It's Okay To Be A Communist But Not A Nationalist

[apeman]

good post ssu

[DBTrek]

Let's not forget the trap of weaponizing "nationalism" into a dirty word.
If you're white and you happen to be a nationalist (aka patriotic), then what can the political left call you?

White Nationalist.

Right?

Clever boondoggle, effective on the masses.

[ssu]

Let's not forget the trap of weaponizing "nationalism" into a dirty word.
If you're white and you happen to be a nationalist (aka patriotic), then what can the political left call you?

White Nationalist.

Right?

Clever boondoggle, effective on the masses.

Yep.

And if in addition to that I'm a reservist who participates in voluntary defence training, that makes me uh,... a white nationalist militant?

But seriously, the agenda is to enlarge the segment of people who are called white nationalists.

[katarn]

And if nationalist means being a neonazi, forget it.

Btw, what do people here think is the difference between nationalism and patriotism? In my view patriotism is a better word. Nationalism, well, it isn't jingoism and that word (jingoism) isn't used much anymore.

Good post

Lefties today consider Nationalism=Nazi

IMO, the difference is Nationalism focus on the State, Patriotism focuses on the individual.

IDK what the current meanings should be ascribed as, but schools are teaching that nation = cultural group (hence why nation-state is it's own thing rather than just state), so nationalism began as movements for a nation group to become a nation-state in places like Austria-Hungary where a dozen nations lived under one government. Hence nationalism i the support for one's cultural group and by proxy the government if you live in a nation-state, whereas patriotism is the support for your country, period.

[ssu]

IDK what the current meanings should be ascribed as, but schools are teaching that nation = cultural group (hence why nation-state is it's own thing rather than just state), so nationalism began as movements for a nation group to become a nation-state in places like Austria-Hungary where a dozen nations lived under one government. Hence nationalism i the support for one's cultural group and by proxy the government if you live in a nation-state, whereas patriotism is the support for your country, period.

Well, the perfect counterexample to your argument are the British.

Which have still have managed to unite their Island Kingdom as surely, surely at least Scotland would be a perfect nation state just like Ireland. Here Smitty is the perfect example of how awesome the British have been in rallying the remnants of their Empire around them.

Austria never had politicians like Winston Churchill to keep the Empire together. That the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed wasn't a sure thing. It could have stayed alive. How much less instability would there been in Europe if the Empire would have still existed. But it could have. Just look at with honours Austrians buried the Crown Prince of their Empire Otto von Habsburg, a member of the European Parliament. It's not a law that a country with different ethnic background could manage to keep intact.

The Kaiserhymn sung in the funeral of the "would be emperor" in an alternative universe:


You see, to have nationalism you don't need just one specific cultural group. It isn't tied to that, to one people sharing one language and one ethnic background with ties to one geographical spot of land. Americans made of various ethnic and racial backgrounds are the perfect example. In the US it's not about that the land you live that has been the same one where your ancestors many centuries or milennia ago lived. That kind of a "nation state" would be fitting to an US stilled in the hand of various Indian tribes. No, it's the Constitution, American dream and all that. Hence bond of nationalism and patriotism can be a lot of things.

And the reason just why nationalism can take so many forms is that a nation is simply so big it cannot be about your family or your neighbourhood. Some will say it's an invented concept, but if in reality the concept has been around from the Antique Times onward, it truly isn't something unreal or just imagined.

[katarn]

IDK what the current meanings should be ascribed as, but schools are teaching that nation = cultural group (hence why nation-state is it's own thing rather than just state), so nationalism began as movements for a nation group to become a nation-state in places like Austria-Hungary where a dozen nations lived under one government. Hence nationalism i the support for one's cultural group and by proxy the government if you live in a nation-state, whereas patriotism is the support for your country, period.

Well, the perfect counterexample to your argument are the British.

Which have still have managed to unite their Island Kingdom as surely, surely at least Scotland would be a perfect nation state just like Ireland. Here Smitty is the perfect example of how awesome the British have been in rallying the remnants of their Empire around them.

