progressive nationalism, marx and engels

TheocWulf wrote: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.

I just don't see why we should cede lands to people totally alien to us. To me, to not have anything but our whole fatherland of Europe, is the same as accepting meager wages thrown at us by capitalists.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I just don't see why we should cede lands to people totally alien to us. To me, to not have anything but our whole fatherland of Europe, is the same as accepting meager wages thrown at us by capitalists.

In an ideal world yes but capitalism brought these guys over in the case of my country in the 50s so where is a 4th 5th or 6th generation immigrant supposed to go?

TheocWulf wrote:In an ideal world yes but capitalism brought these guys over in the case of my country in the 50s so where is a 4th 5th or 6th generation immigrant supposed to go?

Very good question and an honest concern. It doesn't seem fair to them. It just doesn't seem fair to us either. Imagine if Europeans were to go to any other country and try to create self autonomous zones? Regardless of the reason. I fully respect the liberty and self determination of other cultures and ethnic groups, but I would prefer some "do unto others" attitude from the likes of everyone else... in the case of South Africa I fully support giving the Africans their country back and the migration of Europeans back to their homeland.

So your end goal is basically a utopia that is perfectly partitioned among ethnic lines? My goal is somewhere between that and the status quo. I basically don't want immigrants to have political power over top of native born people, but I don't think this is sim city either where you can partition everything racially 100%.

Even today, if you go away from the big cities, you'll find that that ethnic continuity is still pretty strong. It's only the big metros that are more mixed.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Very good question and an honest concern. It doesn't seem fair to them. It just doesn't seem fair to us either. Imagine if Europeans were to go to any other country and try to create self autonomous zones? Regardless of the reason. I fully respect the liberty and self determination of other cultures and ethnic groups, but I would prefer some "do unto others" attitude from the likes of everyone else... in the case of South Africa I fully support giving the Africans their country back and the migration of Europeans back to their homeland.

But is it fair to send the Boers and other Europeans back to a continent where in many cases (Boers being Afrikans speakers) not share a language with any other European group,Also they have many cultural traits that have evolved in there African homeland that makes them diffrent from modern Europeans.Surely they are better off in an Autonumus state/community in the land they have called home for hundreds of years.I dont understand how you apply repatriation to European Africans but not to European Americans?

TheocWulf wrote:But is it fair to send the Boers and other Europeans back to a continent where in many cases (Boers being Afrikans speakers) not share a language with any other European group,Also they have many cultural traits that have evolved in there African homeland that makes them diffrent from modern Europeans.

This is true, and it all must be taken into consideration.

Surely they are better off in an Autonumus state/community in the land they have called home for hundreds of years.I dont understand how you apply repatriation to European Africans but not to European Americans?

There is a lot of realities we have to deal with that are separate from the principle. One.) European-Americans are not experiencing literal genocide in which gangs of Native Americans show up at their doors and execute their children. (Though that is changing, with the introduction of illegal Mexican criminals). 2.) The Native North American population is not great enough to occupy all of America were Europeans to leave tomorrow. 3.) The European-American population in America is so much greater than that of the European-African population than that in Africa, that both populations migrating back to Europe en masse would cause severe crowding and overpopulation in Europe, even with non-natives expelled.

Pantheon Rising wrote:There is a lot of realities we have to deal with that are separate from the principle. One.) European-Americans are not experiencing literal genocide in which gangs of Native Americans show up at their doors and execute their children. (Though that is changing, with the introduction of illegal Mexican criminals). 2.) The Native North American population is not great enough to occupy all of America were Europeans to leave tomorrow. 3.) The European-American population in America is so much greater than that of the European-African population than that in Africa, that both populations migrating back to Europe en masse would cause severe crowding and overpopulation in Europe, even with non-natives expelled.

Fair points and each to there own and I see where your comeing from but its not something id go for.

TheocWulf wrote:Fair points and each to there own and I see where your comeing from but its not something id go for.

Also fair enough comrade. Like I said, I will have no say in what my European cousins decide to do.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Also fair enough comrade. Like I said, I will have no say in what my European cousins decide to do.

and vice versa dude

Pantheon Rising wrote:Exactly, on the grounds that he never addressed the issue and the fact that he said "Workers have no nations"

Remember the context within which Marx penned those lines. In 1848, the European proletariat possessed neither property nor suffrage. If an entire class of people are explicitly denied the right to participate in the politics of the nation in which they reside, they are, for all intents and purposes, without a fatherland.

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.

Not necessarily. Marx and Engels developed a radically new method of economic analysis and were applying it to questions previously unexplored by political economists. Philosophers had been theorizing about national identity for millenia, so it's reasonable to suppose that they didn't feel matters pertaining to the national question should be a high priority for them. Moreover, there are plenty of passages from Marx and Engels which suggest they held ethnocentric sentiments.

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.

The proletarian revolution will be a social revolution, because it will arise as the result of economic contradictions. National revolutions occur under unique circumstances of national oppression, e.g., imperial domination, suppression of indigenous languages and cultures, ethnic cleansing, etc. The majority of proletarians in the global north—with the exception of those in the Basque region of Spain, Northern Ireland, etc.—are not currently facing conditions conducive to national revolutionary development, so it would be counterproductive for organizations to emphasize nationalism in their activism. Left-wing nationalism, as I view it, is a hypothesis of how the proletariat and their vanguard will choose to organize the workers' state in order to foster socialist social relations.

"Spreading pride" in our heritage is pointless at best (as people are innately ethnocentric, whether they're cognizant of it or not) and counterproductive at worse (since it may have the effect of cultivating class collaborationist sentiments in the working class).

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.

