<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.- Stalin, Marxism and the National Question
What exactly does he mean by "psychological make-up" here? Because from where I'm standing, people in the same nation are psychologically very different from one another, as individuals. I cannot imagine a single place on Earth where the individuals are psychologically the same, but maybe "psychological makeup" has some special Marxist-Leninist definition here that I'm not aware of. I'd like better help understanding what Stalin meant by this. Thank you in advance to anyone who is willing to help with this.
>>2760407the spooks a nation hold and diseminate between it's members anon, grab an american and a chinese and they will act different by cultural dissemination alone.
He was talking out of his ass, as usual.
>>2760411but isn't that just culture? People of the world will sing their national anthems because they're taught to through cultural indoctrination, not necessarily because they have an inherent psychological makeup that predisposes them to such behavior.
>>2760412He didn't even write it someone else did
>>2760412Well he was elected into the first soviet government because of that text so clearly he wasn't
>>2760407As you can see, nobody here actually knows. They're all just winging it. I bet even Felix doesn't know.
>>2760438Why are you misquoting by adding the inherent here? Do you think having the atom bomb dropped on them had a psychological impact on Japanese people? Is having an atom bomb dropped on you part of Japanese culture?
You didn't notice how people of the same ethnicity/nationality often think the same? Well he means that.
>>2760407>What exactly does he mean by "psychological make-up" here? Because from where I'm standing, people in the same nation are psychologically very different from one another, as individuals. I cannot imagine a single place on Earth where the individuals are psychologically the same, but maybe "psychological makeup" has some special Marxist-Leninist definition here that I'm not aware of. I'd like better help understanding what Stalin meant by this. Thank you in advance to anyone who is willing to help with this.I mean there are differences that I don’t think extend necessarily to culture so much as a broad psychological makeup, but that might be getting into the weeds too much. Like Americans were considered fairly optimistic as a trend, but though we might call that a “cultural trait” is it in the same category as what’s undeniably cultural works? Music, Art, Poetry, etc.
I think there are certain presumptions in how people express themselves that isn’t necessarily culturally enforced or a strict set of rules, but more something that emerges from a shared social existence. Like I’ve heard people overseas comment that Americans seem way more open to small talk or interested in learning about them.
>>2760498How is it misquoting? I wasn't intending to quote anyone. It was my sentence I was saying with my own words.
>>2760510>I mean there are differences that I don’t think extend necessarily to culture so much as a broad psychological makeup, but that might be getting into the weeds too much. Like Americans were considered fairly optimistic as a trend, but though we might call that a “cultural trait” is it in the same category as what’s undeniably cultural works? Music, Art, Poetry, etc.I'm American and I've never been optimistic. Do I lack the American "psychological makeup?"
'Psychology' likely refers to the behavioural intersection of people from certain socities (obviously it does not mean they're all the same). Its unmaterialistic to believe everyone is conditioned the same. But if I were to offer some examples: A Japanese person tends to be more serious than an American. A Brazilian tends to be more promiscuous due to historical fabrication of their society (Portugal importing whores to supply colonists who were defecting to join native tribes in order to fuck their women) and etc.
>>2760521So after misquoting you are now dodging questions? How bad faith can you be?
It is just an uncritical comment by Stalin
For most of human history, "culture" has belonged to the ruling class, while the folk existed by local tradition and custom. The "nation" as an idea is inherently modern (arising from protestant absolutism which gave local dominion over church property), considering that the final state of society was once considered a city (e.g. "polis"). Nations are not natural, but are artificial, while local communities can have organic bonds, but are then excluded from the wider society by this particularity. The French nationalists after 1789, for example, forced the population to only speak French, universalising dialect and language, meaning that the idea of a Frenchman was impressed upon the inhabitants of France.
Stalin would never join Akatsuki that's a Beria thing
If stalin was in yugioh what deck would he run and who would be his ace monster
>>2761036You seem confused. It's not misquoting because I wasn't quoting anyone.
>>2760507> You didn't notice how people of the same ethnicity/nationality often think the same? But they don't…and to the extent that they do it's because of culture not psychological makeup. Like in the West Americans are very multi-ethnic and shit but to the extent that they all believe in "muh freedom, muh property, muh burger dream" it's because of culture, not race/ethnicity.
>>2760441Sure looks like the definition of Fichte
>>2761062>The "nation" as an idea is inherently modern (arising from protestant absolutism which gave local dominion over church property)I thought the modern notion of the bourgeois nation state emerged after westphalia, but even so you have some claims of ancient "nationality" that is usually just cultural, and/or linguistic and/or ethnic in nature without having the same political nature as the bourgeois nation state, with perhaps the exception of ancient republican city states like the SPQR which truly seem like the forerunner of the post-westphalian bourgeois nation state.
>>2761073Why aren't you answering the question? Because you would have to admit that they are events in history like major wars for example our colonization, that can have a profound impact on the psychology of a population that is not necessarily well-defined as being merely 'cultural'. Now can this result in the cultural processing of said trauma? Of course it can but a trauma and the cultural transformation of it are not the same.
>muh freedom, muh property, muh burger dream" it's because of culture, not race/ethnicity.Again psychology is not necessarily something inherent, stop injecting this talking point, if you think it is, it's actually you who is doing a little racism here, do you realize that?
>>2761094>Why aren't you answering the question? The question is loaded. You're asking why I "Mis" quoted someone when I didn't quote anyone in the first place. This is my third time telling you this. You can't "misquote" people when you are saying your own words.
> Because you would have to admit that they are events in history like major wars for example our colonization, that can have a profound impact on the psychology of a population that is not necessarily well-defined as being merely 'cultural'. Now can this result in the cultural processing of said trauma? Of course it can but a trauma and the cultural transformation of it are not the same.
>Again psychology is not necessarily something inherent, stop injecting this talking point, if you think it is, it's actually you who is doing a little racism here, do you realize that?See now I understand you better because you have actually bothered to explain your position instead of just accusing me of misquoting over and over. I see where you are coming from now. It makes sense. you are saying like collective PTSD. Were you mad I used the word "inherent?" Yeah because that's what I thought Stalin meant. Maybe you thought I was trying to quote Stalin but I wasn't. I thought he was implying that. That was the reason for creating the thread. To ask wtf he meant. How is it racist to ask for help understanding Stalin? Why the aggressive posture, accusations of racism, instead of just helping me understand what he meant? I wasn't racist to anyone.
