If you want to go into it, read Fanon, especially “The wretched of the earth”. It explains well the need for national liberation movements to define themselves as a nation outside of the perspective of their colonizers for the first time, and how important it is to break away from the views that the oppressor imposes on the oppressed in order to build a post-colonial project.
That can often look as what has been characterized as nationalism, but it springs from a different material condition, one of opposition and struggle to colonization, unlike bourgeois nationalism which hinders working-class international solidarity in the name of big-power competition
It can be that too, and in some small quantities always is in my opinion. But it is also a powerful, if dangerous, weapon that can sometimes be wielded against oppression.
The American “patsocs” are perverting a piece of theory that applies only to countries after a communist revolution. They are promoting a nationalism that is based on the worship of slave-owning genocidal white supremacists, worship of a constitution they should be fighting to destroy as self-described communists, a nationalism that is based on a system of worldwide imperialism. Their equating themselves to national liberation movements or attempts at proletarian internationalism is insulting.
There’s a big difference between nationalism in the imperial core and nationalism in the periphery.
The former is inherently reactionary, whereas in the periphery nationalism is often part of a national liberation project.
Oh, I see. So, a way to break away from the imperial core, but not a “We Chinese/Vietnamese rule and you drool” kind of nationalism?
If you want to go into it, read Fanon, especially “The wretched of the earth”. It explains well the need for national liberation movements to define themselves as a nation outside of the perspective of their colonizers for the first time, and how important it is to break away from the views that the oppressor imposes on the oppressed in order to build a post-colonial project.
That can often look as what has been characterized as nationalism, but it springs from a different material condition, one of opposition and struggle to colonization, unlike bourgeois nationalism which hinders working-class international solidarity in the name of big-power competition
It can be that too, and in some small quantities always is in my opinion. But it is also a powerful, if dangerous, weapon that can sometimes be wielded against oppression.
The American “patsocs” are perverting a piece of theory that applies only to countries after a communist revolution. They are promoting a nationalism that is based on the worship of slave-owning genocidal white supremacists, worship of a constitution they should be fighting to destroy as self-described communists, a nationalism that is based on a system of worldwide imperialism. Their equating themselves to national liberation movements or attempts at proletarian internationalism is insulting.