Absolutely not. Marx and Engels viewed communism as a resolution to the class struggle capitalism engenders. They believed it would inevitably emerge as a result of the dialectical process of history. Engels was indeed an advocate of communism, but it's likely the primary reason for his affiliation was because he felt the communists were on the right side of history, as it were. He was obviously incorrect to assume identifications based upon national identity would cease to exist, but, again, he was merely theorizing.

To use another example, let's hypothetically assume I became a Fukuyamaist and suddenly viewed liberal-democratic capitalism as the "end of history." I would understand that bourgeois social relations, operating in an international context, homogenize cultures. As a nationalist, this process would disturb me, but I would have no choice but to accept this as an inevitability since I already conceded that capitalism represented the end of history.

What wealth of information is that?

Innumerable historical, anthropological, and sociological studies.

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.

Overtly nationalistic sentiments may lie dormant in a population under certain conditions, but they will express themselves nonetheless if presented with the appropriate circumstances. Capitalism doesn't obliterate nationalism, it merely distorts the manner in which it expresses itself.

I never said we should blame them, but we should also not ignore this as a problem. A serious one.

I don't consider it a "serious problem," as there are plenty of humane solutions which can be implemented. However, I don't consider your advocacy of forced expulsion to be amongst them.

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".

Of course, which is why I included "Politicians in the global north . . . [suppressing] progressive movements abroad and [preventing] autonomous economic development from occurring in the global south" in my post.

We need to dominate working class opinion and influence it every step of the way.

It's not the task of revolutionaries to "dominate" the working class, but rather to steer its energy in a progressive and creative direction. We cannot demand that the proletariat become nationalists. The best we can do is offer our perspective on the national question following the revolution. If it is our organization which has the honor of leading the proletariat, they would have already consented to a policy of national self-determination, and we would be in the position to implement said policy, in conjunction with representatives from all groups affected thereby.

If the workers decide to collectively reestablish capitalism will you allow that? I don't think so.

It's not as though there would be anything we could do about it. Considering it's radically democratic, socialism requires the mass consent of a population in order to sustain itself as a system. Socialists (myself included) contend that this won't be difficult to attain, since socialism will be capable of meeting the needs- and developing the potentials- of the working class far superior than capitalism ever was able to.

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.

The authoritarian temptation is a strong one, but it simply isn't realistic to stipulate ahead of time the precise manner in which policies will be implemented following the revolution. Relatively broad outlines are the most practical, as they allow for flexibility which will likely be required when the time arrives to transform society along socialist-nationalist principles.

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?

The RSF is an organization currently involved in developing its theoretical foundations. We are a collective of extremely dedicated individuals, who have every intention of expanding to the point of constituting a significant component of the revolutionary Left. And, no offense, but you wouldn't be having this conversation right now if it wasn't for us.

What do you justify your nationalism on then?

I justify it on the basis that people inherently identify with their nationality, and the fact that ethnocultural homogeneity fosters solidarity—which is essential for the development and maintenance of socialism—within communities, whereas diversity produces the converse effect.

Celtiberian wrote:Remember the context within which Marx penned those lines. In 1848, the European proletariat possessed neither property nor suffrage. If an entire class of people are explicitly denied the right to participate in the politics of the nation in which they reside, they are, for all intents and purposes, without a fatherland.

Not entirely. There is still a common history, a common gene pool, and a common culture which binds a working class folk to a fatherland. Nonetheless, I understand the notion that the working class would be alienated in a capitalist system and have a good reason for being a pessimist about their fatherland.

Not necessarily. Marx and Engels developed a radically new method of economic analysis and were applying it to questions previously unexplored by political economists. Philosophers had been theorizing about national identity for millenia, so it's reasonable to suppose that they didn't feel matters pertaining to the national question should be a high priority for them. Moreover, there are plenty of passages from Marx and Engels which suggest they held ethnocentric sentiments.

Like?

The proletarian revolution will be a social revolution, because it will arise as the result of economic contradictions. National revolutions occur under unique circumstances of national oppression, e.g., imperial domination, suppression of indigenous languages and cultures, ethnic cleansing, etc. The majority of proletarians in the global north—with the exception of the Basque region of Spain, Northern Ireland, etc.—are not currently facing conditions conducive to national revolutionary development, so it would be counterproductive for organizations to emphasize nationalism in their activism. Left-wing nationalism, as I view it, is a hypothesis of how the proletariat and their vanguard will choose to organize the workers' state in order to foster socialist social relations.

"Spreading pride" in our heritage is pointless at best (as people are innately ethnocentric, whether they're cognizant of it or not) and counterproductive at worse (since it may have the effect of cultivating class collaborationist sentiments in the working class).

Not all revolutions need occur as the result of economic development. Furthermore, I don't see how what European and American countries are any different from national oppression. Our national borders are constantly disregarded. The bourgeois media in addition to slandering socialist movements actively puts down national movements or ignores them completely. Anything related to self determination for Europeans, European only schools, European only colleges, European only anything is automatically put down as evil and "racist". We are suffering from a most oppressive occupation of bourgeoisie who have no regard for our heritage and would throw us to the side and bring in foreigners to squeeze every cent of profit they can out of them. Revolutions also occur in the mind and the spirit. It is my opinion a revolution must take place in these places before it can manifest itself on the physical plane. To "left wing nationalists", it seems nationalism is only a tool which can help harbor successful socialism devoid of any meaning outside the economy. We are not only fighting a revolution for a working class alienated from its work place and governments, but, for a people alienated to its ideals, its culture, and history all together.

Absolutely not. Marx and Engels viewed communism as a resolution to the class struggle capitalism engenders. They believed it would inevitably emerge as a result of the dialectical process of history. Engels was indeed an advocate of communism, but it's likely the primary reason for his affiliation was because he felt the communists were on the right side of history, as it were. He was obviously incorrect to assume identifications based upon national identity would cease to exist, but, again, he was merely theorizing.