>>2761094> psychology is not necessarily something inherentAlso that's literally my point. How can a whole nation be psychologically the same? Even in one household you find people with vastly different psychological makeups. Even if you have something like a war which traumatizes a whole nation, that doesn't change the psychological makeup of the whole nation. It primarily affects the soldiers and civilian casualties. Even in a total war scenario some people are never close to the front lines and don't get traumatized. So I found the turn of phrase "psychological makeup" confusing. I did not quote stalin when I added "inherent" . The only time I quoted Stalin was in the OP, and I didn't use the word "inherent" there. I only used the word inherent here:
>>2760438and that wasn't a quote, that was me wrestling with what I thought he
might mean. Which is why there is a question there too.
>colonization, that can have a profound impact on the psychology of a population
Lol this fucking radlib read about something that happened centuries ago and got traumatized by it
Fucking autism
>>2761105acknowledging colonialism and its multigenerational effects isn't radlib, though. Plenty of Communists have written on this.
>>2761106Multigenerational effects of colonialism that result in class based effects, having "psychological trauma" over some shit you merely read about is literally /pol/ tier retardation
>>2761076Stalin doesn't separate psychological make-up and culture, neither does he say it's inherent to anything. They're both shaped by material conditions of existence.
In the original Russian text, the word for "make-up" is
sklad, which is more like "cast of mind" or "composition of mind", more evocative of something that's formed under external factors.
>>2761113> class based effectsAnd what 'effects' are those, you fucking retarded sophist?
Why are there people in this thread that are desperately trying to re-define psychology away from being a social phenomenon, just because Stalin said something along those lines?
On the one hand you are applying a reductionist definition of the term psychology as only emcompassing individual pathology and then misusing/overextending the term culture, as if those two areas never intersect. Both sociologists and psychologists would disagree with you heavily on this.
>>2761125Pretty much anything that doesn't involve being "traumatized" over something you read in a book
Do you understand how retarded it is to believe an entire nation has "psychological trauma" over something most people read years ago in elementary school and never brother to read again? The vast majority of 3rd world people aren't bleeding heart liberals autistically screeching over "muh colonialism"
>>2761141>Pretty much anything that doesn't involve being "traumatized" over something you read in a bookSo you are denying the fact that the class structure in post-colonial states has no psychological effect on said post-colonial society?
Stalin's use of "psychological make-up" (psikhicheskii sklad in Russian) is crucial, in the context of his 1913 work, Marxism and the National Question, Stalin uses "psychological make-up" to mean the shared, intangible, subjective bonds that transform a mere population group into a nation.
Stalin doesn't leave the term entirely abstract. He immediately defines it as a "psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."
For Stalin, a nation isn't just a group of people who happen to speak the same language and live on the same land. They must also share a distinct culture, a unique set of customs, traditions, literature, folklore, artistic sensibilities, and even national character. This shared culture is the outward expression of their inner, shared psychology, Through the development of capitalism, overcomes local fragmentation to create a unified, shared culture accessible to all its members.
In many ways, "psychological make-up" is Stalin's materialist attempt to define what other thinkers (like the German Romantics or French historians) called the national spirit, Volksgeist, or national character.
He meant the sum total of the habits, emotional reflexes, values, and ways of thinking that are common to the members of a nation. It’s what makes a French person's cultural sensibilities distinct from a German's, or a Georgian's (Stalin's own background) distinct from a Russian's, even if they live in similar economic conditions.
It is a subjective, self-aware bond The inclusion of "psychological make-up" was Stalin's way of acknowledging that a nation is not just an objective fact (shared territory, language, economy) but also a subjective one. For a nation to exist, its members must feel a deep, stable sense of belonging to one another.
This subjective bond was famously articulated by the French historian Ernest Renan, who defined a nation as a "daily plebiscite." While Stalin, as a Marxist, criticized Renan for ignoring material conditions, his inclusion of psychological make-up was a way to incorporate this essential element of collective identity.
Stalin was writing this work to settle a debate within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (the precursor to the Communist Party). He needed to define what a nation was to determine which groups were entitled to "the right of self-determination" (the right to form their own state).
By insisting on "psychological make-up" as a necessary characteristic, Stalin was creating a conservative, restrictive definition. A group could not claim to be a nation, and thus could not claim a right to secession, unless it possessed all four characteristics, including this stable, historically constituted psychological bond. This was a way to argue against the "cultural autonomy" sought by some Jewish socialist groups (the Bund), who, in Stalin's view, lacked a common territory and a common economic life, and therefore did not constitute a nation in the full Marxist sense.
When Stalin says "psychological make-up," he means:
A shared national character and temperament.
The subjective feeling of belonging to a community. A common culture (customs, traditions, art) that serves as the expression of this inner bond.
A historically stable, not a fleeting, state of mind.
It was his attempt to ground the intangible "spirit" of a nation in a quasi-materialist framework, making it a concrete, stable characteristic as important as territory or language. For him, a nation wasn't born until a group of people, united by capitalism, developed a shared, self-aware psychology that was distinct from all others.
>>2761142You mean a capitalist class structure? A capitalist class structure which is now causing psychological effects on a distinct manner on each individual and not in a collective manner? A capitalist class structure that is clearly defined from a colonial one?
>>2761143>>2761146I could tell it was deepseek because it gave a better answer.
it's really sad that leftypol doesn't put the effort in anymore.
>>2761165>it's really sad that leftypol doesn't put the effort in anymore.could have put the op in QOTDDTOT
>>2761143so how is it distinct from culture? I think the word culture here is just more descriptive. psychology is different. people in the same house can have the same culture, nation, ethnicity, politics, but still be very psychologically different. One might be schizophrenic, another might be alcoholic, another might be autistic. There is no universal national psychological makeup.
>>2761167questions in that thread never get answered. also I'm not OP.
