USA concentration camps.

[giblets]

hYpEr NaTiOnAliSm wItH oPeN bOrDeRs

[Kidlicious]

Nation isn't just territory. It's a culture. An American leftist can believe in the territory of the US and strive to get foreigners who share their culture to immigrate.

[Aeson]

That could only make sense if only leftist immigrants would be allowed in ... which wouldn’t be open borders ...

[giblets]

They're leftists because a majority of naturalized citizens vote against the openly racist right wing political party, or something.

[Kidlicious]

That could only make sense if only leftist immigrants would be allowed in ... which wouldn’t be open borders ...

They don't think about if they are leftists or not. They aren't white. So they can make America a country where white people are the minority. They aren't separatists like the Nazis, but they don't want white people to be dominant. They also aren't absolutely totalitarian. They don't plan any death camps for white people. They just want to dominate white people by controlling all of the institutions and making white people afraid to challenge their authority.

[Kidlicious]

They're leftists because a majority of naturalized citizens vote against the openly racist right wing political party, or something.

They have been treated very badly. Americans mostly have no idea about that.

[Kidlicious]

Back on topic.

giblets, why are the Ds still fighting against the wall? It's almost like they want more people in the concentration camps.

[giblets]

A wall wouldn't change that

[Aeson]

They don't think about if they are leftists or not. They aren't white. So they can make America a country where white people are the minority. They aren't separatists like the Nazis, but they don't want white people to be dominant. They also aren't absolutely totalitarian. They don't plan any death camps for white people. They just want to dominate white people by controlling all of the institutions and making white people afraid to challenge their authority.

Um, no. Open borders means anyone can come or go. Not just non-whites.

[Kidlicious]

A wall wouldn't change that

Make it 100 ft high. No expense is too much to save the children from poopy diapers.

[Kidlicious]

Um, no. Open borders means anyone can come or go. Not just non-whites.

Are you arguing that unless you have either zero immigration or you only allow people that will vote for you to immigrate into the country that you aren't nalionalist?

They are nationalists because more non-whites are going to immigrate into the country and make them the dominant party. It doesn't matter that some of the migrants will be political opposition.

[giblets]

Make it 100 ft high. No expense is too much to save the children from poopy diapers.

A 100 ft wall won't stop anyone from applying for asylum.

[Kidlicious]

A 100 ft wall won't stop anyone from applying for asylum.

Dude. They don't send you to a detention center for applying for asylum.

[Kidlicious]

Left-wing nationalism

• Read in another language
• Watch this page
• Edit

Left-wing nationalism or leftist nationalism, also known as social nationalism, nationalist socialism or socialist nationalism,^{[note 1]} describes a form of nationalism based upon social equality, popular sovereignty and national self-determination.^[1] Left-wing nationalism can also include anti-imperialism and national liberation movements.^[2][3] It stands in contrast to right-wingnationalism and often rejects ethno-nationalism to this same end, although some forms of left-wing nationalism have included a platform of racialism, favoring a homogeneous society, a rejection of minorities and opposition to immigration.^[2][4][5]

Notable left-wing nationalist movements in history have included Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army which promoted independence of India from Britain; Quebec nationalism and the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire; the Mukti Bahini in Bangladesh; Sinn Féin, an Irish republican party; Basque nationalism and the political party Bildu; the Catalan independence movement; the League of Communists of Yugoslavia; Malay Nationalist Party of Malaysia; and the African National Congress of South Africa under NelsoEn Mandela. Contents Marxism and nationalismEdit

Marxism identifies the nation as a socioeconomic construction created after the collapse of the feudal system which was utilized to create the capitalist economic system.^[6]Classical Marxistshave unanimously claimed that nationalism is a bourgeois phenomenon that is not associated with Marxism.^[7] In certain instances, Marxism has supported nationalist movements if they were in the interest of class struggle, but rejects other nationalist movements deemed to distract workers from their necessary goal of defeating the bourgeoisie.^[8] Marxists have evaluated certain nations to be progressive and other nations to be reactionary.^[6]Joseph Stalin supported interpretations of Marx tolerating the use of proletarian nationalism that promoted class struggle within an internationalist framework.^[6][9]Karl Marx and Friedrich EngelsEdit

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels interpreted issues concerning nationality on a social evolutionarybasis. Marx and Engels claim that the creation of the modern nation state is the result of the replacement of feudalism with the capitalist mode of production.^[10] With the replacement of feudalism with capitalism, capitalists sought to unify and centralize populations' culture and language within states in order to create conditions conducive to a market economy in terms of having a common language to coordinate the economy, contain a large enough population in the state to insure an internal division of labour and contain a large enough territory for a state to maintain a viable economy.^[10]

Although Marx and Engels saw the origins of the nation state and national identity as bourgeois in nature, both believed that the creation of the centralized state as a result of the collapse of feudalism and creation of capitalism had created positive social conditions to stimulate class struggle.^[11] Marx followed Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's view that the creation of individual-centred civil society by states as a positive development in that it dismantled previous religious-based society and freed individual conscience.^[11] In The German Ideology, Marx claims that although civil society is a capitalist creation and represents bourgeois class rule, it is beneficial to the proletariat because it is unstable in that neither states nor the bourgeoisie can control a civil society.^[12]

