LWN

'The rule of the proletariat will make [national divisions and conflicts between peoples] [...] disappear even faster. United action, at least in the civilised countries, is one of the first conditions for freeing the proletariat. - Karl Marx - Comunist Manifesto

Source : http://www.workersrepublic.org/Pages/International/National%20Question/marxandnatquestion.html

The rule of the proletariat will make [national divisions and conflicts between peoples] [...] disappear even faster. United action, at least in the civilised countries, is one of the first conditions for freeing the proletariat. - Karl Marx - Comunist Manifesto

Marx also aspoused some racist views as well, should we dogmaticly follow him because of this. Marx saw nations dissapering due to him seeing nations as forming as part of modern social conditions.

many of us on the forum disagree and see nations as being part of all of mandkinds history, as they have been in exsistance since the dawn of primitive communism.
your argument is one from athority and a appeal to dogmatism and hold no logicin it. there is no reason that marx could have been wrong on the subject.

There also in no reasons nations who have thrown of bourgoise opression can not work together while maintaining national boarders and the socialist mode of production at the same time.

4thsupporter wrote:and Lenin did not see capitalism destroying its self, is Lenin a "non-Marxist"

Lenin's (1916) description of imperialism as the self-destructive 'monopoly stage of capitalism' was written largely as a counter to Kautsky's theory of 'ultra-imperialism

Did he not find a need for a vanguard party based on the idea that capitalism could claw its way out of any crisis? I see no reason why you insist on dogmatic following of any doctrine. You insist that anyone who is a "revisionist" (anyone who is not marx for that matter) is wrong and is not a socialist (socialism being a idea that came before marx) makes no sense and is consistant with the logicall fallacy of an argument from athority as i have stated above.

Marx wanted that workers taken the control of the state by a revolution

Marx did not say that a vanguard was to lead the working class to socialism, Lenin did(this is a form of revisionism to marx is it not?). All you have acomplished here is making a thread with quite a few quotes from dead Ussr leaders and karl marx. You have not proven how LWN is reactionary or why we should disown the idea of LWN. I do not feel inclined to continue to point out the lack of an argument you have here.

Never thought I'd be saying this, but the Trotskyist is right Hehehe

Pantheon Rising wrote:Never thought I'd be saying this, but the Trotskyist is right

comrade when it comes to basic logic id expect to be

4thsupporter wrote:comrade when it comes to basic logic id expect to be

Yes, I can see our friend Vasco is a little lacking in that area.

4thsupporter wrote:There also in no reasons nations who have thrown of bourgoise opression can not work together while maintaining national boarders and the socialist mode of production at the same time.

Other than, you know, being a huge contradiction and a scenario that can only exist within the capitalist mode of production, with nations as economic units with monopoly.

Nations after the dictatorship of the proletariat and the victory of world socialism are nothing but a lump of culture. Without capitalism, they have no national capital to make them relevant and no state to give them coercive power over 'their' land. To arbitrarily retain borders is redundant in such a world, and evidence of reactionary prejudices. All peoples should have a right to culture, no nation should have a monopoly on land and no national should have a monopoly on anything, jobs, culture, voting rights, etc.

Perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself something that so openly leads to utter destruction of nation-states and repression of their misguided, chauvinist champions.

But I guess at least your kind tries to seem 'left' as to not be horridly reactionary. Like the left liberals. Center-leftists unite!

mrguest wrote:Nations after the dictatorship of the proletariat and the victory of world socialism are nothing but a lump of culture. Without capitalism, they have no national capital to make them relevant and no state to give them coercive power over 'their' land. To arbitrarily retain borders is redundant in such a world, and evidence of reactionary prejudices. All peoples should have a right to culture, no nation should have a monopoly on land and no national should have a monopoly on anything, jobs, culture, voting rights, etc.

It is true that there would not be a State as such - at least in my interpretation - but you seem to be hinting that multi-culturalism can work in close proximity. In some cases that is correct. In others it is not. A typical town in the United States could not function well, without hypocricy, if it were populated half the way with people that wished for a Hindu fundamentalist culture including castes. If the typical americans were to be true to their culture they would be obligated to smash that caste system and run that culture out of the region, either by changing the minds of the Hindu fundamentalists, legislating against or enforcing laws against such behaviors, or by removing the offending population. The same could be said for a community of PETA members and an influx of traditional Voodoo practicioners that sacrifice animals. Not all cultures can live together in harmony.

It is for that reason that people born in an area should have a say in who enters that community for extended periods of time or even temporarily. For me - and I oppose anyone that disagrees - it has nothing to do with race. It is simply a matter of common behavioral norms. Protecting culture requires borders of some type or another, and it is not reactionary to want to protect what one views are a part of them. To sum up: people make the culture, the people are the nation, to protect what they deem important a nation may make laws, some of those laws may defend culture.

Perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself something that so openly leads to utter destruction of nation-states and repression of their misguided, chauvinist champions.

You should really go into more detail if you want to get an actual response. All that can be said is that I disagree with your assertion that it necessarily leads to such.

But I guess at least your kind tries to seem 'left' as to not be horridly reactionary. Like the left liberals. Center-leftists unite!

I didn't know that you held the monopoly on the definition of left. All the non-restricted posters here oppose Capitalism and Class Collaboration in favor of a proletarian revolution. Bourgeois social relations must end, and if you agree then why call us enemies?

Red Aegis wrote:It is true that there would not be a State as such - at least in my interpretation - but you seem to be hinting that multi-culturalism can work in close proximity.

It is no 'multi-culturalism', a concept only relevant within capitalism and the partition of workers among nations. The collapse of borders, of nation-states, erases national distinctions as it erases their monopoly on culture and people. Or at least, communists should be aiming towards such as no national government is a friend of them.

In some cases that is correct. In others it is not. A typical town in the United States could not function well, without hypocricy, if it were populated half the way with people that wished for a Hindu fundamentalist culture including castes. If the typical americans were to be true to their culture they would be obligated to smash that caste system and run that culture out of the region, either by changing the minds of the Hindu fundamentalists, legislating against or enforcing laws against such behaviors, or by removing the offending population.

So you're essentially suggesting workers should be carrying out some malformed bourgeois revolution against other workers who have, however its defined, reactionary culture, out of some attachment to 'their' culture. Why don't you just come out and call it 'white man's burden'?

The only erasing of culture that will happen will be the phasing out of aspects of all cultures that are of no use to the working class. The caste system would be annihilated, however not by some 'superior' worker-nation but as the new supranational culture and language is produced in accordance with the world being held in common. The hindu caste system would dissolve, but it hindu nation itself would continue to impact culture as it already has, just like all others.

Not all cultures can live together in harmony.

A worker that cannot help but hold property to the discrimination of other workers because of their culture doesn't deserve to be called a comrade. Nations should have a monopoly on nothing, not law, not land, language, or culture, nothing.

It is for that reason that people born in an area should have a say in who enters that community for extended periods of time or even temporarily.

