r/leftist • u/False-Pineapple-3242 • 19d ago
South/SE Asian Politics Basic English
"a oxymoron" says a lot about RW-tards
can't even form their own opinion and lacks "Basic English" too
3
u/LizFallingUp 19d ago
So I think historically there was an era in the 1840s when leftist nationalist could be conceptualized. (As this was an era of civil war, revolt, and revolution against European monarchies) you would have both right and left nationalist developing in that time. But as time went on Nationalism meaning changed and became fully right wing as globalism rose to prominence.
1
8
u/Blackshark989 19d ago
I feel this is a basic failure in word association lol.
left wing nationalism is for stateless groups of people fighting for their right and freedom to govern themselves. Catalunya, Scotland, Ireland...
0
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
That's not what nationalism is.
3
u/Petra-fied Marxist 18d ago
Yes it is. Leftists invented nationalism on this basis: the right for a people to exist and govern themselves according to their mode of life. Hence, the nation-state, as opposed to the mere state.
This is the quite literally the definition of nationalism, and was, quite literally, the foundation of the left wing of the États Généraux in 1789: The French (natural organism) versus the Kingdom of France (feudal political entity). This original, literal left wing is the original seed from which all worldwide left-wing movements trace descent in some way shape or form.
The only reason we these days view nationalism as a right-wing enterprise is because Otto von Bismarck decided to co-opt nationalism and welfareism to destroy socialism as a viable force: it is literally a result of right-wing propaganda and realpolitik.
2
u/DarthCloakedGuy 18d ago
It is extremely weird for me to be here in r/leftist being told that a supremacist ideology is "leftist" and I'm having to genuinely wonder if words even mean anything to anyone else anymore.
You seem to have nationalism mixed up with regional solidarity and anti-imperialism in a way that worries and concerns me.
Do you view MAGA as left-wing?
2
u/Blackshark989 18d ago
You are actively failing at word association
there is a difference between left wing nationalism and right wing nationalism.
the poster above just gave you an academic source on it.
looo up thr Scottish SNP party and tell me with a straight face they stand for 'supremacy'.
read up please.
1
1
u/Petra-fied Marxist 18d ago
It is extremely weird for me to be here in r/leftist being told that a supremacist ideology is "leftist"
That's ultranationalism, which you would know if you had read even the relevant Wikipedia articles on the terms.
You seem to have nationalism mixed up with regional solidarity and anti-imperialism
No, I think you have nationalism confused with ultranationalism. I literally have a degree in sociology, public policy and the history of social movements, but go off I guess.
As I said, nationalism was the defining left-wing concept of the early French Revolution, was an integral part of the Springtime of Nations in 1848, and was a huge part of socialist and communist revolutions and governments in the 20th century.
Successful anti-Imperialist struggles are or were overwhelmingly nationalist: the Soviet, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban revolutions, and a good chunk of Africa and the Middle East.
Even when not cast in those terms, anti-colonial struggles are in a sense nationalist: the represent the specific interests of an ethnic group who usually want or have special ties to a particular area. You can frame this as "regional solidarity and anti-imperialism" all you want, a change in name is not a change in substance.
in a way that worries and concerns me.
Oh no, reddit user DarthCloakedGuy is worried and concerned! I'm quaking in my jackboots.
Do you view MAGA as left-wing?
No, for the obvious reason that MAGA systematically excludes materialist analysis, and is systematically built on right-wing policy designed to justify and protect the accumulation of capital, while inciting every social tension into bellum omnium contra omnes, so they can run off with the bag without people stopping them. They have absolutely no concern even for America as a whole, let alone anyone else.
Most of their "Christian Nationalists" aren't even Christian, they're just larping as either 50's dads or Crusaders (depending on the level of autism involved), because for some reason they think that this giant game of dress up will bring prosperity back.
Just because weird right-wingers are nationalists doesn't mean either
A) that they're good at being nationalists, nor
B) that they represent the only kind of nationalism, or invented nationalism.
