Im gonna plant a big gay flag into the skull of one of these clowns that has STFU emblazoned on it.
PatSocs are fucking traumatized by twitter and social media. Absolutely fucking traumatized that the internet enabled FOR ONCE in history the safety of anonymity for non whites to let whites know exactly what they think FOR ONCE.
Im so sick and tired of PatSocs crying that sassy trans folks are the reason the roads are turning to gravel and the fucking power is going out.
Just… Shut the fuck up. My god.
It’s the disrespect of assuming the “wokies” have no idea what the concept of relationships to labor are. It would be a fucking MIRACLE if they stopped presuming that non whites just wanna be non white liberal elites or that they dont know any better because they simply have unique concerns.
America is uniquely evil. End of discussion.
Just re-saying my position, I personally could never bring myself to be a patriotic socialist, the American flag makes me nauseous, but I understand the pragmatic arguments, unfortunately the working class of America is incredibly reactionary and need to be suckered into communism by many different paths. There are many niches that need to be filled in this global class war, just like how I wouldn’t outright knock Frankfurt-esque communists drowning in academic jargon because their niche is to appeal to nerds. My only question for patsoc is: is it effective? Does it actually work converting conservatives et. al.? If yes, critical support. If not, toss it.
I also think a lot of patsoc characters are treated like dogshit unnecessarily. I think Maupin is unconvincing and uncharismatic in a lot of ways but the guy is not a bigot, his track record is nothing but activism.
I think that’s a fair take. “Does it work?” is a pretty good litmus test.
I’m not really interested enough in what Maupin has to say to look into him deeply, but the “proud patsoc” types like in the screenshot really make me sick.
“I love my country and I’m not ashamed” 🤢🤮
I’m not saying that patsoc’s aren’t ML. I’m saying that they aren’t going to be the true ML.
Marxism Leninism is internationalist. The only acceptable nationalism is one centered around the working class. The only acceptable history is a history centered around the working class. They don’t seem to want to address that history. They are more interested in taking the national myth as is.
If attempting to gain control of the bourgeois apparatus is a mistake. How much greater is the mistake of taking within us their national myth.
The United States is uniquely evil. It’s a part of larger context, but it is unique in it’s magnitude. It’s unique in that there is nothing real beyond it’s mythos. Other people existed before capitalism. They existed as an organic people. The United States was manufactured. The real organic people were all killed in a criminal history which is uniquely evil. The absolute whole slaughter genocide, enslavement, and exploitation of the Indians was in uniquely evil. That evil was so great as to change the quality of the West into something truly out of hell.
They say that rather than accepting this and fighting against it in a truly revolutionary act, we should instead whitewash it and attempt to be revolutionary under the superstructure of the bourgeoisie.
How can you be Marxist Leninist while saying that capitalism wasn’t so bad? What is the radicalizing motivation? Was love of country the radicalizing motivation behind the Black Panthers?
But even if the “true ml” needs to be international, just wanting an ml goverment first on your home region is good enough, it was what the USSR did, what china is doing now. We cant force the revolution on other countries, its literally and scientifically impossible, an country embrace the revolution when they want and when they need, we can support it when it happens, but the “socialism on one country” view still is correct at the beggining of an socialist country. If we cant succesfully realise an revolution on our own countries, how can we do this on other countries? Thats why pan-movements exist, baathism is pan arabic and socialist, you could argue it is not “true ml” because its mainly focused on arabic liberation, but does it make the movement less socialist? Just having an socialist arabic union would already be great, if all those countries standed up to unite themselves under communism, it would be great. Its not like we could even think of artificially creating revolutions on other countries.
What i am saying here is, maupin and haz are not wrong for wanting mainly an american revolution, because right now its the best they can do, it would not change anything if they openly stated that they want other countries to also have an revolution, it doesnt depend on them. What does matter would be if they would support an revolution on other countries WHEN it happens, and if they support the existing AES countries, then they would support future AES countries.
I feel that we’re not having the same conversation. Saying that Marxism-Leninism is internationalist isn’t saying it’s the same as Trotskyism or Ultra. I’m not saying or hinting at saying that Socialism in one country is illegitimate. I’m not saying we should be Third-Worldist. Though I think naturally socialism is more likely to develop in the colonized world at the periphery of empire, I think that they will have to fight their own revolutions and form their own governments according to their own national will, just as we have to do the same within our own nations. They don’t need us, but we do need them to weaken the empire enough for us to stand a chance.
Because there is confusion I’d like to try and clarify what’s meant by Internationalism. Internationalism is international proletarian solidarity. Solidarity means that what harms one of us harms us all. At the most local level, it means that if the person I work with is injured or cheated I take it as personally as if it was me who was injured or cheated. At the national level it means that if it happened to someone I never met in another part of the country, I take it as personally as if it was me. Internationally it means that if my country is committing injuries abroad I take it the same as if they were doing it to me. International Solidarity is to view the workers of the world with equal respect.
