LWN

The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present ... national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them. - Lenine

One of the best Marxist wrote that sow how can you insist on " nationalism " ?

from what i understand of Lenin he did support a form of left-wing nationalism under socialism, but when it finally evolved into communism he held the view that borders would dissolve. "it would be a crime to those living under socialism to deny them the right of self-determination" is one of his famous quotes and in what you quoted above he says "the aim of socialism" most likely referring to communist society. If i am wrong somebody please correct me.

You are right but he only w2anted slef determination to people get free from the opressors then he reject that because it's reactionary

I hope i answered your question comrade

How exactly can you say what a man means by his words?

Balkan Beast wrote:How exactly can you say what a man means by his words?

Exactly, he's just speculating and making a false equivalency between left-wing nationalism and bourgeois, chauvinistic nationalism.

Because Lenin's word is law right? There exists no other theory out there as infallible as Leninism?

i meant in no way to put words in Lenin's mouth only to say vasco understood what i meant, theory is always up for debate and i claim only my own understanding

The meaning behind these words is subjective and posted without context for that matter. To say that Lenin should be listened to 'just because' is an appeal to authority. If you want to say something use logical argument and data.

You also quote Lenine .
So you only quote Lenin when is good for you ?
And one last thing doesn't exist Leninism only Marxist-Leninism .

Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede.

The period of the victory of socialism on a world scale differs from the period of the victory of socialism in one country primarily in the fact that it will abolish imperialism in all countries, will abolish both the striving to subjugate other nations and the fear inspired by the menace of national enslavement, will radically undermine national distrust and national enmity, will unite the nations into one world socialist economic system, and will thus create the real conditions necessary for the gradual merging of all nations into one - Stalin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present ... national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them. - Lenine

One of the best Marxist wrote that sow how can you insist on " nationalism " ?

Lenin may have said so, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

I actually couldn't care less about what Lenin said regarding this matter, because i am socialist for the present and the future, not the past.

That kind of speech is the same speech the left has used for decades now, and where did it got? Nowhere. It alienated the working population of the global north, and even of the emerging economies, giving a bad image of socialist at the same time. I see absolutely NO evidence of "nations merging" in the near future, and EVEN with the present crisis, we see only nationalist sentiments rising and not falling. To expect class solidarity across the globe to arise from nowhere, its irrational to say the least.

The left currently makes the mistake to assume that FIRST the class solidarity must occur and only after that the world scale revolution will become a reality. This is like hoping for a messiah to come. Class solidarity and socialism must be fostered at a NATIONAL LEVEL first, before it can even dream to become an international force.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I actually couldn't care less about what Lenin said regarding this matter, because i am socialist for the present and the future, not the past.

That kind of speech is the same speech the left has used for decades now, and where did it got? Nowhere. It alienated the working population of the global north, and even of the emerging economies, giving a bad image of socialist at the same time. I see absolutely NO evidence of "nations merging" in the near future, and EVEN with the present crisis, we see only nationalist sentiments rising and not falling. To expect class solidarity across the globe to arise from nowhere, its irrational to say the least.

The left currently makes the mistake to assume that FIRST the class solidarity must occur and only after that the world scale revolution will become a reality. This is like hoping for a messiah to come. Class solidarity and socialism must be fostered at a NATIONAL LEVEL first, before it can even dream to become an international force.

Yes, this is one point that I think Marx was wrong about. Capitalism's primary effect on nations hasn't been to merge them. Capitalism, in fact, makes national self-determination a necessity.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I actually couldn't care less about what Lenin said regarding this matter, because i am socialist for the present and the future, not the past.

That kind of speech is the same speech the left has used for decades now, and where did it got? Nowhere. It alienated the working population of the global north, and even of the emerging economies, giving a bad image of socialist at the same time. I see absolutely NO evidence of "nations merging" in the near future, and EVEN with the present crisis, we see only nationalist sentiments rising and not falling. To expect class solidarity across the globe to arise from nowhere, its irrational to say the least.