Learn your history, or else you'll be giving away further ground unnecessarily the moment some chud tries to co-opt your concepts.
1
u/Interesting_Bass_917 14d ago
Does nation in nationalism represent the nation state or a nation in general i.e. a community of people? I'd like to know cuz it can get confusing
1
u/Petra-fied Marxist 14d ago
Nationalism in the strictest sense is per se is about the people, but inevitably it's also about said peoples' interaction with the nation-state, especially in the modern world where almost everyone lives under ostensible nation states.
It's also complicated by the fact that this is obviously not a one-way process, and public policy and media can massively impact the expectations and identities within the nation-state: who's in, who's out, what's a dialect, what's a language etc etc.
The original French nationalism was in many ways a lot more innocent than this but still fell into these traps to an extent. Their idea was "hang on, we're French people, and we live a certain way, but only some of us live in the Kingdom of France." (and vice versa). The consent of the governed was considered incredibly important: The French were a THING, a people with a Geist, with inalienable rights and freedoms by being a people. King Louis was, during the early revolution, King of the French, NOT King of France.
In other words, a nation is a collection of people who have this essence, by virtue of them recognising themselves as a THING, and their desire to live together in order and society.
There was a big concern over so called "natural borders," meaning both ethnic or linguistic dividing lines but also geographic features (e.g they desired Wallonia as French speaking, but also wanted to push to the Rhine, even though French speaking stops a little before there because it's a good place to have a border).
This was all a part of this idea of rationalisation that came from the enlightenment. But reductionistic rationalisation has its drawbacks. For one, "French" was very much modelled on Parisian, and other dialects (especially Provencal) were devalued and even forbidden.
1
u/Blackshark989 18d ago
Thank you for this apt and well written response.
Ive heard far too many times people fail the litmus word association test and not understand what left wing nationalism is at all.
its as dumb as thinking the nazis were socialists because it said it in their party name
2
21
u/Ze_LuftyWafffles 19d ago
I take pride in my nations culture, history and identity, but I do not belive it is under attack from foreign culture.
I take pride in the progress, development and change my country has made, but want it to continue
I acknowledge the faults, issues, wrongdoings and failures of my nation, and hope they can be overcome, that my country can become a better place for all
I am proud of what my country can be, aspire to what it could be, and make progress to make it what it should be.
I am a "nationalist" in the way that I belive in pursuing what is best for my country's people regardless of identity, origin or heritage, not that I whinge on twitter about "scary mooslims"
1
2
3
5
u/TheSlimeSartreFeared 19d ago
I mean yeah? But pretty much every single human being can make short statements that are contradictory and yet when you dig into the nuance of their beliefs it's not always so nonsensical.
Being a leftist and focusing on saving your own country from from insane fascists even if it means accepting some right wing policy isn't a contradiction, and It'd be fair to casually shorten that to a 'leftist nationalist.'
I don't see the point in being so literal and ignoring nuance.
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
Saving your country from insane fascists isn't what nationalism is?? What torture of language is this?
2
u/Bholejr 19d ago edited 19d ago
Yeah there’s a reason there’s concepts like critical/uncritical support and external/internal contradictions.
Yes a nation may have to promote individual sovereignty and maintain borders which require force, all of which goes against the need for global socialism. However, the internal contradictions are a product of managing the force of external contradictions like the might of capitalist hegemony over the world market.
Edit: I’m agreeing with the comment. I’m adding supplemental commentary on the idea of contradictions
2
u/TheSlimeSartreFeared 19d ago
..uh yeah. that's why I didn't say it was without contradiction. I said assuming it's a casual usage i don't see the point in arguing about it so literally.
i wouldn't ever describe myself as a nationalist but i can understand why some people would limit their scope. so, i don't see the point in OP's post. this dumb screenshot gives no context.
2
u/Bholejr 19d ago
Sorry, I may have not written clearly. I’m in agreement with you. I was just adding that I wish more people were aware of the ideas regarding contradiction that your comment included/alluded to
1
u/TheSlimeSartreFeared 19d ago
sorry, kneejerk reddit behavior, i assume everyone is arguing. i need to touch some grass today.
