Nationalism

Quote:

Also how is opposing nationalism liberal? Liberals are all about borders.

Quote:

Only the international proletariat can defeat the international bourgeoisie.

Quote:

So what makes Kochoson "Korean"?

Quote:

I was replying to Vasco who was saying he didn't want anymore immigrants coming to Portugal.

Quote:

Kochoson, Silla, Balhae

Quote:

Liberals are actually all about selling out their countries to the west and abolishing the national distinctions (culture, language, & history) in favour of some globalised mass that has no culture, no home, no past, and no future.

Quote:

Of course, nobody denies that, but why should Koreans stop being Korean or Japanese stop being Japanese.

Quote:

Capitalism should be defeated and reactionary traditions should be abolished, but culture and language shouldn't be exterminated.

Quote:

Just look at archaeology, they found daggers, huts, and tombs that are unique to that civilisation.

Quote:

How am I actively "being British" right now?

Quote:

It's bullshit to claim that there were once three different nations...

Quote:

I've no problem with people speaking different languages and people having different cultures (so long as they aren't reactionary).

Misuzu wrote:

That's what I've been saying all along. You seem to still confuse nations with states. A nation does not need a state to exist, for example, the Tibetan nation still exists in China.

Quote:

But with nation-states as the standard form of political organization, the non-titular nations are usually somewhat repressed within the states in which they reside.

Quote:

In a sense, yes. If the working class no longer identifies with its various nations then the bourgeoisie will lose an extremely effective weapon in controlling them.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

The state presumes to act as the embodied will of the titular nation (so Croatia works for Croatian interests, despite a substantial Serbian national minority).

Vasco wrote:

i respect every culture but i think my country has enough people and don't need anymore

Quote:

We need to unite the people to smash capitalism and them construct a society where those people can turn back to their countrys and rebuild them to creat a better society.

Loz wrote:

Nice consistency there.
It's OK for Africans to work to preserve "their" culture and so on but not for Europeans.

Vasco wrote:

Ex: So if an communist party in Portugal/Greece won the elections and advocate Nationalism would you support ?

Quote:

I agree with you because all nation have the right to self-determination .

Stalin wrote:

A nation has the right freely to determine its own destiny. It has the right to arrange its life as it sees fit, without, of course, trampling on the rights of other nations. That is beyond dispute.

Quote:

Why don't you sterilize the citizens of your country so that they cannot reproduce then?

Quote:

That's a really thoughtful idea, but what countries do you think will exist after capitalism is "smashed"? Do you think that every nation should have its own country?

Quote:

Does that make you a Zionist? How do you define nation?

Quote:

Joseph Stalin in Marxism and the National Question: "a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people;" "a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation;" "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation;" "a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation;" "a common economic life, economic cohesion, is one of the characteristic features of a nation;" "a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation;" "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." According to Stalin, this would exclude Jews as they have no common territory

Quote:

That's not nationalism. That's culture. Nationalism is an ideology that seeks to establish, control, or embolden a state. Nationalism in an anti-colonial situation is progressive, as a means to build socialism in said country. Nationalism in Europe is a method to reentrench imperialism, since Europe has already secured a nation-state free of foreign exploitation.

Quote:

Nationalism in Angola is quite different from Nationalism in Germany.

Quote:

a communist party winning elections in Europe would only breed social-imperialism or counterrevolution

Quote:

Portugal has already handled the national question, and thus has no further use of nationalism; nationalism, in Europe's case, would be reactionary.

Quote:

Europeans already have self-determination.

Quote:

Europe already has this. Post-colonial countries do not necessarily.
Marxism and the National Question

Vasco wrote:

If you understand that Portugal situation is really bed because the bad politics that liberals made we have people live in poverty .
So even the people that born here have diffucult to find a job even with qualifications so do you think that we should imigrants that haver a very low chance of getting a job ?
Imigrants are only used by capitalist to pay cheap wages to the workers .

Quote:

Immigrants create new jobs by forming new businesses, buying homes, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses.¹ In fact, between 1990 and 2004, roughly 9 out of 10 native-born workers with at least a high school diploma experienced wage gains because of increased immigration.²

Quote:

The problem with today's economy is not immigrants; the problem is our broken immigration laws that allow big business to exploit workers who lack legal status, driving down wages for all workers. If every immigrant were required to get into the system, pay their dues, and become U.S. citizens, we could block big business' upper hand, eliminate the two-tiered workforce, and build a united labor movement that raises wages and living standards for all workers.

Quote:

I think every Nation should have it's own country to avoid Racism and Xenophobia

Quote:

First of all, that is a total right-wing myth. This website explains why:

Quote:

So, how will every nation having its own country prevent racism and xenophobia? How are you sure it won't create it? What about land that is inhabited by two or more nations? We'd probably have to ethnically cleanse it, right?

Quote:

To take the Balkans as an example, before the advent of nationalism, people simply identified on a local level (with some vague idea of being "Slavic").