It seems that you think I meant to say that the problem with patriotic socialism is that they want to focus on American Socialism. Nobody has a problem with Americans focusing on American Socialism. If we could do that, it would be a benefit to us and the entire world. Every Socialist movement in the US took that position. Everybody here wants Americans to focus on American Socialism.
What they don’t want us to do is pretend as much while supporting US imperialism. We shouldn’t associate ourselves with the empire. We shouldn’t protect them by denying their guilt. We shouldn’t endow them with benevolence.
If you’re a socialist, and you understand what Marxism-Leninsism is then why are you adding to socialism something superfluous? Is Marxism-Leninism not patriotic enough? Do you feel it’s missing something that more patriotism would mend? What is the quality of this patriotism? If Marxism-Leninism sees patriotism as national proletarian solidarity specifically opposed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, your amendment must be trying to add something beyond that.
What you’re saying you want is fine and good. That’s been the standard aim for the last century and a half. What is your patriotism? What is your nationalism? It seems to me, as I’ve already said the comment you’re responding to, that your conception of patriotism is bourgeois patriotism.
Your patriotism is simply this; that the nation is inherently good. While it has made mistakes, so have other nations. Then you follow with the promotion of the standard bourgeois national myth. Sure the United States does bad things, you say, but it’s really not that bad. Sure the United States has a questionable history, you say, but so do other countries.
There’s a problem here that needs to be addressed if you have the time hear it. You’re attempting to compromise socialism in order to make it more acceptable to a larger audience. America has a terrible history of genocide and slavery. The proper way to address the history is to acknowledge them and use them to identify the true nature of the bourgeoisie. The problem with racial identity is that it obscures the bourgeoisie as whiteness. It says to the white man that he should associate himself with the ruling class. When the white man reads history he’s taught to associate himself with the master class.
You, as a patriotic socialist, hear that message and rightly think to yourself that you should have no part in the blame. That’s true. You shouldn’t, but you were never the master class. Your association with it is false. It is of false consciousness. You say to yourself, you don’t want to take the blame, but you’ve already taken the guilt by attempting to erase it. We don’t want you to feel guilty about the crimes of the bourgeoisie. We want you to place the guilt where it belongs in order to help identify the true nature of the bourgeoisie as slaving class, as a genocidal class. We don’t want you to take on the guilt, but we don’t want you to erase theirs. We want you to associate yourself with the slave and with the Indian. That is what Internationalism means.
I am not a “patsoc”, i am not even american, you are putting words in my mouth, i hate the US with every single piece of my body, i despise it as an country, i despise its history, i despise everything it stands as an country. BUT i dont want to see it destroyed, even if i hate it, because it would be hypocritical. It would be the same as if Lenin wanted to destroy the Russian empire instead of turning it socialist because it was an imperialist country, this is what anarchists want, we want to fix said country.
What really bothers me is people treating the US as an special country. No its fucking not, please anybody reading this, stop saying its an “uniquely evil country” its not, its just more of the same imperialist bullshit wanting to dominate the world and failing miserably, spain tried it, the UK tried it, germany tried it, italy tried it, france tried it, japan tried it, dozens and dozens of empires tried to dominate everything around them, and they aways failed, with not a single exception. The US is just the most modern empire, nothing more then that, we should treat it on the same way the soviets treated Nazi germany before and after the war, and talking about Nazi germany, we need to remember that on an matter of year the soviets transformed an country that was ruled for 22 years by the most disgusting and cruel regime to ever exist at the time, that passed through the most brutal war in history, on an socialist country.
Why is the US “more evil” then other countries? People that talk about just balkanizing the US dont want to turn it into a socialist country, they just want to destroy it, and thats wrong. And you people are using the example of giving land back to the indians (with i agree with) but you people need to understand: almost the entire native population on the entire continent is dead, the US almost completelly exterminated them, we cant at best create indian republics or an indian federation with the population that still exist, but we literally cant give entire states to make entire countries just for indians, because there is not enough indians to fill an capital of an state of the US. One thing its Israel, an european-american colony that has succeded in stealing of most of the land of the native palestinians, the difference is; the palestinians are still the majority, while the colonizers are the minority, this is what we call an apartheid state. We can still give the land back to the palestinians and kick out the newer colonizers that are only going there because its an apartheid, but we cant kick out the entire american population from every single US state to give it to the indians, because the indians are just an small minority now.
And just to remember, the US is as much of a colony as every other latin american country, i am from brasil, and i can confirm we killed and stole the land of as much indians as the US did, and so did every other latin american country, we are not innocent, so what now? You also wants to balkanize and destroy my country? Cut it into a bunch of states only to give it to an percentage of the population that is barelly more then half a million? Because i dont, i want to create an country that doesnt divide people by race nor class, an just country where every ethniy and culture are worth the same, where all can work together for an better country.