What are we doing here but playing with words?

To use another example, let's hypothetically assume I became a Fukuyamaist and suddenly viewed liberal-democratic capitalism as the "end of history." I would understand that bourgeois social relations, operating in an international context, homogenize cultures. As a nationalist, this process would disturb me, but I would have no choice but to accept this as an inevitability since I already conceded that capitalism represented the end of history.

There is no end of history, neither communism or capitalism nor even a National Socialism or Socialist-Nationalism it is called can be an "end of history". So in this scenario, if you were to believe that capitalism is the end of history, I would call you a fool. You can't just accept something as "the end of history"? As long as humans are still around they have the power to change their social structure.

I don't consider it a "serious problem," as there are plenty of humane solutions which can be implemented. However, I don't consider your advocacy of forced expulsion to be amongst them.

I consider it a serious problem. Millions of immigrants in an already crowded and populated continent. Year by year we are losing our homelands. We are becoming the minorities, and with the immigration comes higher crime rates and violence. It is absolutely irrelevant whether we attribute this to the "poverty" of immigrants, the only fact is that it is happening.

It's not the task of revolutionaries to "dominate" the working class, but rather to steer its energy in a progressive and creative direction. We cannot demand that the proletariat become nationalists. The best we can do is offer our perspective on the national question following the revolution. If it is our organization which has the honor of leading the proletariat, they would have already consented to a policy of national self-determination, and we would be in the position to implement said policy, in conjunction with representatives from all groups affected thereby.

I merely meant to dominate their opinion, push the Socialist-Nationalist agenda every step of the way. We can not make demands to individual people, but we can make demands for national self determination and spread them to the public.

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.

The authoritarian temptation is a strong one, but it simply isn't realistic to stipulate ahead of time the precise manner in which policies will be implemented following the revolution. Relatively broad outlines are the most practical, as they allow for flexibility which will likely be required when the time arrives to transform society along socialist-nationalist principles.

I am merely arguing for concrete demands, yes they may have to be flexible, but it does no good to tear something down if you do not know what you intend to build in its place.

The RSF is an organization currently involved in developing its theoretical foundations. We are a collective of extremely dedicated individuals, who have every intention of expanding to the point of constituting a significant component of the revolutionary Left. And, no offense, but you wouldn't be having this conversation right now if it wasn't for us.

True, but internet debates are not of relevance to the masses at this point in time.

Let us remember, time is of the essence.

I justify it on the basis that people inherently identify with their nationality, and the fact that ethnocultural homogeneity fosters solidarity—which is essential for the development and maintenance of socialism—within communities, whereas diversity produces the converse effect.

What nationality do you identify with if not American? Tell me, why does diversity bother you personally?

Pantheon Rising wrote: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?

Merely partitioning land is not a right. In fact, it is illegitimate, and I need not delve into the sordid history of European land acquisition. I suggest you read Proudhon's What Is Property? if you believe that claiming land for oneself is valid. Rather than mindlessly struggling for the last plot of land, which is pointless, petty, and savage, we are now in a position to rationally reach international agreement regarding the self-determination of nations and land apportionment. Nobody has any "right" to the planet's resources (in that, they have no right to exclude others from them), and historical accident and conquest should not be recognized as authentic justifications for borders.

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.

Clearly, which is why we seek to end this harmful migratory pattern.

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

What is done is done. There may not be need to "recede" European lands due to the fact that many immigrants and non-indigenous people would perhaps voluntarily repatriate given reasonable arrangements for their well-being (of course, this will largely depend upon the extent to which socialism has taken root in the world), but at the same time, autonomous zones may be necessary. In either case, the course of action would not be at your discretion.

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.

Left-wing nationalist theory has not yet matured to the point where we can conceive practical solutions given the wide variety of national circumstances around the world, and what is more, there is truly no manner of telling how such will be resolved in accordance with our principles until after revolution. I agree with Celtiberian in that I believe a broad, flexible strategy to be optimal at this period of development.

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?

What we are doing at this point in time is more productive than street activism. We are constructing a consistent and well-rounded platform upon which to stand for future activism, once we enter the political stage. Going out and chanting, shouting, and otherwise being a public nuisance or, worse yet, standing behind a silly booth, like some white nationalist "activists," is an exercise in futility, especially given our limited human resources (which, incidentally, you do not seem eager to enhance with your membership). What is more, serious struggle won't occur until grassroots organization becomes embedded across communities, which requires years of commitment and, most of all, resources. Simply put, we will engage the public when we are ready.

I am curious, though, since you are not the first to clamor for "street activism," and you certainly won't be the last, as to what your approach would be. What would you do right now if you were in a position to lead the RSF?

What do you justify your nationalism on then?

Refer to Celtiberian's response.

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.

No, it simply indicates a reality we must face, and our preferred method, as nationalists, is to allow for self-determination so as to foster maximum social cohesion. There is, however, nothing sacred about the present configuration of national boundaries. Like others, I do not necessarily find nationhood to be a permanent fixture of humanity.

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

Yes.