>>2761169>so how is it distinct from culture?i dont think it is, the other three are objective, culture also goes with subjective? right? the quote says psych is manifest in culture
>>2761169Psychology doesn't just mean individual pathology anon
>>2761171but psychology doesn't manifest in culture because people from the same culture have very diffrent psychology. and even a single person is psychologically different at different stages of their life. Like when you are a toddler is psycholgoically different from when you are a teenager, is psychologically different from when you are a middle aged person, is psychologically different from when you are senile and in a nursing home. Two Shia Muslim Iranians have the same culture, religion, language, nationality, and ethnicitity, but one might be depressed and the other might not be. To me psychology refers to the attributes of a mind. There is no hive mind.
>>2761181so is there a special marxist definition of psychology? so far people just keep defining it as culture. If culture covers that aspect, then why mention "psychological makeup" as something distinct from culture? Surely he meant something by that which I do not understand.
>>2761143> the shared, intangible, subjective bonds that transform a mere population group into a nation. Culture?
>In many ways, "psychological make-up" is Stalin's materialist attempt to define what other thinkers (like the German Romantics or French historians) called the national spirit, Volksgeist, or national character.This just sounds like culture.
>He meant the sum total of the habits, emotional reflexes, values, and ways of thinking that are common to the members of a nationThere is no nation on earth where everyone shares habits, emotional reflex, values, or ways of thinking. Those are variable. There is no national hive mind.
>>2761182>but psychology doesn't manifest in culture because people from the same culture have very diffrent psychology. sounds like you are inventing your own definition
>>2761185>so is there a special marxist definition not really
or at least rather the other way around. if the definition provided explicitly says that psychology is culture then it doesnt matter that the "definition" is or even what the word is or what you think.
instead of "psychology" the word is "x" and the definition is "culture". besides the word being translated, in a philosophy or theory text you define your terms in a narrow technical sense as you use them. this is completely normal and not "special" or "marxist".
its kinda retarded and bullheaded to look at someone describing what they mean and say "nuh uh"
like your job is to figure out what they mean not critique their grammar. unless you are reading the text for ulterior motives outside of understanding in which case gfy
>>2761182>Two Shia Muslim IraniansTwo Shia Muslim Iranians are more likely than those in the outgroup to share similar habits, emotional reflexes, gestures, tics, sense of humor etc etc.
Their experience is influenced by shared tropes, beliefs, superstitions, sign system, subtleties of language and material conditions of life on a subconscious level.
All of this is also psychological. Psychology isn't just being depressed or being schizophrenic or having a particular temperament.
when you try to argue like this it makes it seem like you arent asking "what did stalin mean by this" but are just making a thread to go "haha look how dumb commies are they cant even into words". just go make a thread about descriptive v prescriptive language lol
>>2761189>if the definition provided explicitly says that psychology is culture then it doesnt matter that the "definition" is or even what the word is or what you think. but stalin already said culture.
>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.if psychological makeup is just culture, then it doesn't "manifest" as culture, it is culture. But my contention is that culture is the result of indoctrination, not psychology. Marx says the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. People don't fall out of the womb wanting to sing the national anthem because of their psychological makeup, they are taught to become that way. Psychological makeup sounds like nature, but he is saying that nature manifests as culture, which is nurtured. I don't think any nation of people on earth have a uniform psychological makeup. People have civil wars, arguments, disagreements. Even in a single household there is no common psychological makeup. I think he injured what was a pretty strong definition of nation by adding "psychological makeup" here. He could have just said:
>A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and culture. >>2761203>when you try to argue like this it makes it seem like you arent asking "what did stalin mean by this" but are just making a thread to go "haha look how dumb commies are they cant even into words".No. I want to be a communist but communists say I must actually understand what I'm reading so I ask people questions to better understand the theory. I've noticed this tendency, you guys mock people for not understanding the reading, but then when they actually ask for help understanding the reading you mock them even more instead of explaining.
>>2761194That's culture, not psychology. A person being senile or schizophrenic or depressed is psychology. You're describing a culture which is the result of nurture. If an American family adopts an Iranian baby he will not grow up to have Iranian "emotional reflexes" he will grow up to have a his own unique "emotional reflexes" because emotional reflexes are individual. Beliefs, sign system, subtlties of language are culture. Material conditions of life is from the economic base and is neither culture nor psychology.
>>2761204>but stalin already said culture.in the context of defining psychology
>if psychological makeup is just cultureyes it is.
>>2761205maybe because when people tell you the answer you complain and say you know better?
>>2761210>A person being senile or schizophrenic or depressed is psychologyThat's psychiatry if anything. Psychology is significantly more broad and it is indeed a social phenomenon that intersects heavily with culture. Every community, even imageboard users has distinct psychological quirks if you want to get to the bottom of it. You take an erroneous weirdly constricted view of psychology and use it to present Stalin as an essentialist for some reason.
>>2761224> Psychology is significantly more broad and it is indeed a social phenomenon that intersects heavily with culture.Stalin says a national "psychological makeup" it "manifests" as a culture, he implies direct causation rather than "overlap." But how do we scientifically define this overlap since we are scientific socialists?
>>2761224>maybe because when people tell you the answer you complain and say you know better?I have not once said I know better I am simply grappling with the answer and asking follow up questions. I want to be scientific so I ask questions. I don't want to be an unquestioning person who just follows along. I want to actually understand.
>>2760407Well, you see, it's like how every single south slav eats cevapči or how bulgarians make the yogurt or greeks makes the yogurt or turks makes the yogurt or how romanians steal stuff ya know?
>>2761239Well I was born and raised in America, in one of the most reactionary states, and I don't eat burgers, I don't thank the troops, and I don't stand for the national anthem. What happened to my "psychological makeup". Where did it go? If the answer to this question is "your nation isn't a real nation" then how come I don't have an Irish "psychological makeup" or a West African "psychological makeup" based on my ancestry?
>>2761235maybe its just not clear what you mean. it sounds like people are telling you psychology is culture and you are saying it isnt because you have a private definition of psychology and culture that differs from the way stalin is using it.
that isnt really a science issue but a reading comprehension thing. idk what to tell you its pretty obvious from the context clues and him saying it out right that he means psychology is culture and by that he means there are three main objectively measurable inter related parts to a nation and a third subordinate and subjective inter related part that is crucial but not determinative.
if you read the gpt answer its a political decision, which doesnt mean its not scientific just that its presentation was specific to its conditions. for example there are debates about the "black nation" in america because its not geographically contiguous and about the "native nation" because they dont have a common language.
does that mean stalin was wrong? no, it just means the material conditions in america are not the same as in the ussr.
