LENIN LOVED RUSSIA – HIS MOTHERLAND

Article from Izhevsk AUCPB organisation in Russia and translated into English, marking the Birthday of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

LENIN LOVED RUSSIA – HIS MOTHERLAND

Today, in an environment full of fake patriots from "united russes" to monarchists and outspoken nationalists, there is a fashionable assertion that alleges Lenin did not love Russia, neglected her interests and so on. This is nonsense and a profanity of stories by those who do not want to study it or drive it under an anti-communist template.

So, we shall not so to speak, pour more water but take a look at the facts, the statements of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

According to Lenin: "A Fatherland, that is, the given political, cultural and social environment is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat ... The proletariat can not be indifferent to the political, social and cultural conditions of their struggle, so it can not be indifferent to the fate of their country" (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, v. 15, ed. 4, p. 171-172). Vladimir Ilyich never separated the Russian proletariat from Russia, and believed it would be criminal to ignore their homeland, as the Trotskyites and the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie do.

In the article "On the national pride of the Great Russians”, Lenin stressed that the conscious Russian workers are not alien to a sense of national pride, but they are not proud of the same things that capitalists are proud of. "We love our language and our country, - he wrote – and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e. 9 / 10 of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression and humiliation inflicted our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these outrages put up from our midst, from the Great Russians, that midst having produced Radishchev, the Decembrists and the revolutionary commoners of the seventies, in the Great-Russian working class having created in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of the masses that the Great-Russian peasantry began at the same time to turn to democracy and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed prioprietors". (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol., v. 21, ed. 4, p. 85 (Rus)) . According to Lenin, a patriot is a person who is not indifferent to the situation of their own country and tries to change it for the better.

One of the reasons that the armed uprising in Petrograd was outlined by Lenin for the second half of October 1917, were plans by the provisional government of Kerensky to surrender Petrograd to the Germans. If it were not for the Great October Socialist Revolution, the capital of Russia probably would have been invaded by Germany, as there already existed a prior agreement between the interim government and the leadership of the imperialist country. Lenin wrote before the October uprising: "Kerensky and Kornilov will surrender Petrograd to the Germans. It is necessary for the salvation of Petrograd to overthrow Kerensky and for the Soviets to take power ..." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol., v.26, ed. 4, p. 158). Thanks to the socialist revolution, the then capital of Russia did not fall under a foreign yoke. In this case, Lenin and the Bolsheviks showed themselves as true patriots, in contrast to the bourgeois Provisional Government, which in fact embarked on a betrayal of their homeland.
Lenin stated: "... The bourgeoisie will betray their homeland and commit all crimes, if only to assert their authority over the people and their own profits" . (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol., v. 25, ed. 4, p. 290). This was confirmed by the events of the Civil War, when the counterrevolutionary White armies in order to crush the Soviet republic, gave to the British and Americans large areas of Murmansk and Archangel, to the Japanese - the Far East, to the French, Italians, Romanians, Greeks – the south of Ukraine, Crimea, parts of the North Caucasus, and to the English – the Transcaucasia. But only the Red Army in this regard proved itself as a patriotic force, expelling all foreign troops from the territory of the former Tsarist empire. What, kind of scoundrels and villains are they, calling themselves patriots, leading into their homeland foreign bayonets and tanks! That's what Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Yudenich and other traitors did, together with and at the same time, the cynical counter-revolutionaries who hated the Russian peasants and workers.

Vladimir Ilyich fought for Great Russia, which could not have been great by infringing on the rights of non-Russian peoples, bordering countries, the outbreak of wars of conquest, but only because of its progressive internationalist system - socialism. Lenin said: "... We, the Great-Russian workers, full of national pride, we want a free and independent, democratic, republican, proud Great Russia, building its own relations with its neighbours on the humane principle of equality, rather than degrading a great nation on the feudal principle of privilege " (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol., v.21, ed. 4, p. 86) . As you see, Lenin regarded Russians as a great nation.

