LWN

mrguest, you are a vulgar Marxist who regularly conflates nation with state, confines all social phenomena to the base-superstructure paradigm, and lacks a coherent understanding of socialism, let alone the nature of communism. Your "materialism" is a bastardization of dialectics. You have demonstrated no appreciable knowledge of Marxism nor its history, and your mode of analysis resembles bourgeois reductionism. Your Revleftist philistinism makes a mockery of Marx and virtually all serious classical socialists.

You are a fucking moron. Admit that you are merely a bourgeois liberal with a rebellious streak, or better yet, go drink a pint of bleach or something.

mrguest wrote: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.

You obviously have no understand of what materialism entails if you believe that, not that I'm surprised you can't think logically aside from whatever the next liberal pundit espouses.

How about the dumb assertions you've made? E.g.,

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

Are you aware that some people have grown past the immature stage in their mental capacities where they try to win an argument just by calling the other side stupid?

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

Again, I'm not surprised at all your brain can't comprehend anything but two sides to an issue.

Follow your leader and shoot yourself.

Funny that that statement comes from someone who is such a lemming in regards to his political ideas.

lmfao. This is getting pathetic.

Indeed it is. Have you tried thinking? That might help.

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

Have fun trying to maintain any sort of semblance of legitimacy after placing people like us on your "fash-watch list".

All right let's see what else you've got.

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.

Yeah I rolled my eyes at that statement too. That's called fascism, which is a relatively rare form of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system that can exist under most forms of government. The fact that it usually exists in nation states means nothing.

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

Damn, you've got a point here. After all, I can't think of a single nation that existed before the development of capitalism.

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.

Good god, you really are a fool if you seriously think he believes that.

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.

Damn, another statement I can't think of a counter-argument to. After all, because something has been used to justify illegitimate ideas means it can't be used to justify legitimate ideas, right?

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.

Whether Marx thought so or not (it's debatable), the fact is even when the base changes people will generally still cling to some aspects of the previous superstructure. Or do you think people's minds will change over night?

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.

Um, no, it is not. We're suggesting this 'accommodation' would be helpful to attain a change in the material conditions. You obviously haven't been paying attention if you're under the impression that we think if we were to change the material conditions so that no one gives a shit about nations we would try and make people care again.

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.

To anyone with a rational mind it'd be obvious Celt is correct. Do you know what private property is? Something owned by an entire nation is not private property. It is collective property.

And if you had ever taken a history course, which it seems you haven't, you'd realize free association and movement of individuals was what propelled people to establish nation states, i.e., in order to facilitate trade with those like themselves.

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

If it's a 'personal possession' of the collective, it's collective property, not private property. Along those lines, private property would just be the collective possessions of an individual.

I'm disappointed. I thought this wall of text would have something insightful.

Man, me too. Can't say I was expecting much more though.

Instead I get morals...

Damn pesky morals.

...spiritualism, and subjective notions of the nation transcending everything (which I have heard countless times from fascists).

No, I think it's more that you're a close-minded twit.

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?

Yes, that's obviously it. You got us.

I'm signing off, I've learned enough about you guys.

Wow, I'm even surprised how low your standards of intelligence are if you consider what you took from this board learning.

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.

How ironic.

mrguest wrote:proves that left-wing nationalists are in fact fetishists with a spiritual, not materialistic, view of the nation.

Your so-called 'materialist' view of nationality reduces to nothing more than vulgar economism, and while you may be ignorant enough to subscribe to such an untenable position today, it's inexcusable to associate Karl Marx with it. Unlike you, Marx fully acknowledged that human beings are endowed with an essential nature, as Norman Geras aptly demonstrates in Marx and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend. His theory of alienated labor, for example, would be meaningless if human beings were assumed to be infinitely malleable—since it's founded on the view that bourgeois social relations are fundamentally at odds with our 'species-essence' (Gattungswesen). The left-wing nationalist approach to the national question is analogues to Marx's anthropological philosophy in this respect.

