I am interested in politics, and even tho i am not a communist, i am interested in what can be learned from it and i also want to learn more about political ideologies as a whole, instead of speaking out of my ass whenever someone mentions communism and potentially say some bullshit. What do you think?
Edit: thanks for all the answers! I swear i read them all, i just don’t know how to answer to each of them, but thanks for all the recommendations!
But that is not how Marx used the terms in his writing, you are the one confusing Marx here. A state was a political organization they ruled the economy, established because of the class struggle. In his eyes it is a weapon. A nation was a political boundary created by capitalism to define a market.
Basically one was internal, one was external although I don’t think he ever expressed it that simply.
Marx famously believed the working person had no country which you could argue was the combination of a state and nation as he viewed them. It is a massively important part of his view.
So no. The idea Marx supported the idea of nationality isn’t true it’s completely the opposite of what he believed which is why it is very important to push his international socialist mindset because once you don’t, you fall into the nationalism trap and begin moving away from his writing. Which is what most modern socialists do, which is what I’ve been saying.
I’ve grown over this discussion as you continue to push away from talking about what Marx wrote and his beliefs and continue to push your own idea of what socialism should be and your support of nationalism which isn’t what this conversation is about.
I repeat my point, socialists today are more national socialists than what Marx wrote in support of. Whether that’s good or bad is a different conversation but Marx would not have supported that mentality as it is completely the opposite of his international socialist opinion. By embracing nationalism socialists today reaffirm class disparity which is very visible today across most nations especially visible here on lemmy.
Nations are not states. I am not confusing Marx, here, you continue to vulgarize his views. Marx was an internationalist, on this we agree, but because you do not understand the concept of a nation you vulgarize what that internationalism means. Looking at Marx’s view of Ireland, Marx stressed that the national liberation of Ireland from British colonialism was in fact the correct step towards proletarian internationalism, and that therefore the primary task was liberation from colonialism before liberation from capitalism could be achieved.
Marx indeed said that the international working class has no country. This is indeed true, the overall goal is not individual national supremacy, but international solidarity towards an interconnected future. However, Marx also understood colonialism and the struggle for national liberation, and supported these movements. Lenin and Stalin would go on to develop these ideas further, but they did not divert from Marx on this point.
Socialists today are not more nationalist. You fundamentally misunderstand how internationalism actually works according to Marx himself. Marxists today have a more developed theory of the national question than existed with Marx, but this does not make socialists today “more nationalist.” You’ve fundamentally confused the national question as it existed in Marx’s time, and vulgarized him into a class reductionist, one that does not understand primary and secondary contradictions.
The embrace of proletarian internationalism, which includes support for the national sovereignty of all peoples, is what’s common on Lemmy. Not these bourgeois ideas of national supremacy of nations, which you have inserted into the equation. Marx and Engels themselves stated that no nation can be free while it oppresses other nations, meaning even in Marx’s time national liberation was a core aspect of proletarian internationalism. You turn him into an idealist that does not recognize the real, material process of nations.
Uh huh.
No it is not. If this were true you would see more sympathy for certain smaller nation’s plights. You don’t. You see dogmatic support for “my flavor” of socialism and a strict aggressive nationalistic mentality towards one brand of imperialism over another.
Vagueposting? Seriously?
You’re continuing to spiral and refusing to acknowledge what Marx literally wrote in support of your own views. You’re not being genuine and I’ve grown over this discussion as I don’t see a point talking to someone who is both trying to pull the conversation away from the initial point and completely contradicting what Marx wrote.
Again, I am upholding Marx’s position on internationalism. I’ve explained that you have vulgarized it repeatedly by painting Marx as an idealist. Marx supported Ireland, Poland, and more against colonialism precisely because he was an internationalist, he directly said that no nation can be free while it oppresses another.
State it clearly: where am I contradicting Marx?
Because you continue to stretch Marx’s views into what the Marxists as they identify view today as if they are the same. When they contradict basic things he literally said which is, if you go all the way to the top, exactly what I am saying and why this guy should read Marx. I have no interest going in circles with you again about this so this is the last time I’m going to say this.