And going back to Maupin, you people are loving to put things into his mouth and put him in the same bag of a bunch of people he doesnt even say he is a part of, but you dont show any proff of him calling himself a “patsocc”, you dont show proff of him saying that indians should not get any land back, or that black people dont deserve the same rights as white people, or him saying that he aproves anything the US goverment does, want to know what i see this as? Slandering, the same thing liberals and the elite love to say about every communist or communist leader; that they are rascist, homophobic, evil, dictators, all of the cartoon vilain stuff, without showing any actual proff. I might not agree with everything he says, but what you people are doing with him is low, very fucking low, you are all just repeating a bunch of twitter drama to create conflict where it doesnt exist. And your “response” to me sounds extremelly arrogant, you are asuming i am an patsoc AND an american with no proff whatsowhever, putting words in my mouth, and diffamating an person without showing any proff.
This thread raises some interesting questions and offers some good answers. But there is a lot of confusion and it is not clear that people are arguing about the same thing.
The Problem
There is clearly no consensus definition of the following words:
- patriotism
- nationalism
- PatSoc
- patriotic socialism The clearest definitions for these words have come from those comments defending patriotism as Marxist.
I do not think we are arguing over nationalism as that question was answered a long time ago by e.g. Stalin and Lenin. Okay, their work may need updating, but updating means building on their legacy, which nobody is really trying to do here. The main references to nationalism are trying to:
- a. Argue that Marxists have an agreed notion of nationalism, which can be good in the periphery, and that this is what patriotism means (because e.g. in ex-colonies, it means liberation, etc); or
- b. Argue that Marxists have an agreed notion of nationalism, which may be bad in the imperial core, and that this is what patriotism means (e.g. because there it means homophobia, transphobia, patriarchy, etc).
So the question is not:
- i. What do Marxists think of nationalism?
The question is:
- ii. Are patriotism, patriotic socialists, and PatSocs the same as nationalism and nationalists?
And
- iii. To what extent do these terms relate to sexuality, gender, race, colonialism, etc?
Only by answering (ii) can we reach common ground and engage with the same idea. We may then disagree about each others’ conclusions, but at least those conclusions will refer to the same idea.
Therefore it seems necessary to identify agreed definitions for these words. For example: Is PatSoc only relevant to the internet? If so, who gets to claim the label? People who identify by it? Or people who use it to classify their enemies?
Regardless, there is a more important question to answer first:
- iv. What is the class character of patriotism, PatSoc, patriotic socialism, and nationalism?
These words will have an abstract class character and a class character that is unique to each country. If we take an intersectional view of class and avoid class reductionism, we may partially answer (iii) at the same time.
Marx and Engels wrote of the class character of socialism in the Communist Manifesto. We must do the same for our subject.
What is the class character of US patriotism?
Zac Cope argues in The Wealth of (Some) Nations that the majority of workers in the global north are labour aristocrats – paid well enough to look the other way on the imperial question, whether petite bourgeois or ‘proletariat’. There’s a lot to say about whether this is true or whether it was true but is now changing.
J Sakai argues in Settlers that the ‘white proletariat’ in the Settler Colony is a myth. Again, we could argue over whether a white proletariat’ has since grown.
Michael Parenti, at least, argues the ruling class has long sought the ‘third worldisation’ of the global north. This statement accepts classes are fluid.
It is difficult to classify the US as mainly this it mainly that. It’s class composition is constantly changing. It also comprises many states with reasonably independent legislatures and different demographics.
The important point for our discussion is that any presentation of the US as mainly labour aristocratic or petite bourgeois seems to accept the vision of the US that is shown in the entertainment and news media – created by the US ruling class.
That is, white, middle class (whatever that means), reasonably well-off, suburbian, liberal, content with the idea of a homogenous US if not with the way that it is governed under the Republicans or Democrats, and the world’s defender of democracy. This vision also includes a one sided view of patriotism, which involves a stripey flag, militarism, and pledges of allegiance.
Is this what the US is? It certainly seems so when the US is viewed through the prism of entertainment and news media. It almost certainly seems so to the millions of people who have been in the receiving end of US ‘democracy’. It probably seems so to many in America, who are subjected to the same images as the rest of the world, but from another angle.
Is this what the US is from the inside? Maybe not.
(Apologies in advance for defining people as ‘not white’. I do not think it will come off as any less racist by trying to list and differentiate all the people who are not included in the ruling class white supremacist vision.)
To cite some (problematic) 2020 data (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html):
“The most prevalent racial or ethnic group for the United States was the White alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%. This decreased from 63.7% in 2010.” “The Hispanic or Latino population was the second-largest racial or ethnic group, comprising 18.7% of the total population.” “The Black or African American alone non-Hispanic population was the third-largest group at 12.1%.”