No, fuck off 'comrade'. I'll live in, work in, and attend schools in whatever land I want. I'll raise my children there if I like it, even. Your 'community' aka nation-state shouldn't be owning any property in a 'socialist system'. Surely you can see why I call you center-left?

What makes you anything but a social democrat?

It is simply a matter of common behavioral norms.

A self-serving and perpetuating cause, national divisions, and subsequent capitalism, only enforce the 'clash of behavioral norms' (lol, talk about thinly veiled) and the 'degeneration' of cultures. Nationalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie and serves only to perpetuate capitalist wars and imperialism, no other way can you get workers to fight and kill other workers.

Protecting culture requires borders of some type or another, and it is not reactionary to want to protect what one views are a part of them.

Destroy all nations.

To sum up: people make the culture, the people are the nation, to protect what they deem important a nation may make laws, some of those laws may defend culture.

No thanks, the nation-state and its private property can die in the fires of socialist revolution.

You should really go into more detail if you want to get an actual response. All that can be said is that I disagree with your assertion that it necessarily leads to such.

That's because you're not a communist. By some magical power, you've somehow combined in your head concepts of private property, citizenry, and the monopoly nation-states have on them, with socialism, a classless, stateless society where the only constituent of society is just labor, not national labor, not national capital/land.

I didn't know that you held the monopoly on the definition of left. All the non-restricted posters here oppose Capitalism and Class Collaboration in favor of a proletarian revolution. Bourgeois social relations must end, and if you agree then why call us enemies?

For the same reasons I dislike social democrats, they are 'leftists' in the bourgeois sense of the word, a 'left wing of capital'. Nationalists are not comrades of mine, they serve another cause. I'm only here to dispel any myths they are socialists or comrades in the working class movement. They are silly reactionaries, like national anarchists.

mrguest, you really need to step out of your hardcore leftist shoes for a second and take a look at everything you're saying. There's a point when this whole anti-everything blabber becomes old and boring to listen to. I think what Red Aegis is saying makes sense because it actually has some kind of logic behind it. Your words, on the other hand, are simply "lolz i is hardc0r3 leftist, I must reject everything the contemporary left doesn't like otherwise I won't have anyone to share a tent with tonight."

I honestly wish I could respond to your post, but given the mood I'm in right now I'd probably end up throwing myself off a bridge reading that nonsense. Maybe I'll post a proper response later on.

Don't bother.

By that drivel you just posted I can tell I'm not interested. Appeals to authority, gross exaggerations, and strawmen, no thanks.

Maybe you should step out of your hardcore centrist shoes.

Now look what you've done. You've hurt my feelings.

mrguest wrote:It is no 'multi-culturalism', a concept only relevant within capitalism and the partition of workers among nations. The collapse of borders, of nation-states, erases national distinctions as it erases their monopoly on culture and people. Or at least, communists should be aiming towards such as no national government is a friend of them.

Prove that multiculturalism is only relevant in a Capitalist system. Prove that Pakistani and Indian workers will immediately get along if borders disappeared and the bourgeoisie were no longer in power.

So you're essentially suggesting workers should be carrying out some malformed bourgeois revolution against other workers who have, however its defined, reactionary culture, out of some attachment to 'their' culture. Why don't you just come out and call it 'white man's burden'?

The only erasing of culture that will happen will be the phasing out of aspects of all cultures that are of no use to the working class. The caste system would be annihilated, however not by some 'superior' worker-nation but as the new supranational culture and language is produced in accordance with the world being held in common. The hindu caste system would dissolve, but it hindu nation itself would continue to impact culture as it already has, just like all others.

Some cultures are more moral than others according to my version of morality. I'll return to the example of cultures with caste systems. They are immoral and I think that you'd agree unless you did some semantic gymnastics about subjectivity. If you do go that route then you lose the justification to oppose Capitalism's exploitation of workers due to their conception of property rights being a subjective value.

Prove that the working class of any nation will give up their culture immediately upon revolution. It is possible that there will be a convergence of cultures and I do not oppose that, but I doubt it would happen quickly - even within fifty years.

A worker that cannot help but hold property to the discrimination of other workers because of their culture doesn't deserve to be called a comrade. Nations should have a monopoly on nothing, not law, not land, language, or culture, nothing.

If someone would kill a woman for showing her face because of their culture I have no problem denying them access to my community. If you think that makes me a bad person then there's something wrong with you.

No, fuck off 'comrade'. I'll live in, work in, and attend schools in whatever land I want. I'll raise my children there if I like it, even. Your 'community' aka nation-state shouldn't be owning any property in a 'socialist system'. Surely you can see why I call you center-left?

What makes you anything but a social democrat?

Do you think that most people would tolerate it if I just showed up in their country, without knowing their language and not following their customs, and went into their house stayed there without permission? I doubt it. Even in a socialist economy there are only so many jobs to do. Think of it.

Imagine a town of 5000 people in a socialist area. If for some reason a group of 3000 were to decide to move there for some reason the town would have to develop much more infrastructure and food production to accomodate the influx. This additional population would consume resources and are not guaranteed to stay if resources become limited. Resources are finite and distribution is not perfect between regions. That is not necessarily permanent, but if there is an exodus from the town after the infrastructure is built then much effort would have been wasted and many resources along with it. This logistical problem could be solved in other ways, but when combined with possible cultural clashes, border control becomes a viable option that solves the problem.

A self-serving and perpetuating cause

Proletarian Revolution is also self-serving, or would people do it for a reason other than to liberate themselves from exploitation?

national divisions, and subsequent capitalism, only enforce the 'clash of behavioral norms' (lol, talk about thinly veiled) and the 'degeneration' of cultures.

I think that you're implying that I'm a racial nationalist in the Black Nationalist vein. That is not the case. Race doesn't matter to me. I'm fully open to cultural evolution as long as it's consentual too. Cultures naturally change with time.

Nationalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie and serves only to perpetuate capitalist wars and imperialism, no other way can you get workers to fight and kill other workers.

That is not true on several levels. Nationalism has existed before Capitalism and it can exist after it. Nationalism is not owned or defined by any class. It is used by the bourgeoisie now, yes, and I oppose their use and version of nationalism. Also, there are plenty of other ways to get people to kill eachother, money being one.

Destroy all nations.

[insert pointless saying here] Please use an actual argument.

No thanks, the nation-state and its private property can die in the fires of socialist revolution.

I never said I support a state, which I do not. I also do not support bourgeois social relations.

That's because you're not a communist. By some magical power, you've somehow combined in your head concepts of private property, citizenry, and the monopoly nation-states have on them, with socialism, a classless, stateless society where the only constituent of society is just labor, not national labor, not national capital/land.

Prove that I support Capitalist social relations specifically: private ownership of the means of production. I support democratic, communal control of the means of production and the elimination of hierarchy in all non-democratic forms - instantly recallable elected officials -, and equal renumeration for equal work.

For the same reasons I dislike social democrats, they are 'leftists' in the bourgeois sense of the word, a 'left wing of capital'. Nationalists are not comrades of mine, they serve another cause. I'm only here to dispel any myths they are socialists or comrades in the working class movement. They are silly reactionaries, like national anarchists.

