What is Nationalism to you?

Well, I thought we could all answer the question above. I am especially interested to hear what the RSF's official answer to this question is.

The reason I ask is, I think the nation might indeed be a false construct in some way. I have been interested in National Anarchy lately and I think some form of National-Anarchist-Communism of the sorts would be very nice, with small communities based on whatever, I personally would like to base my commune/tribe/whatever off race, ethnicity, maybe even similar spiritual beliefs. There would be autonomous zones ruled by the communes/tribes and they would cooperate to ensure the well being of each zone. Everything within the community is socialized property, down to a pillow and a toothbrush. All the needs of the community are taken care of.

Thoughts?

What do you base your Nationalism off of and where do you draw the line? Because the line for how you want to allow people to determine themselves is completely arbitrary. Many times Lenin's "position on self determination" is brought up, but that never happened and people who wanted it were denounced as "bourgeois nationalists". What if a community even wants to base their nation off a mode of private property?

Well, without wanting to venture too much on the subject for now, i would say there are two different "ways" of being a nationalist. One for historically and socially "consolidated" nations, like European ones, and other for "colonial" countries such as the US or Brazil.

Since i belong to a former, i can say i "draw the line" in terms of people who are part of this nation too, who feel it since childhood, who care for it's history, it's values, it's traditions, and who contribute (even non actively) to their perpetuation. Even if they don't "care" much, that's still ok, as long as they don't disrupt it, or uphold concepts that might undermine it. As far as ethnicity goes, i think its part of the history of the nation. I don't think it's something that we should actively pursuit to maintain, but i am not "blind to the obvious", and i would not consider a black person a member of the Chinese people historically, as i wouldn't consider a white one to me a member of the Zulu people. Nevertheless, people of different ethnicity can be citizens in other countries with other predominant one. I favor the people should choose it's immigration policies under a socialist economic environment, and a democratic non party driven political one.

To make matters clear, this is my PERSONAL opinion, not the RSF official one.

Pantheon Rising wrote:The reason I ask is, I think the nation might indeed be a false construct in some way.

Nations are artificial constructions, none the less they are bound to a certain identity, culture and joint history and traditions. Tribal binding, regionalism and cultural identity/etnicity have been the solide basis for living together since the dawn of man. In that sense it would be unwise to abolish the concept of nationhood, because with that one breaks down this kind of social structure and social shelter. And as we can see in our globalising Western multicultural societies that doesn't come without bad consequences.

A concept like Nationalism also contains a lot of binding power because it's a "metanarrative", a political doctrine that persues a "spiritual" or "higher goal" in the form of community and fatherland (not so different from the Messsianist Marxist doctrine that strives for a utopian Communism as the highest goal).

I have been interested in National Anarchy lately and I think some form of National-Anarchist-Communism of the sorts would be very nice, with small communities based on whatever, I personally would like to base my commune/tribe/whatever off race, ethnicity, maybe even similar spiritual beliefs.
Thoughts?

That sounds very unrealistisc and very difficult to realise. Maybe in some form of primitivism it would be possible, but not in this present situation. It will also come with a lot of geografic and demographic difficulties.

What do you base your Nationalism off of and where do you draw the line? Because the line for how you want to allow people to determine themselves is completely arbitrary.

I do strongly believe in some racialist/etnic views and their political legitimacy. But from a realistic standpoint I dont mind small forms of migration and etnic mixing as long as the dominant culture stays in tact. I think a shared identity, which I see as a communual concensus in the form of culture, values and so on, is a absolute necessity to achieve the social homogenity that is needed for a solidary and balanced community.

Many times Lenin's "position on self determination" is brought up, but that never happened and people who wanted it were denounced as "bourgeois nationalists". What if a community even wants to base their nation off a mode of private property?

I think intenationalist or universalist views are a form of imperialism because thinks like political doctrines, religions, morals are all subjective matters and "universal" values don't exist. They can be well intended, but in the end they become a tool of opression. Self-determination is the only true "universal" value if you'd ask me, people can only liberate themselves and by their own choice and by the way they want it.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Well, without wanting to venture too much on the subject for now, i would say there are two different "ways" of being a nationalist. One for historically and socially "consolidated" nations, like European ones, and other for "colonial" countries such as the US or Brazil.

