment "love they fatherland" would agree.

I don't see internationalism and nationalism as opposites. I see individualism and nationalism as opposites.

Internationalism has been used by cosmopolitans to the point where it means more than just cooperation between nations but the active dissolution of borders and the very opposite of nationalism. Individualism is not opposite of nationalism, it is my opinion that in the very essence of Nationalism and Socialism, we find the very essence of our people, and thus we find ourselves. We find our individualism in the essence of our people; our nation.

I didn't claim that Marx and Engels were nationalists, I claimed that they would have differentiated between progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. Those quotes provide some evidence.

I also agree that it doesn't matter. Marx isn't here. But it does matter when debating people who think they are representing Marx.

Marx was opposed to reactionary nationalism and not a nationalist of any sort himself, but I don't think he would have the same mentality as some of these revleft people who interpret globalism in an extremely cosmopolitan way and oppose all national thought equally in black and white terms. Yes, I believe Marx would reject this black and white thinking, because dialectical materialism is about having flexible viewpoints.

The question of the interests of workers vs the interests of nationalism are important, but imo the interests of foreign workers come before the interests of the upper class but after the interests of local workers. Some working class guy in Mexico has more in common than Barack Obama or George W Bush interest wise. But someone who is both local and working class has the most in common.

Metal Gear wrote:I didn't claim that Marx and Engels were nationalists, I claimed that they would have differentiated between progressive nationalism and reactionary nationalism. Those quotes provide some evidence.

Yes, but the quotes I supplied shows that they really didn't go for the nation concept at all. Engels says "Nationalities disappear through the abolition of their basis - private property".

They are good quotes in terms of anti-imperialism but not in favor of nationalism.

Furthermore, it is likely, in my opinion that Marx would have disregarded the nation concept altogether considering his Jewish heritage. The Jewish people never truly having a nation of their own until the creation of Israel combined with antisemitism in Germany and England would have made him feel a strong disconnect with European nations.

I also agree that it doesn't matter. Marx isn't here. But it does matter when debating people who think they are representing Marx.

Fair enough.

Marx was opposed to reactionary nationalism and not a nationalist of any sort himself, but I don't think he would have the same mentality as some of these revleft people who interpret globalism in an extremely cosmopolitan way and oppose all national thought equally in black and white terms. Yes, I believe Marx would reject this black and white thinking, because dialectical materialism is about having flexible viewpoints.

Well, we can assume that but I will remain skeptical because if he was truly in support of any sort of nationalism he would have wrote about it.

The question of the interests of workers vs the interests of nationalism are important, but imo the interests of foreign workers come before the interests of the upper class but after the interests of local workers. Some working class guy in Mexico has more in common than Barack Obama or George W Bush interest wise. But someone who is both local and working class has the most in common.

Maybe socially more in common, but not genetically or culturally. Furthermore, after this foreign worker helps you overthrow the ruling class in your nation what will you say? "K, go home now?"

Marx was only Jewish by bloodline and at that time (before Hitler) the Jewish question was considered a religious one. I don't think he would have felt Jewish socially and I don't believe that dna plays a role in how Jews act.

Regarding foreign workers going home, I think many would go home if their native areas provided the economic opportunities they seek. I am not necessary opposed to the presence of some immigrants but I am not in favor of immigrants "conquering" the area and exerting political power over natives. Regarding race and genetics, some nations are relatively homogenous, but America is not one of them. Many Blacks have been here for many generations as well as Indians. I hope that ethnic bloodlines are maintained as a rule, but I also wouldn't argue that all non-whites are foreigners or that there is no difference between an immigrant non-white and a native one.

Pantheon Rising wrote: Furthermore, it is likely, in my opinion that Marx would have disregarded the nation concept altogether considering his Jewish heritage. The Jewish people never truly having a nation of their own until the creation of Israel combined with antisemitism in Germany and England would have made him feel a strong disconnect with European nations.

It's always a mistake for one to presume to know what a historical figure would have thought regarding issues they didn't specifically address during their lifetime. We may interpret their writings in diverse ways, but we mustn't extrapolate beyond them.

As for Marx's Jewish heritage prohibiting him from feeling a connection with European nations, I find such an accusation to be utterly baseless. Some Jews identify with the nationality of their host nations, others exclusively with their Jewish heritage, and still others with no single nation. And the Jewish people aren't unique in this, as individuals of any ethnicity are capable of such identifications.