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

Once again, it's important to differentiate the nation from the state. States were operational in both slave and feudal societies, while group identity (the source of national sentiment) can be traced as far back as primitive communism. Ergo, neither one can be said to be among capitalism's defining characteristics. The bourgeois state obviously functions in a manner historically specific to capitalism, but that's a separate issue.

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

National identity is innocent of capitalism's ascendancy. As a materialist, you should be aware of the fact that it was a combination of technological innovations and class struggle which ultimately led to the emergence of bourgeois society. Populist rhetoric stressing 'national brotherhood' may well have served a purpose during the bourgeois revolutions, but only insofar as it galvanized the peasantry into battle against the aristocracy. So while the modern, civic nation-state is indeed a product of capitalism, it's erroneous to claim this as the base from which national sentiment derives—self-identification with ethnocultural groups is as old as recorded history.

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.

First of all, it's undeniable that the specific manner by which national sentiment expresses itself is contingent upon material circumstances, but it's an enduring trait nonetheless. Secondly, acknowledging that human beings possess psychological attributes which transcend time and space cannot be considered "spiritual" unless one posits a 'Creator' as the source, which I (being an atheist) do not.

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.

I was referring to the state when I quoted Marx in that paragraph, not the nation. And I don't advocate empowering entities such as the nation, by the way; I believe in empowering workers. I do, however, believe that when workers are in possession of that power, they will enact policies (e.g., national self-determination and/or national personal autonomy) congruent with their underlying need to self-identify with national communities.

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 nation will undoubtedly be affected, but not eliminated.

Here he conflates state and government

I admittedly use the terms synonymously. In what sense are they separate?

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.

Neither you nor I can predict exactly how international relations will be conducted following the revolution, but I find reason to believe that territorial boundaries will persist, as will functionaries who specialize in foreign affairs.

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

Where, pray tell, have I combined national self-identification with "state power"? I merely suggested the possibility of territorial boundaries being an epiphenomenon of national identity.

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

It follows from the premise that national identity is an enduring property, imbecile.

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.

See above.

Somehow in celtiberian's mind borders don't translate to private property

Borders cannot be considered examples of private property within the context of what I'm describing, because the national territories they surround wouldn't be owned by individuals. What I envisage are geographical territories that are nationally possessed and managed, while nevertheless bound to certain policies which (democratic) international institutions establish in order to achieve global solidarity and equity.

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.

I suggested that the free movement of people would not suffice to eliminate national identity. Bourgeois society has come a long way in bringing culturally and ethnically disparate populations into close proximity with one another via immigration, and yet national identity and distinctions haven't drastically changed within such countries.

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

What's "hilariously dumb" is your attempt to substitute a sound refutation of my argument with a pathetic argumentum ad populum—in this case, my position is alleged to be inaccurate simply because most contemporary "Marxists" would regard it as being "self-defeating," while conveniently ignoring the distinct possibility that the cosmopolitanism espoused by many neo-Marxists was not actually held by Marx himself. (For further details regarding how Marx didn't subscribe to the cosmopolitan position frequently ascribed to him, wait for my forthcoming paper on the topic.)

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

Red Aegis wasn't referring to the materialist conception of history, he simply described a hypothetical scenario which I agreed was capable of materializing during the lower phase of communism.

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

I was under the impression that fascism was defined by a fanatical belief in social Darwinism, totalitarianism, palingenetic ultranationalism, militarism, and class collaborationism. Instead I'm supposed to believe that it's merely a distaste for global ethnocultural homogeneity? I don't think so. Furthermore, I thought that it was the fascists who sought to destroy ethnic and cultural diversity by invading foreign countries and systematically exterminating those who look or act differently from themselves. Ironically, judging from what you have written on the matter thus far, it appears that you actually share this objective in common with them, albeit with a slightly different end and means in mind. For instance, instead of utilizing imperialism for the task, you think it will be achieved purely as a result of communist social relations; and instead of desiring an existing ethnicity and culture to inherit the earth, you prefer some sort of ethnocultural amalgamation. Roman Rosdolsky, however, would take issue with any such view being interpreted from Marx and Engels's writings:

"Marx and Engels. . . . used the word 'nation' primarily to designate the population of a sovereign state. . . . 'Nationality', on the other hand, meant to them: (1) either belonging to a state, that is, a people having a state; or (2) a mere ethnic community.