Since i belong to a former, i can say i "draw the line" in terms of people who are part of this nation too, who feel it since childhood, who care for it's history, it's values, it's traditions, and who contribute (even non actively) to their perpetuation. Even if they don't "care" much, that's still ok, as long as they don't disrupt it, or uphold concepts that might undermine it. As far as ethnicity goes, i think its part of the history of the nation. I don't think it's something that we should actively pursuit to maintain, but i am not "blind to the obvious", and i would not consider a black person a member of the Chinese people historically, as i wouldn't consider a white one to me a member of the Zulu people. Nevertheless, people of different ethnicity can be citizens in other countries with other predominant one. I favor the people should choose it's immigration policies under a socialist economic environment, and a democratic non party driven political one.

To make matters clear, this is my PERSONAL opinion, not the RSF official one.

How many can become citizens? Is there a certain amount of immigration before you say enough is enough and the ethnic makeup is changing too much? Of course, the people should choose their immigration policy, but you are part of the people? What do YOU think? What if the people want to increase immigration thus forever changing the nation?

Also, I am a nationalist living in the US but not for the US. To be honest I couldn't give a flying fuck about the United States or the Red, White and Blue. What does that make me? There is also a lot of people my ow ethnicity I don't even feel a connection with. So what if we just take the closest of us, make an autonomous zone whose rules are made by the commune and tribe and cooperate others based on a socialist free access framework?

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:Nations are artificial constructions, none the less they are bound to a certain identity, culture and joint history and traditions. Tribal binding, regionalism and cultural identity/etnicity have been the solide basis for living together since the dawn of man. In that sense it would be unwise to abolish the concept of nationhood, because with that one breaks down this kind of social structure and social shelter. And as we can see in our globalising Western multicultural societies that doesn't come without bad consequences.

Nations and tribal identities change all the time and they have been since the beginning of history. Nonetheless I wasn't making an argument against ethnically homogeneous establishments, my main question was can we create communes based on whatever principles we see fit after a revolution? Make communes with only those we feel the deepest connections with, whether for tribal reasons or otherwise?

A concept like Nationalism also contains a lot of binding power because it's a "metanarrative", a political doctrine that persues a "spiritual" or "higher goal" in the form of community and fatherland (not so different from the Messsianist Marxist doctrine that strives for a utopian Communism as the highest goal).

If a nation is a false construct like you said how can it also be a higher goal? It can only be a higher goal in people's minds, therefore nations in a way are nothing more than part of ones ego.

That sounds very unrealistisc and very difficult to realise. Maybe in some form of primitivism it would be possible, but not in this present situation. It will also come with a lot of geografic and demographic difficulties.

Possibly, but it could be workable in the future. Even if people didn't wanna organize themselves into tribal communes they could be free to do whatever they want within a socialist framework.

I do strongly believe in some racialist/etnic views and their political legitimacy. But from a realistic standpoint I dont mind small forms of migration and etnic mixing as long as the dominant culture stays in tact. I think a shared identity, which I see as a communual concensus in the form of culture, values and so on, is a absolute necessity to achieve the social homogenity that is needed for a solidary and balanced community.

Yea but how is the ethnic makeup of someone all the way on the other side of your nation affecting you? It isn't. That is why I am becoming in favor of organizing into small autonomous tribes, you could form a strong bond with those members of your race/ethnicity that actually matter.

What I am saying is that Nations are merely construction of egos. The important part is not a flag, an imaginary line drawn in the ground, a national anthem. The important part is whatever people arbitrarily decide to base their community off, whether it be race, ethnic makeup, spiritual views, what color shirts they have in their wardrobe, sexual orientation etc. Anything is open.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Nations and tribal identities change all the time and they have been since the beginning of history.

Ofcourse, but a fact is that in most cases this history is the basis for a modern nation. The modern Western culture has evolved out of the European history and is connected with the European civilisations. The nation is a expression of that regional and etnic history. States which are not based on that common history and identity are a powder keg waiting to explode, the consequences of that we can see in the African tribalwars and genocides in the old colonial territories which became artificial "nations". Even political doctrines are manifestions of that, therefore i don't believe in a socalled "universal" doctrine (that's only a tool for opression).

I find it strange that some people who believe in the evolutionairy/historical economical theory of Marx, don't believe in the Darwinst views about the evolution and differentiation of mankind. Nations are for some part the manifestation of this historical differentiation despite the fact they're also largely formed by external factors.