Vladimir Ilyich, like a true patriot of his country was very pleased by the fact that Russia was the first country that had embarked on the path of victorious socialist construction. Lenin said: "... We can be proud of and we are proud that we have the good fortune to start building a Soviet state, to begin this new era in world history, the era of rule by a new class ..." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. m .33, ed. 4, p.32-33) . "We have a right to be proud and consider ourselves happy - wrote Lenin in 1918 - that we were the first to overthrow in one corner of the globe that wild beast, capitalism, which has filled the earth with blood, brought humanity to starvation and brutality, and which will inevitably die and soon, no matter how the monstrously massacred or the manifestations of its deathbed frenzy are.” (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol., v.27, izd.4, str.460 ) .

Lenin and up to 1917 respected Russian people, but the leader began to love them even more when he saw that the Great Russians after the first victorious proletarian revolution in the world had begun the construction of socialism. Russian people, as Lenin wanted, under socialism were the first among equals, living in peace on the basis of equality with other nations that make up the USSR.

FOR BOLSHEVISM-AUCPB
http://aucpbenglishwebsite.blogspot.com

What a load of crap this is.

Nationalist poison which runs counter to the socialist movement.

Some of these Lenin quotes seem to be taken out of context though his sentiments in ‘On the national pride of the Great Russians’ is very worrying - unless he had some ulterior motive in adopting that position.

Quote:

We love our language and our country, - he wrote – and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e. 9 / 10 of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression and humiliation inflicted our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these outrages put up from our midst, from the Great Russians, that midst having produced Radishchev, the Decembrists and the revolutionary commoners of the seventies, in the Great-Russian working class having created in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of the masses that the Great-Russian peasantry began at the same time to turn to democracy and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed prioprietors

Why would anyone love the language(s) they speak? What’s to love about them? What’s so great about speaking Russian?

Also, why would you love your country? What is so special about it? What is it (i.e. how is it defined)? Surely your “country” has had a significant part to play in making you a destitute peasant?

Lenin calls Russia a “fair country” (I assume he uses this in the context of “pleasant”) and how awful it is to see the Tsar butchering it. This implies that there was once a time when the Tsar wasn’t butchering it. When did this ever happen? Thus, how can Russia ever have been fair? Which countries cannot describe themselves as fair?

Quote:

Kerensky and Kornilov will surrender Petrograd to the Germans. It is necessary for the salvation of Petrograd to overthrow Kerensky and for the Soviets to take power ...

Quote:

Thanks to the socialist revolution, the then capital of Russia did not fall under a foreign yoke. In this case, Lenin and the Bolsheviks showed themselves as true patriots, in contrast to the bourgeois Provisional Government, which in fact embarked on a betrayal of their homeland.

Misleading. Lenin explicitly states that the surrender of Petrograd to the imperialist forces would be a threat to the revolution, not the country.

‘We must admit that unless the Kerensky government is overthrown by the proletariat and the soldiers in the near future the revolution is ruined.’
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... oct/07.htm

Quote:

Thanks to the socialist revolution, the then capital of Russia did not fall under a foreign yoke. In this case, Lenin and the Bolsheviks showed themselves as true patriots, in contrast to the bourgeois Provisional Government, which in fact embarked on a betrayal of their homeland.

How would that be betraying their homeland? They were bourgeoisie, it was very much in their interest to get the imperialist powers to assist them. If they had won then they would have lived privileged lives as rulers of their country.

Quote:

But only the Red Army in this regard proved itself as a patriotic force, expelling all foreign troops from the territory of the former Tsarist empire. What, kind of scoundrels and villains are they, calling themselves patriots, leading into their homeland foreign bayonets and tanks! That's what Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Yudenich and other traitors did, together with and at the same time, the cynical counter-revolutionaries who hated the Russian peasants and workers.

