The "Patriotic Socialism" Question Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 18:54:25 No. 9279
New reading project for the Continental Floppa reading group is beginning. We will be reading various writings related to the subject of "Patriotic Socialism" and national identity. This thread is for slower discussion of the topic and readings and for posting links or uploads for relevant texts.
Join our matrix chat to get involved.
Our tentative plans are to discuss readings on Saturdays, but this will depend on what anybody joining the group has to say. We are still determining which texts to include in our readings and the order.
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 19:28:39 No. 9284
S P O O K E D
P O O K E D
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 19:33:03 No. 9285
The first reading is from Lenin, two texts:
<Critical Remarks on the National Question <The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Marxists.xyz (/ourarchive/) also has Self-Determination
We are yet to have our voice chat meeting, so future plans are subject to change.
We are critical of PatSoc lol.
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 20:43:07 No. 9287
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 20:44:08 No. 9288
sorry test post plz delete this and one above.did not intend to ruin good thread.
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 20:47:38 No. 9289 >>9288
all you did was give it a further bump
We are also planning to read some texts that are spooked on the topic, including Settlers by Sakai and things like White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, to better understand the discourse happening. Any related readings are appreciated. The group is open to suggestions and various levels of participation, including just posting in the chat or attending the weekly voice chats.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-06 (Thu) 21:17:38 No. 9290
I shared some of my thoughts on matrix about this matter and could share more if you're interested. You do seem to be mixing up patriotism and nationalism and the national question.
(I usually don't do this on leftypol of all places, but CW: Eugene uses some foul language pertaining to homosexuality in describing fascism and brings up the dreaded e-word, as he typically does.) My criticism of the Patriotic Socialism op isn't that patriotism is intrinsically bad, or even that the American project is intrinsically bad and we should all hate the idea of this construct, "America", and by extension Americans. My criticism of this Patriotic Socialism op is that is so naked a ploy of the Maupin gang to indicate that they're rolling into the covid coup, but with a thin veneer of rightoid gloss to sucker in some of the rabble, for whom ideology is less important than attaching to some faggotry that will permit them to be violent. There's nothing patriotic about it, and they're presented this ridiculous notion of what the American project even is. An American patriot would have no interest whatsoever in Maupin's short bus gang, not even as useful idiots to sacrifice for the cause. Said patriots would probably want to defend their property, and have no reason to trust any socialist project. That's what their patriotism is for - to protect their stake in this country, because that's their home and their family and they see (with some good reason) socialists are a threat to that, especially socialists directed by Moscow or Beijing, whose ideology was always very alien to anything in the American experience. So in the American example, you're not talking just about some national question that is a matter of political aesthetics. Americans saw socialism as something utterly alien to their way of life, or could only accept certain forms of socialism that were very diluted, at best being about the same as social democracy. The American counterpart to European social democracy in the main was Progressivism, and this Progressivism was a rather different cosntruction from the outset. For one, while eugenics didn't play much of a role in conceptions of socialism (not counting "national socialism" which was a bunch of faggotry), eugenics was a strong force in American progressivism and remained so. The only other country I know of that can really get this is Britain (and by extension Canada, but they're not a real country). To really get the distinction requires understanding the eugenics movement and its impact, and that's a discussion y'all aren't ready to have. But the important takeaway is that American and British conceptions of "socialism", or what counted for it, had this eugenicist taint that isn't really replicated anywhere else. Nazism has been described by some as an import of this British and American eugenicist idea, with Hitler cast as George Washington and American fascists likewise calling Washington the first fascist. But Nazism was a quite different construct from Fabianism in more than just aesthetics. The one thing they shared in common is that they activated many of the same bases - teachers, the medical professions, what has been called the "clerks" who are fascinated with a rigid and orderly capital-S State and fetishize the construct. But in so many ways, Italian and German Fascism were a hitherto unknown movement, and not merely a recapitulation of capitalism or extension of liberalism. Nazism was a repudiation of the entire liberal project, proclaiming the defeat of liberty in favor of raw force. It took a while for American eugenics to catch up with this theoretical development in full, and in this go-around, the fascists learned well from history what works and what doesn't work, after the "noble experiment" of Nazi atrocities didn't work out. Anyway what does the eugenics and fascism talk have to do with "Patriotic Socialism"? It is not that fascists are bad because they actually love your country, and proper internationalists are supposed to hate their country or favor globalization. Fascism as a construct is actually very antagonistic towards the nation part of the nation-state; the MO of any coherent fascist polity is to supplant the nation entirely, so that there is only the idealized state above the toiling peons. Fascist elites, really, have no need of Germanness or Americanness or any national myth, except as expedients towards the overarching goal of the global fascist movement. That goal, as you can guess coming from me, is eugenics pure and simple. And so today's fascists, the actually competent ones, eschew the concept of patriotism, except as the thinnest gruel. So far as patriotism is