When Marx and Engels wrote about what the future might be like following the downfall of capitalism, they were merely theorizing. Claiming, as Engels did, that national identification would vanish alongside the abolition of property isn't an admission of ones own disregard for national identity. For example, I take the opposite position, in that I happen to believe national identity is an innate factor of human nature, while not even identifying with the culture or people of the United States. (Similar to Marx and Engels, however, I do believe that, once genetic engineering and/or technological innovation reach a certain point, national identification may recede to the point of outright conclusion.)

Well, we can assume that but I will remain skeptical because if he was truly in support of any sort of nationalism he would have wrote about it.

In The Communist Manifest, Marx wrote: "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself as the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the term." By this, he acknowledged that a form of socialist nationalism would indeed exist, though as but a stage toward a more universal destination. Nevertheless, I think it proves quite conclusively that he viewed socialist nationalism as progressive, albeit as more of an instrumental value rather than as a value in itself.

Maybe socially more in common, but not genetically or culturally. Furthermore, after this foreign worker helps you overthrow the ruling class in your nation what will you say? "K, go home now?"

Forced expulsion is far from the only option.

Celtiberian wrote:It's always a mistake for one to presume to know what a historical figure would have thought regarding issues they didn't specifically address during their lifetime. We may interpret their writings in diverse ways, but we mustn't extrapolate beyond them.

I don't think it is a mistake. It is just critical thinking to think and ponder "What would (insert philosopher here) think about this issue, were he around today?".

As for Marx's Jewish heritage prohibiting him from feeling a connection with European nations, I find such an accusation to be utterly baseless. Some Jews identify with the nationality of their host nations, others exclusively with their Jewish heritage, and still others with no single nation. And the Jewish people aren't unique in this, as individuals of any ethnicity are capable of such identifications.

Well, see now you have given me a base for the argument that he might not have had a connection with Europe just after calling the accusation baseless. I quote

others exclusively with their Jewish heritage, and still others with no single nation

So it is not at all baseless for me to assume he might not have had a connection with a European nation. I wasn't saying I know exactly how he felt regarding the issue; only how he might have felt.

When Marx and Engels wrote about what the future might be like following the downfall of capitalism, they were merely theorizing. Claiming, as Engels did, that national identification would vanish alongside the abolition of property isn't an admission of ones own disregard for national identity. For example, I take the opposite position, in that I happen to believe national identity is an innate factor of human nature, while not even identifying with the culture or people of the United States. (Similar to Marx and Engels, however, I do believe that, once genetic engineering and/or technological innovation reach a certain point, national identification may recede to the point of outright conclusion.)

It is time to stop believing and start fighting for what we want. If Engels believed communism would mean the end of his national identity, than he obviously doesn't care about his national identity and therefore is not a nationalist or even sympathetic. Good luck for anyone trying to get rid of nationalities through genetic engineering and technological innovation, there is no shortage of people willing to oppose that.

In The Communist Manifest, Marx wrote: "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself as the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the term." By this, he acknowledged that a form of socialist nationalism would indeed exist, though as but a stage toward a more universal destination. Nevertheless, I think it proves quite conclusively that he viewed socialist nationalism as progressive, albeit as more of an instrumental value rather than as a value in itself.

Yes, but he makes no distinction between foreigners of the nation taking power and domestic workers taking power. You said it yourself he only viewed "socialist-nationalism" (if that is what you call what he was advocating by that statement) as a transition to a more universal destination. True nationalists value nationalism as a value in itself, utilizing socialist-nationalism merely for the purpose of a quick transitional stage to a "universal destination", is as opportunistic and as reactionary as a certain Austrian painter who betrays his party's principles for power.

Forced expulsion is far from the only option.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the United States should be broken up into European-American states, and then autonomous states for other ethnic/racial groups however they see fit. Seeing as how I am of multi-European ethnic groups myself and America was a colonial establishment with many ethnic groups besides European I see this as only fair. As for Europe, I would NOT feel comfortable with, say, Arabs making an autonomous state within considering the imperialist notions many radical Islamists have and the fact that they have all of Arabia to use. Despite my connection with and my opinions of my European fatherland, I do not live there, so it is not for me to decide how they will deal with their foreigners.