How do I defend Capital if I oppose private ownership of the means of production?

Red Aegis wrote:Prove that multiculturalism is only relevant in a Capitalist system. Prove that Pakistani and Indian workers will immediately get along if borders disappeared and the bourgeoisie were no longer in power.

Only nations are relevant in capitalism, only nations can be 'multicultural hosts'. Multiculturalism is a product of globalization, the bourgeoisie is expanding the market to encompass the whole world and becoming 'multicultural' is a means of capitalizing on it because it makes the nation-state an economic unit for all nationals to participate in, as actors, with the freedom of never letting go of that culture.

With no nations, only a society where people have the same relationship to the means of production, there's no point in being 'multicultural' because the world already lacks the rigid divisions of nation states, which is the basis for the 'multiculturalism' shift.

Since the indian-pakistani conflict is a textbook conflict of between national bourgeoisie, I see no reason why a treasonous proletariat wouldn't cast aside a pointless conflict over land and resources. They are already held in common and I'd imagine there's far more pressing matters to spend resources on (like funding other revolutions) rather than an utterly pointless war between workers.

Nationality doesn't matter in a class war. There are new interests being advanced that cross national boundaries. When the imperialists and the reactionaries try to strangle the revolution in its infancy, I can guarantee nobody will be fighting each other over what common property belongs to who, or something.

Don't people here try to lay claim to Lenin? Do they not understand his view of imperialism and why there are wars between nations?

They are immoral and I think that you'd agree unless you did some semantic gymnastics about subjectivity.

It is subjective, lmfao. More proof you're not a marxist. No communist would be judging who is worthy of a revolution or not, or even if particular nations deserve to live/die, let alone base it on 'morality'.

I don't care about your morals, they are relative. I'm not discussing this.

If you do go that route then you lose the justification to oppose Capitalism's exploitation of workers due to their conception of property rights being a subjective value.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Liberals believe property is an inherent part of human, in idealistic fashion, yes. This has nothing to do with me or my opposition to capitalism.

My opposition to capitalism is grounded in the objective. The interests of labor and capital are contradictory and antagonistic, I don't oppose it because 'poor workers get paid barely anything'.

Prove that the working class of any nation will give up their culture immediately upon revolution.

Since 'giving up their culture' actually means 'give up the monopoly of the nation-state' and not actually changing the language they speak or culture they practice, I'd like you to prove to me what is socialist and revolutionary about trying to set up a bourgeois nation-state.

It is possible that there will be a convergence of cultures and I do not oppose that, but I doubt it would happen quickly - even within fifty years.

So? It could take a thousand years for all of the world's nations to finally form one culture that all can connect to, doesn't make it any less reactionary to fight against it.

If someone would kill a woman for showing her face because of their culture I have no problem denying them access to my community. If you think that makes me a bad person then there's something wrong with you.

Strawman.

Also, you don't think a monopoly on land, a form of private property, isn't a massive contradiction?

I don't know why you try so hard to lay claim to socialism. It's clear you serve the nation-state, and believe other workers should do the same and respect their sovereignty.

Do you think that most people would tolerate it if I just showed up in their country, without knowing their language and not following their customs, and went into their house stayed there without permission? I doubt it. Even in a socialist economy there are only so many jobs to do. Think of it.

Lol, what? First of all, why are you stealing a personal possession, as distinguished from private property, from someone within an economy of post-scarcity?

Second, why do you think it matters? You don't speak the local language, yet there's an international language, or practice local custom, yet the rest of the world more than likely borrows from it or vice versa anyway. Nations will converge, there'll be no basis for this, unless we keep nationalist agitators around for some reason.

You make the 'jobs' appeal. This is utterly bourgeois as it implies people still depend on wage labor and there are national labor markets to make monopolies with and ban 'immigrants'. The point of socialism is to eliminate work through advancements in the forces of production, not retain a few good paying jobs for nationals or something. Also, socialism will inevitably tend towards a more even spread of population across the land, creating more even amount of opportunity.

Imagine a town of 5000 people in a socialist area. If for some reason a group of 3000 were to decide to move there for some reason the town would have to develop much more infrastructure and food production to accomodate the influx. This additional population would consume resources and are not guaranteed to stay if resources become limited. Resources are finite and distribution is not perfect between regions. That is not necessarily permanent, but if there is an exodus from the town after the infrastructure is built then much effort would have been wasted and many resources along with it. This logistical problem could be solved in other ways, but when combined with possible cultural clashes, border control becomes a viable option that solves the problem.

Why are we imagining a socialist economy in a bubble? There are no parallel economies, there are no communities that 'own' resources, they are used by the global economy to produce according to global need. You could just as easily be feeding someone in your town as someone that isn't.

Not to mention, the socialist economy is one of post-scarcity and where labor doesn't starve if there's no work to be done. There won't be any mass migration of an economically starved part of the world to a place where there's more opportunity and pay for labor.

Borders aren't a viable option at all as they imply a completely different issue, one particular to capitalism and its scarcity. There is no basis for favoring national labor as there's no national capital, or any capital at all for that matter.

Your ideas will merely produce state capitalism with a 'workers' face'. You aren't really any better than a social democrat.

Proletarian Revolution is also self-serving, or would people do it for a reason other than to liberate themselves from exploitation?

What the hell are you talking about? I said nationalism and war between nations was self-serving and self-perpetuating. It's a destructive cycle.

I'm fully open to cultural evolution as long as it's consentual too.

Consensual? Are you saying communists and workers should respect the sovereignty of the nation on 'its' culture?

Nationalism has existed before Capitalism and it can exist after it.

So did the bourgeoisie, and so does reaction. Doesn't change anything.

Nationalism is not owned or defined by any class. It is used by the bourgeoisie now, yes, and I oppose their use and version of nationalism.

Of course it is. Nationalism is a tool of the ruling class and only relevant because of their interests. It would make no sense for a post-capitalist world to have nationalist workers, unless they want to go back to the past. 'Left wing nationalism' would lose any purpose (if it had any). Why divide workers? Why enforce national monopolies? These are in no way in the interest of the proletariat.

Also, there are plenty of other ways to get people to kill eachother, money being one.

Like how nations use our money to incentivise workers to kill each other?

[insert pointless saying here] Please use an actual argument.

Ironically I said that because your reply was a simple assertion. I gave one of mine.

I never said I support a state, which I do not. I also do not support bourgeois social relations.

You say you don't, but you really do. I hope you learn how you are through my posts.

Prove that I support Capitalist social relations specifically: private ownership of the means of production. I support democratic, communal control of the means of production and the elimination of hierarchy in all non-democratic forms - instantly recallable elected officials -, and equal renumeration for equal work.

You support this for some workers as opposed to others (creating private property and erasing the concept of everyone having the same relationship to the means of production), support the private property of nation-states, notions of their sovereignty, and a citizenry a nation-state has sway over. If you lived in the 1800s you'd be a novel bourgeois revolutionary.

How do I defend Capital if I oppose private ownership of the means of production?

You reserve it for nations, because they are a special case, or something.

mrguest wrote:Destroy all nations.

