The principal of nationality, or nation building, that is, the tendency to form nation-states out of non-nation-states, is a byproduct of the French bourgeois revolution, and therefore, the negation of nation-building is the establishment of socialism. So why the attachment to "respecting" nationality in the process of building socialism? I often hear "there is no internationalism without nationalism." True, and yet that sentiment is often the opening salvo leading to "it's ridiculous to expect proles to care about people outside of their nation before themselves."
Isn't it strange that the modern nation-state, a construct of the French revolution, and therefore of bourgeois liberalism, and a phenomenon not even 250 years old, is constantly held up as the most important secular political principle, and something which allegedly cannot be overcome by proletarian internationalism? Where does this defeatism in the face of nationalism come from? I see it far more often with nationalism than with other much older forms of identity politics like religion. I think Hobsbawm's thoughtful treatment of this subject in "On Nationalism" is a useful treatment of this question but people don't like him because he's a British guy and not one of the legends of the ML AES nations.
>>2271986I don’t care for what you have to say OP as most nations in terms of number only really exist to blockade European countries and the United States from having any foreign political influence since those countries are full of invasive pricks
Ahh what the hell I won’t dance around the word. I’ll just call them crakkkers. Fuck em and fuck their imperialist shitbaggery.
>>2271986>the negation of nation-building is the establishment of socialismand what of people who do not yet have a nation?
>the opening salvo leading to "it's ridiculous to expect proles to care about people outside of their nation before themselves." why should proles from a nation exploited by another nations corporations care about people in that nation if they are actively engaged in struggle while people in the other nation are majority apathetic or even supportive towards imperialism?
this kind of analysis flattens actual differences in development around the world into an abstract ideal based on what its like to live in the imperial core. very similar to people using human rights as an absolute measuring stick to compare countries without understanding that social and cultural advancements are determined by an economic base capable of sustaining them.
its always people from advanced nations or in the comprador center of peripheral nations that have this problem with nationalism just like people who are anti-authoritarian when the only authority they have experienced is their parents and teachers and never had to live in a lawless failed state