Ultimately it is up to Marxist-Nationalists to justify their nationalism elsewhere, besides the writings of Marx and Engels; because if nationalism to one is just a transitional stage than news flash one ain't a nationalist.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Personally, I am of the opinion that the United States should be broken up into European-American states, and then autonomous states for other ethnic/racial groups however they see fit. Seeing as how I am of multi-European ethnic groups myself and America was a colonial establishment with many ethnic groups besides European I see this as only fair. As for Europe, I would NOT feel comfortable with, say, Arabs making an autonomous state within considering the imperialist notions many radical Islamists have and the fact that they have all of Arabia to use. Despite my connection with and my opinions of my European fatherland, I do not live there, so it is not for me to decide how they will deal with their foreigners.

This is why im not an Anarchist (although I see it as a valid ideology in some scenarios).In my opinion it would be un-ethical to deport non Europeans from Europe and non Europeans would live in autonomous communitys or states but the question is how do we live in peace with these groups if they are importing imperialist or counter revolutionary ideologys from there own ancestral or in some cases home nations?.Of course Anarchists claim that its hard to control areas that have no central authority but I dont fancy years or generations of guerrilla warfare if it can be avoided so I prefer a strong nations with a professional armed forces back up with volunteer reserve units and watched over by conscript/elected/appointed home guards/militas.

TheocWulf wrote:This is why im not an Anarchist (although I see it as a valid ideology in some scenarios).In my opinion it would be un-ethical to deport non Europeans from Europe and non Europeans would live in autonomous communitys or states but the question is how do we live in peace with these groups if they are importing imperialist or counter revolutionary ideologys from there own ancestral or in some cases home nations?.Of course Anarchists claim that its hard to control areas that have no central authority but I dont fancy years or generations of guerrilla warfare if it can be avoided so I prefer a strong nations with a professional armed forces back up with volunteer reserve units and watched over by conscript/elected/appointed home guards/militas.

In my opinion, deporting an invader is as ethical as it was for the Germanic tribes to right against Roman imperialism. It is our fatherland, our homes, our ways of life. They have entire continents, I think it is time for Europeans to grow a pair of balls and say enough is enough.

You might not want to take that line of logic too far, Pantheon Rising. By your line of logic we have an entire continent too, and we should all screw off and leave the Americas to the Native Americans.

As to the matter of ethnic separation, I think we should do our best to instill people with a strong sense of pride in their own nation and then leave it up to them to see what happens. If they want to separate, they can separate. If they want to live together but do their best to preserve their own cultures, they can do that too.

RedSun wrote:You might not want to take that line of logic too far, Pantheon Rising. By your line of logic we have an entire continent too, and we should all screw off and leave the Americas to the Native Americans.

Yea, we are "supposed" to have two continents. That is changing fast though. I don't see mass immigration into Asia, into Arabia, into Africa, only into Europe and America. It is absolutely progressive to raise these types of questions and we have to ask why, and say that this is bullshit. Making some haphazard attempt at nationalism is the same as making some meek effort for socialism. I stand by what I said though, America should by all means be multi-ethnic, but I would prefer European American autonomous states. I don't have a say in how Europeans will deal with all the foreigners in their lands as I do not live there, I can only say what I would do if I did.

As to the matter of ethnic separation, I think we should do our best to instill people with a strong sense of pride in their own nation and then leave it up to them to see what happens. If they want to separate, they can separate. If they want to live together but do their best to preserve their own cultures, they can do that too.

I don't understand this lack of confidence I see a lot on this site. I hear a lot "the workers will decide how to self determine themselves". "lets just see what happens". Well, we are workers aren't we? So than it isn't relevant how you speculate everyone else will do something, it is necessary to gather concrete demands for self determination.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I don't think it is a mistake. It is just critical thinking to think and ponder "What would (insert philosopher here) think about this issue, were he around today?"

It isn't "critical thinking," it's rank speculation which virtually anyone can engage in. Proclaiming that Y "would have thought" X doesn't assist us in critical analysis, nor is it fair to the individual whose views one is speculating about. For example, one may claim that Karl Marx "would have" opposed socialist nationalism, but on what grounds? He never specifically addressed the views espoused by contemporary socialist nationalists. Perhaps, if he had the benefit of as much historical and sociological knowledge we possess in the 21st century, he wouldn't have.