Nonetheless I wasn't making an argument against ethnically homogeneous establishments, my main question was can we create communes based on whatever principles we see fit after a revolution? Make communes with only those we feel the deepest connections with, whether for tribal reasons or otherwise?

Ofcourse it will be possible, but there is always competition with other groups and communes. A commune must have sufefficiënt minerals, food, and so on in order to survive. Some groups can have some binding with certain parts of land and have to compete with other groups who make the same claim. So does this solve the problems if you would dismantle nations? Maybe on a primitive and small tribal scale it does, in the big picture i think it doesn't solve much.

If a nation is a false construct like you said how can it also be a higher goal? It can only be a higher goal in people's minds, therefore nations in a way are nothing more than part of ones ego.

Because not everything is rational. Spiritual fullfillment has always pushed humanity to reach new goals and to better themselves. Ofcourse this is based on "irrational" myths, but these myths have big mobilizing and moral potential. This is something all big dogma's have in common; the religious dogma's but also to the liberal, communist and nationalist Messianic dogma's. Ofcourse you can state that these are collective or individual ego's, in the end is every "higher goal" a subjective manifestation of ego. There simply doesn't exist a universal consesus on what should be the ultimate goal of life.

Possibly, but it could be workable in the future. Even if people didn't wanna organize themselves into tribal communes they could be free to do whatever they want within a socialist framework.

I think those are good ingredients for conflict, too much "freedom" can be contradictory.

Yea but how is the ethnic makeup of someone all the way on the other side of your nation affecting you? It isn't. That is why I am becoming in favor of organizing into small autonomous tribes, you could form a strong bond with those members of your race/ethnicity that actually matter.

You must not forget that even "small autonomous tribes" have conflicting interests. And especially for racialists the small tribes aren't a very healthy option because you will create inbreed.

Pantheon Rising wrote:

How many can become citizens? Is there a certain amount of immigration before you say enough is enough and the ethnic makeup is changing too much? Of course, the people should choose their immigration policy, but you are part of the people? What do YOU think? What if the people want to increase immigration thus forever changing the nation?

Also, I am a nationalist living in the US but not for the US. To be honest I couldn't give a flying fuck about the United States or the Red, White and Blue. What does that make me? There is also a lot of people my ow ethnicity I don't even feel a connection with. So what if we just take the closest of us, make an autonomous zone whose rules are made by the commune and tribe and cooperate others based on a socialist free access framework?

How many? I wouldn't know. If the people want to "change the nation" as you say, so be it. But i don't think anybody would want that. At the of the day, most people want to live among their peers, and wouldn't want unregulated immigration creating social tension and economic rifts. Furthermore, in a socialist economy, the people themselves would be much more in charge of the economy, so the "hire the immigrant for the lower wage" problem would be highly mitigated.

What a truly socialist government should do though, is ensure the best for their domestic economy, and their nation's people. Surely such goal is contrary to boosting the worker class pool, and overcrowding the country with immigrants who are from totally different cultures, or who migrate for pure economic reasons, inflicting damage in the working class of said nation, be it by competing for jobs, social problems, crime, radically different culture values, etc. But of course, a truly socialist government will always be the "voice of the people" so none of this would be decided from above.

I define Nation as all European Nationalists do ( in the ethnic sense). And Nationalism simply means wanting to uphold the interests of your Nation.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Well, I thought we could all answer the question above. I am especially interested to hear what the RSF's official answer to this question is.

The reason I ask is, I think the nation might indeed be a false construct in some way. I have been interested in National Anarchy lately and I think some form of National-Anarchist-Communism of the sorts would be very nice, with small communities based on whatever, I personally would like to base my commune/tribe/whatever off race, ethnicity, maybe even similar spiritual beliefs. There would be autonomous zones ruled by the communes/tribes and they would cooperate to ensure the well being of each zone. Everything within the community is socialized property, down to a pillow and a toothbrush. All the needs of the community are taken care of.

Thoughts?

What do you base your Nationalism off of and where do you draw the line? Because the line for how you want to allow people to determine themselves is completely arbitrary. Many times Lenin's "position on self determination" is brought up, but that never happened and people who wanted it were denounced as "bourgeois nationalists". What if a community even wants to base their nation off a mode of private property?