>>2761230Well put, comrade. I personally am by no means a Stalinist but this whole thread is just an incredibly intellectually lazy hitjob.
>>2760407>What exactly does he mean by "psychological make-up" As comrade ᴉuᴉlossnW explained, Race is 90% spiritual
>>2761245 wha? uhh idk lol im a bit busy eating right now (hmmm cevapči)
kinda sounds like you might have an incompatible definition of science but i can only guess
>>2761249>this whole thread is just an incredibly intellectually lazy hitjobit does come across that way, like they are implicitly saying its wrong but not telling why and trying to socratic people into admitting it by being obtuse
>>2761247> psychology is culturebut stalin says "psychological makeup"
manifests as "culture" not that they are the same thing. So we have to figure out what psychological makeup is and what mechanism of action causes it to manifest as culture. I am skeptical of the idea that there is a collective psychological makeup in a nation since two people from very different nations might be more similar to each other in psychological makeup than they are to their respective compatriots. I am trying to be scientific about this.
>>2761249>this whole thread is just an incredibly intellectually lazy hitjob.How is it a "hitjob" ? I am not some liberal saying "stalin killed millions" or anything like that. I am just trying to understand how there can be a national "psychological makeup" and what makes it distinct from the culture it allegedly manifests as. You are free to be suspicious that my questions are in bad faith but I assure you they are not. What would constitute evidence that my questions are sincere? I will do my best to demonstrate.
>>2761253>it does come across that wayIf I wanted to do a "hit job" on stalin i could pick something way less obscure than this single phrase from this single passage. I assure you I am trying to understand what he means by "psychological makeup" and how (or whether) it is distinct from culture. If it is not distinct from culture then why did he say "psychological makeup manifesting as culture" instead of the less redundant phrase "culture." If they are different, then what makes a psychological makeup different from culture and by what mechanism of action does it manifest as culture?
>>2761266>but stalin says "psychological makeup" manifests as "culture" not that they are the same thing. what exactly do you think is the meaningful difference here? what are you disputing?
>we have to figure out what psychological makeup is and what mechanism of action causes it to manifest as culturewhy?
>I am skeptical of the ideawhy?
>a collective psychological makeup in a nation >two people from very different nations might be more similar to each other in psychological makeuphow so? what do
you mean by psychological makeup? how does
your conception of psychological makeup account for common culture? are you using psychological makeup to mean something other than common culture in a discussion about psychological makeup as manifested in common culture? why would you do that?
>I am trying to be scientific about this.what does that mean? why is it not already scientific? what is it lacking?
>If it is not distinct from culture then why did he say "psychological makeup manifesting as culture" instead of the less redundant phrase "culture."why do you care? does it matter?
ur either really autistic or a liar. define your terms before critiquing others
>>2761292>what exactly do you think is the meaningful difference here? what are you disputing?because stalin is a smart guy, a marxist leninist, who chooses words deliberately. if he wanted to say they are the same thing he would have either explicitly said so, or just said "culture" right? I feel dumb and I want to understand Stalin betterl. Lenin once said it is impossible to understand Capital Volume 1 Chapter 1 without reading Hegel's Science of Logic. So I don't take this stuff lightly.
>why?Because if Psychological makeup manifests as culture rather than simply being culture, then that means they are not co-identifical, but one manifests as the other.
>why? (number 2)read the rest of the sentence you are quoting, there is a "because" in there.
>how so? what do you mean by psychological makeup? I don't know. If Stalin meant it is simply culture than stalin probably would have simply said culture.
If Stalin meant it is different (which I think that he does) then I have to understand why it is different and how one manifests as the other, which I admit I don't which is why I am asking people for help understanding this.
>how does your conception of psychological makeup account for common culture? I don't know because I'm very alienated from my own national culture and I don't feel that I have much psychologically in common with people from my same culture, which is part of why this passage confuses me. I come from a very reactionary and anti communist culture and I reject the idea that I have an anti communist and reactionary psychological makeup. So I am confused by this passage and think I have misunderstood it and am asking for help. But so far the answers make me have more questions. Why? Because if psychological makeup were culture, than stalin would have said culture without implying a process by which psychological makeup, a separate thing from culture, manifests as culture.
>are you using psychological makeup to mean something other than common culture in a discussion about psychological makeup as manifested in common culture? why would you do that?Because in every other text I have ever read, psychological makeup was something more individual and personal. I am confused by the idea that an entire nation of people have an identifical psycholgical makeup since in my life expereince I have found myself at odds with my own nation and its "psychological makeup." Am I the exception that proves the rule or something?
>>2761297>ur either really autisticWell my kid has been diagnosed with autism but I never was. Maybe I am autistic. I don't like not understanding things and people have always gotten very mad at me and suspicious of me when I try to understand them better because they think I am fucking with them. So yeah maybe I am autistic but that is not the topic here.
lmao this is such a garbage debate addict slop thread
>>2761308I'm not "debating" i'm trying to understand:
- What stalin means by psychological makeup
- Whether it is distinct from culture
- if it is distinct from culture, how if manifests as culture
The reason I want to understand this is because I find myself at odds with my own reactionary anti-communist nation and don't feel I have a "psychological makeup" in common with my nation. So I am trying to understand how that is the case. I am called autistic for this to which I say… maybe?
>>2761270>>2761271Let's imagine a tribe of cavemen that took residence in a forest. In order to survive, they develop a range of psychological reactions to various material stimuli, such as don't go there, don't do that, this is good, this is bad and so on. Later they will dress these reactions in culture, as superstitions, tropes and conventions, in order to pass them on in a codified way. Forest tribe and mountain tribe will have different psychologies and different cultures informed by their relative conditions, and even if you put them on a neutral ground with no way to communicate cultural tropes to each other, you would observe different psychological reactions to certain stimuli.
This is applicable, in different forms and scales, to societies on all levels of development. A man adapts to his material conditions, and then builds a superstructure upon them.
>>2761313Thank you. This is a good answer. I think I understand now. I will leave everyone alone and stop being autistic now. Thank you. Sorry for being annoying.