Surely no more foreign than the various non-Russian nationalities that lived within Russia’s borders at the time?

Quote:

We, the Great-Russian workers, full of national pride, we want a free and independent, democratic, republican, proud Great Russia, building its own relations with its neighbours on the humane principle of equality, rather than degrading a great nation on the feudal principle of privilege

So he wants national equality but then says that Russia is a great nation (thus implying there are nations which aren’t great) and that they should feel proud that they were the first to have a revolution (implying that the Russians were superior in this regard).

Quote:

As you see, Lenin regarded Russians as a great nation.

Every nationalist sees their country as a great nation. Which nations aren’t “great?”

Quote:

We have a right to be proud and consider ourselves happy - wrote Lenin in 1918 - that we were the first to overthrow in one corner of the globe that wild beast, capitalism, which has filled the earth with blood, brought humanity to starvation and brutality, and which will inevitably die and soon, no matter how the monstrously massacred or the manifestations of its deathbed frenzy are.

He was a communist, of course he was happy that there had been a revolution.



Well I never really felt Lenin had much of a grasp on the nationality question, but this http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ec/12a.htm is just garbage. I only hope he was adopting that persona in an attempt to appeal to nationalistic workers (though considering it was published in the early months of World War 1, surely it would simply have been playing into Tsarist hands in supporting the war effort?)

He loves the way the nation work i guess?, it seems that people here cannot understand a damn thing about nationalism. humans work differently according to different rules of law and habits, and national border protect such rule of law and habits.

It might have simply been a PR stunt, to tell russians he loved them in order to gain their support. too often the love of the country is turned into the love for the tsar or the kings, the leaders. but communist and socialists sure can love the country and the people in it. it is no different than being a philo-english.

Quote:

He loves the way the nation work i guess?

How does a nation work?

Quote:

it seems that people here cannot understand a damn thing about nationalism.

I understand it all too well and the reasons why we need to fight it.

Quote:

humans work differently according to different rules of law and habits

How so? Are you implying that some humans are biologically programmed to flourish under certain legal conditions than others?

Quote:

and national border protect such rule of law and habits.

A national border is merely what happens when one state meets another. As for protecting these laws and habits, that's a load of crap. The state makes and enforces those laws. People adopt and maintain habits, not states. And not everyone within a nation-state practises the same habits.

Quote:

too often the love of the country is turned into the love for the tsar or the kings, the leaders.

That's the whole point of nationalism: to make you support the ruling class.

Quote:

but communist and socialists sure can love the country and the people in it. it is no different than being a philo-english.

Anglophilia is just as bad as any other form of nationalism. Socialists and communists have no need to love "their" countries. Their goal is to abolish nations as concepts and nation-states as institutions.

Quote:

How does a nation work?

it's rules that everyone abide to, that's how a nation work, and over time it becomes tradition etc. nowdays tradition are often rotten and far too old to matter in the modern world though. This question clearly shows ignorance about sociology don't you think? to even deny that a nation work ( no matter if the national entity is unnatural just like ethnicities)

Quote:

How so? Are you implying that some humans are biologically programmed to flourish under certain legal conditions than others?

Biologically? You are right when you say that certain society do not work for all members, and that of course certain members are favored by rules which fits them, it wouldn't be different in a stateless communist world, the lack of rule would be the rules themselves. and i doubt you could jaywalk all you want without somebody complaining. I believe that a certain amount of behavior is dictated by genetics though , mostly when there is a physical or psychological crisis.

Quote:

A national border is merely what happens when one state meets another. As for protecting these laws and habits, that's a load of crap. The state makes and enforces those laws. People adopt and maintain habits, not states. And not everyone within a nation-state practises the same habits.