Marx described this in detail in The German Ideology, saying:

Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage, and, insofar, transcends the state and the nation, though on the other hand, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality and inwardly must organize itself as a state.^[11]

Marx and Engels evaluated progressive nationalism as involving the destruction of feudalism and believed that it was a beneficial step, but they evaluated nationalism detrimental to the evolution of international class struggle as reactionary and necessary to be destroyed.^[13] Marx and Engels believed that certain nations that could not consolidate viable nation-states should be assimilated into other nations that were more viable and further in Marxian evolutionary economic progress.^[13]

On the issue of nations and the proletariat, The Communist Manifesto says:

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.^[14]

In general, Marx preferred internationalism and interaction between nations in class struggle, saying in Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that "[o]ne nation can and should learn from others".^[15] Similarly, although Marx and Engels criticized Irish unrest for delaying a worker's revolution in England, they believed that Ireland was oppressed by Great Britain, but that the Irish people would better serve their own interests by joining proponents of class struggle in Europe as Marx and Engels claimed that the socialist workers of Europe were the natural allies of Ireland.^[16] Marx and Engels also believed that it was in Britain's best interest to let Ireland go as the Ireland issue was being used by elites to unite the British working class with the elites against the Irish.^[16]Stalinism and revolutionary patriotismEdit

Joseph Stalin promoted a civic patriotic concept called revolutionary patriotism in the Soviet Union.^[9] As a youth, Stalin had been active in the Georgian nationalist movement and was influenced by Ilia Chavchavadze, who promoted cultural nationalism, material development of the Georgian people, statist economy and education systems.^[17] When Stalin joined the Georgian Marxists, Marxism in Georgia was heavily influenced by Noe Zhordania, who evoked Georgian patriotic themes and opposition to Russian imperial control of Georgia.^[18] Zhordania claimed that communal bonds existed between peoples that created the plural sense of I of countries and went further to say that the Georgian sense of identity pre-existed capitalism and the capitalist conception of nationhood.^[18] After Stalin became a Bolshevik in the 20th century, he became fervently opposed to national culture, denouncing the concept of contemporary nationality as bourgeois in origin and accused nationality of causing retention of "harmful habits and institutions".^[19] However, Stalin believed that cultural communities did exist where people lived common lives and were united by holistic bonds, claiming that there were real nations while others that did not fit these traits were paper nations.^[20] Stalin defined the nation as being "neither racial nor tribal, but a historically formed community of people".^[20] Stalin believed that the assimilation of primitive nationalities like Abkhazians and Tartars into the Georgian and Russian nations was beneficial.^[19] Stalin claimed that all nations were assimilating foreign values and that the nationality as a community was diluting under the pressures of capitalism and with rising rational universality.^[21] In 1913, Stalin rejected the concept of national identity entirely and advocated in favour of a universal cosmopolitan modernity.^[21] Stalin identified Russian culture as having greater universalist identity than that of other nations.^[22] Stalin's view of vanguard and progressive nations such as Russia, Germany and Hungary in contrast to nations he deemed primitive is claimed to be related to Engels' views.^[22]TitoismEdit

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the rule of Josip Broz Tito and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia promoted both Marxism–Leninism and Yugoslav nationalism (Yugoslavism).^[23] Tito's Yugoslavia was overtly nationalistic in its attempts to promote unity between the Yugoslav nations within Yugoslavia and asserting Yugoslavia's independence.^[23] To unify the Yugoslav nations, the government promoted the concept of brotherhood and unity in which the Yugoslav nations would overcome their cultural and linguistic differences through promoting fraternal relations between the nations.^[24] This nationalism was opposed to cultural assimilation as had been carried out by the previous Yugoslav monarchy, but it was instead based upon multiculturalism.^[25] While promoting a Yugoslav nationalism, the Yugoslav government was staunchly opposed to any factional ethnic nationalism or domination by the existing nationalities as Tito denounced ethnic nationalism in general as being based on hatred and was the cause of war.^[26] The League of Communists of Yugoslavia blamed the factional division and conflict between the Yugoslav nations on foreign imperialism.^[26] Tito built strong relations with states that had strong socialist and nationalist governments in power such as Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and India under Jawaharlal Nehru.^[23] In spite of these attempts to create a left-wing Yugoslav national identity, factional divisions between Yugoslav nationalities remained strong and it was largely the power of the party and popularity of Tito that held the country together.^[27]

-wiki

[Aeson]

Are you arguing that unless you have either zero immigration or you only allow people that will vote for you to immigrate into the country that you aren't nalionalist?

They are nationalists because more non-whites are going to immigrate into the country and make them the dominant party. It doesn't matter that some of the migrants will be political opposition.

I’m saying open borders is incompatible with ultra-nationalism.

The rest is your convoluted attempts to project your own inability to distinguish between race, culture, politics, and nation onto a concept you clearly don’t understand.