>>2761318Eh, it's an imageboard, people will always assume bad faith because there's a lot of actual bad faith "errrm what did Stalin mean by this?! was he a peepee poopoo stinkyhead?" posters going around.
>>2760407> and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.How do you get to have the same psychological make-up? what to do with the people that don't agree with you. Kill them, i'm guessing.
>>2761588that's what stalin did
>>2761305>read the rest of the sentence you are quoting, there is a "because" in there.no its a "since". if you mean "because" why did you say "since". they are different words. do you not choose your words deliberately?
>I am confused by the idea that an entire nation of people have an identificali really dont think thats being suggested and i dont know why you do
psychological make-up is an internal part of the subjective aspect of nation being
common culture is the external, objective manifestation(appearance) of the phenomena known as psychological make-up.
psychological make-up can be the same for two different people because hes not talking about identical, but types. such as on imageboards they will have a shared psychology, like how different groups of people have private memes, this is sort of like a micro-culture. in order for them to find humor or enjoyment in esoteric funny images they have to have a common experience and common sense on which to relate. its like that but specific to the concept of a nation.
the mechanism of action is the language territory and economic life. the psychological makeup and culture have a material base in the social reproduction of society, which happens on a territory, facilitated by language, and through economic exchange. like how people living in the same place might have a similar diet music preference and customs and relate to eachother on that basis. so they have that in common, they will have common social norms. that doesnt mean their psychology is identical it means its common.
>>2761408OP already left the thread. Sorry you're a little too late to YANK the chain lol
>>2760407this threads needs more Hegel slop
< For Hegel the human being – man – equals self-consciousness. All estrangement of the human being is therefore nothing but estrangement of self-consciousness. The estrangement of self-consciousness is not regarded as an expression – reflected in the realm of knowledge and thought – of the real estrangement of the human being. Instead, the actual estrangement – that which appears real – is according to its innermost, hidden nature (which is only brought to light by philosophy) nothing but the manifestation of the estrangement of the real human essence, of self-consciousness. The science which comprehends this is therefore called phenomenology. All reappropriation of the estranged objective essence appears therefore, as incorporation into self-consciousness: The man who takes hold of his essential being is merely the self-consciousness which takes hold of objective essences. Return of the object into the self is therefore the reappropriation of the object.Karl Marx Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy in General
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm >>2761143Crazy to me that a guy like Stalin who is often seen as some kind of thug who didn't understand theory could grapple with concepts like this.
>>2761643nta, but since and because are interchangeable in this context
>>2761826It's because
>often seen as some kind of thug who didn't understand theoryThis is cope from antistalinists.
>>2761846Him ruling like a despot or being an idiot-genius is also a weird post hoc fabrication. Most of the stuff he enacted (good or bad) were politburo consensus.
>>2761062The french republicans were correct. To hell with the cloud spirit's tribe and their 17 rivals.
>>2760407I know I have a reputation of open contempt for everyone here but I'm genuinely happy to answer this. I wrote my thesis on nations and national self-determination, and much of my work on the street is around putting Stalin's ideas into practice.
I think it's easy to overthink "psychological make-up" as more than it is. Essentially what he means is the shared social attitudes emerging from a shared social relation to wider society. This manifests over time in common cultural practices and rituals. In my family's home nation of Haiti this was expressed in the formation of Vodou religious practices, common cuisine (pikliz, soup joumou, etc.), and other shared cultural practices which became binding forces leading up to the revolution, especially among the enslaved and Maroon majority (and mulattoes to a lesser extent). This
does not mean everyone thinks the same. Rather, it means that disparate people bound together and facing the same or similar conditions and social relations (be they oppressive or not) will begin to form a common outlook to the world around them. A Black person in the US
generally perceives white supremacy very differently from whites
in general, and Black communities have distinct cultural practices from white communities, because these national groups don't share the same relations to the state and its economy historically or presently.
We see this process in the formation of every nation, though as Stalin notes the existence of a common culture does not itself denote the existence of a nation. For instance trans people in the US have distinct cultural practices and outlooks from cis people due to a long history of oppression, but they aren't a nation. It's all the things Stalin listed, together, which denotes a nation. The Haitian nation was historically constituted through the process of enslavement, Maroon resistance, and finally a decade-long revolution with all class strata taking part. It remains a stable community of people, though now with a sizeable diaspora as well. They share a common language in Kreyol, a common homeland — the island of Haiti, share an economic life in that Haitians comprise all class strata (there are bourgeois, proletarian, and peasant Haitians who economically interact consistently), and as we just outlined share a common culture. Thus Haiti is a nation like New Afrika, Ethiopia, Vietnam, or Cuba are nations.
Please let me know if there's anything that needs further clarifying.
>>2761935sure, but we cannot then pretend that because we share attributes that we are of the same mind; that is Stalin's theoretical flaw, as espoused by OP.
>>2762005OP returning one more time to say: Thank you, anon.
Who is Felix and why do people keep referencing him?
>>2762063I don't see any reference to that in the OP but since you asked, we have a banned anon who used to go by the name "the real iron felix" named after felix dzherzhinski of the bolshevik cheka. he became infamous for (among other things) publishing covert action articles under his real name with his head photo attached, accusing anons of doxxing him, even though he basically doxxed himself, encouraging anons to attack critical infrastructure, accusing anons of being ukrainian neo nazis and gangstalking him, cumming on a photgraph of putin and uploading it, calling CPUSA and DSA members fascist, claiming to have armed cadres at his command, threatening to shoot anon (usuing the catcphrase "you are nothing but target practice for our cadres), saying the vast majority of Americans are knowingly, willingly, and gleefully collaborating in imperialism and being particularly obsessed with CPUSAnon, replying to every one of his posts with rants about killing millions of brown people in exchange for funko pops. He makes a point of being abrasive as an agitational strategy I guess. I think what is very bizarre about his behavior is he spends a lot of his free time talking to a community he regards as almost entirely fascist, while simultaneously doxxing himself to them and encouraging them to take communist action.
I am the real iron felix
>>2761845and maybe psychological makeup and common culture are interchangeable in the context of the thread?
>>2761826hes mega based and his writing is so clear and straight forward compared to others. its like mao but without the weird phrasing just plain and to the point
>>2762402Not really, no. Some have been using them interchangeably, but Stalin (correctly) doesn't use them interchangeably. The common culture emerges from a shared "psychological make-up" (social attitudes), which in turn emerges from shared conditions and social relations.