Not only would such a policy be needlessly aggressive, potentially destructive, and inhumane, it would establish a negative precedent and would be difficult to justify from a left-wing nationalist perspective. If national discretion is such an imperative, and national interests trounce international cooperation, then what is to stop a Lebensraum agenda? After all, why not imperialism? Blut und Boden über alles.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Not all revolutions need occur as the result of economic development. Furthermore, I don't see how what European and American countries are any different from national oppression. Our national borders are constantly disregarded. The bourgeois media in addition to slandering socialist movements actively puts down national movements or ignores them completely. Anything related to self determination for Europeans, European only schools, European only colleges, European only anything is automatically put down as evil and "racist". We are suffering from a most oppressive occupation of bourgeoisie who have no regard for our heritage and would throw us to the side and bring in foreigners to squeeze every cent of profit they can out of them. Revolutions also occur in the mind and the spirit. It is my opinion a revolution must take place in these places before it can manifest itself on the physical plane. To "left wing nationalists", it seems nationalism is only a tool which can help harbor successful socialism devoid of any meaning outside the economy. We are not only fighting a revolution for a working class alienated from its work place and governments, but, for a people alienated to its ideals, its culture, and history all together.

Preach it brother, rep point for you:D

Pantheon Rising wrote:Not entirely. There is still a common history, a common gene pool, and a common culture which binds a working class folk to a fatherland. Nonetheless, I understand the notion that the working class would be alienated in a capitalist system and have a good reason for being a pessimist about their fatherland.

It matters not if your exploiter happens to share your physical attributes and a common culture. If, for example, I had the misfortune of having to labor in a sweatshop for a living, I can unequivocally state that I would identify more closely with co-workers of different ethnicities, than I would with the sweatshop owner(s) and/or manager(s) who happened to be of my own ethnocultural background. This solidarity would likely be conditional, and therefore subject to recede upon changes in circumstance, but the point stands nonetheless.

Like?

"It is now completely clear to me that he [Ferdinand Lassalle], as is proved by his cranial formation and [curly] hair—descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses' exodus from Egypt (assuming his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n*gger). Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a percular product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also n*gger-like."
Letter from Marx to Engels, 30 July 1862
Padover, Saul K. (ed). The Letters of Karl Marx: Selected and Translated with Explanatory Notes and an Introduction, p. 468.

"[Paul Lafargue has] one-eighth or one-twelfth n*gger blood . . . Being his quality as n*gger, a degree nearer to the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district [the Paris Zoo's Municipal Council]."
Letter from Engels to Laura Marx, 26 April 1887
Page, Leslie R. Karl Marx and the Critical Examination of his Works, p. 111.

"When one views the world through traditional Marxist preconceptions, one tends not to see much racial conflict. Engels's opinion signifies one thing for a world split on class among white people; perhaps it implies something else when we introduce racial considerations. Léon Poliakov (1974, 224-46) discusses Engels and Marx's racism, emphasizing Engels's claim that 'Blacks were congenitally incapable of understanding mathematics.'"
Levy, David M. How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics, p. 147.

Etc.

The extent of Marx and Engels's documented ethnocentrism tends to consist of disparaging statements aimed at individuals of black, Jewish, or Slavic ancestry. It's undoubtedly vulgar racism, and thus far from what we left-wing nationalists espouse, but you asked for examples.

Not all revolutions need occur as the result of economic development.

Socialist revolution can arise by no other means. If you can cite a single example of an explicitly nationalist revolution occurring in the global north, in a nation which wasn't also enduring conditions of imperial domination, geopolitical hostility, cultural suppression, and/or ethnic cleansing, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Furthermore, I don't see how what European and American countries are any different from national oppression.

We haven't any foreign entity dominating us. Parliamentary democracy also presents the masses with the illusion that the people—and not the bourgeoisie—ultimately possess control over the manner in which policy is determined. Thus, if illegal immigration is to the point wherein it's significantly lowering wages and changing the national character of the country, the proletariat turn against themselves, blaming one segment of the working class for the phenomenon instead of understanding that the system itself is at fault. Moreover, there isn't a concerted effort to suppress national culture, so whatever changes may occur toward that end happen at a very gradual pace.

Again, these aren't conditions conducive to national revolutionary development. Americans may loathe having to "Press #1 for English," as it were, but they aren't willing to start a revolution over it. Immigrants negatively affecting the labor market, on the other hand, will prompt them into action, but this is fundamentally economic in nature.

Revolutions also occur in the mind and the spirit.

Of course. Class consciousness obviously occurs in the mind, and the willingness to engage in revolutionary activism requires a radical change in spirit.

To "left wing nationalists", it seems nationalism is only a tool which can help harbor successful socialism devoid of any meaning outside the economy.

Nonsense. We view nationalism as being of instrumental (insofar as it fosters socialist development and maintenance) and intrinsic value (as national identity is fundamental to the human condition).

What are we doing here but playing with words?

How was I "playing with words"? I provided you with a plausible explanation of how one might currently hold values which they nevertheless feel will fade into oblivion at some point in the future.

There is no end of history, neither communism or capitalism nor even a National Socialism or Socialist-Nationalism it is called can be an "end of history". So in this scenario, if you were to believe that capitalism is the end of history, I would call you a fool. You can't just accept something as "the end of history"? As long as humans are still around they have the power to change their social structure.

The end of history hypothesis postulates that there is basically only one feasible mode of production best capable of serving man's needs. I agree that it's nonsensical to believe we shall ever reach finality with respect to how we choose to organize production, but I do believe that our trajectory will be one of maximizing participation and equity and minimizing onerousness.

But this is all besides the point I was trying to make. Engels believed that communism was emergent, since it was the only conceivable mode of production immune from economic contractions (and I happen to agree). Consequently, whatever mores happen to exist in bourgeois society (including those he may have harbored himself) were, in Engels's opinion, subject to alteration or complete change following the ascent of communism. I don't believe he thought every cultural or behavioral characteristic would change though, and he and Marx never wrote anything to that effect. They were always very vague with their thoughts regarding how communism would function, so Engels's The Principles of Communism was quite out of character.