No what i mean is that state often defend rotten tradition which the people would have put down if it was not enforced through force, the christian tradition were clearly put in place through force and stayed there through force. it doesn't mean that the christian tradition was good or bad ( i personally am rediscovering my catholic heritage) it only means people were willing to use force to get their goal across. The corruption of the catholic church is astounding when one think of what they do in africa ( against condoms and social progress).

as for the other members of a nation state in canada we do have native americans living in reserves and struggling to maintain their tradition, the state does absolutly nothing to help them, if they have schools, then it is to learn english no matter what kind of traditional ornaments are placed or the number of fountains. So i can clearly see your point and even compare it with my personal experience. One thing i will tell you however, the teachers from my school and their school are different to the point of the native american forming a certain minority opposition in the pseudo-parliament of our tables where the debate on how to raise children is going on.

Quote:

That's the whole point of nationalism: to make you support the ruling class.

yes, but the people have a true love for nationalism, you should respect that, if their body biologically yearns for nationalism you have to respect how humans are made, how the brain patterns work and everything, you cannot deny everything human . My problem with technocracy is exactly that humans are irrational beings, and thus there is a need to satisfy their irrational needs.

Communist are there to provoke and to make humanity jump forward in history. i no longer believe in the need of the communist party to seize power, i believe that their role as an evil opposition can be quite rewarding, of course it should seize power if it can. I deplore the lack of today's politics in the far left, there are trotskyists high on entryism and stalinist bitching to exclude someone. It is ironic that we discuss habits and tradition because those habits and tradition must exactly stop. I say many here are just as guilty of holding on to tradition than many people of the mainstream left or right.

Quote:

Anglophilia is just as bad as any other form of nationalism. Socialists and communists have no need to love "their" countries. Their goal is to abolish nations as concepts and nation-states as institutions.

Why so? don't you think that those concepts were made during a time where treason was punished by death? where soldiers could not refuse to execute even civilians? sometime i feel too many are parroting rosa luxemburg and the history of 1900-1918, completly forgetting what was the Paris Commune. How bakunin felt he was a patriot of all oppressed nation. i much prefer the paris commune to eastern germany or the soviet union. perhaps romantically though.

Quote:



Quote:

it's rules that everyone abide to, that's how a nation work, and over time it becomes tradition etc. nowdays tradition are often rotten and far too old to matter in the modern world though. This question clearly shows ignorance about sociology don't you think? to even deny that a nation work ( no matter if the national entity is unnatural just like ethnicities)

No, that’s the state. The state creates and enforces rules. The state is not the nation. If an anarchist revolution occurred and the state was abolished would the nation (in your eyes) still exist? There obviously wouldn’t be any rules that everyone abided to as there would be no system to enact them or enforce them.

And I don’t just deny a nation works, I deny it exists (outside people’s misguided conceptions).

Quote:

Biologically? You are right when you say that certain society do not work for all members, and that of course certain members are favored by rules which fits them, it wouldn't be different in a stateless communist world, the lack of rule would be the rules themselves. and i doubt you could jaywalk all you want without somebody complaining. I believe that a certain amount of behavior is dictated by genetics though , mostly when there is a physical or psychological crisis.

Have you any scientific evidence for this? Outside of isolated individuals, can you prove that the population in one nation-state are GENETICALLY better at coping with a physical crisis than those in others?

Quote:

No what i mean is that state often defend rotten tradition which the people would have put down if it was not enforced through force, the christian tradition were clearly put in place through force and stayed there through force. it doesn't mean that the christian tradition was good or bad ( i personally am rediscovering my catholic heritage) it only means people were willing to use force to get their goal across. The corruption of the catholic church is astounding when one think of what they do in africa ( against condoms and social progress).

Tradition is another example of the folly of nations. Most traditions are invented and then subtly imposed upon people (as a unifying concept) by the state. Much of Christmas as we celebrate it in England was a 19th century invention, even though we are encouraged to see it as an ancient tradition.

Quote:

as for the other members of a nation state in canada we do have native americans living in reserves and struggling to maintain their tradition, the state does absolutly nothing to help them, if they have schools, then it is to learn english no matter what kind of traditional ornaments are placed or the number of fountains.