Well, see now you have given me a base for the argument that he might not have had a connection with Europe just after calling the accusation baseless.

So it is not at all baseless for me to assume he might not have had a connection with a European nation. I wasn't saying I know exactly how he felt regarding the issue; only how he might have felt.

It's baseless because he never wrote about his personal feelings (or lack thereof) of national identity. Should we therefore conclude that he never wrote about them because he didn't have any? We could, but we wouldn't have any reason to.

It is time to stop believing and start fighting for what we want.

And who, pray tell, suggested that we shouldn't be "fighting for what we want"?

If Engels believed communism would mean the end of his national identity, than he obviously doesn't care about his national identity and therefore is not a nationalist or even sympathetic.

It's isn't that "obvious" at all, sorry. Unless he wrote something to the effect of, "I, Friedrich Engels, feel no identity toward any nationality", you haven't any evidence to substantiate your claim. Theorizing about how people in the future might come to view certain issues isn't necessarily a reflection of the views currently held on those matters by the theorizing individual. For example, I may think that the human species will be exterminated via nuclear warfare at some point in the future, but it doesn't follow that I am therefore in favor of (or opposed to) the annihilation of humanity.

Good luck for anyone trying to get rid of nationalities through genetic engineering and technological innovation, there is no shortage of people willing to oppose that.

I don't think it will be the result of a conscious decision to engineer people into no longer feeling nationalist sentiments. It will simply be the by-product of genetic engineering and/or technologies designed for other purposes.

Yes, but he makes no distinction between foreigners of the nation taking power and domestic workers taking power.

Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto within the context of socialist revolutions occurring in Europe, and it wasn't as if the continent was saturated with immigrants in 1848.

True nationalists value nationalism as a value in itself, utilizing socialist-nationalism merely for the purpose of a quick transitional stage to a "universal destination", is as opportunistic and as reactionary as a certain Austrian painter who betrays his party's principles for power.

It isn't opportunistic if you genuinely believe social transformation occurs in the linear manner Marx believed it did for many phenomena. There's no doubt that he and Engels underestimated man's natural propensity toward national identification, but, again, we have the benefit of a wealth of information which they didn't have at their disposal.

Ultimately it is up to Marxist-Nationalists to justify their nationalism elsewhere, besides the writings of Marx and Engels; because if nationalism to one is just a transitional stage than news flash one ain't a nationalist.

Those who arrive at nationalist conclusions through the writings of Marx and Engels likely aren't viewing nationalism as transitional, otherwise they wouldn't consider themselves "nationalists." I happen to agree, however, that substantial justifications for nationalism have to come from sources external to Marx and Engels's writings.

That is changing fast though. I don't see mass immigration into Asia, into Arabia, into Africa, only into Europe and America.

We shouldn't blame immigrants for the decisions made by employers to encourage mass immigration. Politicians in the global north have also done quite a lot to suppress progressive movements abroad and prevent autonomous economic development from occurring in the global south. The Western proletariat shouldn't be blamed either, but they should bear these facts in mind when designing national policy following the revolution.

I don't understand this lack of confidence I see a lot on this site. I hear a lot "the workers will decide how to self determine themselves". "lets just see what happens". Well, we are workers aren't we?

Yes, we're workers, but we aren't the working class. We may attempt to influence how matters pertaining to the national question are handled, but the decision is ultimately a collective one.

My reasoning is partly that it's not just my decision, as Celtiberian said, but also partly that I don't care one way or the other. Either type of state would work fine for me. But restrictions on immigration? Oh yeah.

I always wonder, though, at the scale of the bureaucracy necessary to shuffle an entire continent into national groups. That would take an immense amount of organisation.

RedSun wrote:I always wonder, though, at the scale of the bureaucracy necessary to shuffle an entire continent into national groups. That would take an immense amount of organisation.

Indeed, but so will democratically planning production. "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Pantheon Rising wrote:Yea, we are "supposed" to have two continents.

According to whom?

That is changing fast though. I don't see mass immigration into Asia, into Arabia, into Africa, only into Europe and America.

There are salient explanations for such phenomena which do not require us to indulge conspiratorial nonsense. We have already explained the underlying reasons for mass immigration, and we agree that such a policy is not at all helpful, which is precisely why we observe a nationalist guideline.

