Reactionary, or Black-Hundred, nationalism strives to safeguard the privileges of one nation, condemning all other nations to an inferior status, with fewer rights, or even with no rights at all. Not a single Marxist, and not even a single democrat, can treat this nationalism with anything else but the utmost hostility.
In words, bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic nationalists recognise the equality of nations, but in deeds they (often covertly, behind the backs of the people) stand for certain privileges for one of the nations, and always try to secure greater advantages for “their own” nation (i.e., for the bourgeoisie of their own nation); they strive to separate and segregate nations, to foster national exclusiveness, etc. By talking most of all about “national culture” and emphasising what separates one nation from the other, bourgeois nationalists divide the workers of the various nations and fool them with “nationalist slogans”.
The class-conscious workers combat all national oppression and all national privileges, but they do not confine themselves to that. They combat all, even the most refined, nationalism, and advocate not only the unity, but also the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in the struggle against reaction and against bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. Our task is not to segregate nations, but to unite the workers of all nations. Our banner does not carry the slogan “national culture” but international culture, which unites all the nations in a higher, socialist unity, and the way to which is already being paved by the international amalgamation of capital.
The influence of petty-bourgeois, philistine nationalism has infected certain “would-be socialists”, who advocate what is called “cultural-educational autonomy”, i.e., the transfer of educational affairs (and matters of national culture in general) from the state to the individual nations. Naturally, Marxists combat this propaganda for the segregation of nations, they combat this refined nationalism, they combat the segregating of the schools according to nationality. When our Bundists, and later, the liquidators, wanted to support “cultural-national autonomy” in direct opposition to our Programme, they were condemned not only by the Bolsheviks, but also by the pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov).
Now Mr. An, in Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta (No. 103) is trying to defend a bad case by subterfuge, and by showering abuse upon us. We calmly ignore the abuse; it is merely a sign of the liquidators’ feebleness.
To have schools connected in the native languages—this, Mr. An assures us, is what is meant by segregating the schools according to the nationalities of the pupils; the Pravda people, he says, want to deprive the non-Russians of their national schools!
We can afford to laugh at this trick of Mr. An’s, for everybody knows that Pravda stands for the fullest equality of languages, and even for the abolition of an official language! Mr. An’s impotent rage is causing him to lose his head. This is dangerous, dear Mr. An!
The right of a nation to use its native language is explicitly and definitely recognised in § 8 of the Marxist programme.
If Mr. An is right in stating that having schools conducted in the native languages means segregating the schools according to nationality, why did the Bundists in 1906, and the liquidators in 1912, “supplement” (or rather, distort) the Programme adopted in 1903—at the very Congress which rejected “cultural-national autonomy”—which fully recognises the right of a nation to use its native language?
Your subterfuge will fail, Mr. An, and you will not succeed in covering up with your noise, clamour and abuse the fact that the liquidators have violated this Programme, and that they have “adapted socialism to nationalism”, as Comrade Plekhanov expressed it.
We do not want to have the Programme violated. We do not want socialism to be adapted to nationalism. We stand for complete democracy, for the complete freedom and equality of languages, but give no support whatever to the proposal to “transfer educational affairs to the nations” or to “segregate schools according to nationality”.
“The question at issue is that of segregating the schools according to nations,” writes Mr. An, “hence, these nations must exist in each locality, hindering each other’s development; and consequently, they must be segregated in the sphere of public education as well.”
The words we have emphasised clearly reveal how liquidationism is dragging Mr. An away from socialism towards nationalism. The segregation of nations within the limits of a single state is harmful, and we Marxists strive to bring the nations together and to amalgamate them. Our object is not to “segregate” nations, but to secure for them, through full democracy, an equality and coexistence as peaceful (relatively) as in Switzerland.
Notes
Mr. An boldly asserts that “there is no intermixing of nations even in the cantons of Switzerland”. Will he not blush if we mention four cantons: Berne, Fribourg, Graubünden and Valais? —Lenin
This refers to §8 of the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted at the Second Congress of the Party.
