On a pair of Leftist slogans

[My Globe]

Sometimes I see people who are ready to say both "Free Palestine" and "No war but class war".

How can these be combined and not contradict each other? Both Israel and Palestine are bourgeois and nationalist entities; by taking a side in their conflict you are taking a side in a war between two bourgeois-nationalist factions.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Absolutely right. Nationalism is long outdated, by the 1960s it had fulfilled its progressive functions (liquidation of absolutism and the colonial system), and turned from an engine of progress into its brake. Now the slogan "Our fatherland is all of humanity" is more appropriate.

[Floofybit]

The same way "Free Healthcare" and "No war but class war" don't conflict

[A m e n r i a]

You do realize that "Free Palestine" is a centrist to rightist slogan, right?

[El Lazaro]

You do realize that "Free Palestine" is a centrist to rightist slogan, right?

No, it is left-wing because lazy libruls always want free stuff from the government

Jokes aside, what the fuck are you taking about

[Floofybit]

You do realize that "Free Palestine" is a centrist to rightist slogan, right?

No, it is left-wing because lazy libruls always want free stuff from the government

Jokes aside, what the fluff are you taking about

Every looked at a map? What's in the middle east / centre right?

[Nemaha County]

You do realize that "Free Palestine" is a centrist to rightist slogan, right?

No, it is left-wing because lazy libruls always want free stuff from the government

Jokes aside, what the fuck are you taking about

What happened to your flag? I liked the old one!

[Kubra]

It's sloganeerong, don't read too much into it. Besides, "shits fucked up and bullshit" is the only slogan worth knowing and chanting.

[A m e n r i a]

You do realize that "Free Palestine" is a centrist to rightist slogan, right?

No, it is left-wing because lazy libruls always want free stuff from the government

Jokes aside, what the fuck are you taking about

The vast majority of people support Palestine, not the ones who lick western boots. Hell, one of the few things the FPI and other far right organisations get right is their stance on Palestine.

[Kerwa]

Sometimes I see people who are ready to say both "Free Palestine" and "No war but class war".

How can these be combined and not contradict each other? Both Israel and Palestine are bourgeois and nationalist entities; by taking a side in their conflict you are taking a side in a war between two bourgeois-nationalist factions.

All wars are bankers’ wars.

There you go.

[Inner Albania]

Sometimes I see people who are ready to say both "Free Palestine" and "No war but class war".

How can these be combined and not contradict each other? Both Israel and Palestine are bourgeois and nationalist entities; by taking a side in their conflict you are taking a side in a war between two bourgeois-nationalist factions.

All wars are bankers’ wars.

There you go.

That's probably also the reason why Switzerland is neutral.

[HISPIDA]

it's possible to oppose imperialism and still view the main struggle as a class-based one. to that vein, it's entirely possible to be a communist and say that genocide is bad.

i'm confused where you think the contradiction lies.

[Porotia]

You do realize that "Free Palestine" is a centrist to rightist slogan, right?

Only seen it propagated by leftists. You on drugs?

[Kubra]

Also for a serious answer the Palestine question became a cause célèbre during the Soviet period when the PLO was half-communist and half other socialists.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

it's possible to oppose imperialism and still view the main struggle as a class-based one. to that vein, it's entirely possible to be a communist and say that genocide is bad.

i'm confused where you think the contradiction lies.

The contradiction is that the slogan of freedom for a national state means freedom for the bourgeoisie and bureaucracy that rules this state:
1. "freely" to join this or that imperialist bloc,
2. "freely" to suppress leftist protests within the country in the name of fictitious national unity.
3. "freely" to cultivate alienation and mistrust of foreigners in its citizens, and thereby undermine the global solidarity of the poor and the proletariat.

And, thus, the national struggle comes into conflict with the tasks of the class struggle.

Discrimination on the basis of nationality is bad, but if nationalists of an oppressed nation undertake to solve this problem, then the oppressed and the oppressors can only change places as a result of such a struggle. Hierarchy and discrimination can be eliminated only through worldwide non-national solidarity.

[HISPIDA]

it's possible to oppose imperialism and still view the main struggle as a class-based one. to that vein, it's entirely possible to be a communist and say that genocide is bad.

i'm confused where you think the contradiction lies.

The contradiction is that the slogan of freedom for a national state means freedom for the bourgeoisie and bureaucracy that rules this state:
1. "freely" to join this or that imperialist bloc,
2. "freely" to suppress leftist protests within the country in the name of fictitious national unity.
3. "freely" to cultivate alienation and mistrust of foreigners in its citizens, and thereby undermine the global solidarity of the poor and the proletariat.

And, thus, the national struggle comes into conflict with the tasks of the class struggle.