It is absolutely progressive to raise these types of questions and we have to ask why, and say that this is bullshit.

It is not progressive to raise questions, as these may come from a myriad of political corners. Fascists raise these exact same questions. What is "progressive" is judged by the given solutions.

Making some haphazard attempt at nationalism is the same as making some meek effort for socialism.

Who is "making some haphazard attempt at nationalism"? Do you refer to us, who are probably one of the few organized groups seriously dedicated to constructing a feasible and positive model of nationalism for the future?

I stand by what I said though, America should by all means be multi-ethnic, but I would prefer European American autonomous states. I don't have a say in how Europeans will deal with all the foreigners in their lands as I do not live there,

Europe is not in a drastically different position as far as its national "purity" is concerned than the United States. These notions of European national integrity are overblown and, to be quite frank with you, irrelevant to me. I do not justify my nationalism on the basis of something so weak as historical accident and power relations.

I can only say what I would do if I did.

What was it that you would do? Forcefully expel millions of innocent people without compromise?

Celtiberian wrote:It isn't "critical thinking," it's rank speculation which virtually anyone can engage in. Proclaiming that Y "would have thought" X doesn't assist us in critical analysis, nor is it fair to the individual whose views one is speculating about. For example, one may claim that Karl Marx "would have" opposed socialist nationalism, but on what grounds? He never specifically addressed the views espoused by contemporary socialist nationalists. Perhaps, if he had the benefit of as much historical and sociological knowledge we possess in the 21st century, he wouldn't have.

Exactly, on the grounds that he never addressed the issue and the fact that he said "Workers have no nations" and his adherence to an ideology in which his friend said "would mean the disappearance of nationalities". There is no denying the man was a genius of sorts when examining the capitalist system, but I do not look to Marx for justification for my nationalism because he wasn't a nationalist.

It's baseless because he never wrote about his personal feelings (or lack thereof) of national identity. Should we therefore conclude that he never wrote about them because he didn't have any? We could, but we wouldn't have any reason to.

We can speculate, like I said I was only speculating how he might have felt. On the basis of him not writing about them, because if you care about something and you're a philosopher/writer, you usually write about it.

And who, pray tell, suggested that we shouldn't be "fighting for what we want"?

Mostly words like "lets see what happens" and the "workers will decide" statements. This indicates to me that a revolution will come and then merely a policy of self determination implemented. The revolution needs to be both nationalist and socialist in nature, not just socialist with a policy of self determination. In addition to spreading class consciousness we must spread pride in our European heritage without at all expressing hate for others.

It's isn't that "obvious" at all, sorry. Unless he wrote something to the effect of, "I, Friedrich Engels, feel no identity toward any nationality", you haven't any evidence to substantiate youizing ar claim. Theorbout how people in the future might come to view certain issues isn't necessarily a reflection of the views currently held on those matters by the theorizing individual. For example, I may think that the human species will be exterminated via nuclear warfare at some point in the future, but it doesn't follow that I am therefore in favor of (or opposed to) the annihilation of humanity.

Not like Engels at all. Now if you held a belief that a certain system would lead to the nuclear annihilation and then proceeded to become an advocate of that system it is likely that you either 1.) Want to see humanity destroyed via nuclear holocaust or 2.) Are indifferent to it.

Engels believed communism would get rid of national identities, and was an advocate for a communist system that means that 1.) he wanted to get rid of national identity or 2.) he was indifferent to it. Either case makes him not a nationalist.

One shouldn't need someone to say "I believe in this" to get the idea.

I don't think it will be the result of a conscious decision to engineer people into no longer feeling nationalist sentiments. It will simply be the by-product of genetic engineering and/or technologies designed for other purposes.

As a nationalist, any sort of technology or genetic engineering that will bring the downfall of my nation and people will be opposed by me 100%.

Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto within the context of socialist revolutions occurring in Europe, and it wasn't as if the continent was saturated with immigrants in 1848.

It is irrelevant as to where his location was. It isn't right to dissolve Poland or Germany or any other European nation. I am not a white internationalist.

It isn't opportunistic if you genuinely believe social transformation occurs in the linear manner Marx believed it did for many phenomena. There's no doubt that he and Engels underestimated man's natural propensity toward national identification, but, again, we have the benefit of a wealth of information which they didn't have at their disposal.