I consider it a serious problem. Millions of immigrants in an already crowded and populated continent. Year by year we are losing our homelands. We are becoming the minorities, and with the immigration comes higher crime rates and violence. It is absolutely irrelevant whether we attribute this to the "poverty" of immigrants, the only fact is that it is happening.

I didn't write that the effects of immigration weren't serious. I merely stated that there isn't a crisis in possible solutions to the issue. You seem to be of the opinion that forced expulsion is the only legitimate option we have, and that this has dire consequences for the manner in which we proceed with revolutionary activism. I disagree and I've explained why.

I merely meant to dominate their opinion, push the Socialist-Nationalist agenda every step of the way. We can not make demands to individual people, but we can make demands for national self determination and spread them to the public.

And I've stated why it's problematic to overemphasize nationalism at this point in time.

True, but internet debates are not of relevance to the masses at this point in time.

I never argued that they were. A coherent ideological foundation and inspiring political program, however, are vital to success.

Let us remember, time is of the essence.

Clearly.

What nationality do you identify with if not American?

I'm most comfortable around Americans due to cultural and linguistic commonality, but there's nothing about American culture I find especially compelling.

Tell me, why does diversity bother you personally?

I dislike the effects it has on populations, e.g., tension, fragmentation, introversion, etc.

Rev Scare wrote:Merely partitioning land is not a right. In fact, it is illegitimate, and I need not delve into the sordid history of European land acquisition. I suggest you read Proudhon's What Is Property? if you believe that claiming land for oneself is valid. Rather than mindlessly struggling for the last plot of land, which is pointless, petty, and savage, we are now in a position to rationally reach international agreement regarding the self-determination of nations and land apportionment. Nobody has any "right" to the planet's resources (in that, they have no right to exclude others from them), and historical accident and conquest should not be recognized as authentic justifications for borders.

I have read that book, and we are not talking about land speculation nor are we even talking about the taking of land through conquest. It is called mutual respect, and, it is about equality. Europeans get their land, everyone else gets their respective. The land belongs to no one, and it is shared with respect. Trying to bring up Proudhon's works to justify against a European self determined state is silly and pretty cosmopolitan like. If a nation bases their self determination on ethnicity, what do you think is going to happen? A black man is not a Pole.

What is done is done. There may not be need to "recede" European lands due to the fact that many immigrants and non-indigenous people would perhaps voluntarily repatriate given reasonable arrangements for their well-being (of course, this will largely depend upon the extent to which socialism has taken root in the world), but at the same time, autonomous zones may be necessary. In either case, the course of action would not be at your discretion.

Aye, and unless you are from Europe, it will not be at your discretion either.

What we are doing at this point in time is more productive than street activism. We are constructing a consistent and well-rounded platform upon which to stand for future activism, once we enter the political stage. Going out and chanting, shouting, and otherwise being a public nuisance or, worse yet, standing behind a silly booth, like some white nationalist "activists," is an exercise in futility, especially given our limited human resources (which, incidentally, you do not seem eager to enhance with your membership). What is more, serious struggle won't occur until grassroots organization becomes embedded across communities, which requires years of commitment and, most of all, resources. Simply put, we will engage the public when we are ready.

I will take your word for it, I am interested to see where the RSF is in years.

I am curious, though, since you are not the first to clamor for "street activism," and you certainly won't be the last, as to what your approach would be. What would you do right now if you were in a position to lead the RSF?

I would be gathering clear demands and a program, and spreading the program at strikes/picket lines, occupy movements, and on the street as well as gathering resources to be able to make banners, fliers, flags, and to rent out places to hold speeches and party gatherings.

No, it simply indicates a reality we must face, and our preferred method, as nationalists, is to allow for self-determination so as to foster maximum social cohesion. There is, however, nothing sacred about the present configuration of national boundaries. Like others, I do not necessarily find nationhood to be a permanent fixture of humanity.

You're right there is nothing sacred about it, because they are not what they use to be and our nations are falling apart. We can make our nations sacred and loved again though, and marxist materialism hardly accomplishes that task.

Not only would such a policy be needlessly aggressive, potentially destructive, and inhumane, it would establish a negative precedent and would be difficult to justify from a left-wing nationalist perspective. If national discretion is such an imperative, and national interests trounce international cooperation, then what is to stop a Lebensraum agenda? After all, why not imperialism? Blut und Boden über alles.

We are not talking about lebensraum, please. We are talking about land that Europeans have shared, worked, farmed, and fought tooth and nail for. Millions of slavs, teutons, celts, etc died in the very soil defending it. Europeans have a claim to that living space, and for good reason. Again, what if this situation was reversed? Do you think other races would allow for that? Europeans just throwing up whole states in their ancestral lands?

Celtiberian wrote:It matters not if your exploiter happens to share your physical attributes and a common culture. If, for example, I had the misfortune of having to labor in a sweatshop for a living, I can unequivocally state that I would identify more closely with co-workers of different ethnicities, than I would with the sweatshop owner(s) and/or manager(s) who happened to be of my own ethnocultural background. This solidarity would likely be conditional, and therefore subject to recede upon changes in circumstance, but the point stands nonetheless.

Only you don't have to labor in a sweatshop for a living. Thanks to struggles over the past two centuries working conditions have improved, in the West at least. Also, we are not talking just about economic social relations here. We are talking about a common history, genes, language, culture. There is room to acknowledge this fact and still advocate for a change of social relations.

"It is now completely clear to me that he [Ferdinand Lassalle], as is proved by his cranial formation and [curly] hair—descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses' exodus from Egypt (assuming his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n*gger). Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a percular product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also n*gger-like."
Letter from Marx to Engels, 30 July 1862
Padover, Saul K. (ed). The Letters of Karl Marx: Selected and Translated with Explanatory Notes and an Introduction, p. 468.