Austria never had politicians like Winston Churchill to keep the Empire together. That the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed wasn't a sure thing. It could have stayed alive. How much less instability would there been in Europe if the Empire would have still existed. But it could have. Just look at with honours Austrians buried the Crown Prince of their Empire Otto von Habsburg, a member of the European Parliament. It's not a law that a country with different ethnic background could manage to keep intact.

The Kaiserhymn sung in the funeral of the "would be emperor" in an alternative universe:


You see, to have nationalism you don't need just one specific cultural group. It isn't tied to that, to one people sharing one language and one ethnic background with ties to one geographical spot of land. Americans made of various ethnic and racial backgrounds are the perfect example. In the US it's not about that the land you live that has been the same one where your ancestors many centuries or milennia ago lived. That kind of a "nation state" would be fitting to an US stilled in the hand of various Indian tribes. No, it's the Constitution, American dream and all that. Hence bond of nationalism and patriotism can be a lot of things.

And the reason just why nationalism can take so many forms is that a nation is simply so big it cannot be about your family or your neighbourhood. Some will say it's an invented concept, but if in reality the concept has been around from the Antique Times onward, it truly isn't something unreal or just imagined.

I agree with that, as applies to the modern usage of the term. I was highlighting the original meaning as taught in American schools these days. The word clearly doesn't just mean unity within and support for a culture today, but the movements of nationalism in the 1800s were more similar to that than not. As with so many words applied to more than one sense, Nationalism is now one of those words that can mean so many things in many contexts that no solid definition I've seen seems to work.

[Smitty-48]

Here Smitty is the perfect example of how awesome the British have been in rallying the remnants of their Empire around them.

The empire which we rally around, is a system of governance dating to 1688, the United Kingdom itself was never actually central , other than employing it as a base of operations in order to interdict forces which posed an existential threat to parliamentary supremacy writ large, we could have in fact evacuated the soveriegn to Quebec, but that would have ceded the North Atlantic, when the point was to hold the forward position, until such time as the Americans could be dragged into the fight, kicking and screaming or otherwise.

Whether British Empire, British Commonwealth, or NATO, Canada's role is to drag the Americans into the fight, if we go, North America is in, if North America is in, the Americans are a target by default, if the Americans are a target, they will be forced to defend themselves, and their best defense, is a good offense, at which point, mission accomplished.

NATO was in fact the brainchild of the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs under St. Laurent and Pearson (who both went on to be Prime Ministers), and it was they who led the drafting of Articles 2, 4, and 5 into the Washington Treaty, although they had always intended for it to be a political alliance more than a military alliance, just enough to bind everyone across the North Atlantic, never intended to be a global police force, which Canada thought would be the UN.

Fun fact; NATO Article 5 specifically precludes an attack against any American or British possesion in the Pacific as being a NATO casus belli, so the Soviets could have attacked Guam, or Hong Kong, and Article 5 would not apply, only an attack against the North Atlantic theater itself, ending at Hawaii, could be grounds for invoking Article 5.

[Smitty-48]

And if nationalist means being a neonazi, forget it.

Hitler said to the NSDAP in 1933; "I have learned a great deal from Marxism and I do not hesitate to admit it, my differences with the Communists are tactical not ideological, politics is not about talking and writing, I have simply put into action what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. We really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground".

Later whe would say, "National Socialism combines the bourgeois national resolve with a living and creative socialism".

At the end of the day, both movements had the same objective, a New Man Superman for a Post Scarcity Utopia (ultimately unto the stars). Science Fiction as the New Religion, both.

Hitler's broad strokes assertion was that the Jewish Bolshevik Conspiracy was actually out to sabotage the mission, a false flag in essence, largely controlled by international financiers who intended to undermine from within, and so it simply fell to National Socialism to save it.

To wit, Hitler was basically a communist, who said that the Communists were a bunch of phonies, and if you really wanted to get there, you had to follow him.

And this of course is why he had such broad populist appeal, including drawing many in from the Left, because in the depths of the Depression, the masses wanted communism, although not necessarily Communism, but enter National Socialism; best of both worlds, you can have your nationalist cake, and still eat it like a commie too.