Alrighty, let's put our "fuck you" moments behind the conversation and try to understand each other. Would that hurt?

na·tion/ˈnāSHən/
Noun:
A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
Google

A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1] The word nation can more specifically refer to people of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation that prefer this term over the contested term tribe.[1]
Wikipedia

The underlined clearly refers to a bourgeois nation seeing as 'government' does not equate to 'worker control', and we are not bourgeois nationalists, so that part of the definition becomes redundant in the given context.

na·tion (nshn)
n.
1.
a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: "Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity" (Robert Conquest).
4.
a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.
The Free Dictionary

So we see here that 'nation' has a few definitions. Now let's look at what you said, going along with a definition that is not 'nation state' (your idea of a nation) and falls in line a bit more with our idea of a nation.

"Destroy all [aggregates of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory]."

Is this what you meant? If so, then we're headed for a debate about the applicability and desirability of multiculturalism – or I suppose a better term would be "anti-culturalism".

If not, and you are in fact simply referring to nation-states, what you are essentially saying is that you oppose the state. We also oppose the state. There's something we agree on.

I'll live in, work in, and attend schools in whatever land I want. I'll raise my children there if I like it, even. Your 'community' aka nation-state shouldn't be owning any property in a 'socialist system'.

From these words you clearly oppose telling people what they can and can't do; consequently, you oppose telling people where they can and can't live (simply translating to border control). Where do you draw the line on telling people what they can and can't do, or where they can and can't live? If I come into your house wearing a latex sex costume, speaking loud gibberish, eating half of what's in your fridge and telling you that your way of life offends me, how would you react? I'm not referring to multiculturalism or border control just yet, but rather trying to help you understand that the adult world doesn't and will never work on the principle of "I'll do whatever I want." Do you agree with me on this or not? If you have the right to live on whatever land you wish to, then so do I, correct? But do you not also have the right to keep strange latex-wearing gibberish speakers out of your home if they prevent you from doing what you want to or bother you with their way of living?

I'd also like to emphasise the relevance of said "tribes" who are hardly centrists that want to tell people where they can and cannot live for the sake of being authoritarian douchebags. They simply want the right to be autonomous and live free from unwanted outside influences. This does not mean that they support a bureaucracy that will dedicate its existence to forcing foreigners out of the land they live on. Do you think that I have the right to go and build a KFC on their territory as long as I justify it with your logic of "I'll do whatever I want" quoted above? Of course not. I respect their right to exist the way that they want to as long as it doesn't step on my way of life or anyone else's. Since when has anyone ever said that North American nations (not nation-states) must embrace cosmopolitanism/multiculturalism because it steps on their right to do whatever they want in the land that they have rightfully settled on and lived on (well, tried to live on) for years? Do you think that the European Americans who killed and enslaved the Native Americans were perfectly within their rights to do so because they have the right to do whatever they want? No, of course they weren't.

I see that since typing my response you have responded to Red Aegis, and it seems as though we're going in circles. I want us to be able to at least recognise where we agree and disagree with each other (that's quite hard to do when you vehemently reject every word we utter), so please help me understand what part of Red Aegis' views show support for a bourgeois state. Did Engels not clearly state that the state is an instrument for the suppression of one class by another? Lenin made a good effort to make this clear in The State and Revolution. I have quoted this in a previous thread:

In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy; and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at the earliest possible moment, until such time as a new generation, reared in new and free social conditions, will be able to throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap.

Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Civil War in France

The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”

Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau

The enemy Engels is referring to is the bourgeoisie, clearly. If the workers maintain a state under the dictatorship of the proletariat to suppress the bourgeoisie, how can it be a bourgeois state that maintains bourgeois social relations? "Nationalism is a tool of the bourgeoisie" is not a valid answer. I could say the bourgeoisie use food for their own benefit (both by feeding themselves and exploiting proletarians), but that doesn't make food bourgeois. Again, I'm only trying to understand what it is you're getting at here. You seem to be more focused on making yourself feel like you've won the argument than actually having a discussion with us for the sake of understanding each other and recognising our disagreements. We're not going to agree on everything and I'm sure you'll agree that we don't have to, and that's fine.

mrguest wrote:Only nations are relevant in capitalism, only nations can be 'multicultural hosts'. Multiculturalism is a product of globalization, the bourgeoisie is expanding the market to encompass the whole world and becoming 'multicultural' is a means of capitalizing on it because it makes the nation-state an economic unit for all nationals to participate in, as actors, with the freedom of never letting go of that culture.

With no nations, only a society where people have the same relationship to the means of production, there's no point in being 'multicultural' because the world already lacks the rigid divisions of nation states, which is the basis for the 'multiculturalism' shift.

Are you saying that you oppose multi-culturalism since it is a result of Capitalism? If you are saying that people won't migrate and take their culture with them without Capitalism then I'd love to know where you got that idea. I think that there may be a language barrier because you are not making any sense in that last sentence. Could you re-phrase it?

Since the indian-pakistani conflict is a textbook conflict of between national bourgeoisie, I see no reason why a treasonous proletariat wouldn't cast aside a pointless conflict over land and resources. They are already held in common and I'd imagine there's far more pressing matters to spend resources on (like funding other revolutions) rather than an utterly pointless war between workers.

Are you saying that the entire conflict has nothing to do with religious hatred?

Nationality doesn't matter in a class war. There are new interests being advanced that cross national boundaries. When the imperialists and the reactionaries try to strangle the revolution in its infancy, I can guarantee nobody will be fighting each other over what common property belongs to who, or something.

There are definitely common interests between different groups of proletariat, namely fighting Capitalism. How is upholding culture an impediment to Revolution? To be more specific, how is maintaining the culture of a revolutionary proletariat, which is my culture, a hinderance to revolution in any way?

It is subjective, lmfao. More proof you're not a marxist. No communist would be judging who is worthy of a revolution or not, or even if particular nations deserve to live/die, let alone base it on 'morality'.

I don't care about your morals, they are relative. I'm not discussing this.

If any culture were in favor of a socialist revolution I would support it. I am against cultures that run contrary to my values. Name where I wrote that I do not support a socialist revolution. You cannot because I never wrote it. Also, where does Marx state that one cannot judge actions on a moral basis? You seem to be under the impression that Materialism means that one cannot make moral judgements because they are subjective, but that is not what materialism is. Materialism merely states that matter is the only thing that exists. I believe that. Historical Materialism states that material conditions effect how humans act - to put it simply. It does not say that one cannot accept meaning and morality as subjective values that one can stand by. Finally, you pretend that I claim absolute morality, but I do not. Look at my previous posts. It is clearly stated that morality is subjective.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Liberals believe property is an inherent part of human, in idealistic fashion, yes. This has nothing to do with me or my opposition to capitalism.

My opposition to capitalism is grounded in the objective. The interests of labor and capital are contradictory and antagonistic, I don't oppose it because 'poor workers get paid barely anything'.