What do you mean by the nation is a false construct? Also Im sorry but its impossible ( not to mention ridiculous) to base a Nation off a mode of property. A nation by definition is either a group of people who share common ancestry and culture ( in Colonial countries it can also mean people who share the same citizenship) . So you cant base a nation off a mode of property. You can try and you can say so but it still wont be what it is at all.

And no its not completely arbitrary as to how people define themselves in the national sense. People wont say " Im a metalhead" or " Im a punk" when you ask them what their nationality is. They will say " Im German" or " Im Chinese" or whatever.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: I define Nation as all European Nationalists do ( in the ethnic sense). And Nationalism simply means wanting to uphold the interests of your Nation.

Left-wing nationalism is not simply about upholding the interests of one's own nation unless it is to put forth the matter in a general sense. Apart from this, such a notion implies unilateral decision making and chauvinism, both of which are reactionary. Socialist nationalism connotes international cooperation and multilateral relations pertaining to issues that affect any given country.

Rev Scare wrote:Left-wing nationalism is not simply about upholding the interests of one's own nation unless it is to put forth the matter in a general sense. Apart from this, such a notion implies unilateral decision making and chauvinism, both of which are reactionary. Socialist nationalism connotes international cooperation and multilateral relations pertaining to issues that affect any given country.

What does wanting to uphold the interests of your Nation have anything to do with chauvinism? Sure you can believe in that and be a chauvinist but the two dont go hand in hand. Also what is multilateral relations? I dont believe in international cooperation ( unless absolutely necessary) and Im most certainly a Socialist and a Nationalist.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:What does wanting to uphold the interests of your Nation have anything to do with chauvinism? Sure you can believe in that and be a chauvinist but the two dont go hand in hand. Also what is multilateral relations? I dont believe in international cooperation ( unless absolutely necessary) and Im most certainly a Socialist and a Nationalist.

I agree with you, but saying upholding the interests of your nation is slightly vague, and it could lead some to imperialistically oppress other nations because it is "upholding the interests of your nation". I would say upholding the interests of your nation without preventing others from doing the same might be a better way to put it.

To me, the nation is a result of the development of capitalism, thus I base my nationalism off our modern nations. Regarding your thought that nations can be based off anything, I somewhat disagree. Nations are based upon a sense of collective identity, but none of the things nations are based upon are alone in creating nations. They all work together, e.g., nations can be based upon spiritual views, but no nation would be based solely upon that.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:What does wanting to uphold the interests of your Nation have anything to do with chauvinism? Sure you can believe in that and be a chauvinist but the two dont go hand in hand. Also what is multilateral relations? I dont believe in international cooperation ( unless absolutely necessary) and Im most certainly a Socialist and a Nationalist.

I've stated that your insistence upon upholding the "interests" of your own nation (apart from a very superficial sense) implies a chauvinistic disregard for other nations as well as the real status of the world order. I am afraid that genuine socialist nationalism, and not simply a pretense such as national socialism, does indeed require an international framework in order to develop in a healthy and consistent fashion, for socialism itself demands the elimination of capitalism, and by extension, imperialism and aggression founded upon material circumstances. Furthermore, it is entirely unreasonable to practice a unilateral foreign policy in an age of mass communication, transportation, and economic dependence. In an increasingly interactive international sphere, it is impossible for one state to arbitrarily isolate itself from all others without externalizing costs and thereby breeding conflict. Issues such as nuclear arms proliferation, global resource management, military intervention, territorial disputes, the expansion of capitalism, etc., cannot be reasonably addressed via unilateral policies.

In a complex, interwoven world, it is silly at best to expect positive outcomes from such a myopic disposition toward solving (inter)national problems. Unless one supports insignificant and backwards concepts such as national autonomous zones or green bioregionalism, a progressive mindset would seek to facilitate international collaboration rather than impede it.

Rev Scare wrote:I've stated that your insistence upon upholding the "interests" of your own nation (apart from a very superficial sense) implies a chauvinistic disregard for other nations as well as the real status of the world order. I am afraid that genuine socialist nationalism, and not simply a pretense such as national socialism, does indeed require an international framework in order to develop in a healthy and consistent fashion, for socialism itself demands the elimination of capitalism, and by extension, imperialism and aggression founded upon material circumstances. Furthermore, it is entirely unreasonable to practice a unilateral foreign policy in an age of mass communication, transportation, and economic dependence. In an increasingly interactive international sphere, it is impossible for one state to arbitrarily isolate itself from all others without externalizing costs and thereby breeding conflict. Issues such as nuclear arms proliferation, global resource management, military intervention, territorial disputes, the expansion of capitalism, etc., cannot be reasonably addressed via unilateral policies.