"[Paul Lafargue has] one-eighth or one-twelfth n*gger blood . . . Being his quality as n*gger, a degree nearer to the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district [the Paris Zoo's Municipal Council]."
Letter from Engels to Laura Marx, 26 April 1887
Page, Leslie R. Karl Marx and the Critical Examination of his Works, p. 111.

"When one views the world through traditional Marxist preconceptions, one tends not to see much racial conflict. Engels's opinion signifies one thing for a world split on class among white people; perhaps it implies something else when we introduce racial considerations. Léon Poliakov (1974, 224-46) discusses Engels and Marx's racism, emphasizing Engels's claim that 'Blacks were congenitally incapable of understanding mathematics.'"
Levy, David M. How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics, p. 147.

Etc.

The extent of Marx and Engels's documented ethnocentrism tends to consist of disparaging statements aimed at individuals of black, Jewish, or Slavic ancestry. It's undoubtedly vulgar racism, and thus far from what we left-wing nationalists espouse, but you asked for examples.

Nothing but a couple of racist statements, and doesn't even come to equate to ethnocentrism. It doesn't imply a love or any sort of love or feelings for one's homeland, culture, or heritage; it seems that Marx merely has a problem with the African phenotype.

Socialist revolution can arise by no other means. If you can cite a single example of an explicitly nationalist revolution occurring in the global north, in a nation which wasn't also enduring conditions of imperial domination, geopolitical hostility, cultural suppression, and/or ethnic cleansing, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'd be interested in seeing your evidence Europeans AREN'T experiencing national and cultural suppression.

We haven't any foreign entity dominating us. Parliamentary democracy also presents the masses with the illusion that the people—and not the bourgeoisie—ultimately possess control over the manner in which policy is determined. Thus, if illegal immigration is to the point wherein it's significantly lowering wages and changing the national character of the country, the proletariat turn against themselves, blaming one segment of the working class for the phenomenon instead of understanding that the system itself is at fault. Moreover, there isn't a concerted effort to suppress national culture, so whatever changes may occur toward that end happen at a very gradual pace.

Again, these aren't conditions conducive to national revolutionary development. Americans may loathe having to "Press #1 for English," as it were, but they aren't willing to start a revolution over it. Immigrants negatively affecting the labor market, on the other hand, will prompt them into action, but this is fundamentally economic in nature.

Uh, no. There are many Americans, myself included, who are opposed to illegal immigration for more than just economic reasons. You repeat the same Marxist mistake that is always made "everything in the economy, nothing outside it". Secondly, people aren't going to look to Marxism for any sort of self determination because, as Marx said, "Workers have no nations".

It is untrue we don't have a foreign entity dominating us. We have foreign entities dominating us all around, and when anyone speaks out, they are silenced and shut up. I am sure you heard, just recently, of Emma West. The "racist tram lady". She was locked up for public racism. Now, I have to absolutely say that she was acting in a most vulgar manner in which I disagree with; but most people do when they first realize we are losing our nations. She was locked up for voicing her concerns that Britain is not really Britain anymore. If that is not national oppression, I don't know what is.

Nonsense. We view nationalism as being of instrumental (insofar as it fosters socialist development and maintenance) and intrinsic value (as national identity is fundamental to the human condition).

Let us hope. I hear and see very little of the intrinsic value, though.

How was I "playing with words"? I provided you with a plausible explanation of how one might currently hold values which they nevertheless feel will fade into oblivion at some point in the future.

It is playing with words. If Engels seeks to advance an ideology that would in his mind do away with national identity than he doesn't care. It is as simple as that. If he cared, he would have been advancing a National Socialism or a Socialist-Nationalism.

The end of history hypothesis postulates that there is basically only one feasible mode of production best capable of serving man's needs. I agree that it's nonsensical to believe we shall ever reach finality with respect to how we choose to organize production, but I do believe that our trajectory will be one of maximizing participation and equity and minimizing onerousness.

But this is all besides the point I was trying to make. Engels believed that communism was emergent, since it was the only conceivable mode of production immune from economic contractions (and I happen to agree). Consequently, whatever mores happen to exist in bourgeois society (including those he may have harbored himself) were, in Engels's opinion, subject to alteration or complete change following the ascent of communism. I don't believe he thought every cultural or behavioral characteristic would change though, and he and Marx never wrote anything to that effect. They were always very vague with their thoughts regarding how communism would function, so Engels's The Principles of Communism was quite out of character.

How is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their own needs" the ONLY system without contradictions?

I didn't write that the effects of immigration weren't serious. I merely stated that there isn't a crisis in possible solutions to the issue. You seem to be of the opinion that forced expulsion is the only legitimate option we have, and that this has dire consequences for the manner in which we proceed with revolutionary activism. I disagree and I've explained why.

I said that that is something I might consider for our Europeans homelands, yes. I have no say in the decisions though, as I have said before.

And I've stated why it's problematic to overemphasize nationalism at this point in time.

It is problematic not to in my opinion. I am not a socialist with a policy of self determination I am a Nationalist and a Socialist.

I'm most comfortable around Americans due to cultural and linguistic commonality, but there's nothing about American culture I find especially compelling.

Me neither, to be honest. Nonetheless I feel we should honor at least the nation's revolutionary past. I find that most people are alienated from their cultures due to capitalism; which is one reason I am most opposed to it.

I think Pantheon Rising is right about many things. In the case of Europe, many countries there have been the domain of one Nation ( with few national minorities living there) until fairly recently. Now I personally dont care if the Germans ( for example) let all the Turks ( who came to their country rather recently) stay there. Im not German so that isnt any of my business. However I must say that every Nation has the right to kick out any minority from their homeland if they choose to do so. Its their land, so they have every right to kick unwanted people out of it. Just like any person has the right to kick an unwanted guest out of their own home.