Liberals do believe that; you are correct. You are incorrect; however, in thinking that since my views are subjective, I have lost the right to judge. If you oppose capitalism because they are oppressing you then you are opposing it for selfish reasons. If you are doing it to oppose exploitation in general then you are making the subjective judgement that private ownership of the means of production is immoral. I think that it would be prudent for you to state the interests and explanation of the reasons behind those interests.

Since 'giving up their culture' actually means 'give up the monopoly of the nation-state' and not actually changing the language they speak or culture they practice, I'd like you to prove to me what is socialist and revolutionary about trying to set up a bourgeois nation-state.

I do not support states and do mean that I oppose changing the language and cultural practices by force. I have said this several times.

So? It could take a thousand years for all of the world's nations to finally form one culture that all can connect to, doesn't make it any less reactionary to fight against it.

I won't fight against consentual convergence of my culture with another. I will fight a reactionary culture from altering mine. I doubt you would allow nazis to move into your town in great numbers if you could help it.

Strawman.

Also, you don't think a monopoly on land, a form of private property, isn't a massive contradiction?

I don't know why you try so hard to lay claim to socialism. It's clear you serve the nation-state, and believe other workers should do the same and respect their sovereignty.

It is not a strawman. I did not think that you would object to my denial of such an individual, nor did I claim that you did. The point is that what I'm proposing is not some crazy notion. People that harm others for things I find acceptable or that my culture finds acceptable will either be exiled, educated, or imprisoned. What would you do if a known violent racist community or individual wanted to live in your neighborhood? I doubt you would allow that if you had the choice.

I lay claim to Socialism because I support public ownership of the means of production among other defining elements of Socialism. I do not support states, but I do support nations.

Lol, what? First of all, why are you stealing a personal possession, as distinguished from private property, from someone within an economy of post-scarcity?

I would love for you to explain how this post-scarcity will immediately spring forth. You are making the assumption that after Capitalism there will no longer be any housing shortage, but that is not true. More housing will certainly be available per person, but more people will want their own homes. We could go into hypothetical specifics but I don't see the point in that. The fact is that scarcity isn't going away anytime soon, even with a revolution.

Second, why do you think it matters? You don't speak the local language, yet there's an international language, or practice local custom, yet the rest of the world more than likely borrows from it or vice versa anyway. Nations will converge, there'll be no basis for this, unless we keep nationalist agitators around for some reason.

Nations have not converged enough for your argument to be practical. If someone from Idaho were to be dropped off in Morocco they could not get by with only speaking English and only knowing North American customs. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Your concept of an international language and custom is only applicable in certain areas. Let me make myself clear, I would consider many Canadians and Englishmen to have a close enough culture to my own that there would be no need - barring logistical ones - to prevent free movement between their populations and my own. I wouldn't have a problem with any group that was willing to make cultural concessions living around me. I would have a problem with allowing KKK members to freely travel and settle down where I live. I'm more inclusive than exclusive, and don't think that you understood that.

You make the 'jobs' appeal. This is utterly bourgeois as it implies people still depend on wage labor and there are national labor markets to make monopolies with and ban 'immigrants'. The point of socialism is to eliminate work through advancements in the forces of production, not retain a few good paying jobs for nationals or something. Also, socialism will inevitably tend towards a more even spread of population across the land, creating more even amount of opportunity.

It is not bourgeois and does not imply that people depend on wage labor. It implies that per unit of land there is only so much food that can be produced, so much resources that can be gathered, and so much that can be done with those things. If the population exceeds the productivity of the land either people will starve, the amount of land being utilized must grow, or food and resources must be brought in from elsewhere. A good way to ensure that the population does not grow too much at once is to regulate the influx of people from outside the community. I prefer this method since I do not support any "one-child policy" bullshit. You seem to be ignoring logistics in favor of some magical process in which scarcity will simply disappear with Capitalism entirely.

That is not to say that things would not become more available, which I think that they will. However, I think that you take the idea too far.

Why are we imagining a socialist economy in a bubble? There are no parallel economies, there are no communities that 'own' resources, they are used by the global economy to produce according to global need. You could just as easily be feeding someone in your town as someone that isn't.

That implies an already existing agreement between separated populations and an infrastructure to accomplish the task. Those things are not guaranteed, nor are they automatically available after a revolution. You must start from square one instead of assuming that different populations will want to do precisely the same things when the revolution occurs.

It would be nice if such an agreement would come about within a community of Socialists, but it's not a given. Such things must be worked out through democratic, consentual negotiation. This is what I mean by the convergence of nations and internationalism.

Not to mention, the socialist economy is one of post-scarcity and where labor doesn't starve if there's no work to be done. There won't be any mass migration of an economically starved part of the world to a place where there's more opportunity and pay for labor.

Where are you getting this notion that Socialism means post-scarcity? To address your second sentence, if what you say is true then it wouldn't matter if people regulate movement within their own communities.

Borders aren't a viable option at all as they imply a completely different issue, one particular to capitalism and its scarcity. There is no basis for favoring national labor as there's no national capital, or any capital at all for that matter.

Your ideas will merely produce state capitalism with a 'workers' face'. You aren't really any better than a social democrat.

Again with this scarcity talk? In regards to State Capitalism, I reject states - as in entities separate from the proletariat that they supposedly act for - and support a fully democratic method of government. I do not support the creation of any sort of co-ordinator class.

What the hell are you talking about? I said nationalism and war between nations was self-serving and self-perpetuating. It's a destructive cycle.

You said that nationalism was selfish. I pointed out that Socialist Revolutions are as well for the proletariat. Also, you have yet to prove that Nationalism necessarily leads to war.

Consensual? Are you saying communists and workers should respect the sovereignty of the nation on 'its' culture?

You need to be more specific here. There are too many possible interpretations of your statement.

So did the bourgeoisie, and so does reaction. Doesn't change anything.

So?

Of course it is. Nationalism is a tool of the ruling class and only relevant because of their interests. It would make no sense for a post-capitalist world to have nationalist workers, unless they want to go back to the past. 'Left wing nationalism' would lose any purpose (if it had any). Why divide workers? Why enforce national monopolies? These are in no way in the interest of the proletariat.

People are already divided by culture. Some cultures get along and others cannot tolerate the other. A person's culture is something that a person may identify with. It is not senseless for a person to want to preserve a culture that they feel a part of. It is not reactionary if it does not support Capitalism, Monarchism, ect. Again, I do not oppose joint ventures and interaction between socialist cultures.

Like how nations use our money to incentivise workers to kill each other?

Yes, you said that Nationalism was the only way that states could get workers to kill eachother. I pointed out another method. Many join the military solely for the money.

Ironically I said that because your reply was a simple assertion. I gave one of mine.

Cute, but I was actually explaining my position to you. You didn't try to address me comprehensively. Instead you chose to try to be cheeky.

You say you don't, but you really do. I hope you learn how you are through my posts.

No, I do not. I hope you are learning through my posts.

You support this for some workers as opposed to others (creating private property and erasing the concept of everyone having the same relationship to the means of production), support the private property of nation-states, notions of their sovereignty, and a citizenry a nation-state has sway over. If you lived in the 1800s you'd be a novel bourgeois revolutionary.