Edited by cars ()
it seems like any successful form of communist thought, postcapitalism, has to be even more radically antistate than previously
or, inevitably, will be. since capitalism is forming this global state-supplanting carcinoma
drwhat posted:is nationalist communism actually defended by anyone anymore or can we just forget about it already
it seems like any successful form of communist thought, postcapitalism, has to be even more radically antistate than previously
or, inevitably, will be. since capitalism is forming this global state-supplanting carcinoma
agreed. lets throw this fucker concept down the memory hole, and go bang our bongo drums at zucckotti park
mustang posted:even black nationalism???
no need to reinforce the backward race-ennumeratist thought. all men can be all races if they want, and they will
daddyholes posted:The segregation of nations within the limits of a single state is harmful, and we Marxists strive to bring the nations together and to amalgamate them.
The tireless ‘hbdchick’ is the crucial resource on this topic. Over the course of a truly monumental series of blog posts, she employs Hamiltonian conceptual tools to investigate the borderland where nature and culture intersect, comprising kinship structures, the differentiations they require in the calculus of inclusive fitness, and the distinctive ethnic profiles in the evolutionary psychology of altruism that result. In particular, she directs attention to the abnormality of (North-West) European history, where obligatory exogamy – through rigorous proscription of cousin marriage – has prevailed for 1,600 years. This distinctive orientation towards outbreeding, she suggests, plausibly accounts for a variety of bio-cultural peculiarities, the most historically significant of which is a unique pre-eminence of reciprocal (over familial) altruism, as indicated by emphatic individualism, nuclear families, an affinity with ‘corporate’ (kinship-free) institutions, highly-developed contractual relationships among strangers, relatively low levels of nepotism / corruption, and robust forms of social cohesion independent of tribal bonds.
Inbreeding, in contrast, creates a selective environment favoring tribal collectivism, extended systems of family loyalty and honor, distrust of non-relatives and impersonal institutions, and – in general – those ‘clannish’ traits which mesh uncomfortably with the leading values of (Eurocentric) modernity, and are thus denounced for their primitive ‘xenophobia’ and ‘corruption’. Clannish values, of course, are bred in clans, such as those populating Britain’s Celtic fringe and borderlands, where cousin marriage persisted, along with its associated socio-economic and cultural forms, especially herding (rather than farming), and a disposition towards extreme, vendetta-style violence.
This analysis introduces the central paradox of ‘white identity’, since the specifically European ethnic traits that have structured the moral order of modernity, slanting it away from tribalism and towards reciprocal altruism, are inseparable from a unique heritage of outbreeding that is intrinsically corrosive of ethnocentric solidarity. In other words: it is almost exactly weak ethnic groupishness that makes a group ethnically modernistic, competent at ‘corporate’ (non-familial) institution building, and thus objectively privileged / advantaged within the dynamic of modernity.
This paradox is most fully expressed in the radical forms of European ethnocentric revivalism exemplified by paleo- and neo-Nazism, confounding its proponents and antagonists alike. When exceptionally advanced ‘race-treachery’ is your quintessential racial feature, the opportunity for viable ethno-supremacist politics disappears into a logical abyss – even if occasions for large-scale trouble-making no doubt remain. Admittedly, a Nazi, by definition, is willing (and eager) to sacrifice modernity upon the altar of racial purity, but this is either not to understand, or to tragically affirm, the inevitable consequence – which is to be out-modernized (and thus defeated). Identity politics is for losers, inherently and unalterably, due to an essentially parasitical character that only works from the left. Because inbreeding systematically contra-indicates for modern power, racial Übermenschen make no real sense.
NoFreeWill posted:that's kinda funny because most of it is true but the reason jews are more successful than whites is because of inbreeding.
that, and sending select females out to Flirty Fish powerful men and family bloodlines and then raising their new, matrilinearly Jewish children
jools posted:i feel like the kfc double down and weird twitter is the only way out
if you eat enough double downs an exit opens in the matrix