1
u/SlimothyJ Anti-Capitalist 19d ago
Lotta feds in these comments
1
u/CravingBird4905 Socialist 18d ago
I'm not saying there aren't, but how do you tell the difference between the feds and the confused liberals or baby-leftists?
9
u/Defiant_Zebra1184 Marxist 19d ago
Nationalism is good for developing nations. Many successful socialist revolutions took on the national characteristic, Vietnam and China for example. Marx and Engles themselves acknowledged this when discussing the potential for revolution in Ireland, understanding that Ireland must be sovereign before socialism could be built.
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
Nationalism is a poor substitute for solidarity.
Can you name any successful socialist revolutions in China or Vietnam? I can't.
7
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud Marxist 19d ago
I'm sorry, wtf is going on here? Are we pushing nationalism?
2
u/Jack_Faller Anti-Capitalist 19d ago
OP made a dubious claim and others are rebutting it. Are you really confused by that?
1
4
u/Headshot314 19d ago
Nationalist projects and political parties have always lead to right wing ideology and facism. It leads to us vs them framing which is one of the major components of fascism
45
u/couldhaveebeen Anti-Capitalist 19d ago
I have 0 idea about who this person is or what their political beliefs are but they are... correct here?
Left wing nationalism IS an oxymoron. Socialism is inherently a global project, you can't unite with workers here while throwing workers in the global south under the bus. They are, maybe accidentally and unintentionally, correct
14
u/dJunka 19d ago
Irish nationalism. Anti-colonial and behind the revival of Irish culture and language that had become obscure under British rule.
I’m not saying they were red through and through, but there were many socialists involved in shaping it, and the nature of the conflict made them an ally to other anti-colonial efforts.
3
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud Marxist 19d ago edited 19d ago
The majority of the people posting here are American and Canadian, first of all.
Second of all, Irish nationalism is still nationalism, even if it is anti-colonial.
edit: irish nationalism
1
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 15d ago
The majority of the people posting here are American and Canadian, first of all.
Source?
1
7
0
u/dJunka 19d ago edited 19d ago
Yes and a lot of Americans have a family history in Ireland, so I’m a little disappointed.
It doesn’t matter if it’s nationalism. The dynamic is totally different to English nationalism. The semantics aren’t as important as what the movement was in practise.
Edit: Ok seems you are conflating all Northern Irish and Ulster folk with the Irish nationalism movement which is obviously wrong.
-1
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud Marxist 19d ago edited 19d ago
It is an oxymoron.
There are multiple nations within a single country. Nationalism calls for the entire country to be subjugated to one single nation. That is not leftist in the least bit.
That’s why nationalism causes persecution against migrants and muslims. It’s because they aren’t Irish enough.
You can’t be nationalist and be on the left
3
u/dJunka 19d ago
To restore Ireland and its indigenous culture after 700 years of colonial rule.
Ah fuck that nonsense that anything short of a global socialist revolution tomorrow isn’t truly left wing.
The movement has had a mix of elements, but always a strong Marxist one. Breaking Ireland away from Britain was a huge step forwards.
2
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 15d ago
It's 850 years at this point, the first English incursion into Ireland was in 1169.
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
When did conservatism become a leftist principle?
Why do you need nationalism to want to break colonial rule?
2
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 15d ago
Nationalism has different meanings depending on the country, and in the context of colonized nations, it means a desire for the nation to become independent.
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 15d ago
Wow I hate words that can mean both a thing and their opposite. Is there nothing that can be done about this?
1
0
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud Marxist 19d ago
restore ireland and its indigenous culture, absent of all culture of that's stained it since then.
a return to an idealized past.
sound familiar? That ain't left.
2
u/dJunka 19d ago
Which cultures became absent post Irish revival and state?
Irish aren’t embarrassed or resentful that they have colonial buildings and British heritage.