I could see how you could paint my views as State Capitalist by mistake, but it is a mistake. I do not support selling or buying goods or services to Capitalist nations. That would make the nation as a collective an exploiter of the proletariat of the non-socialist nation. Instead I would support only interacting with other socialist nations in areas of resource and service allocation. Joint government is also acceptable as long as it was agreed to democratically by both populations. Due to this, I do not support bourgeois social relations or Capitalism.

You reserve it for nations, because they are a special case, or something.

See above.

mrguest wrote:Other than, you know, being a huge contradiction and a scenario that can only exist within the capitalist mode of production, with nations as economic units with monopoly.

Capitalism isn't defined by the existence of territorial nations, it is instead defined by generalized commodity production and the exploitation of labor, so no "contradiction" was committed in 4thsupporter's statement. You are further arguing under the assumption that nations are merely a remnant of the national phase in the development of capitalism, which is a position unsupported by existing anthropological research or the historical record.

Nations after the dictatorship of the proletariat and the victory of world socialism are nothing but a lump of culture.

Perhaps, but that doesn't indicate whether or not national sentiment is a transient property.

Without capitalism, they have no national capital to make them relevant and no state to give them coercive power over 'their' land.

Incorrect. Even Marx conceded that the so-called "lower phase" of communism would remain "stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." The state is one such example, and, frankly, I find it inconceivable to envisage a scenario emerging within the foreseeable future wherein the state apparatus will not be necessary to at least facilitate the coordination of economic planning and international relations. That isn't to say that the further development of our productive forces will fail to give rise to a situation which would render both the state and measured claims to the social production obsolete—thereby achieving the higher stage of communism—but even those conditions may not prove sufficient enough to overcome mankind self-identifying with national communities.

To arbitrarily retain borders is redundant in such a world, and evidence of reactionary prejudices.

It could only be considered "arbitrary" if national sentiment were demonstrably transient (which it isn't), and "reactionary" if all manifestations of national identity necessarily led to oppression (which it doesn't).

All peoples should have a right to culture, no nation should have a monopoly on land and no national should have a monopoly on anything, jobs, culture, voting rights, etc.

And who are you to decide this? There is reason to suspect that territorial boundaries are an epiphenomenon of national identity itself, in which case the right of nations to self-determination is a reasonable policy. Other arrangements mindful of the existence and implications of national identity, e.g., national personal autonomy/multinationalism and federation, may also be appropriate under certain circumstances. The point, however, is that the people will decide how best to address this issue collectively, not by cosmopolitan fiat.

Perhaps you should reconsider calling yourself something that so openly leads to utter destruction of nation-states and repression of their misguided, chauvinist champions.

Communism is incapable of 'destroying nation-states' because, as Marx argued in The German Ideology (p. 56), communism is not "an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself." The nation, regardless of the specific form it happens take across history, is an enduring reality, and, consequently, requires accommodating—if communism is to succeed in bringing humanity into a new historical epoch, that is.

But I guess at least your kind tries to seem 'left' as to not be horridly reactionary. Like the left liberals. Center-leftists unite!

The Left-Right distinction fundamentally concerns one's economic philosophy, not one's stance on social issues, and every (unrestricted) member of this forum is decidedly on the far Left of that spectrum. Were we to adopt your criteria for determining who belongs on the Left or Right, men such as Marx, Engels, Proudhon, and Bakunin would have to be considered "center-leftists" due to the rather conservative remarks regarding a wide range of social issues (e.g., homosexuality, the family, gender, and ethnicity) they made throughout their lives. Nevertheless, even on social issues this forum is primarily liberal. Our stance on the national question, however, is not a legitimate basis for accusing us of harboring "center-left" opinions; it is derived from our observation and study of human behavior and history, not from any lingering reactionary sentiments. Reactionaries seek to halt human progress by manipulating populations into falsely believing that existing social relations are immutable, because they materially benefit (whether directly or indirectly) from the perpetuation of the status quo. The left-wing nationalism we espouse benefits no reactionary interests, as it's merely a hypothesis regarding the manner by which humanity will regulate international affairs following the proletarian revolution. We fully uphold the primacy of the class struggle and in no way regard existing national boundaries or relations as reflective of an 'organic unity,' or what have you.

The collapse of borders, of nation-states, erases national distinctions as it erases their monopoly on culture and people. Or at least, communists should be aiming towards such as no national government is a friend of them.

The "collapse of borders" is neither an inevitable outcome of world socialism, nor would it suffice to "erase national distinctions." National distinctions exist because populations exhibit "a range of characteristics that are peculiar to each nation [and which] distinguish it from other nations" [Bauer, Otto. The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy, p. 22], so unless nations were to spontaneously amalgamate as a result of communist social relations, we can expect those distinctions to persist. My reading of history and sociology indicates that the majority of changes in the composition and territorial boundaries of national groups have occurred by way of imperialism, conquest, and rape, and that will come to a close with the ending of class society. (When possessing freedom of association, people generally prefer the company of those culturally and/or ethnically similar to themselves.) Communism, while undoubtedly capable of producing vast changes in mankind's relations of production—which, in turn, modifies a range of psychological characteristics—will, again, probably not eliminate our desire for self-identifying with national communities. Mankind's natural need for free, creative labor, which Marx brilliantly described in his Homo faber hypothesis, is but one facet of our Gattungswesen; national identification, or what we might term Homo nationalis, is another.

As for "national governments," they are an enemy of communism insofar as they perpetuate class society and exploitation—which all existing governments obviously do. But if you're referring to the very concept of enforced borders as being contrary to communism per se, I would suggest that you have a very idealistic view of communism.

So you're essentially suggesting workers should be carrying out some malformed bourgeois revolution against other workers who have, however its defined, reactionary culture, out of some attachment to 'their' culture. Why don't you just come out and call it 'white man's burden'?

Because Red Aegis was referring to a hypothetical situation in which a reactionary culture conflicts with the progressive, humanist values of another culture living within the same territorial boundary. In other words, he was describing a Kulturkampf, not a rassenkampf. His example is not bourgeois either, because such a scenario could easily emerge during the lower phase of communism. (Achieving enough class solidarity between cultural groups to abolish capitalism does not ensure that their differences will cease to exist after the revolution.)

The only erasing of culture that will happen will be the phasing out of aspects of all cultures that are of no use to the working class. The caste system would be annihilated, however not by some 'superior' worker-nation but as the new supranational culture and language is produced in accordance with the world being held in common. The hindu caste system would dissolve, but it hindu nation itself would continue to impact culture as it already has, just like all others.

The idea that all aspects of culture can be reduced to the substructure of society is a quintessential example of vulgar economism, and one of the chief reasons I cannot take you cosmopolitans seriously. As for your vapid "supranational culture and language," short of being instituted by authoritarian decree, it is unlikely to ever materialize—and I'm grateful for that, because I find the idea of inhabiting a world in which everyone looks the same and practices an identical culture to be absolutely dreadful.

A worker that cannot help but hold property to the discrimination of other workers because of their culture doesn't deserve to be called a comrade. Nations should have a monopoly on nothing, not law, not land, language, or culture, nothing.