Why are they struggling to maintain “their tradition?” What are these traditions? In terms of language: why can’t they pass on their native language to their children just as they have done for hundreds of years?

Quote:

yes, but the people have a true love for nationalism, you should respect that, if their body biologically yearns for nationalism you have to respect how humans are made, how the brain patterns work and everything, you cannot deny everything human . My problem with technocracy is exactly that humans are irrational beings, and thus there is a need to satisfy their irrational needs.

This is full on pseudo-biology.

First of all, I should not respect that people have “true love” for nationalism. It is reactionary and thus needs to be changed through education. If people had a “true love” for capitalism would you respect that?

Secondly, provide me with the scientific evidence that the human body biologically yearns for nationalism! Babies are not born as patriots. They do not become nationalistic naturally. It is only through exposure to bourgeois propaganda that humans become proponents of nationalism, just as they can become proponents of capitalism.

Quote:

Why so? don't you think that those concepts were made during a time where treason was punished by death? where soldiers could not refuse to execute even civilians? sometime i feel too many are parroting rosa luxemburg and the history of 1900-1918, completly forgetting what was the Paris Commune. How bakunin felt he was a patriot of all oppressed nation. i much prefer the paris commune to eastern germany or the soviet union. perhaps romantically though.

What’s your point? What’s the Paris Commune got to do with anything?

Quote:

No, that’s the state. The state creates and enforces rules. The state is not the nation. If an anarchist revolution occurred and the state was abolished would the nation (in your eyes) still exist? There obviously wouldn’t be any rules that everyone abided to as there would be no system to enact them or enforce them.

And I don’t just deny a nation works, I deny it exists (outside people’s misguided conceptions).

Oh yes of course, i agree, a nation is purely made out of people's conception. that doesn't mean there isn't something similar to ethno-evolutionary instinct in it. That is the nation or the state preserves itself through lies, when threatened it acts a certain way and when not threatened it acts in another way. The whole point of my posts is that i feel most communist under-estimate the strengh and power that nationalism has on people, they compare it too easily with religion and ethnocentrism albeit there is a clear similarity. I am saying nationalism requires other way than outright denouncement. Fanaticism or ethnocentrism are much more easily denounced in this manner. Now what i believe it really comes down to is what your ancestor( and their ancestor) managed to ingrain in you. to put mistrust or fear of stranger out in you ( the values transmitted from generation to generation). I believe that nationalism is harder to destroy simply because patriotism include fear of losing military superiority (from the viewpoint of the west), it manages to trick us into believing that my personal safety is conditioned by blind loyalty to the state and it's president. i believe that it is a much stronger trick than both religious and ethnic superiority conviction. Look up the conviction of ethnic superiority, they clearly are a small fraction of our society compared to die hard patriots.

Quote:

Have you any scientific evidence for this? Outside of isolated individuals, can you prove that the population in one nation-state are GENETICALLY better at coping with a physical crisis than those in others?

i did not mean to speak outside of isolated individuals, but an argument i could put forward is that of people living next to the sea with a flood coming in. humanity is absolutly stupid to build itself in very dangerous places. The uncaring attitude toward the environment is very global, but i believe native americans with their specific religious type of revendications ( about landscape) shows a different kind of attitude than the white settlers.

Quote:

Tradition is another example of the folly of nations. Most traditions are invented and then subtly imposed upon people (as a unifying concept) by the state. Much of Christmas as we celebrate it in England was a 19th century invention, even though we are encouraged to see it as an ancient tradition.

yes, but since it was adopted, i believe that people love it, what would we do without traditions, would we ever offer gifts to each other? i was under the impression that christmas was based on older pagan tradition and replaced it. can you tell me more?

Quote:

Why are they struggling to maintain “their tradition?” What are these traditions? In terms of language: why can’t they pass on their native language to their children just as they have done for hundreds of years?