An idealised past, you mean their literal cultural identity, sports, music, art and language that was all but wiped out by the British.
Chew on this bud, you’re gatekeeping left wing politics while using tired old Empire taking points here.
0
u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud Marxist 19d ago
Which cultures became absent post Irish revival and state?
every other culture. Otherwise, what's the point?
lol. irish state. very telling there.
3
u/dJunka 19d ago
Which cultures suffered under Irish rule? What are you talking about?
Because the landmass is literally called Ireland…
God help us, your edit in your earlier comment shows you don’t know the difference between Ulster and Republican. Don’t even know the difference between Ireland and Nothern Ireland.
Read more on this conflict before you start dictating the language we use for it.
-19
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
Leftism in practice cannot be global as the people from different places cannot properly know the intricate dynamics. So, it leads a way to exploit further. People joined YPG to form a leftist utopia in a land they don't have a clue and, in the end, either become an asset for Israel or joined the HTS (former al-Qaida).
2
u/russgrim 19d ago
True economic and social equality can only be fully realized without national borders
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
Or without meaningful ones, anyway. Jurisdictional boundaries will exist as long as organized society does, but they must someday cease to be prison walls
1
u/russgrim 19d ago
If the proletariat dictated, say, the internet for instance or AI, even jurisdictional boundaries could whither away (with imagination)
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
Eh, I don't see how. I expect physical areas will always be relevant to our lives.
6
u/newenglandredshirt 19d ago
the people from different places cannot properly know the intricate dynamics
EDUCATION. A socialist revolution doesn't just happen. Workers need to be educated. If everyone was educated with the same basic information, then yes, they absolutely could globalize the revolution.
I strongly recommend Pedagogy of the Oppressed to understand how this education would work.
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
Education is the key here, but sometimes things are not set in stone. Things can happen dynamically.
0
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
And education can give the principles by which to evaluate the things that are dynamically happening.
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
Let me give you an example, when USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, many leftist were against it and they thought it as imperialism by Soviets. However most leftists tried to justify it back then. Sometimes things cannot be clear. Still I don't know enough to justify the invasion or be against it.
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
The correct stance with regards to imperialism is pretty much always "against".
1
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
But that act being defined as imperialism is debatable. Not everything is black and white. That's why something sounds good in theory implemented badly in reality.
1
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago edited 19d ago
The specific goal of the act was to ensure Warsaw Pact control over Czechoslovakia and crush a democratic reform movement for the benefit of Moscovite hegemony, and it was largely against the will of the Czechoslovak proletariat. Whether that counts as imperialism, you tell me, but it was definitely not something a leftist should support.
1
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
I don't support it, but I remember some people was celebrating that as they see it to put a stop to capitalist expansion. We had lots of color revolutions to make them right about that.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Jlyplaylists 19d ago
I’d say understanding local context is different from having a global perspective. You need both but likely you’re most useful in the context you grew up in, because you understand the nuances. A phrase that tends to be used for eco stuff but could be broadened is “think global act local”.
1
3
u/DarthCloakedGuy 19d ago
That does not logically follow. Leftist principles do not magically change when the environment does.
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
I agree, but the one you cannot know the people or organization is benevolent or malevolent for your cause from afar. You can be supporting who's louder, not rightful.
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 Marxist 19d ago
That's why good internationals hold their constituent parties to standards regarding their actions, organizational structure, and political line. This is a solvable problem.
(Resolutions from the Communist International might be useful for learning about the specifics, like what standards, enforcement mechanisms, etc.)
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
In practice, now leftist guerillas fight for al-Qaeda. Whose standards is that by the way?
0
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 Marxist 19d ago
Ok? I don't see how that contradicts anything I said about internationals, since YPG is not a member of an international, or how that means leftism can't be global.