In a complex, interwoven world, it is silly at best to expect positive outcomes from such a myopic disposition toward solving (inter)national problems. Unless one supports insignificant and backwards concepts such as national autonomous zones or green bioregionalism, a progressive mindset would seek to facilitate international collaboration rather than impede it.

1. As far as I know chauvinism means hatred of other Nations or feeling that your better than them because your a member of such and such a Nation ( none of which applies to me). I dont see what not caring about other Nations and minding your own business has to do with that at all. But hey if you want to call me a chauvinist then fine so be it. But Im telling you right now, if you think Im gonna sit up at night worrying about the problems of Greeks, Algerians, Nepalese, etc then ( as the overplayed Judas Priest song says) you got another thing coming.

2. Look dude I believe in both Nationalism and Socialism ( or Socialism and Nationalism, however the fuck you want to phrase it). I call myself whatever I feel like and thats that. Labels arent important to me.These terms are pretty much interchangeable anyways. There honestly is no difference between a Socialist Nationalist or a Nationalist Socialist besides the way they phrase their names. If you want to spend time playing semantics then go ahead but I wont.

3. I want to replace the Capitalist system my Nation lives under with a Socialist one. I dont believe in getting rid of Capitalism worldwide. I wouldnt mind if that happened but its up to each individual Nation to liberate itself from Capitalism. If lets say the Hondurans want to live under Capitalism then more power to them. Thats their business not mine.

4. I believe that my Nations policy should be the same as all other policies: Whats good for the Nation goes. If its in our benefit to enter a treaty or whatever than we do it. If its not we dont do it.

5. There arent any major international problems right now that my Nation cant get out of itself. Im going to focus on that and Ill worry about the international stuff when it affects my people. As for progressive mind, again I dont care about such words. I believe in doing the best for my people and that is it. All these terms are useless to me. And for the record I dont believe in NA zones or green bio- whatever the hell it is.

Godfaesten wrote:I agree with you, but saying upholding the interests of your nation is slightly vague, and it could lead some to imperialistically oppress other nations because it is "upholding the interests of your nation". I would say upholding the interests of your nation without preventing others from doing the same might be a better way to put it.

Well to me it goes without saying. Sure it is vague but I cant and dont want to come up with a longstringed definition.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:1. As far as I know chauvinism means hatred of other Nations or feeling that your better than them because your a member of such and such a Nation ( none of which applies to me). I dont see what not caring about other Nations and minding your own business has to do with that at all. But hey if you want to call me a chauvinist then fine so be it. But Im telling you right now, if you think Im gonna sit up at night worrying about the problems of Greeks, Algerians, Nepalese, etc then ( as the overplayed Judas Priest song says) you got another thing coming.

2. Look dude I believe in both Nationalism and Socialism ( or Socialism and Nationalism, however the fuck you want to phrase it). I call myself whatever I feel like and thats that. Labels arent important to me.These terms are pretty much interchangeable anyways. There honestly is no difference between a Socialist Nationalist or a Nationalist Socialist besides the way they phrase their names. If you want to spend time playing semantics then go ahead but I wont.

3. I want to replace the Capitalist system my Nation lives under with a Socialist one. I dont believe in getting rid of Capitalism worldwide. I wouldnt mind if that happened but its up to each individual Nation to liberate itself from Capitalism. If lets say the Hondurans want to live under Capitalism then more power to them. Thats their business not mine.

4. I believe that my Nations policy should be the same as all other policies: Whats good for the Nation goes. If its in our benefit to enter a treaty or whatever than we do it. If its not we dont do it.

5. There arent any major international problems right now that my Nation cant get out of itself. Im going to focus on that and Ill worry about the international stuff when it affects my people. As for progressive mind, again I dont care about such words. I believe in doing the best for my people and that is it. All these terms are useless to me. And for the record I dont believe in NA zones or green bio- whatever the hell it is.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part,even though I want a world revolution.

Come to think of it, nationalism would perfectly support co-operation in an anarchist society

Pantheon Rising wrote:What do you base your Nationalism off of and where do you draw the line?