And yes every Nation has the right to claim a part of this planet as their own. Many habitable pieces of this Earth have been the home of a certain people who have lived, worked, fought, and died on it for many years. Such a people has every right to call that piece of land its home and to guard it from foreigners.

Its not Imperialistic for a Nation to kick out a national minority from its homeland. Imperialism involves ruling another Nation. An act like this would prevent that from happening since there would be no other Nation in their homeland that they could rule over. Likewise its not Imperialistic for a Nation to take back land ( that is its by right) from foreigners.

It's not imperialistic, but it's reactionary. It implies that you can fix things simply by blaming minorities. You won't fix a thing until there's a socialist revolution.

That said, I do think too many minorities acting as a fifth column is a problem and I also don't like to see the history of genetic evolution reversed through widespread miscegenation.

Metal Gear wrote:It's not imperialistic, but it's reactionary. It implies that you can fix things simply by blaming minorities. You won't fix a thing until there's a socialist revolution.

That said, I do think too many minorities acting as a fifth column is a problem and I also don't like to see the history of genetic evolution reversed through widespread miscegenation.

No one is blaming minorities, and a National Ethnic and folkish revival is most certainly not reactionary. A nation is like a home for a distinct people who share commonalities. I don't just come into your home and decide I am going to set up an autonomous bedroom in your kitchen. You could let me with your consent, but as we know, the working people in our nations hardly get asked for consent on anything.

Pantheon Rising wrote:No one is blaming minorities, and a National Ethnic and folkish revival is most certainly not reactionary. A nation is like a home for a distinct people who share commonalities. I don't just come into your home and decide I am going to set up an autonomous bedroom in your kitchen. You could let me with your consent, but as we know, the working people in our nations hardly get asked for consent on anything.

The problem with your conception of the nation is that it is (at least partially) based on reactionary Blut und Boden values. Territories and nations are two entirely different things that needn't be conflated with one another.

You argue that these lands are basically sacred, due to the fact that people fought and died for them. In my opinion, such a history renders these lands no more 'sacred' than the capital bourgeois armies fight to defend. The maintenance and defense of territories merely underscores the inherent value of the workers engaged in those endeavors, not the territories themselves.

And if you truly value the 'consent' of the working class, I would suggest that you extend this principle to the question of the future (post-revolutionary) formation of nations.

Admin wrote:The problem with your conception of the nation is that it is (at least partially) based on reactionary Blut und Boden values. Territories and nations are two entirely different things that needn't be conflated with one another.

Yes, it is partially based on blood and soil values. How is that not an integral part of a Nation? Nations and territories are different, but nations can not exist without territories in which they can call part of their nation.

You argue that these lands are basically sacred, due to the fact that people fought and died for them. In my opinion, such a history renders these lands no more 'sacred' than the capital bourgeois armies fight to defend. The maintenance and defense of territories merely underscores the inherent value of the workers engaged in those endeavors, not the territories themselves.

Only capitalism hasn't been around for thousands of years. In your little world view here my ancestors who fought against Roman and Mongol invasions are no better than the U.S. Army securing foreign capital. Then again, I guess my Germanic and Slavic ancestors were just slaves seeking to protect the capital of their masters.

And if you truly value the 'consent' of the working class, I would suggest that you extend this principle to the question of the future (post-revolutionary) formation of nations.

Oh, I do. I never said I didn't. You will spread your ideas for self determination among the masses, and I shall spread mine. The masses of European workers will have to decide what is best.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Only you don't have to labor in a sweatshop for a living. Thanks to struggles over the past two centuries working conditions have improved, in the West at least.

That's irrelevant. I think the point easily transcends the narrow context of Celtiberian's example. If recent developments in Western capitalist economies serve as any sort of insight into the collective disposition of the working class, I think one can confidently assert that a nascent class consciousness is beginning to emerge. Of course, the extent by which said consciousness will ultimately serve to obscure the respective ethnocultural identities of various populations is disputable.

Nevertheless, I strongly doubt that Western populations will ever again be put in a political situation wherein their class interests and ethnocultural identities are pitted against one another in the extreme way they were with the emergence of European fascism in the Twentieth Century. As such, the only real obstacle the left currently faces is the potential alienation of the working class — via the ongoing promotion of cosmopolitanism and various cultural values that are completely out of touch with the values of the majority of that demographic.

I'd be interested in seeing your evidence Europeans AREN'T experiencing national and cultural suppression.

I believe what Celtiberian was arguing was that the specific nature of the national and cultural 'suppression' in question is critical in determining exactly how nationalistic sentiments will factor into the revolutionary consciousness of the working class. As one can readily observe, contemporary bourgeois policies in the West have yet to generate such a 'national' revolutionary consciousness.

Uh, no. There are many Americans, myself included, who are opposed to illegal immigration for more than just economic reasons. You repeat the same Marxist mistake that is always made "everything in the economy, nothing outside it".

He did not say that people only oppose illegal immigration when they are economically affected by it. What he is arguing is that the impetus to actively combat the system perpetuating this only exists when economic conditions reach a certain critical mass. Prior to that point, there may exist widespread passive opposition to such a phenomenon, as well as some fringe elements that may be more aggressively opposed to it, but that is meaningless.

Secondly, people aren't going to look to Marxism for any sort of self determination because, as Marx said, "Workers have no nations".

The people will look to themselves for self-determination. They will look to Marxism to help them understand the nature of capitalism and to inform them of what alternatives exist. (The latter will precede the former.)