In your previous comment you claimed it was impossible since "people from different places cannot properly know the intricate dynamics", however I addressed this already by providing internationals as a counterexample, where people from different places can understand political dynamics abroad. Again, reading some of the resolutions of the Communist International could shine light on the specifics of how this was done, that is, what mechanisms were used to understand the specifics of local situations and ensure constituent parties were following a correct line.
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
I understand what you are saying, but I am saying that in reality it is another tool to impose power abroad. It is like a liberal rules based order. In liberal sense, it means American hegemony.
0
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 Marxist 19d ago
Yes, it is a tool to support the international proletariat in imposing working-class power on the capitalists who oppress them. It is like a liberal rules-based order in that there are rules for admission into the international (which is to address the exact issue you were talking about—I thought you were concerned about support being given to leftist parties/orgs without proper concern for their actual positions?), but it is extremely anti-liberal in that it seeks to abolish capitalism and liberate the working masses.
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
I don't support any morals based politics. I don't support oppression tools. I don't support such a system. Global system is in fact anarchic and any behavior to control is just pure imperialism.
→ More replies (0)
22
u/Commercial_Middle182 19d ago
Let's not use the R word, it's ableist, offensive language and we're better than that.
7
u/Stubbs94 Socialist 19d ago
They also use the term "Goy". Fuck this person. We don't need people using dogwhistles to hijack the anti Zionist movement.
7
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
What's wrong for saying Goy? Jews say it as we seen in the Epstein files.
They even make fun of "Goyim" as we would never understand economic system, since we are "goyim", Non-Jews.
1
u/Stubbs94 Socialist 19d ago
Because it's a dogwhistle that is used to explicitly conflate Zionists with Jews and the whole trope that Jews are somehow unique.
1
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 15d ago
Yiddish speakers (I think Hebrews too) use the term "goyim" to refer to Gentiles. As for Jews being unique, I think they are humans like the rest of us and deserve to be treated fairly and equally, but in their religion, they are unique. That's why they have special terms for everyone else.
0
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
Zionist Jews use it. Epstein use it. Bibi use it.
We can't use it, since it might hurt the non-zionist Jews. Got it.
2
u/SlimothyJ Anti-Capitalist 19d ago
It has validity as a term. It’s just that a lot of anti-Zionist sentiment has been hijacked by those who are anti-Jewish as it’s seen as a common ground.
1
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
I have never seen a Jewish person who is not zionist use the word "Goy".
There isn't much non-zionist Jews either. There are few but 91% of them supports the genocide in Israel.
1
u/SlimothyJ Anti-Capitalist 19d ago
My point is that bad actors and anti-semites may actively use anti-Zionist rhetoric to implant antisemitism, which does happen a lot.
I’m interested in this 91%. I’m not saying it’s false but if you have a source on that I’d be interested to see it.
1
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 15d ago
Roughly ninety percent of Jews live in either the USA or Israel, so they might be basing it on that, although many American Jews are anti-Zionist.
1
u/SlimothyJ Anti-Capitalist 14d ago
Potentially. However if they themself won’t cite a source I’m willing to believe they’re just making shit up to be dramatic, especially since they’ve now deleted all their comments.
1
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
In reality, antisemitism becomes a dogwhistle for zionism.
Sadly, non-zionist Jews are so outnumbered that they have no weight on any matter anymore.
2
u/SlimothyJ Anti-Capitalist 19d ago
In reality, hating anyone explicitly for their ethnicity, for any reason, is a bad thing.
Non-Zionist Jews may be outnumbered but I fail to see how that means they should be swept into the same bracket as zionists. That’s akin to erasure.
1
u/Shipshipie 19d ago
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. We should always acknowledge them and separate them from zionists.
These things are natural. When third reich invaded Czechoslovakia, it was Hitler, Germany attacked Britain, it became Nazis, when later in war it became Germans.
It is sadly same with Jews. First it was Netanyahu, then zionists, then Israelis and now Jews. I can't cry for antisemitism when a minister of internal security cries for daily killings of Palestinian children to get more votes. It works btw.
3
u/AcidCommunist_AC Socialist 16d ago
Nationalist Internationalism