What wealth of information is that? If anything, man's inclination to have a national identity has declined since Marx's time. Thanks to global capitalism and the alienation of worker's from their governments; rather than global communism.

Those who arrive at nationalist conclusions through the writings of Marx and Engels likely aren't viewing nationalism as transitional, otherwise they wouldn't consider themselves "nationalists." I happen to agree, however, that substantial justifications for nationalism have to come from sources external to Marx and Engels's writings.

Least we agree on this. I will agree Marx and Engels were smart fellas, my nationalism however, takes inspiration from Gregor and Otto, rather than Marx and Engels.

We shouldn't blame immigrants for the decisions made by employers to encourage mass immigration. Politicians in the global north have also done quite a lot to suppress progressive movements abroad and prevent autonomous economic development from occurring in the global south. The Western proletariat shouldn't be blamed either, but they should bear these facts in mind when designing national policy following the revolution.

I never said we should blame them, but we should also not ignore this as a problem. A serious one. Employers are not the only reason for mass immigration, we also have to keep in mind the imperialist endeavors the ruling classes of our own nations take which creates thousands of refugees into our homelands. As the communist Bob Avakian said "The reason why they all come here is because you (speaking to the American ruling class) fucked up the rest of the world so bad".

Yes, we're workers, but we aren't the working class. We may attempt to influence how matters pertaining to the national question are handled, but the decision is ultimately a collective one.

Yes, we are the working class. We need to dominate working class opinion and influence it every step of the way. If the workers decide to collectively reestablish capitalism will you allow that? I don't think so. We need to be encouraging pride in our own people as well as socialist revolution, to take a break on any of those, and give it the "lets see what happens" attitude is to make a half assed attempt at one.

RedSun wrote:My reasoning is partly that it's not just my decision, as Celtiberian said, but also partly that I don't care one way or the other. Either type of state would work fine for me. But restrictions on immigration? Oh yeah.

Well, I do care. My forefathers farmed, hunted, and worked that land for over 10,000 years.

Rev Scare wrote:According to whom?

Us, the European folk, collectively as a people. Who is anyone to tell us otherwise what we do and don't have if we are not infringing on the rights of other peoples?

There are salient explanations for such phenomena which do not require us to indulge conspiratorial nonsense. We have already explained the underlying reasons for mass immigration, and we agree that such a policy is not at all helpful, which is precisely why we observe a nationalist guideline.

Nothing conspiratorial about it. I was by no means meaning to equate it with some conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is that it is happening.

It is not progressive to raise questions, as these may come from a myriad of political corners. Fascists raise these exact same questions. What is "progressive" is judged by the given solutions.

Fair enough, agreed on this. But it isn't progressive to recede European lands to foreigners because of the historical accident of global capitalism.

Who is "making some haphazard attempt at nationalism"? Do you refer to us, who are probably one of the few organized groups seriously dedicated to constructing a feasible and positive model of nationalism for the future?

I do think the "we'll see what happens" and "the workers will decide" attitude IS a haphazard attempt. In addition to encouraging policies of self determination you need to actively influence what that self determination will be based off. And no offence, but I don't think anyone who hasn't visited this board or knows you personally even knows that the RSF is. I may be wrong, but what have you guys been doing on the streets for advancing the nationalist and socialist cause for our people?

Europe is not in a drastically different position as far as its national "purity" is concerned than the United States. These notions of European national integrity are overblown and, to be quite frank with you, irrelevant to me. I do not justify my nationalism on the basis of something so weak as historical accident and power relations.

What do you justify your nationalism on then? The creation of a people is indeed a result of historical accidents, power relations, active struggle, and wars. It doesn't make the idea any less valid though.

What was it that you would do? Forcefully expel millions of innocent people without compromise?

Yes.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Well, I do care. My forefathers farmed, hunted, and worked that land for over 10,000 years.

As did mine and will do for another 10,000 years Wyrd willing

As I said deportation/repatriation in my opinion is un-ethical (even for me and 90% of my ideology is Strasserist) they only system I think is viable for us is autonamy for non europeans in there own (in many cases already established) communitys.As for Immigration restrictions they would have to be very tight and immigrants would have to be from kindred nations only otherwise I see no point in brininging in a new system at all.