Personally, I am not a nationalist. The closest thing that I believe in that could somehow be called nationalism is that I believe that all countries need to develop communism is whatever way is best suited to deal with the material conditions in their country, because their are distinct cultural, economic, social, and political factors that vary between countries, regions, etc. I don't think this could be called nationalism though.

Jaycm610 wrote:Personally, I am not a nationalist. The closest thing that I believe in that could somehow be called nationalism is that I believe that all countries need to develop communism is whatever way is best suited to deal with the material conditions in their country, because their are distinct cultural, economic, social, and political factors that vary between countries, regions, etc. I don't think this could be called nationalism though.

Left-wing nationalism allows for self-identified peoples to retain sovereignty within a benign geopolitical context. This allows for both internal and international cohesion and solidarity. The RSF propounds this to be ethical and necessary for protracted stability. There is little reason to suspect that individual nationalistic tendencies would be transcended upon the advent of global socialism and perhaps even communism, and certainly not before this point, due to the nationalistic frame that revolutions invariably adopt. Left-wing nationalism, if I may venture a theoretical proposition, may be regarded as a sort of "pluralistic" nationalism, which emphasizes national unity but understands the greater scope of responsibility and dependence; it is therefore compatible with both the respect for diversity embraced by progressives and the traditional ideals of socialism.

Rev Scare wrote:Left-wing nationalism allows for self-identified peoples to retain sovereignty within a benign geopolitical context. This allows for both internal and international cohesion and solidarity. The RSF propounds this to be ethical and necessary for protracted stability. There is little reason to suspect that individual nationalistic tendencies would be transcended upon the advent of global socialism and perhaps even communism, and certainly not before this point, due to the nationalistic frame that revolutions invariably adopt. Left-wing nationalism, if I may venture a theoretical proposition, may be regarded as a sort of "pluralistic" nationalism, which emphasizes national unity but understands the greater scope of responsibility and dependence; it is therefore compatible with both the respect for diversity embraced by progressives and the traditional ideals of socialism.

This reminds me of something Mao wrote about patriotism and internationalism:

Mao wrote:Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better.... For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China's case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism. We are at once internationalists and patriots, and our slogan is, "Fight to defend the motherland against the aggressors." For us defeatism is a crime and to strive for victory in the War of Resistance is an inescapable duty. For only by hghting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism.
"The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 196.*

I can accept Mao's ideas on patriotism, that's not harmful to the international context of the communist struggle. The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

Jaycm610 wrote:I can accept Mao's ideas on patriotism, that's not harmful to the international context of the communist struggle. The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

Mao was writing within the context of an ethnically and culturally homogenous nation, so the national question was of little importance to Chinese socialism. As for left-wing nationalism being "racialized," I disagree with such a characterization. Race is of no consequence to people residing outside of the post-colonial world, i.e., the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, etc., and we stress the importance of culture (history, language, etc.) just as must as we do ethnicity when addressing the national question.

I agree that differences between workers need to be set aside if the proletarian revolution is to succeed, but that's not what most socialist and communist parties have been engaged in for the past several decades. Rampant cosmopolitanism within the radical Left of the global north has led to organizations pushing every conceivable peripheral social issue to the fore, thereby alienating the working class majority—which is heterosexual and Caucasian. Moreover, we feel that left-wing nationalism will be most relevant after the revolution. (It's basically a hypothesis regarding the manner in which the working class will organize international relations when they possess the democratic means to do so, and what conditions will best serve to foster socialist development.)

Jaycm610 wrote:The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

Nonsense. Racialism is not regarded as a legitimate expression of nationalism on this forum. Some may expression asinine viewpoints in our OV section, but that has no bearing upon the ideological foundation of the Socialist Phalanx nor its participatory parameters (outside of Opposing Views). Ethnocultural conceptions of the nation—which are most common amongst the membership here—are not the functional equivalent of racial conceptions.

I suggest you actually invest some time in familiarizing yourself with this forum's content before drawing any conclusions.

Jaycm610 wrote:The nationalism around here seems to be a little more racialized though, which isn't exactly a bad thing, I know there is a difference between racialism and racism, but I believe that too much of a stress on race is divisive, the working class needs to unite in order to succeed.

I think you'll find most of the active membership agrees with you, and that people who disagree don't tend to post here anymore.