Quote:National characteristics are enforced from the top down. This is because the concept of nation itself is enforced from the top down (ruling class).
Quote:This attitude of a "threat" to Russia is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of manipulation by the bourgeoisie. This is what the bourgeoisie do: create an imagined threat to "your" nation and use this climate of fear to make the working classes more acceptable of bourgeois rule.
Quote:you love Russia then you have a preference for Russians over other people. Thus you have a preference for the Russian bourgeoisie over other bourgeoisie.
Why would they? As for the "different" part, why wouldn't they see themselves as different? They are obviously living in a socialist country, unlike the rest.
Quote:I'm not saying that.
Quote:They were free (and encouraged) to develop their national cultures (unlike during the Tzar). See: Korenizatsiya.
Of course that doesn't mean that just about everything was allowed.
Quote:Hardly believable. Russians for example, had their cultural traditions and so on, that is to say "national characteristics", long before the Russian nation state was founded.
Quote:False. In Russia for example it it the bourgeoisie that is destroying the nation, and the communists (admittedly,most of them are actually soc-dems but regadless) are the ones calling for a stronger army, the reindustrialization of the country and so on.
Quote:They would see themselves as superior because this is what the concept of nation posits. Every nationality is supposed to see itself as the "best" nation.
Quote:Then you aren't suggesting patriotism (but you say you are). Patriotism implies a love for the "fatherland". Why should people love the nation-state in which they happened to be born?
Quote:After the revolution, there was a great expansion in Russian art with new styles such as constructivism emerging. Vkhutemas was established and some very avant-garde art was created
Quote:Thus people did NOT have freedom to develop "their" culture.
Quote:That is because not everybody adhered to these customs.
Quote:The Russian ruling class had different customs to the Russian peasantry and proletariat.
Quote:The fact is, national customs are propagated from the top down.
Quote:How are they destroying the nation? They utilise the nation for their own political legitimacy. Hence Putin recently said this.
Quote:No. Give some proof for this. In what way did the Soviet workers consider them "superior" to all others?
Quote:I'm suggesting patriotism but socialist patriotism.
Quote:I'm aware. All that obviously lost its importance after some time, presumably because most people didn't really care much about all that and had different preferences.
Quote:Under Tzarism Uzbeks for example didn't really have the freedom to publish in Uzbek, to have folklore societies and so on. That's what i mean by this.
Quote:No. Not everyone "adhers" to everything. Some Russians became naturalized Tatars and so on ( so did one prince of Moscow).
I don't think that fact is sufficient to deny that there is such a thing as national characteristics.
Quote:They both had common customs.
Quote:I don't believe so. How are national customs of Kurds propagated from Ankara?
Quote:Soviet78 wrote a lot on that. If you listened to what the Russian communists have been saying for years you'd understand that Putin is a demagogue full of shit. He speaks of "patriotism" while selling out the country and its people (indeed, what's going on in Russia today is actually a genocide against all of its peoples) in most shameless ways.
Quote:Funnily enough, I don't have evidence of what millions of people thought decades ago in Russia. I am working purely on the assumption of the national myth. Each nation is implied to be a "great" nation (which nations aren't "great"?) and people are encouraged to value "their" achievements over other nations. Some Russians may not have bought into the national concept and thus did not think this. Whatever people thought, this is what nationalism wants them to think.
Quote:What's the difference? You think you are better than workers who live in a non-socialist country just because you happened to be born in a socialist one? That's no different from young Americans today thinking they are better than other nationalities because America is a global power. They neglect to mention that they as individuals have made little to no contribution towards achieving that power.
Quote:No, Stalin didn't like it so he banned it. Many of the Leninists and Stalinist had incredibly conservative tastes in art.
Quote:Under Bolshevism Russians didn't have permission to publish in Russian (or any language) if it fell foul of the state's literary boundaries.
Quote:The Russian aristocracy spoke French. Were they French?
Quote:In many ways, this is what they want you to think. If you think "your" treasured customs are under threat, you will actually try and preserve these reactionary customs rather than look to more progressive ones. They usually don't care much about changes in the language etc. They instead just want you to maintain the belief in the nation itself and that they should be the national leaders. This way they maintain their legitimacy and bind you to their will.
Quote:All these assumptions go contrary to the fact that the Russian revolutionary working masses fought, among other things, for a revolution in Europe.
Quote:No one is talking about "being better" and what not. The thing is that workers in a socialist country should be proud of their motherland and work to strenghten it further.
Quote:Yep, i totally want to see your proof for this.
Quote:I don't feel like playing semantic games.
Quote:My point was that all peoples got the right to their national culture.
Quote:They shared some common customs with all Russian people.
Quote:I don't believe this. What are some historical examples for the bolded part?
Quote:You mean the Bolsheviks sought to trigger a revolution in Europe so that they would have a powerful ally. Why wouldn't they do this?
Quote:I have no problem of people being proud that the country they live in is socialist and that they have overthrown capitalism. It's when they talk abstractly about a specific country like it were an organic entity (e.g. "proud to be Russian") is when it becomes reactionary. The former is not nationalistic because it is not implying that a nation has achieved something, but a certain class within that so-called nation.
Quote:On the Reconstruction of Literary and Art Organizations - Stalin's decree in 1932.
This essentially made socialist realism the officially supported artisitic form.
Quote:I.e. you don't want to address my point.
Quote:No they didn't. The state determined what elements of "their" national culture they could express.
Quote:They shared some common customs with people all over the world. To imply that someone is nationality X is to imply they are eternally different from everyone else on the planet apart from the rest of nationality X to whom they are eternally similar.
Quote:US conservatives implying that gay marriage and abortion are a threat to the American way of life. By creating this sense of threat to the 'American way of life' in general, it encourages people to develop homophobic and patriarchal attitudes.
Loz wrote:Only a part of the American public is conservative.
Certain elements within the big US bourgeoisie have been pushing for "diversity" for quite some time now.
Quote:You asked for a historical example of the technique whereby the powers-that-be encourage a siege mentality to stir up their base.
Quote:It isn't clear what you meant by the bunny-ears, but I'm sure I don't like it.
Quote:We should strive for a society that is accepting of alternative lifestyles.
Quote:It may seem strange that we who stand for the future merging of national cultures into one common (both in form and content) culture, with one common language, should at the same time stand for the flowering of national cultures at the present moment. . . . But there is nothing strange about it. The national cultures must be allowed to develop and unfold, . . in order to create the conditions for merging them into one common culture.