Marx did not support the idea of a state, of borders or nations as whatever way you want to define them. Not only were they tools of capitalists but he literally believed socialists should be internationally minded and reach over national borders to support each other, which he did when it came to imperial powers, extending his support to nationalist movements. Which makes complete sense as nationalist movements will be what forms to break away from imperialist control which we both seem to understand but you try to take that and run with it and apply it further to mean Marx supported nationalism when he only supported nationalist movements in the face of imperialism. You can see in how he responded about French Marxists, that is how he would view this type of thinking and how he would respond to modern “Marxists” and socialists who want to fling his name forward as a weapon.
Him supporting nationalist movements is not supporting nationalism, which you seem to continue to argue in support of. Which I find rather exhausting to have to continually repeat what he literally wrote. Like the core things he wrote.
Socialists today are very nationalist. They are essentially wardens of their state for whatever country they are from. Especially here on Lemmy where you will see socialists from the US believe they can warp the state to enact their socialist goals, the opposite of what he believed, or socialists from China who completely defend the country’s entire structure even though the majority of it would be completely against what Marx believed from the continued exploitation of workers, to state controlled media that is highly censored and extremely non-critical of the state and ruling political class. Both of these continue to support the state that enforces class disparity which is like his main argument.
Brandolini’s law, I don’t care to have this discussion with you further. What’s the point? I don’t care if you believe me? I see what you’re saying. It’s wrong in the context of Marx. I’ve seen you post on Lemmy, you do this behavior everywhere and don’t seem to understand how it goes against Marx’s beliefs.
In most simple terms. Be highly critical of every and all states, support all working class regardless of national identity/borders, abolish social classes. That’s Marx in a nutshell, it’s really not that deep or hard to understand. Socialists today are not critical of their state especially in places like China and in countries like the US they might be critical of the state but they do not work to abolish social classes. Across the board most socialists don’t actually support workers regardless of borders. Many people here who identify and run around with the word of Marx are also against Ukraine or the US or China or Russia when there are workers in all those countries who we should be working to unify with. So I stand by my very first comment and have zero interest continuing this pointless discussion with someone who genuinely is trying to bend what Marx said to fit with what self identifying Marxists today say as if they are the same thing, they are not. Marx would not support these “Marxists” today.
Again, nations are not states. They aren’t borders, they aren’t whatever confusing idea you believe they are. Marx factually supported proletarian internationalism, which included explicit support for Irish and Polish liberation, to list two examples, against colonialism. Reaching over national borders to support national liberation is a core facet of internationalism as Marx believed the proletariat has more in common with each other than their own bourgeoisie. These ideas are mutually supporting, not contradictory.
You continue to butcher the national question as it exists today. Marx supported the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a state that cannot but wither as it abolishes class. Socialist states do not stand against Marx, but for them. Your idealist understanding of Marx is closer to anarchism than Marxism. National sovereignty does not mean the establishment of permanent borders or anything of the sort. It means that a nation oppressing another cannot be free, a call for the international proletariat to support the proletariat in oppressed countries against the oppressor countries. This is internationalism.
Regarding China, their socialist market economy is entirely in line with Marx. The basis of markets are decentralized production, the basis of socialized production is highly centralized production. So as to not introduce antagonisms, and develop the productive forces rapidly, markets are employed in underdeveloped industries. This is straight out of Principles of Communism and Manifesto of the Communist Party when Marx and Engels talk about how it is impossible to abolish private property at one stroke as its impossible to multiply the productive forces to their necessary levels overnight.
You collapse internationalism into blindness to imperialism and colonialism. This is the peak of revisionism against Marx, who I again will state supported the Polish and Irish against colonialism as a necessary blow to capitalism for both oppressor and oppressed.
I don’t know what you’re reading. You’re literally reiterating what I have already said in past comments and then being super weird and condescending about it. This is why talking to you is pointless as hell.