The left currently makes the mistake to assume that FIRST the class solidarity must occur and only after that the world scale revolution will become a reality. This is like hoping for a messiah to come. Class solidarity and socialism must be fostered at a NATIONAL LEVEL first, before it can even dream to become an international force.

He also wanted self determination but when the nation get's that they should stop having nationalism because they will pass to " reactionary " .

In chat this kid admitted to following circular reasoning in this conversation:

[17:38:02] Red Aegis : since you obviously can't remember
[17:39:16] Red Aegis : Part 1) You said that Nations and Borders cause inequality. You then say that it causes inequality due to stereotypes forming. You then say that stereotypes form because of Borders and Nations. [14:42:07 23/04/12] Red Aegis : That is circular reasoning [14:42:29 23/04/12] Red Aegis : If you don't know why it is wrong I shall show you in a link [14:42:49 23/04/12] Red Aegis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
[17:39:57] Red Aegis : Part 2) Red Aegis : What is your response? [15:07:04 23/04/12] Vasco Gonçalves : it's right but i what i state is true [15:07:29 23/04/12] Red Aegis : No it is not [15:07:35 23/04/12] Red Aegis : It is illogical [15:07:41 23/04/12] Red Aegis : and therefore false [15:08:14 23/04/12] Red Aegis : If you disagree then you admit to being irrational

Then he called me a nazi here:

[17:42:09] Vasco Gonçalves : why didn't you take out the mask and admitt you are ans
[17:42:15] Vasco Gonçalves : * an strasserist
[17:42:16] Vasco Gonçalves : ?

He did this because I said that he was using the argument from authority fallacy with Lenin. He's an idiot.

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:He also wanted self determination but when the nation get's that they should stop having nationalism because they will pass to " reactionary " .

Really? So exactly how would your "turn off" nationalism or patriotism as soon as a national revolution would occur, and how exactly would that turn into a reactionary force once revolution has been achieved?

Then he said this about the forum:

[17:47:01] Vasco Gonçalves : * last
[17:47:42] Vasco Gonçalves : Did you enjoy Stormfront ?
[17:47:44] Godfaesten : Ok I read it
[17:47:49] Godfaesten : not really

He is insinuating that GF is a Nazi now as well.

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:He also wanted self determination but when the nation get's that they should stop having nationalism because they will pass to " reactionary " .

Look, I can't speak for the rest of the forum members, but in my opinion, we can't enforce nationalism, nor should we try. If people want to feel nationalistic, we shouldn't stop them. If they don't want to, we shouldn't try and make them. Therefore, whether people's national sentiments are reactionary, or revolutionary, or even non-existant, we shouldn't try and do anything about it.

Also, we can aspire to self-determination without having reactionary nationalism. There is no reason for self-determination to lead to reactionary nationalism.

Vasco, I will address the fallacy of Lenin's opinions on this matter, and your disingenuous interpretation thereof, when I have the time.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Because Lenin's word is law right? There exists no other theory out there as infallible as Leninism?

How can a National Bolchevist say such thing about lenin ?

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:How can a National Bolchevist say such thing about lenin?

Because we are not Orthodox Leninists and rather realize mistakes people have made in the past as well as use our own reasoning to come to conclusions based on today. I suggest you do the same, kind sir. Even when Leninist theory was implemented it resulted in a lot of Russian feelings of patriotism and nationalism for their newly found USSR, and many of the customs and cultures unique to the Russian people survived. Not only will those things not disappear with Socialism, but, Socialism is how we expect to preserve people's culture and customs.

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:One of the best Marxist wrote that sow how can you insist on " nationalism " ?