Quote:

The ideology of "brotherhood and unity" attempted to reconcile these differences, but in the 90's, nationalists (with rhetoric not much different than yourself) stirred them up again, telling people that every nation deserves its own country, and that the Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Kosovar Albanians were all separate nations.

Quote:

Finally, these ideas resulted in war, which is their logical outcome.

Quote:

So, how will every nation having its own country prevent racism and xenophobia? How are you sure it won't create it? What about land that is inhabited by two or more nations? We'd probably have to ethnically cleanse it, right?

Quote:

This topic is a complex one and for the most part is based on the abuse of power.
Such abuse translated into promoting national interests, namely more land, ethnic and cultural supremacy, etc. In this instance Serbia hated Croatia because Croatia and other Yugoslav states (namely Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia) foiled its plans of creating 'Greater Serbia'. The Serbian abuse of power prompted the other states to secede.

From the time of Serbian independence in 1878 Serbia held the upper hand over the other western Balkan states and for the greater part of the following century.
Serbia made sure that the power was used for the benefit of the Serbian people and to the detriment of others. In the 19th century Serbs, unlike other western Balkan nations, had their own independent kingdom and powerful allies such as the Russian Empire that made sure Serbia was and stayed powerful.

Serbia's long term goal was to make every Balkan ethnic group in its sphere of influence (south Slavic nations of Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians and Macedonians) become Serbian. The notion of greater Serbia stems from a 19th century Serbian politician Ilija Garasanin who wrote a memorandum in 1844 that covered taking over and incorporating surrounding countries and people into a Greater Serbian state. This memorandum was to serve as a backbone of Serbian expansionism for future generations.

It was a general Serbian consensus that all the people in these lands were Serbian: Slovenes being the alpine Serbs, the Croats being Catholic Serbs, the Bosniaks Muslim Serbs and the Macedonians - southern Serbs.

In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia of the early 20th century, the Macedonians were not allowed to have a nation but were referred to as the southern Serbs. The Macedonians were not happy in the least and subsequently assassinated the Serbian King Alexander I by a Macedonian revolutionary (Velicko Kerin also known as Vlado Chernozemski).

Furthermore, none of the lands that were to be incorporated into Greater Serbia had any historical links with Serbia apart from brief periods of occupation in the late middle ages by the Serbian Kingdom of parts of Macedonia, Greece and Albania, and the Vlach and Serbian orthodox refugees that were fleeing the Turkish oppression during the 17 century.
These Vlach refugees settled in parts of Hungary, Croatia and Bosnia.

The Vlachs were an indigenous Balkan population of romanized Illyrians and Thracians that converted to Orthodox Christianity and from 18th to 20th centuries in particular, came to see themselves as Serbs due to their cultural similarities and relative isolation from their true kinsmen - the Romanians. At the time of these migrations ethnic Vlachs were closer related to the Romanians than the Serbs both ethnically and linguistically.
Serbs were Slavs and Vlachs were not.

The lands (outside of Serbia), although currently populated by Serb minorities were NOT initially populated by Vlachs or Serbs. As an example, Croatia was initially settled by the Croats in the 7th/8th century and the Vlach populations started arriving 1000 years later - from the 17th century onwards. These lands still had Croatian settlers though now had Vlachs as well, invited by the Habsburgs to populate the decimated lands of the Ottoman invasions.

After World War 1, Croatia joined the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The kingdom was ruled by a Serbian dynasty eager to exert control over all the nations in the country with the final aim of making a kingdom of all Serbs - The Greater Serbia.
This of course was welcome by neither the Slovenes nor the Croats, nor the Bosniaks, Macedonians and Albanians for that matter.

The Serbian dictatorship in the kingdom was ever present in the country. The military, police and the government were all Serbian. The school curriculum was taught in Serbian - Serbian history, Serbian language. Slowly other nations were to be wiped out culturally and if not, forcibly if need be as was evident in the 1990s Serbian aggression in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and finally Kosovo. These wars were led by Slobodan Milosevic, the president of Serbia who died in the Hague whilst being tried for war crimes in former Yugoslavia.

To conclude, Serbia and Serbian politics was its own worst enemy bringing hatred to its neighbours. Prior to the 19th century, there were no historical records of any western Balkan nations hating the Serbs or vice versa. Serbs brought hatred through their thirst for power and their own selfish interests to the detriment of others.

Loz wrote:

That's in America. The agricultural US with its almost endless employment opportunities is completely different from Southern Europe with its horrible unemployment rates and even lesser (for now) possibilities for the creation of new jobs.

Quote:

Source?

Quote:

Tito's regime recognized that there indeed were several nations withing the SFRY, which is why ex-YU states follow the borders of Yugoslavia's federal republics.

Quote:

That war did not come because of "ideas", it came because the rulling classes of certain republics wanted to break away from the "lowest common denominator" the federal Yugoslavia was, in order for all constraints against "independence" (that is, the "local" bourgeoisie having a free hand in literally stealing the public property while ,at the same time, selling out "their" countries to imperialism) to be removed.
Of course, all that could have happened even without war.