>>2762005>I wrote my thesis on nations>a nation like New Afrika>>2761247>there are debates about the "black nation" in america because its not geographically contiguous and about the "native nation" because they dont have a common language. thoughts? i read about it in erol
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-8/index.htm#aanq >>2762411Are you singling out New Afrika to imply it isn't a nation? It still very much fits the definition outlined by Stalin, as correctly argued in many of the sources within the page you linked (for example by the Black Worker's Congress and Congress of Afrikan People).
>thoughts? i read about it in erolWhat exactly did you read in erol? I find it very annoying when people link pages like this, or some inane reading list, as if it's supposed to tell us anything about what they understand or what their position is.
>>2762465>Are you singling out New Afrika to imply it isn't a nation? no? i even said "native nation" too
>What exactly did you read in erol?it was years ago. and it was more about indigenous not being a nation because they speak diff languages. but new afrika isnt geographically continuous either, nor does it have a distinct economic life from america.
>as if it's supposed to tell us anything about what they understand or what their position is.i dont really have one. if people want to organize around a black nation i think thats good.
my position from upthread
>does that mean stalin was wrong? no, it just means the material conditions in america are not the same as in the ussr.meaning: i dont think all four are necessary to constitute a nation but you gotta have most of them and some kind special circumstance. stalin really just made it four because jews were being reactionary
>>2762471>no? i even said "native nation" tooMy apologies then, it can be difficult to follow who's saying what in some of these threads.
>it was more about indigenous not being a nation because they speak diff languages.It sounds like whoever was making that argument was constructing something of a strawman, as I have never heard a Communist organization argue that there is a singular Indian nation. There are many, which share a struggle and can only win self-determination as a united pan-indigenous movement.
>but new afrika isnt geographically continuous eitherYes, it is. I don't understand where this assertion comes from. The Black Belt still very much exists as a distinct and contiguous region in the South. Look at a county-by-county map of where Black folks live in the US and you will see it traced out before your eyes.
>nor does it have a distinct economic life from america. Only if your definition of "distinct" is to mean "entirely separate", which is not what Stalin meant in his original definition. This isn't the first time I've come across this claim and by its logic no nations exist in the world at all, as imperialism has bound all nations together in some way. The bourgeoisie of oppressor nations bind and warp the national bourgeoisies of subject nations to their interests. But nations do exist and retain their character in spite of and
because of this process. Some are warped into compradors and bureaucrats, others are dispossessed and de-classed, and others vacillate opportunistically between oppressor and oppressed interests. We can see this just as surely in the Black, New Afrikan nation today. Listen to Claudia Jones, who laid Stalin's meaning out plainly:
>Have the Negro people a stable community of economic life? First, let us discuss what is meant by a common economic life. It is sometimes said that people have a common economic life when they make their living in the same way—they are all sharecroppers, or they are all workers. Actually, a common economic life with reference to a nation or community under capitalism means that the nation or community has within it the class and social relations that characterize society; it has capitalists, workers, farmers, and intellectuals, ranged according to their position in the production relations. In this case it means that a Negro must be able to hire a Negro, buy from a Negro, sell to a Negro, service a Negro.>…>Such class stratification exists among the Negro people in the Black Belt. There is a Negro bourgeoisie. It is not an industrial bourgeoisie. It is not a big bourgeoisie; the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation never is; it is one of the results of national oppression that the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations is retarded by the oppressors. The market of the Negro bourgeoisie is founded upon Jim-Crowism; it functions chiefly in life insurance, banking, and real estate. Its leadership among the Negro people is reflected in an ideology—petty-bourgeois nationalism, whose main purpose is to mobilize the Negro masses under its own influence.Additionally, in one of the articles in the erol page you linked:
>The Black Bourgeoisie is stunted by imperialism, and kept from reaching the level of some of their U.S. (white) counterparts, but there is still an economic cohesion in the Black Nation based on a developed class structure with a Black market “served”, and exploited by a Black Bourgeoisie. Though it is true N.C. Mutual cannot hire as many wage workers or exploit as many blacks as Prudential… penetration of 3rd World Nations by imperialism is not unique with the Black Belt. And even with employment by the imperialists the wage level and the standard of living is lowest among Blacks, and especially in the Black Belt, where all the workers wages are pitifully depressed by the national oppression of the Black Belt. >>2762832Can you explain more about New Afrika? I'm not American so I don't know the conditions very well but I don't really understand how black people in the USA are victims of imperialism for example, when they make on average more money than people in my (first world) country do. It also seems a bit weird to base a country off of a racial group. I'm not denying it exists though because that is up to the people themselves there, I just kind of view it the same as like California or Texas, which aren't inherently anti-imperialist or anything.
New AfriKKKa is fascist.
>>2762832yeah thats good i agree with you i just wanted to know since you said you study it. its usually reactionary shitheads who try to do this. the kind of people who think that landback is white genocide and concern troll about islamic ethnic cleansing the jews while pretending to be communist and whining about indigenous casino landlords being bourgeoisie whenever I bring up AIM or people like Nick Estes. recently heard some iranian commies talking about landback in the context of anti-imperialism and how their struggles are connected. none of us are free till all of us are. some people really get it and some just never will
>>2762848Really highlights how meaningless and liberal whining about "infighting" and "purity" is when I slightly misunderstand an anon and folks frame it like we're arguing.
>>2762854>I don't really understand how black people in the USA are victims of imperialism for example, when they make on average more money than people in my (first world) country do.Firstly, averages aren't a class analysis. You are conflating the wages of Black compradors, bureaucrats, proletarians, and prisoners into a singular statistic. I acknowledge that you seem to be coming at this in good faith, and I appreciate that, but that's already an un-Marxist way of looking at this. These strata are going to have very different existences, especially as a nation within an imperial core nation.