Because just like french people are resisting their assimilation, they resist their assimilation with tooth and nail, the economic advantage of speaking our languages is too strong, the incentives are very weak, there is a clear cultural superiority complex in the media. the money they receive from our federal government is corrupt money. it gives into dysfunctional native american corporations, it goes into the hands of irresponsible parents who party all year long . The casinos steals money from white people as well as native americans. but the black panther equivalent of the native american defends casinos with machine guns,( and the true activist demonstrate against the casino)

Quote:

This is full on pseudo-biology.

First of all, I should not respect that people have “true love” for nationalism. It is reactionary and thus needs to be changed through education. If people had a “true love” for capitalism would you respect that?

Secondly, provide me with the scientific evidence that the human body biologically yearns for nationalism! Babies are not born as patriots. They do not become nationalistic naturally. It is only through exposure to bourgeois propaganda that humans become proponents of nationalism, just as they can become proponents of capitalism.

I argue ,as a national-bolshevik, that nationalism is not the same as love for other false consciousness like religion and ethno-nationalism. as for the love of capitalism i think there is a breaking point where communism is impossible. Communism is possible due to human nature, it is truer to human nature than capitalism. This is the only reason i am here in the first place. I refuse to go against our own nature.

I believe that even if they become nationalist through exposure to bourgeois propaganda, that it becomes too easily a part of one's mind to be a nationalist, that it is dangerous and stupid to attack nationalism like all other dogmas. i would say it is closer and more similar to the dogma of the cult of personality. because the nation is 'supposed' to embody certain values, that it is admiration of those values that forms of the cult of the nation. just like one could say a cult of personality is the admiration and faith in the values of the leader.

Quote:

What’s your point? What’s the Paris Commune got to do with anything?

i mean that the paris commune had some patriotic elements, some antisemitic elements as well and that it was not as anti-nationalist as communism is today. They were trying to build a judeo-christian religion that was both opposed to the principals of christianity and judaism. They were creating a new and better religion, not a cosmopolitan void that we have nowdays.

Quote:

Well I never really felt Lenin had much of a grasp on the nationality question, but this http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ec/12a.htm is just garbage. I only hope he was adopting that persona in an attempt to appeal to nationalistic workers (though considering it was published in the early months of World War 1, surely it would simply have been playing into Tsarist hands in supporting the war effort?)

It seems like you are not understanding what he was trying to say. Maybe the translation is not that good.

Quote:

So he wants national equality but then says that Russia is a great nation (thus implying there are nations which aren’t great) and that they should feel proud that they were the first to have a revolution (implying that the Russians were superior in this regard).

I think the problem is that you are not understanding that Great Russia was a geographic term like Great Britain, and so by saying Great Russians he does not mean that Russians are superior to others...

Quote:

Why would anyone love the language(s) they speak? What’s to love about them? What’s so great about speaking Russian?

As a passionate amateur linguist, I'm pretty proud of speaking both German and Greek because - according to my sense of aesthetics, of course - they're really awesome languages as opposed to uglier ones such as Dutch, Catalonian, Sardic or - the worst of all - Esperanto, which fortunately almost nobody is forced to speak as a native language.

German has awesome grammar, is incredibly expressive and strong, and sounds kind of intimidating. Also German literature is quite the awesome tradition.
Greek also has awesome grammar and it's the oldest language still natively spoken. And I'm not even going to mention Greek literature... Western civilization owes basically EVERYTHING to it. We came up with dialectics, too. And materialism. And natural philosophy, and physics, and we introduced mathematics to Europe... it was all done in this awesome language, and therefore it evolved to become mindblowingly awesome as well because it had to find ways to be perfect in expressing every concept the Western way of thinking is based on. I mean the Greek word for "opposite" is "antithesis". The Greek way to say "I guess" would be more accurately rendered as "I hypothesize". How is that NOT awesome?