It is untrue we don't have a foreign entity dominating us. We have foreign entities dominating us all around, and when anyone speaks out, they are silenced and shut up. I am sure you heard, just recently, of Emma West. The "racist tram lady". She was locked up for public racism. Now, I have to absolutely say that she was acting in a most vulgar manner in which I disagree with; but most people do when they first realize we are losing our nations. She was locked up for voicing her concerns that Britain is not really Britain anymore. If that is not national oppression, I don't know what is.

That is a violation of freedom of speech — which is surely oppressive in its own right — but it's not "national oppression" in the sense that it constitutes some sort systematic persecution of people due to their ethnocultural characteristics. Of course, policing these specific forms of speech have the capacity to produce something of a backlash amongst various ethnocultural groups. But, again, these policies alone are incapable of turning a decisive portion of the population against the system in a revolutionary fashion.

Moreover, this is not a 'foreign entity', in the way in which Celtiberian specified. It is no more foreign than any other ruling establishment in an undemocratic system.

Let us hope. I hear and see very little of the intrinsic value, though.

What exactly would you expect to see in order to arrive at the proper conclusion?

How is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their own needs" the ONLY system without contradictions?

Cite an example of another mode of production devoid of contradiction.

It is problematic not to in my opinion. I am not a socialist with a policy of self determination I am a Nationalist and a Socialist.

And what makes your 'Nationalism' more substantive than ours? Your Blut und Boden fetish and disregard for the human rights of racial/ethnic groups that are not of your own?

Metal Gear wrote:It's not imperialistic, but it's reactionary. It implies that you can fix things simply by blaming minorities. You won't fix a thing until there's a socialist revolution.

That said, I do think too many minorities acting as a fifth column is a problem and I also don't like to see the history of genetic evolution reversed through widespread miscegenation.

Reactionary? No offence but do you even know what that word means ( or at least meant way back in the 18th and 19th centuries)? Cause what I just wrote has nothing to do with the views of the guys who were actual reactionaries.

I dont see how what I just wrote implies that you can fix things by blaming minorities. For the record I dont believe you can fix everything by simply taking care of the minority question. This national minority problem is just one of MANY problems. But guess what dude: So is Capitalism. You wont fix things ( as you put it) by simply having a socialist revolution. To fix things you need to take care of all problems. Which may never ever happen. I mean hell there might be problems we dont even know of and might never ever fix.

Admin wrote:The problem with your conception of the nation is that it is (at least partially) based on reactionary Blut und Boden values. Territories and nations are two entirely different things that needn't be conflated with one another.

You argue that these lands are basically sacred, due to the fact that people fought and died for them. In my opinion, such a history renders these lands no more 'sacred' than the capital bourgeois armies fight to defend. The maintenance and defense of territories merely underscores the inherent value of the workers engaged in those endeavors, not the territories themselves.

And if you truly value the 'consent' of the working class, I would suggest that you extend this principle to the question of the future (post-revolutionary) formation of nations.

Ok then may I ask what is your conception of the nation? You seem to be against defining the nation in ethnic terms, so then how do you define it? By citizenship? Or what?

Also Im sorry but saying that ( for example) the land that Polish troops defended from the Teutonic Order is no different than the capital US troops defend in ( say the Middle East) is plain ridiculous . When people defend themselves and their homeland from foreign invaders they are obviously fighting for a good cause. When people fight to defend the oil interests of wealthy tycoons then they are obviously fighting for a bad cause. To compare the two is ( like I wrote before) nonsense.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Yes, it is partially based on blood and soil values. How is that not an integral part of a Nation? Nations and territories are different, but nations can not exist without territories in which they can call part of their nation.

I disagree. While some sort of defined territory may serve some beneficial function (in terms of reinforcing a national consciousness), I don't think it is an indispensable component of a national identity. Jews and Gypsies maintained national identities with vibrant cultures for generations without the existence of a 'homeland'. For the most part, a cultural narrative (that merely reiterated the legacy of a homeland) was enough to maintain a group solidarity that outlived many others.

Only capitalism hasn't been around for thousands of years.

Capitalism is not the only system that has exploited people. You may have a romantic conception of what the history of 'your people' entailed, but I would suggest you revisit the relevant chapters thereof. Perhaps if you examine the question from a critical standpoint you will come to understand that the sacrifices made by the common people simply fed into a system that they did not stand to equitably benefit from — unless we are talking about the most primitive/tribal contexts (that precede the emergence of any discernible 'national' population).

In your little world view here my ancestors who fought against Roman and Mongol invasions are no better than the U.S. Army securing foreign capital. Then again, I guess my Germanic and Slavic ancestors were just slaves seeking to protect the capital of their masters.

Let's revisit the argument, so that you can understand clearly.

I specifically said that the 'land' they fought for and systems they maintained were the functional equivalents of contemporary capital. I can't help that you are fetishizing objects and institutions (in the quintessential reactionary form). As I said, I place the relative value in the common people — that would include their history of combating foreign invasion, etc.

Now perhaps you will oblige me in explaining how this history renders the land (borders and all) so sacred that you support an exclusive ethnic monopolization over it (perhaps even over the human rights of people who, through no choice of their own, were born there). I think attending to the well being of the nation (i.e. the people) is far more important than maintaining a presence in a specific location. And it just so happens that the most rational (as well as humane) way in which to attend to their needs is to ensure that the human rights of other populations are also adequately prioritized. Failure to do so establishes a negative precedent in international relations — which can eventually jeopardize stability — and can potentially lead to a host of other domestic problems.

Of course, I think the Western working class is both rational and benevolent enough to handle these matters in a way that is mindful of the rights of various ethnocultural minority groups; especially in an international climate characterized by socialist emancipation.

Oh, I do. I never said I didn't. You will spread your ideas for self determination among the masses, and I shall spread mine. The masses of European workers will have to decide what is best.

Fair enough.