That being said, a basic relationship all these strata share to the white bourgeoisie in the US is one of subservience. Black folks are elevated to compradors insofar as they serve the interests of white capital and are more limited than ever in their ability to independently maneuver, despite being more wealthy than ever on paper. Same goes for bureaucrats. Meanwhile Black proletarians were the first fired and forced into semi-proletarian and lumpen positions when the US exported its productive industry (everything but final assembly) to the third world. What productive industry remains is increasingly being performed by prison slave labor, which is disproportionately Black in composition. The entire prison industry is highly concentrated in and around New Afrika, with 6 of the 10 highest-population max security federal penitentiaries in the US being located in the South. It's also no coincidence that Corrections Corporation of America is operating principally out of the South and what used to be Mexico (see pic).
>It also seems a bit weird to base a country off of a racial group.That's not what's being argued anywhere. Nobody is basing a country off of a racial group. New Afrika is a nation in the Marxist sense. That being the case, like all nations their right to self-determination up to and including secession must be enshrined by the revolution. This doesn't mean, as racists and chauvinists dishonestly allege, that this means forming a Black ethnostate. Anyone telling you this is the position of any Communist group is straight-up lying to you, or are themselves deceived.
>I just kind of view it the same as like California or TexasNeither California nor Texas are nations in the Marxist sense. They are completely unlike New Afrika, more akin to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Lebanon.
>>2762935Thirdies (as third worldist) are fucking stupid, African overlords are proletarians according to this stupid fuck.
>>2762402They're not. Why would you even try to make this cope?
>>2762930I'm just going to shut up about this because it is a national struggle which I do not know about so anything I say about it will just end up being ignorant. I wish other people would shut up about national struggles they don't know about as well.
>>2763102>I wish other people would shut up about national struggles they don't know about as well.I appreciate you. Lotta people on this site don't know when to shut up in general.
>>2760407Okay, now apply this to Israel.
>>2763168has national liberation gone to far sisters?
>>2763168when multipolarism goes wrong
>>2763171On one hand they are slaughtering thousands but on the other hand there's wholesome volkskibbutz and free healthcare sweaty. Who can truly judge?
>>2762930>What productive industry remainsWhy does this myth persist so heavily? All the deindustrializing happened up north and for the last 20 years the manufacturing weight of america, along with the rest of the economy, is swinging down south to states like Alabama Texas and Florida. I think you have an outdated understanding of american conditions
>A big missing part of the story: Interstate competition. The Rust Belt’s manufacturing decline isn’t primarily about jobs going to Mexico. It’s about jobs going to Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee.
>In 1992, there was not a single auto plant in Alabama. Today, Alabama is the No. 1 auto-exporting state, producing more than 1 million vehicles a year.
>Despite the economic growth, Southern states have built so much housing that they kept costs from becoming unaffordable. Last year, both North Carolina and South Carolina each built more than four times as much new housing per capita as Massachusetts, according to U.S. census data. Florida, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina, all built more housing per capita than all of Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, New York and Massachusetts. That is not just a 2024 dynamic. That is true for every single year going all the way back to 1993.https://archive.ph/VAM9a >>2763180They know the retarded slaves in the south will not ever betray their "betters".
I always take "economic life" to mean something like caste, where a whole ethnic group is also class into itself. For example Eastern European Jews were mostly merchants, artisans etc' and you wouldn't find peasants or nobles among them.
Otherwise this quote doesn't make sense. A merchant would obviously have a different mindset from worker (even if they are from the same nation).
>>2763373Business naturally tends to gravitate towards regions with comparatively cheaper labor, thats largely the reason. porky also likes lack of unions, I work in SC and was told in new hire training that any talk of unions or organizing was grounds for immediate termination. northern states are over three times more unionized
>>2763413Global South
US South
United in Dixiebolshevism or something
>>2763180It persists because it's not a myth. It's kind of amazing to link something like this as if it should be a surprise to me. Your view of industry is conflating different steps and forms of manufacturing, and it's telling that you ignored the parenthetical right before the sentence you quoted:
>everything but final assemblyThe manufacturing that remains in the US, including the south, is principally the least productive part of the process: final assembly. What little real productive manufacturing that remains (which is absolutely also in the South) makes
heavy use of enslaved prisoners and migrant workers, which are the only groups that can be paid third world rates (or close to them). Now, it's not a bad thing to emphasize that what production is left in the US is also concentrated in the Black Belt and the industrial farms of the Chican@ homeland (a sign of where the lowest and most exploited workers actually exist), but it is undeniable that the global direction of modern decaying imperialism (principally expressed as neocolonialism today) is toward higher and deeper forms of exploitation in the third world in a desperate bid to stave off increasing crises and declining rates of real profit.
As part of "development" the foundries and mines which already existed in third world countries are being augmented with manufacturing plants and other facilities where parts can be constructed for final assembly in the first world, an expansion of the pre-existing condition where raw materials were exported for refinement and manufacturing in the first world. As Marxists we understand that labor is what produces value in a given commodity, and in general the most laborious work is what puts the most value in a given product. Thus the crisis in industrial labor in the US: where the less-productive stages of the manufacturing process cannot profitably hire the whole population of people who expect to work in it at the wages they expect. In such a crisis, Black labor is the first thrown out in order to sustain the wages of everyone else, but this isn't enough. US capital is in a position where it must either A: magically reverse what the big bourgeoisie needs to survive — which the fascists and imperialists claim to be doing by supposedly moving "jobs" back to the States — or B: intensify attacks on their rivals and deepen exploitation of what they already influence — which is what they're actually doing — easing tightening profits and enabling inflated wages for the less productive stages of production. Black labor in the Black Belt, rather than being hired back, is being redirected into gig, service, and other highly exploitative and unstable semi-proletarian, semi-lumpen or outright lumpen relations which can further cushion and serve the status of white labor and the white bourgeoisie.
>>2763638>black labor serves the interest of white laborechoes of 2012 tumblr over here. its a bummer how thoroughly spooked you are on the race question. try reading Marx sometime that'll sort you right out. Lenin too if you're feeling bold
>>2763917>TumblrOh please lmao. Try for a moment to imagine a world beyond some goofy fight against "SJWs" and go outside.
>try reading Marx sometime that'll sort you right out. Lenin too if you're feeling boldThe thinking of both these men revolved around investigating the world around them in order to change it. Clearly, neither of those things interest you. The chauvinism of you and so many others on this site would make Marx and Lenin puke.