Now, the Kaiserreich had actually already laid the groundwork for this, they planted the seed, by creating the first socialist welfare state, within the framework of the empire, Kaiser Wilhelm II was the first national socialist fuhrer, Hitler simply took it to the next level, in the context of a crisis of total fiscal and economic collapse.

It's not that Queen Victoria's grandchildren did not take Marx seriously, they did take him seriously, but each reacted in their own way, Saxe, Coburg and Gotha put its faith in parliamentary supremacy, democracy would be the safety valve, the Romanovs were reactionary and autocratic in the extreme, they cracked down and invoked God as their vindicator.

Hohenzollern however, chose the middle path, no democracy, but, the blessings of the empire could be distributed more evenly, to stave off both a revolt and democracy, and in fact, the Germans were the most progressive of them all, they were the original national socialists, the autocratic empire, with a heart of gold, and that's how Hitler framed it as well.

There was only one problem, one thing standing in the way of the Post Scacrity Utopia to the Stars; the Jews, heading a cabal of international financiers, who had seized control of Russia by Bolshevik conspiracy, and who then as a result had an army of subhuman Slavs at their disposal, who not only imperiled the plan for the Utopia, but were actually poised to invade and destroy Germany at any moment, to put a stop to it before it could get off the ground.

Coincidentally, this was actually Stalin's plan, although he wasn't actually working for the Jews, but he was plotting to incite a war between Britain and France and Germany, so he could invade and occupy Europe from the East when they came to blows again on the Western Front, never counting on the Western Front to collapse so precipitously, in six weeks in 1940.

When that Front collapsed, the Slavic army was in fact pressed right up against the German frontier, prepared to invade in a tightly stacked pre launch formation, ripe for the taking in a preemptive war of encirclement, when Hitler beat them to the punch and rounded on them first.

Most people don't realize how understrength the Wermacht was in terms of equipment when they launched Barabarossa, they didn't have enough tanks and artillery, but part of the plan was to capture Soviet tanks and artillery in the encirclement, slap German crosses on them, and point them back towards Moscow, which is exactly what they did.

They knew that the Soviets were stacked right up on their frontier ready to attack, they knew that it was all vulnerable to a mass encirclement and coup de main in the wake of it, and that is why they thought they were going to win, and win relatively easily.

They were going to trap the Soviets in the biggest Cannae of all time, take all their tanks and heavy equipment, and then roll on to Moscow relatively unopposed, and hopefully the Japanese would do their part and pin the Soviets down in the far east until the Germans were comfortably ensconced in the Kremlin.

And then the plan was basically to do as the Americans had done, they were going to liquidate the Jews the way the Americans had liquidated the Indians, they were going to enslave the Slavs the way the Americans had enslaved the Africans, and then they would dine out on the Lebensraum all the way to the Post Scarcity Utopia, with Werner von Braun launching them to the stars therein at some point.

Instead of Communism for the world, it was going to be communism for the Germans, and instead of getting there by councils of proletariats, they were going to get there by Fuhrerprinzip, Hitler the first New Man Superman, of many to follow.

Franco and Mussolini of course, thought this was all batshit crazy, but they weren't National Socialists, they were just run o' the mill Fascists.

Do the Neo Nazis understand what the program is? In America I'm not so sure, maybe some do, but I think the European Neo Nazis get it, the Neo Nazis in Germany, who call themselves "socialist and national", I do think they are ultimately on mission, although obviously the Post Scarcity Utopia is much farther away now, but I do think they embrace New Man Superman to this day, Hitler, the first amongst them.

In America, Nazi gets all jumbled up with White Supremacy, but to the Nazis of course, White was never the issue, I mean obviously, since they planned to liquidate and enslave millions of White people too. To the likes of the SS, the American Neo Nazis would probably present like the SA, useful idiots in the near term, some could be saved, but many of them would have to be liquidated too in the end.