still in vogue with fascists, it is reinterpreted as this male-homosexual bonding ritual, literally samefaggotry. This is exemplified in the totally-not-scripted focus group line, "Trump is saying what I'm thinking!" It's the ruling class gauging how receptive Americans were to samefaggotry, and oh boy there is a receptive base for that. Maupin is, in his own dorky way, making an appeal to that samefaggotry, just as he does by indulging this myth that Trump supporters are just mistaken and are secretly progressives. I can tell you, the typical Trump supporter would love to kill all the communists and take what little stuff they have, and would probably kill a good number of liberals and take their more plentiful stuff if they could get it. Trump voters as a whole, maybe this appeal could work on a few sods, but most people voting for Trump are voting for any piece of shit Republican that won't pass new Democrat taxes. There is this progressive illusion where they believe that politics is primarily ideological, and that spreading the right ideology will totally let people win (and this is coupled with a progressive belief that everyone should be like them if they are smart, a fainter form of eugenicist/fascist samefaggotry). Maupin is just channeling this failed method of the left, so that his flock are led once again into a ditch. Then Maupin goes back to his RT job, collects his paychecks, chuckles to himself that the peons are still hanging on to his every word, and life goes on. I may be a weirdo in that I don't think the American project as a whole is totally antithetical to something like a workers' movement or a socialist idea. If it did happen, though, it would be a socialism very different from any hitherto existing socialism, and it wouldn't take much off the Marxist-Leninist example at all. A great problem with that is that there aren't really theorists of this alternate socialism, because there's little willingness of people to adapt to America's conditions. They'd rather maintain their shibboleths and keep doing the same things that the left has historically done to fail. I'd also argue that the philosophical systems of the left are prone to drastic failures and should probably be reconsidered, but this philosophical disease doesn't affect solely the communists. It's everywhere. Anyway that's my $0.02.
Anonymous 2022-01-06 (Thu) 23:03:15 No. 9294
I think the distinctions between nationalism and patriotism etc are going to be part of the discussion of the topic but I encourage you to read along with us Eugene. This thread is probably also a better place to long-post about the topic.
Anonymous 2022-01-09 (Sun) 22:57:04 No. 9374
Just a tip: order your readings beforehand, formulate a curriculum, especially if you're against patriotic socialism. It just looks like you're cherrypicking shit just for a specific agenda.
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 00:55:18 No. 9375
A curriculum/study plan that includes essay writing is absolutely necessary for real learning. That said, there is no point in studying for the purpose of disputing "patriotic socialism" since it is not a real movement or even a phenomenon within the communist movement. It has so far only risen to the level of a small-scale Twitter controversy.
eugenics-kun 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:34:24 No. 9376
This. It's not a serious proposition, but an aesthetic of some grifters.
In the 19th century, political integration only existed at the level of the nation-state or the empire. There wasn't really a concept of "internationalism" or "globalism", and those who had aspirations of globalism were the elite of the elite and did so for elite purposes. The success of globalization today is the victory of capitalist oligarchy seeking to enclose the world. The USSR as a construction was very much an empire seeking to export its system to the other states of the world, and set up a world federation. There's no internationalism as a feeling or aesthetic. Every empire has centers of control to impose it, and it is true of democratic governments "from the base" just as it would be for top-town tyrannical empires. If you're going to propose what amounts to a world federation - and that was the goal of the Marxists - you're supposing some central authority or body regulating all the world. How you go about doing that may vary, but the implication is that practices like war would have to become an impossibility. Realistically, you only do that by force, or carefully pitting people against each other so that a great war is impossible. Those who aspired to dominate the world, whether capitalist or communist, had the same sort of goal. The nation-state was always a temporary project towards this aim of removing all obstacles to the security of those who rule.
The Nazis and fascism fucked this up by promoting identity politics and the notion of "national essences in eternal struggle", but this is really another way of imposing globalism, and it is the most corrosive and terrible way. But it is, unfortunately, the way that wound up succeeding, because the political aims of eugenics necessitated a fascist state rather than any other formation. And so, we are cursed with the worst of all worlds, in which globalism means cutting up the world into chunks and encouraging every petty distinction. Because the eugenic/fascist system is so total, it has become impossible to conceive with any seriousness a world federation on any other basis, or any other way in which people could co-exist. World government could only be supposed on a class conflict between the dysgenic underclasses and the favored castes of such a society, and that is the globalism we have now.
Anonymous 2022-01-10 (Mon) 01:56:18 No. 9377
Well it's a historically relevant question, and the fact that it's getting some attention now suggests it may become significant again in the future. So far in the discussion we've noted parallels between the politics of Lenin's time and the politics of today on the topic. I think you are correct about incorporating writing, so I'll see about how to incorporate that part.
I think we'll talk about a reading order in chat this week. It was bothering me too, not having a set list to read in the past.
>It just looks like you're cherrypicking shit just for a specific agenda.
Well this all just started with a conversation where one of us had just gone and read Lenin on the subject and noticed how the people discussing the topic were largely ignorant of rather mainline arguments on the subject and seemed to just be talking from a liberal view.