. . . .From this, and only from this standpoint, it is possible to understand what the young Engels meant when he wrote of the 'abolition' or 'annihilation' of nationality: certainly not the 'abolition' of the existing ethnic and linguistic communities (this would have been absurd!), but of the political delimitations of peoples."
Rosdolsky, Roman (1965), “Worker and Fatherland: A Note on a Passage in the Communist Manifesto,” Science & Society, Vol. 29; pp. 330-337.

So, though Rosdolsky would agree that Marx and Engels believed that, with the abolition of class society, territorial boundaries would yield to the unobstructed global flow of people, he definitely wouldn't concur with the interpretation that they dismissed the possibility of ethnocultural nationalities persisting after communism has emerged—which is precisely what I argued in my previous post, when I mentioned that the collapse of borders wouldn't suffice to erase national distinctions.

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

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement by including that these hypothetical syndicalist collectives would be operating within a democratically planned economy, but I fail to see how that would have been germane to the point I was making anyway. I simply said that even collective enterprises have to establish a criteria for who is or isn't permitted to join them, in which case individuals who lack the necessary skills for the job are discriminated against.

That is not bourgeois individualism, you cretin.

Banging your spoon on your high chair because you might not be able to move wherever you want following the revolution is quite reminiscent of bourgeois individualism, sorry.

The fact you even have a problem with what you call 'individualism' is quite telling.

I have a problem with children who consider anything that impedes them getting exactly what they want, when they want it, to be unbearably oppressive. Sometimes there are concerns greater than the capricious desires of individuals. For example, certain products people demand probably shouldn't be made within a socialist economy because the conditions for the workers who produce those items are too inhumane to perpetuate.

Follow your leader and shoot yourself.

Any other slogans you wish to share with us? You're on a roll, what with "Destroy All Nations!" and now the famous "Follow your leader, shoot yourself" line.

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

Snotty mockery doesn't qualify as a refutation either.

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?

Nothing we advocate can be legitimately described as "reactionary," despite your repeated and substanceless protestations to the contrary. As for Marxism, the reason I choose to identify with the tradition is because I find value in Marx and Engels's contributions to political economy, philosophy, and sociology. I don't consider them to have been omniscient, however—which is why I'm perfectly willing to depart from their views on matters such as what the likelihood of borders existing in our post-capitalist future is. That you consider any deviation from their work to represent a heretical revision speaks volumes about your own tendency to fetishize things.

I'm signing off, I've learned enough about you guys.

What a tragedy. You will be missed..

You're emotional twats that don't want to let go of something because it's old and prevalent, nothing more.

I'm sure it comforts you to think so. After all, it would be so much simpler to dismiss us as being reactionaries if our position on the national question rested solely on feeble appeals to tradition. But the truth is that the only reason we emphasize the longevity of national sentiments is because it reveals that the trait has remained remarkably consistent during the radical changes to the substructure of society that have occurred throughout history, thereby indicating that it's something more than a transient superstructure phenomenon. Your inane notion of communist social relations being capable of turning water into wine doesn't constitute a reasonable argument to the contrary.

You're not much different from social conservatives.

Absolutely. Everyone knows that social conservatism is defined exclusively by a belief in the transhistorical status of national identity..

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.

I know, right? It's inconceivable that I could have possibly read volumes of Marxist literature and yet come away believing that national identity means anything. Forget the fact that I'm hardly the first or only Marxist to espouse such a view..

You're not marxists with a revised idea of the nation, but social-democratic nationalists that want to appropriate marxism for their own use.

Must I address the myriad ways in which we differ from social democrats again for you? I suppose it wouldn't make any difference though, because you're not here to engage us in serious debate; you're more interested in leveling baseless insults.

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

Because it makes perfect sense to include members of a forum which explicitly opposes racism and fascism in a "fash-watch list"..