Russian is awesome as well. Awesome script, awesome grammar (6 cases for fück's sake. I bow down to that.) awesome syntax, awesome declensions, awesome pronunciation - and awesome association with socialism though that of course didn't apply at Lenin's time. I'd be proud as fück of speaking it.

Now is that nationalism or just linguistic masturbation? I dunno, but it feels nice to have some pride about these things.

Mabool wrote:

uglier ones such as Dutch

lol. Just to give an example how awful german is:

Butterfly in English
Papillon in French
Vlinder in Dutch
SCHMETTERLING in German

If that isn't ugly I don't know what is.

lol. And how is your language not just a degenerated version of mine? Because we say Schmetterling, which you're not even able to pronounce?

This diagram proves you wrong. And even if you were right, we only improved your language I would say. Also, I have no difficulty pronouncing Schmetterling. It's just a really ugly and german word.

Whatever. This is about personal taste, not facts, and to me Dutch sounds like simplified German for morons, because you screwed up the case system, the gender system and you were too lazy to do the High German consonant shift which made German superior to English and Dutch.

het huis van de man? (i guess that's correct, but I don't claim that it is... it should be, though)

FAIL, YOU MORONS

Das Haus des Mannes. GENITIVE, BITCHES. And intimidating, dominant, majestic capital letters. HOHO.

We still have genitive in that form. "Het huis des Heren" which means "the house of the lords". Also who cares about a consonant shift; clearly English now dominates europe. Using capitals for your nouns is not cool, personally, intimidating and dominant are not good features for a language. Anyways, for me German is like a loud, shouting, version of Dutch.

OT: I don't think it's unmarxist to love your country or your language. It can, however, never be more important than class. We are united all over the world through our classes, and we should never be divided over something as language or nation. Nationalism = bad.

Quote:

We still have genitive in that form. "Het huis des Heren" which means "the house of the lords".

Yeah, I know. I've also seen "Konningin der Nederlanden" (or whatever your degenerated version of "Königin" is ) on Euro coins, but the point is - you almost never use it in speech or informal writing, right? Praxis > Theory.

And if you wanna get picky I can still humiliate you with your inability to distinguish accusative and dative.

Quote:

Also who cares about a consonant shift; clearly English now dominates europe.

Yeah, but English only managed to catch up with German awesomeness by replacing half its Germanic vocabulary with French, which has perfectly made up for their consonant shifting laziness in the 1st millennium. But what does Dutch have to offer?

Quote:

Using capitals for your nouns is not cool, personally, intimidating and dominant are not good features for a language.

It's scientifically proven that it facilitates reading because the eye is more easily drawn to the important parts of sentences.

You can't even express yourself in dutch properly, not funny
Russian on the other hand can discribe anything just how you picture it yourself. It kinda makes a man smarter i guess ; it's very hard to sell bullshit in russian . I even dare to say if the whole world spoke russian , it would be socialist by now.

Quote:

"Konningin der Nederlanden"

Koningin der Nederlanden. You should come to Amsterdam this saturday for Koninginnedag, like a lot of germans do.

Quote:

Praxis > Theory

I use it sometimes, but I guess I'm an exception.

Quote:

And if you wanna get picky I can still humiliate you with your inability to distinguish accusative and dative.

This is what I noticed when I studied Latin. This is where a lot of people who are new to the language make mistakes; clearly dutch is a language only for people with a superior feeling for language.

Quote:

But what does Dutch have to offer?

Not more than any other language I guess.

Quote:

It's scientifically proven that it facilitates reading because the eye is more easily drawn to the important parts of sentences.

Well, maybe, but it still doesn't make much sense. It sucks when you have to write, this is also why I lost point on German in school, I forgot the damn capitals (I wrote capitalism at first ) with every noun.

Quote:

You can't even express yourself in dutch properly, not funny

How about this?