Discrimination on the basis of nationality is bad, but if nationalists of an oppressed nation undertake to solve this problem, then the oppressed and the oppressors can only change places as a result of such a struggle. Hierarchy and discrimination can be eliminated only through worldwide non-national solidarity.

that's not what it means and you know it. "free palestine" equates to letting palestinians not be shot for being pregnant or being under the age of 3 (if that). palestine doesn't have a proletariat, and soon there won't be a palestine unless activism and action is taken to secure this. believe it or not, i actually like entire nations being able to live free of fear that they'll be shot for looking at an israeli soldier the wrong way: there is no class for palestine to rally around. if there was a palestinian proletariat then i'd obviously agree that the palestinian cause is also a proletarian one, but there isn't and israel is making sure of that.

national unity isn't a "fiction". it's a concept that exists on the ground and in the minds of palestinians. just because something doesn't apply to every population doesn't mean it isn't a thing that exists. it shouldn't be a thing that exists, but it is, and it's the biggest thing to keep repeating in a conflict that has one nation the victim of a genocide when said nation does not have a proletarian class. or any class at all, really.

[Aber Antarctica]

Absolutely right. Nationalism is long outdated, by the 1960s it had fulfilled its progressive functions (liquidation of absolutism and the colonial system), and turned from an engine of progress into its brake. Now the slogan "Our fatherland is all of humanity" is more appropriate.

Cultural diversity and different cultural practices? Not in my glorious leftist utopia.

[HISPIDA]

Absolutely right. Nationalism is long outdated, by the 1960s it had fulfilled its progressive functions (liquidation of absolutism and the colonial system), and turned from an engine of progress into its brake. Now the slogan "Our fatherland is all of humanity" is more appropriate.

Cultural diversity and different cultural practices? Not in my glorious leftist utopia.

culture =! nationality

[Technoscience Leftwing]

The contradiction is that the slogan of freedom for a national state means freedom for the bourgeoisie and bureaucracy that rules this state:
1. "freely" to join this or that imperialist bloc,
2. "freely" to suppress leftist protests within the country in the name of fictitious national unity.
3. "freely" to cultivate alienation and mistrust of foreigners in its citizens, and thereby undermine the global solidarity of the poor and the proletariat.

And, thus, the national struggle comes into conflict with the tasks of the class struggle.

Discrimination on the basis of nationality is bad, but if nationalists of an oppressed nation undertake to solve this problem, then the oppressed and the oppressors can only change places as a result of such a struggle. Hierarchy and discrimination can be eliminated only through worldwide non-national solidarity.

that's not what it means and you know it. "free palestine" equates to letting palestinians not be shot for being pregnant or being under the age of 3 (if that). palestine doesn't have a proletariat, and soon there won't be a palestine unless activism and action is taken to secure this. believe it or not, i actually like entire nations being able to live free of fear that they'll be shot for looking at an israeli soldier the wrong way: there is no class for palestine to rally around. if there was a palestinian proletariat then i'd obviously agree that the palestinian cause is also a proletarian one, but there isn't and israel is making sure of that.

national unity isn't a "fiction". it's a concept that exists on the ground and in the minds of palestinians. just because something doesn't apply to every population doesn't mean it isn't a thing that exists. it shouldn't be a thing that exists, but it is, and it's the biggest thing to keep repeating in a conflict that has one nation the victim of a genocide when said nation does not have a proletarian class. or any class at all, really.

It may not be a proletariat, but there is a poor people there. And nationalism really dominates in the consciousness of this poor people. And as long as it dominates in the consciousness of the poor people, they will fight not for their own interests, but for the interests of the ruling class, the ruling elite. This situation will last for a very long time, it will not change from my post on the forum. But I still have to point out that this is exactly the situation.

[HISPIDA]

that's not what it means and you know it. "free palestine" equates to letting palestinians not be shot for being pregnant or being under the age of 3 (if that). palestine doesn't have a proletariat, and soon there won't be a palestine unless activism and action is taken to secure this. believe it or not, i actually like entire nations being able to live free of fear that they'll be shot for looking at an israeli soldier the wrong way: there is no class for palestine to rally around. if there was a palestinian proletariat then i'd obviously agree that the palestinian cause is also a proletarian one, but there isn't and israel is making sure of that.

national unity isn't a "fiction". it's a concept that exists on the ground and in the minds of palestinians. just because something doesn't apply to every population doesn't mean it isn't a thing that exists. it shouldn't be a thing that exists, but it is, and it's the biggest thing to keep repeating in a conflict that has one nation the victim of a genocide when said nation does not have a proletarian class. or any class at all, really.

It may not be a proletariat, but there is a poor people there. And nationalism really dominates in the consciousness of this poor people. And as long as it dominates in the consciousness of the poor people, they will fight not for their own interests, but for the interests of the ruling class, the ruling elite. This situation will last for a very long time, it will not change from my post on the forum. But I still have to point out that this is exactly the situation.

what the hell is the ruling class of palestine? it's a collection of bantustans and concentration camps. in gaza, it's a mix of HAMAS and self-preservation, and in the west bank it's the israeli military and PLO collaborationists: these are hardly ruling classes, let alone progressive ones.