This data is problematic because in trying to recognise ‘diversity’ it presupposes racial difference along biological lines. Still, the data indicates the US is not white.
Nor has the US ever been white.
It’s ruling class and white petite bourgeois segments think it is white. They are delusioned by white supremacism, and could not and cannot see the toil and suffering of indigenous Americans or slaves as part of the US.
To the ruling white supremacists, those workers are always somehow separate to ‘the US’. Unfortunately, this is a pervasive idea. To paraphrase Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class.
The above census data, showing a ‘decline’ in the white population, gives the impression that whites were once the majority. False.
At the beginning, the indigenous Americans were the majority. Afterwards, Africans and indigenous Americans were the majority, perhaps depending on where one draws state / city lines on old maps. At some point, the proportions turned.
What is the US?
Any revolutionary worth the name must be unified with all ‘minorities’, whether defined by class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. Together these people comprise the majority. The US is these people.
The US is not the cis-het white, males of the ruling class, whether depicted as a banker in a suit, a Proud Boy, a lone adventurer protected in a wagon circle, or a struggling, salt of the earth, and slightly racist rural lumpen.
Thus we have:
- The US defined by the people who live in it, who built it, who feed each other, and care for each other; and
- The US defined by its ruling class.
And there we may have the solution. Patriotism of (1) may be revolutionary. Patriotism of (2) is almost certainly reactionary. I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree. Reply if you do; I’d like to know what I missed.
If this is correct, it is up to patriotic revolutionaries to decide on appropriate patriotic symbolism. This may mean abandoning the current flag or keeping it.
I imagine that any Marxist would hope the Stars and Stripes eventually go the same way as the Confederate flag. In the meantime, due to the prevalence of the ruling class notion of patriotism, there are likely many people who could be radicalised, but who also respect the flag. It seems a bit self-defeating to exclude these people from the revolution.
Remember, the majority is not cis-het, white, male, and middle class, but to my understanding, all have to praise the flag as children every school day, and must somewhat accept this white supremacist vision of the US. These ‘patriots’ might not lead the revolution, but if the flag brings them along?
Finally: PatSocs
Are PatSocs revolutionary Marxists? It’s beside the point, really, because the label is contested. People identify by it and others use it as a derogatory category. They could be, but they may not be. We would need a class analysis of any given person to decide. And we would first have to ensure that calling a person a PatSoc is not a category error.
Edit: formatting. Edit 2: formatting headings
I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree.
Unfortunately, there are many that do. You basically say the same thing as me, that patriotism has class characteristics, and i already gathered a lot of denials of this in Lemmy, and at least 2 bans at reddit and a ban threat here. I don’t see this as a nonissue, since the “antipatriotism” accusation is and always was one of the major tactic of class enemies against us, and it was an effective one. While reversed in AES, served greatly to secure the people’s interests.
Again, i’m not even questioning the USA conditions, since i know it’s more complicated there, but the american exceptionalism being inevitably forced on everyone in such american-dominated internet space like here or especially reddit. That’s why i propose to stop using the word “patsoc” entirely, especially those are apparently just some youtube circlejerk, and start using the good old description of “socialchauvinists” since it’s cleare it what they apparently are (also, few threads later, still nobody could even narrow who are “they”, such nebulous group make it hard to even see entire issue as anything but a hot air)
@SaddamHusein24 I think you have a small misunderstanding. The patriotism of actual Marxists, dare I say even in America, should be upheld - and I mean the patriotism of wanting your country to be destroyed and reborn as Lenin said, and to flourish for all the American people. The genuine belief that the American worker should be supported and treated fairly, regardless of minority grouping, and that they deserve better is a great thing!
The “patriotism” of “PatSocs” is vastly different. PatSocs are a very specific reactionary group with specific views here in the west. They believe that we should all hunker down and throw away the “liberal wokeness that is internationalism” and put trans people in gulgas since they’re “lib degenerates” and that’s what Stalin would have wanted. It’s reactionary position not based on any real material analysis, and as such, should be combated.
The “patriotism” of “PatSocs” is vastly different. PatSocs are a very specific reactionary group with specific views here in the west.
But thy the fuck everything the anti-“patsocs” did up to date was to make the word “patriotism” haram in almost every communist space despite knowing what you said in the first paragraph yourself?
At best it’s american exceptionalism in the wild ride, and at worst an op to sow mistrust between american communists and all others. And Lemmy is still infinite better than reddit where even Genzedong banned people for even attemping to discuss it.
Idk about those “specific reactionary group” “patsoc” guys, but if they are socialchauvinists, call them what they are. Will you start to call nazis “socialists” too, because it’s in the name?