We don't "insist" on nationalism, we theorize that the left-wing nationalist hypothesis is the most reasonable given the evidence. No one can predict the future, but I see absolutely no reason to suspect that the merging of nationalities will occur merely as a result of communist social relations. Neither you nor Comrade_Joe have ever attempted to substantiate why you happen to think it will—you simply repeat that it is what Marx and Lenin claimed would happen, which isn't an actual argument.

And while I agree that Lenin was an excellent Marxist theoretician, he was not omniscient. Just as he was wrong to accuse the Kronstadt sailors of essentially being counter-revolutionaries in 1921 (thereafter suppressing their revolt), so too was he mistaken about the national question. Like Marx and Engels, he was a man limited by the era in which he lived. Nevertheless, there were several Marxists figures in the past who took a decidedly nationalistic approach to the national question (Victor L. Berger and James Connolly, to name but a few), and I believe that the evidence accumulated over the decades vindicates their views on the matter.

So you only quote Lenin when is good for you ?

We quote Lenin on the subjects which we believe he took an accurate position on, just as with anyone else. Part of his thesis regarding the national question was accurate, part of it was not. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that individuals can agree with aspects of someone's work without necessarily agreeing with the totality of it? The most you can accuse us of is not being orthodox Leninists—which, unless I'm mistaken, no left-wing nationalist on this forum has ever claimed to be anyway.

Celtiberian wrote:We don't "insist" on nationalism, we theorize that the left-wing nationalist hypothesis is the most reasonable given the evidence. No one can predict the future, but I see absolutely no reason to suspect that the merging of nationalities will occur merely as a result of communist social relations. Neither you nor Comrade_Joe have ever attempted to substantiate why you happen to think it will—you simply repeat that it is what Marx and Lenin claimed would happen, which isn't an actual argument.

And while I agree that Lenin was an excellent Marxist theoretician, he was not omniscient. Just as he was wrong to accuse the Kronstadt sailors of essentially being counter-revolutionaries in 1921 (thereafter suppressing their revolt), so too was he mistaken about the national question. Like Marx and Engels, he was a man limited by the era limited by the era in which he lived. Nevertheless, there were several Marxists figures in the past who took a decidedly nationalistic approach to the national question (Victor L. Berger and James Connolly, to name but a few), and I believe that the evidence accumulated over the decades vindicates their views on the matter.

When the independence is reach the alliance of Working class-Borgeois ends and then the struggle of the working class move to international struggle against borgeois and Progressiv nationalism ends .

We quote Lenin on the subjects which we believe he took an accurate position on, just as with anyone else. Part of his thesis regarding the national question was accurate, part of it was not. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that individuals can agree with aspects of someone's work without necessarily agreeing with the totality of it? The most you can accuse us of is not being orthodox Leninists—which, unless I'm mistaken, no left-wing nationalist on this forum has ever claimed to be anyway.

How do you know that was wrong if never has been aplied ?

Vasco Gonçalves wrote:When the independence is reach the alliance of Working class-Borgeois ends and then the struggle of the working class move to international struggle against borgeois and Progressiv nationalism ends

What does the international dimension of the class struggle have to do with what we're debating here? Left-wing nationalists fully acknowledge that the proletarian revolution is international in scale. Where we fundamentally disagree with cosmopolitan socialists is on the issue of how the working class will organize international relations following the revolution. We contend that nations will persist following the ascendancy of socialism and communism because national sentiments are an endogenous aspect of humanity's Gattungswesen. If you can explain to me why you happen to believe national sentiments will magically "wither away," we can proceed to have an actual debate.

How do you know that was wrong if never has been aplied ?

Because there exists no rational or empirical reason to believe it's correct. Ethnocultural identification was/is observable under conditions of primitive communism, thereby proving that it isn't a mere attribute of class society.

Workers have no nation of their own. We cannot take from them what they do not have. [...] National divisions and conflicts between peoples increasingly disappear with the development of the bourgeoisie, with free trade and the world market, with the uniform character of industrial production and the corresponding circumstances of modern life. - Marx