[Aber Antarctica]

Cultural diversity and different cultural practices? Not in my glorious leftist utopia.

culture =! nationality

Nationalism ties into the pride of one's culture (sometimes to, admittingly, visciously jingoist extents). It's patriotism on cocaine and methamphetamines. Nationalism isn't always the act of declaring one's nationality (culture, people, etc.) superior. It's also the rather defiant act of not taking the prospect of being rolled over by neighboring, hostile sovereignties lightly, to not take it laying down. Nationalism can be offensive, but also defensive.

Defense-wise, it's the sword and shield of protecting one's culture and practices. Tear that down, and it's vulnerable.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Absolutely right. Nationalism is long outdated, by the 1960s it had fulfilled its progressive functions (liquidation of absolutism and the colonial system), and turned from an engine of progress into its brake. Now the slogan "Our fatherland is all of humanity" is more appropriate.

Cultural diversity and different cultural practices? Not in my glorious leftist utopia.

If the left at the beginning of the 20th century set the goal of "not only cooperation of nations, but also their gradual voluntary fusion" (according to Lenin), then at the beginning of the 21st century for some reason they began to emphasize, savor and deepen differences. But this facilitates the policy of "divide and rule". Instead of a united front of men and women, people of different races and ethnicities, in the struggle for a happy future for a single humanity - we get a multitude of ethnic, racial and gender minorities squabbling among themselves. The arbiter in their struggle is the bourgeois state or their group (the UN). Has it become better?

[HISPIDA]

Cultural diversity and different cultural practices? Not in my glorious leftist utopia.

If the left at the beginning of the 20th century set the goal of "not only cooperation of nations, but also their gradual voluntary fusion" (according to Lenin), then at the beginning of the 21st century for some reason they began to emphasize, savor and deepen differences. But this facilitates the policy of "divide and rule". Instead of a united front of men and women, people of different races and ethnicities, in the struggle for a happy future for a single humanity - we get a multitude of ethnic, racial and gender minorities squabbling among themselves. The arbiter in their struggle is the bourgeois state or their group (the UN). Has it become better?

good take

[Aber Antarctica]

Cultural diversity and different cultural practices? Not in my glorious leftist utopia.

If the left at the beginning of the 20th century set the goal of "not only cooperation of nations, but also their gradual voluntary fusion" (according to Lenin), then at the beginning of the 21st century for some reason they began to emphasize, savor and deepen differences. But this facilitates the policy of "divide and rule". Instead of a united front of men and women, people of different races and ethnicities, in the struggle for a happy future for a single humanity - we get a multitude of ethnic, racial and gender minorities squabbling among themselves. The arbiter in their struggle is the bourgeois state or their group (the UN). Has it become better?

"...Instead of a united front of men and women, people of different races and ethnicities, in the struggle for a happy future for a single humanity..."

That's the definition of assimilaion, the third definition from the Oxford Dictionary: "the process of becoming similar to something" (e.g.: "Watson was ready to work for the assimilation of Scots law to English law where he thought it was justified").

You don't want people simply working together, you want a uniform echo chamber, in contrast to your materialist value of freethought.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

If the left at the beginning of the 20th century set the goal of "not only cooperation of nations, but also their gradual voluntary fusion" (according to Lenin), then at the beginning of the 21st century for some reason they began to emphasize, savor and deepen differences. But this facilitates the policy of "divide and rule". Instead of a united front of men and women, people of different races and ethnicities, in the struggle for a happy future for a single humanity - we get a multitude of ethnic, racial and gender minorities squabbling among themselves. The arbiter in their struggle is the bourgeois state or their group (the UN). Has it become better?

"...Instead of a united front of men and women, people of different races and ethnicities, in the struggle for a happy future for a single humanity..."

That's the definition of assimilaion, the third definition from the Oxford Dictionary: "the process of becoming similar to something" (e.g.: "Watson was ready to work for the assimilation of Scots law to English law where he thought it was justified").

You don't want people simply working together, you want a uniform echo chamber, in contrast to your materialist value of freethought.

Yes, this is an assimilation program. This is not multiculturalism, but a "melting pot" where a single nation of earthlings will emerge from different ethnic groups and countries. This is a distant goal, but very useful for progress. Ethnic groups and countries are transient, just as the estates and small principalities of feudal society were transient. Diversity in the future will take place along other lines - profession, hobby, aesthetics. National cultures of the past will be preserved in museums as a cultural heritage, and every person will be able to study them, dress up in any national costume and sing any folk songs, as part of a game and historical reconstruction - but the forceful attachment of people from childhood to a certain nation and culture will disappear. As will the demands to sacrifice themselves for an ethnic group and nation (and in fact, for the capitalists and officials of this nation).

People are currently against such assimilation, but if interethnic hostility in the 21st century results in catastrophic wars with dozens of nuclear strikes and millions of victims, then survival may turn out to be more important to people than the trinkets of national identities.