When workers in a syndicalist collective determine who or who not to hire, they are discriminating (presumably on the basis of competency); when I determine who or who not to let into my home or car, I am discriminating (on the basis of personal preferences); and when workers possess control over the means of governance, they too will discriminate when they collectively deliberate to draft a criteria for citizenship in their national territories. Discrimination isn't inherently objectionable, it's the specific manner in which it's applied that matters, i.e., whether or not people are unjustly affected by the outcome. Maybe some workers living in Bangladesh desire a yacht in the Caribbean after the revolution, maybe I want an oceanfront apartment in southern California, but it's not unreasonable or unjust to explain to people that limited resources make giving everyone what they want an impossibility. Compromises have to be made, and that includes issues pertaining to the national question.

Having said that, we cannot predict with absolute certainty what the workers will do when they possess this authority, but nothing leads me to believe that cosmopolitanism will be their guiding principle. In my opinion, equity should be the basis of international relations under communism, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that a policy of left-wing nationalism would be incapable of accomplishing an equitable distribution of the world's resources between nations.

No, fuck off 'comrade'.

Very mature..

I'll live in, work in, and attend schools in whatever land I want. I'll raise my children there if I like it, even.

The bourgeois individualism exemplified in this infantile demand of yours is quite telling. Let's take your position a bit further, though. Should I have a right to live in your home, maybe even to use your car without permission? I would say that I don't have that right because it affects you personally, and you should therefore decide who is or isn't allowed to use your possessions. Likewise, foreign immigrants will inevitably affect the daily lives of the citizens who reside in the areas they wish to move to in some capacity, so those citizens should also have a right to decide certain rules and obligations of citizenship; self-management demands no less.

Your 'community' aka nation-state shouldn't be owning any property in a 'socialist system'.

It's not an issue of 'property ownership,' but of territorial occupancy. Just as socialists and communists have historically not been opposed to the existence of possessions for active personal use, we left-wing nationalists don't regard geographical boundaries which are being collectively managed as being problematic. If the earth's resources are being distributed fairly, the maintenance of national boundaries is benign.

Surely you can see why I call you center-left? What makes you anything but a social democrat?

He's not a social democrat because he doesn't subscribe to Eduard Bernstein's theory of "evolutionary socialism." Red Aegis, like the rest of the members here, believes that only international proletarian revolution can succeed in abolishing the dictatorship of capital. He further rejects the piecemeal state socialism historically favored by social democrats, and instead advocates for direct workers' control of the means of production and distribution.

Nationalism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie and serves only to perpetuate capitalist wars and imperialism, no other way can you get workers to fight and kill other workers.

Nationalism isn't monolithic, and it definitely cannot be regarded as a byproduct of capitalism since it precedes capitalism by millennia. Bourgeois nationalism obviously attempts to imbue workers with a class collaborationist mentality in order to advance reactionary objectives, but this has nothing whatever to do with the left-wing nationalism we espouse.

Destroy all nations.

This vacuous platitude captures the essence of your non-argument against our position quite well. Sloganeering may earn you respect at RevLeft, but not here. Try harder.

No thanks, the nation-state and its private property can die in the fires of socialist revolution.

The nation exists independently of the state, and the latter will simply be used to demarcate the boundaries of the former after the "fires of the socialist revolution" have receded.

That's because you're not a communist.

You're hardly in a position to accuse left-wing nationalists—whether ourselves, or figures such as James Connolly, Stanisław Brzozowski, Otto Bauer, Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, Carlo Pisacane, and Frida Kahlo (to name but a few)—of 'not being communists.'

By some magical power, you've somehow combined in your head concepts of private property, citizenry, and the monopoly nation-states have on them, with socialism, a classless, stateless society where the only constituent of society is just labor, not national labor, not national capital/land.

You have consistently failed to demonstrate that left-wing nationalism and communism are mutually exclusive concepts throughout this thread. At no point have you even attempted to substantiate your view that nationality will 'wither away' with the ascendancy of communism with anything approaching empirical evidence, and your deductive reasoning is rife with errors and faulty assumptions.

Nationalists are not comrades of mine, they serve another cause. I'm only here to dispel any myths they are socialists or comrades in the working class movement. They are silly reactionaries, like national anarchists.

No, it's your cosmopolitan extremism which is obstructing the movement for socialism in the 21st century, just as it had in the latter half of the 20th. I have no interest in being "comrades" with delusional twits like yourself for precisely that reason. Moreover, equating our views with those of the National Anarchists is the height of dishonesty, and your leftier-than-thou rhetoric has in no way exposed left-wing nationalism as being reactionary.

Since the indian-pakistani conflict is a textbook conflict of between national bourgeoisie, I see no reason why a treasonous proletariat wouldn't cast aside a pointless conflict over land and resources.

It's more complex than that. Were revolution to occur in Israel and Palestine, for example, the fact that resources would then be managed by the working class wouldn't suddenly eliminate the decades of murder and terrorism which the Israelis had committed. Resentment would persist, and retaliations would remain a possibility. In other words, communism is not a panacea capable of resolving past histories of brutality and injustice, and it's beyond ridiculous to expect Islamic Pakistanis and Hindu Indians to wish to live within the same territory given the events of the last 63 years. (It's conceivable that a partition of the country could have been avoided had a policy of national personal autonomy instead been employed in 1947, but that time has passed.)

Nationality doesn't matter in a class war.

Obviously not, but that says nothing about what we should expect after the class war.

Don't people here try to lay claim to Lenin? Do they not understand his view of imperialism and why there are wars between nations?

Some of us appreciate Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory (including imperialism), but his thesis on the national question was flawed.

An international fraternity of autonomous, communist nations would not embark on imperial conquests of each other because not only would an equitable international distribution of resources be achieved, but the major impetus of warfare—i.e., the laws of capital accumulation—would no longer be operational.

Also, you don't think a monopoly on land, a form of private property, isn't a massive contradiction?

Your continuous use of the term "private property" to refer to national territories is fallacious. Private property refers to something individually owned, while national territories are collectively possessed.

I don't know why you try so hard to lay claim to socialism. It's clear you serve the nation-state, and believe other workers should do the same and respect their sovereignty.

None of us believe that the nation-state is something which workers are to "serve." On the contrary, we believe that it is the nation which serves the workers by providing them a sense of self-identity in a shared ethnocultural association. Should the day arise when people no longer desire that community, we can pronounce national sentiment to be eradicated from human existence (but don't hold your breath).

Nations will converge, there'll be no basis for this, unless we keep nationalist agitators around for some reason.

Right.. And there will be a popular demand for their convergence, because...?

The point of socialism is to eliminate work through advancements in the forces of production, not retain a few good paying jobs for nationals or something.

The point isn't the elimination of labor itself, but the material necessity of it. Recall that Marx's theory of alienation argues that once mankind is liberated from exploitation (which debases labor), work will be transformed from a mere "means of life" to "life's prime want."

Borders aren't a viable option at all as they imply a completely different issue, one particular to capitalism and its scarcity. There is no basis for favoring national labor as there's no national capital, or any capital at all for that matter.