[Hastur]

IDK what the current meanings should be ascribed as, but schools are teaching that nation = cultural group (hence why nation-state is it's own thing rather than just state), so nationalism began as movements for a nation group to become a nation-state in places like Austria-Hungary where a dozen nations lived under one government. Hence nationalism i the support for one's cultural group and by proxy the government if you live in a nation-state, whereas patriotism is the support for your country, period.

Well, the perfect counterexample to your argument are the British.

Which have still have managed to unite their Island Kingdom as surely, surely at least Scotland would be a perfect nation state just like Ireland. Here Smitty is the perfect example of how awesome the British have been in rallying the remnants of their Empire around them.

Austria never had politicians like Winston Churchill to keep the Empire together. That the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed wasn't a sure thing. It could have stayed alive. How much less instability would there been in Europe if the Empire would have still existed. But it could have. Just look at with honours Austrians buried the Crown Prince of their Empire Otto von Habsburg, a member of the European Parliament. It's not a law that a country with different ethnic background could manage to keep intact.

The Kaiserhymn sung in the funeral of the "would be emperor" in an alternative universe:


You see, to have nationalism you don't need just one specific cultural group. It isn't tied to that, to one people sharing one language and one ethnic background with ties to one geographical spot of land. Americans made of various ethnic and racial backgrounds are the perfect example. In the US it's not about that the land you live that has been the same one where your ancestors many centuries or milennia ago lived. That kind of a "nation state" would be fitting to an US stilled in the hand of various Indian tribes. No, it's the Constitution, American dream and all that. Hence bond of nationalism and patriotism can be a lot of things.

And the reason just why nationalism can take so many forms is that a nation is simply so big it cannot be about your family or your neighbourhood. Some will say it's an invented concept, but if in reality the concept has been around from the Antique Times onward, it truly isn't something unreal or just imagined.

To be fair the Austro-Hungarian Empire was extremely afraid of nationalism. Prince Metternich put a lot of effort into quelling all signs of nationalistic tendencies. After the French revolution and Napoleon nationalism was seen as the big disruptor by the European monarchs. The Habsburgs were feudal to the core. Feudalism and absolutism were the hills they were defending. All power to and from the feudal lord. To them any talk of nations and constitutions were seditious talk that should be clamped down upon. Brittain was leagues ahead thanks to the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights.

[Smitty-48]

Another important distinction to make, is that Marx himself, was just a German economist, he was not a messianic leader, Das Kapital is no Mein Kampf, in order to go from Marx to Communism, you have to add two ingredients.

The first ingredient, is bringing the Commune forward from the French Revolution, and that comes by way of Russia and Lenin, what the Soviets practiced was Marxist-Leninism, Soviet means "Council" and that's just a proxy for the Ministers of the National Convention, and the KGB, that's your Commitee for Public Safety.

But, this is all only a transitional stage, Marxist-Leninism pursues a World Socialist Revolution, but it's not Communism yet, it's just international socialist rule, before you can get anywhere, first you have to overthrow the imperialists, socialism is the path, but Communism is still not at hand even if you effect the World Socialist Revolution.

You don't get to Communism until you add H.G. Wells, because the final end state of Communism, transitioned to at some point by World Socialism as the vehicle, is science fiction. Science fiction as the New Religion.

Communism is the Utopia, Post Scarcity, and ultimately into Outer Space. The promised land which Marxist-Leninism is on the path to, perhaps taking many decades to get there, but when you do get there, it's basically like Star Trek.

Which is of course why; Star Trek is just American Bolshevism.

The Soviets were gaga for science fiction, it was all about futurism, everything had to be futuristic, they were trying to make the world into Star Trek, no matter how many people had to die to get there.

If you look at Star Trek critically, it's essentially Marxist-Leninist. How do they get there?

The world is submerged into catastrophic wars and revolutionary upheavals, until at some point they form a One World Government, Post Scarcity Utopia, Collectivist and Centrally Planned, and then from there they go into space and form the Federation, which... what?

Yeah, er, that's basically just Communism in a nutshell.

If you take Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, and liquidate a hundred million people to try to make it come to life? You're the Soviets.