>>2763945The left seem very lost. Not just here. They are lost in idealism, useless orthodoxy, and organizations that function as counter-insurgencies. This exists across all camps. In the USA most Marxist Leninists, or Anarchists, and anything in between are liberal idealists. Neither respective end of the left seems to grasp theory the way their ancient counterparts did, which is pathetic. Yet, they argue, and in these arguments they both show their idealism quite frequently. For instance, I suggested to an edgy Anarchist who was barely an organizer and more of a fringe follower that Cuba had some success and he goes HAHAHAHAH TANKIE! Then, I attempt to mention that most American leftist orgs are captured and function as counter-insurgencies under neo-liberalism, and a Marxist-Leninist screams, YOU ARE AN ANARCHIST, SHUT UP AT ONCE! These people are pure idealists, and they get confused at how I seem able to move within contradictions, and why I am compelled to attack organizations that hold "communist" in their organizations name.
it's true. china used to be this giant territory with thousands of completely different languages and cultures, but then under chairman mao it became a nation and now when you go to china everyone just speaks "standard chinese" no matter where you go and all the cultural wrinkles have been perfectly ironed out into a beautiful homogenity. (sarcasm)
>>2763917> try reading Marx sometime that'll sort you right out. Lenin too if you're feeling boldmaybe you should do a little less reading and do more thinking, or maybe try questioning the things that you read rather than just mindlessly consuming and regurgitating like a pig at a trough.
>>2763917Maybe you should try actually addressing the points made by your interlocutors instead of coping? Maybe even forming your own counter argument if you're feeling bold
>>2763638>advancing the slogan of black "national culture"whatever your good intentions may be, you are an enemy of the proletariat, a supporter of all that is outmoded and connected with caste among the Black people; you are an accomplice of the preachers and the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, those Black Marxists who mingle with the White American, Canadian, Mexican and other workers in international Marxist organisations, and make their contribution towards creating the international culture of the working-class movement - those Blacks uphold the best traditions of Black culture by fighting the slogan of “national culture”.
>>2765908he's Haitian, why would he suck up to the imperialist entity couping, starving, and sanctioning his country? pay attention before weighing in.
>>2765949>Working-class democracy contraposes to the nationalist wrangling of the various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for the unconditional unity and complete amalgamation of workers of all nationalities in all working-class organisations—trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all others—in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only this type of unity and amalgamation can uphold democracy and defend the interests of the workers against capital—which is already international and is becoming more so—and promote the development of mankind towards a new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/1.htm#v20pp72-020
>The question is whether it is permissible for a Marxist, directly or indirectly, to advance the slogan of national culture, or whether he should oppose it by advocating, in all languages, the slogan of workers’ internationalism while “adapting” himself to all local and national features. The significance of the “national culture” slogan is not determined by some petty intellectual’s promise, or good intention, to “interpret” it as “meaning the development through it of an international culture”. It would be puerile subjectivism to look at it in that way. The significance of the slogan of national culture is determined by the objective alignment of all classes in a given country, and in all countries of the world. The national culture of the bourgeoisie is a fact (and, I repeat, the bourgeoisie everywhere enters into deals with the landed proprietors and the clergy).
<Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeois nationalism, domestic and foreign. The place of those who advocate the slogan of national culture is among the nationalist petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/2.htm#v20pp72-023Try reading Lenin sometime? Or are the words too complicated
>>2765949>To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, and all privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language, is the imperative duty of the proletariat as a democratic force, and is certainly in the interests of the proletarian class struggle, which is obscured and retarded by bickering on the national question. But to go beyond these strictly limit ed and definite historical limits in helping bourgeois nationalism means betraying the proletariat and siding with the bourgeoisie. There is a border-line here, which is often very slight and which the Bundists and Ukrainian nationalist-socialists completely lose sight of.
>Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for “national culture” in general?—Of course not. The economic development of capitalist society presents us with examples of immature national movements all over the world, examples of the formation of big nations out of a number of small ones, or to the detriment of some of the small ones, and also examples of the assimilation of nations. The development of nationality in general is the principle of bourgeois nationalism; hence the exclusiveness of bourgeois nationalism, hence the endless national bickering. The proletariat, however, far from undertaking to uphold the national development of every nation, on the contrary, warns the masses against such illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalist intercourse and welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/crnq/4.htm#v20pp72-033 there's no such thing as a nation. the nation is a myth that originated relatively recently in the 19th century when powerful rich imperialists arbitrarily drew lines on maps and then convinced themselves that the maps were the actual territory, that all these lands full of hundreds of different languages and cultures were all now one unified land with one language and one culture. meanwhile the actual people living in these territories were still the same people with all their various languages and traditions but like the emperor's new clothes they were compelled to go along with the charade, sending their kids to school where they are taught the "national language" and the "national culture" which they adopt in public life to conform to the demands of the empire, whole continuing to hold onto their original indigenous language and traditions when they are at home with their family and friends. the united states, which was designed to be a unified nation at the very outset, has in practice failed to be the unified monoculture that it pretends to be, with a quarter of the population not speaking english at home and all kinds of cultural divisions going on, immigrant vs non-immigrant, black vs white, east vs west, north vs south, etc. even in north korea, arguably the most authoritarian and centralized place on earth, people still speak a different language at home than they do in public life, despite it being illegal to do so.
>>2766261>the nation is a myth that originated relatively recently in the 19th century when powerful rich imperialists no and double no. it recent but not a myth and not a product of imperialism but regular capitalism. its a concrete phenomena formed by the industrialization and urbanization of capitalism concentrating people into defined territories with related economics.
>>2766371then why is it when you go to a country like italy, a modern capitalist country, you find all these different cities with their own languages and cultural identities and you never find people who simply identify as "italians" or embrace any sort of unified national identity? why is that in countries like america you have concepts like "americanism" and "anti-americanism" but there doesn't seem to be any talk about "italianism" or "anti-italianism" in italy?
>>2766414"Simply" does a lot of work here, they do identify as italian, they just also identify as the local region/department/city as well
>>2766414because nations arent states?
>>2766447they don't though, i've never heard italians describe themselves as italians, it's always about what town they're from, they don't have a unified national identity like americans and other authoritarian states do. they almost did during the reign of mussoline but then they got sick of his bullshit and killed him and that was the end of italian nationalism.
Unique IPs: 59