Claiming that borders become redundant with an elimination of scarcity is an utter non sequitur. As I've illustrated above, they serve other purposes as well, just as governments can be utilized for purposes beyond class domination.

So did the bourgeoisie, and so does reaction. Doesn't change anything.

Clever evasion. I suspect you simply couldn't refute the fact that national sentiment—which is but a modern manifestation of ethnocultural group identity—is a transhistorical human attribute.

Of course it is. Nationalism is a tool of the ruling class and only relevant because of their interests.

See above.

'Left wing nationalism' would lose any purpose (if it had any). Why divide workers? Why enforce national monopolies? These are in no way in the interest of the proletariat.

Ignoring your improper choice of terminology (e.g., "national monopolies"), they are in the interests of workers as human beings. In other words, labor is not the only thing which defines us as individuals, we have other psychological needs of which nationality is a part. Your question is akin to something as absurd as asking, 'why have pets?! They are in no way in the interests of the proletariat.' Well, no shit. But they are in the interests of people outside of their role as members of the proletariat who desire companionship.

Like how nations use our money to incentivise workers to kill each other?

You're conflating nations with states again—in this case, bourgeois states.

Well done, Celt. That was absolutely brilliant.

Listen mrguest. Here's a summary.

Nations precede the arrival of capitalism by centuries, if not millennia. Likewise, they are legitmate aspects of human society, and not simply derived from the current system of production.

There's no reason to give them up under a socialist system, and no doubt most working people will not want to. If, somehow, such a day comes, we will certainly not be the ones to cling to dying notions of nationality, but like Celt said, don't hold your breath.

GF wrote:Well done, Celt. That was absolutely brilliant.

Celt has made the dumbest assertions in this thread yet and only further proves that left-wing nationalists are in fact fetishists with a spiritual, not materialistic, view of the nation.

Such as:

Celtiberian wrote:Capitalism isn't defined by the existence of territorial nations, it is instead defined by generalized commodity production and the exploitation of labor.

It's defined by all three, however not just the existence of nations, but the empowering of nation-states over a-national aristocracies. The nation 'transcends' everything.

Capitalism and the nation bring each other into existence, into relevance.

Perhaps, but that doesn't indicate whether or not national sentiment is a transient property.

And here, national sentiment is another inherent property of nationals that transcends material conditions. For him, it is not material conditions that determines consciousness, but the other way around. Quite spiritual.

Even Marx conceded that the so-called "lower phase" of communism would remain "stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

This quote has been used for justifying everything from wage-labor to nationalization in socialism. Celtiberian wants to appropriate it to justify the existence and empowering of 'the nation', while simultaneously admitting it's a product of the 'old society' by using it.

What marx is talking about is the fact that the superstructure cannot transcend the base, that we cannot simply leap into communism as capitalism doesn't create the pre-conditions for it, lower communism does. This is ultimately an economic issue as socialists are aiming to transform the base to enable change in the superstructure, which the nation is a part of and will be affected by change accordingly.

The state is one such example, and, frankly, I find it inconceivable to envisage a scenario emerging within the foreseeable future wherein the state apparatus will not be necessary to at least facilitate the coordination of economic planning and international relations.

Here he conflates state and government, and combines the notion of international relations as they are today with what they are after the revolution. He does not know what relationships between revolutions will be like, but he assumes they'll be like the interactions of bourgeois nation-states today.

but even those conditions may not prove sufficient enough to overcome mankind self-identifying with national communities.

Repeatedly him and his kind combine 'self-indentifying' and 'associating with nationals' with the state power and monopoly of the nation-state.

Communism is incapable of 'destroying nation-states' because, as Marx argued in The German Ideology (p. 56), communism is not "an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself."

Stupid, stupid, stupid. That does not follow at all, quote mine harder.

The nation, regardless of the specific form it happens take across history, is an enduring reality, and, consequently, requires accommodating—if communism is to succeed in bringing humanity into a new historical epoch, that is.

The idea that something that is a product of material conditions, the same we change, requires 'accommodating' (i.e. concession) is plainly anti-marxist and resigns in the realm of spirituality.

The "collapse of borders" is neither an inevitable outcome of world socialism, nor would it suffice to "erase national distinctions."

Somehow in celtiberian's mind borders don't translate to private property and the free association and movement of individuals would do nothing to bring nations closer together and erase their wield over such individuals because they are not citizens of any nation-state.

But if you're referring to the very concept of enforced borders as being contrary to communism per se

This is just hilariously dumb. It's apparent to any marxist this is a very self-defeating statement.

Because Red Aegis was referring to a hypothetical situation in which a reactionary culture conflicts with the progressive, humanist values of another culture living within the same territorial boundary.

Here he conflates the marxist view of history with the 'clash of civilizations'.

I'm grateful for that, because I find the idea of inhabiting a world in which everyone looks the same and practices an identical culture to be absolutely dreadful.

And the truth comes out. Die in a **** of bullets, fascist.

When workers in a syndicalist collective determine who or who not to hire

Hi guys, we have worker-managed capital. Hooray.

The bourgeois individualism exemplified in this infantile demand of yours is quite telling.

That is not bourgeois individualism, you cretin. The fact you even have a problem with what you call 'individualism' is quite telling. Follow your leader and shoot yourself.

It's not an issue of 'property ownership,' but of territorial occupancy.

lmfao. This is getting pathetic.

Just as socialists and communists have historically not been opposed to the existence of possessions for active personal use, we left-wing nationalists don't regard geographical boundaries which are being collectively managed as being problematic.

sup bros, privately owned land is a 'personal possession' of the collective. Lol

I'm disappointed. I thought this wall of text would have something insightful. Instead I get morals, spiritualism, and subjective notions of the nation transcending everything (which I have heard countless times from fascists).

I've never seen so much revising of marxist ideas to accommodate a reactionary fetish before. I ask you again, why do you latch on to marxism? Is it because the hammer and sickle is cool and you like red flags?

I'm signing off, I've learned enough about you guys. You're emotional twats that don't want to let go of something because it's old and prevalent, nothing more. You're not much different from social conservatives. It's quite obvious your understanding of marxism didn't come from reading anything, but listening to the opinions of the left wing fetishists on it. You're not marxists with a revised idea of the nation, but social-democratic nationalists that want to appropriate marxism for their own use.

I hope you all get identified and placed on a fash-watch list.

You're not even trying to comprehensively understand or address the arguments put forward; instead, you are favoring the "not-uh" style of responding since you can't come up with anything better.

It's also clear that you're the violent one here hoping that Celtibertarian gets mudered for disagreeing with you. Anyone who reads your posts will know that you have no legs to stand on, even if you can't see that.

"And the truth comes out. Die in a **** of bullets, fascist."

What a troll you are, mrguest.

The worrying thing, Altair, is that he might not even be a troll. Trolls are getting smarter, people are getting thicker. These people really do exist on forums like RevLeft though and they become more boring than they do annoying, so I don't see how much entertainment one could gain from actually using these arguments to troll.