Quote:

As a passionate amateur linguist, I'm pretty proud of speaking both German and Greek because - according to my sense of aesthetics, of course - they're really awesome languages as opposed to uglier ones such as Dutch, Catalonian, Sardic or - the worst of all - Esperanto, which fortunately almost nobody is forced to speak as a native language.

German has awesome grammar, is incredibly expressive and strong, and sounds kind of intimidating. Also German literature is quite the awesome tradition.
Greek also has awesome grammar and it's the oldest language still natively spoken. And I'm not even going to mention Greek literature... Western civilization owes basically EVERYTHING to it. We came up with dialectics, too. And materialism. And natural philosophy, and physics, and we introduced mathematics to Europe... it was all done in this awesome language, and therefore it evolved to become mindblowingly awesome as well because it had to find ways to be perfect in expressing every concept the Western way of thinking is based on. I mean the Greek word for "opposite" is "antithesis". The Greek way to say "I guess" would be more accurately rendered as "I hypothesize". How is that NOT awesome?

Russian is awesome as well. Awesome script, awesome grammar (6 cases for fück's sake. I bow down to that.) awesome syntax, awesome declensions, awesome pronunciation - and awesome association with socialism though that of course didn't apply at Lenin's time. I'd be proud as fück of speaking it.

Now is that nationalism or just linguistic masturbation? I dunno, but it feels nice to have some pride about these things.

I would say that is definitely language love. You clearly don’t love German simply because it is your first language, you love it because of the reasons you have outlined.

Ultimately, when Lenin says ‘we love our country and our language’, is he implying that all Russians appreciate the aesthetics of the syntax and declensions of the Russian language?

Loving speaking your first language simply because it is your first language is ridiculous. I can’t see why anyone truly would “love” a language for this reason. From my experience, people love speaking languages for aesthetic reasons (i.e. they like the language) or because it allows them to communicate with many more people/open doors for them. I am glad I speak English as my first language as I am aware of its dominance in the world. In no way though do I “love” the English language outside of any purely aesthetic notions.

Quote:

that doesn't mean there isn't something similar to ethno-evolutionary instinct in it.

Pseudo-biology.

Quote:

I am saying nationalism requires other way than outright denouncement.

Such as? You seem to want to feed it rather than fight it.

Quote:

Now what i believe it really comes down to is what your ancestor( and their ancestor) managed to ingrain in you. to put mistrust or fear of stranger out in you ( the values transmitted from generation to generation).

Pseudo-biology. You cannot genetically inherit fear of certain people, it is a natural human emotion that everyone has. The only way your ancestors can influence your views and opinions is through your interaction with them. Thus, what your descendents hundreds of years ago thought and did can have no bearing on your mentality.

Quote:

I believe that nationalism is harder to destroy simply because patriotism include fear of losing military superiority (from the viewpoint of the west), it manages to trick us into believing that my personal safety is conditioned by blind loyalty to the state and it's president.

But this fear is instilled through propaganda. You cannot genetically inherit the fear of losing military superiority.

Quote:

i did not mean to speak outside of isolated individuals, but an argument i could put forward is that of people living next to the sea with a flood coming in. humanity is absolutly stupid to build itself in very dangerous places. The uncaring attitude toward the environment is very global, but i believe native americans with their specific religious type of revendications ( about landscape) shows a different kind of attitude than the white settlers.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever.

Quote:

yes, but since it was adopted, i believe that people love it, what would we do without traditions, would we ever offer gifts to each other? i was under the impression that christmas was based on older pagan tradition and replaced it. can you tell me more?

I used this as an example of the bourgeoisie propagating traditions as a method of control. I never said people didn’t like them. Ultimately, it’s worked though. The bourgeoisie rake in a load of profit in December.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas# ... th_century

Just an aside on this whole language thing, we had James Joyce, who clearly invalidates all literature written up to that point.

So yeah, you guys enjoy debating whose language is better... in English.