[Cromwell]

I've neglected this thread for a little too long. I've had trouble constructing my argument, simply because it is hard to see where you are coming from.

I feel the need, to clarify, and define my ideology negatively, as such:

I am against the idea of a singular world culture, a singular world language and a singular world religion. More importantly, I am against state-imposition of culture, language or religion. I think that cultural diversity, on an international scale, is a good thing and it is for this reason that I am against the state-mandated creation of a multicultural society in Britain, or anywhere else, and the rooting out of the dominant national feeling.

I am every bit a socialist. However, I see a tendency towards national self-hatred amongst the political left; a contempt for the traditional working class' cultural sentiment (the flying of the Saint George's cross, for example).

I believe that mass immigration should be abolished but, also, that its root cause (capitalism and, furthermore, uneven international development) should be so, too, abolished.

[Decky]

Let me first say that I could've titled this thread 'Anti-Liberal Communism' or 'Illiberal Communism' and it would, probably, have made as much sense.

Marxism is already illiberal your whole idea is based on a false premise.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Kind of a slightly dusty thread but...

I am against the idea of a singular world culture, a singular world language and a singular world religion. More importantly, I am against state-imposition of culture, language or religion. I think that cultural diversity, on an international scale, is a good thing and it is for this reason that I am against the state-mandated creation of a multicultural society in Britain, or anywhere else, and the rooting out of the dominant national feeling.

I am every bit a socialist. However, I see a tendency towards national self-hatred amongst the political left; a contempt for the traditional working class' cultural sentiment (the flying of the Saint George's cross, for example).

I don't think anyone has been proposing a blob of a one world culture. Already, we do have a global lingua franca, but it doesn't stop Norwegians from teaching their children Norwegian any more than southern Chinese learn Cantonese. From some of the back and forth posts it sounds like there was miscommunication on culture vs nation-state identity. I don't think anyone is advocating abandoning cultural identities or even many traditions. What is being advocated is the abolition of arbitrary, artificial barriers between the masses of humanity that serves only to divide us. There will still be a Hungarian culture, a Mongolian people, Russians, and people speaking Italian and cooking gravy in Florence. Nationalism serves only to divide humanity and provide the tacit support for war and imperialism that TIG mentioned previously in this thread.

I believe that mass immigration should be abolished but, also, that its root cause (capitalism and, furthermore, uneven international development) should be so, too, abolished.

As TIG said previously and as I agree as well, this is pretty bourgeois. Nations only exist because we think they exist. Sure, there are cultures, languages, etc, but nationalism runs contrary to the spirit of communism. Limiting the movement of the people is a mainstay of feudalism and would serve only to heighten cultural tensions and animosity between groups of people. It would provide ammunition to the very people you worry about who would try to forcibly homogenize disparate groups of people and oppress the rest.

[Rich]

I would certainly endorse the totalitarian rule of the international proletariat over pockets of luddites and witch-doctors that tried to crawl backward into a past that never existed in the first place.

When have Communists ever supported rule by the Proletariat? They support rule by a distinctly un-proletarian central committee. Within hours of siezing power the Bolsheviks, were setting about smashing the rail workers union and had began the process of atomising and smashing any form of independent working class organisation or democracy.

[ComradeTim]

Since when do Bolsheviks speak for all Communists? There were plenty of Mensheviks, SRs and Trade Unionists who stood up for Workers rights against their treachery. Even some Bolshies did too, such as the Workers' Opposition.

[The Immortal Goon]

When have Communists ever supported rule by the Proletariat? They support rule by a distinctly un-proletarian central committee. Within hours of siezing power the Bolsheviks, were setting about smashing the rail workers union and had began the process of atomising and smashing any form of independent working class organisation or democracy.

What a half truth cobbled together to reach an absurd troll conclusion!

After the revolution, there were still the two governments that had existed before. The Constituent Assembly, which was basically the old parliament, and the soviets—which were (by every measure back then) workers' government in action.

The trade unionists and everyone else both Rich and Comrade Tim are pretending to support, naturally, wanted the Soviets in control. Part of the Bolshevik popularity at the time was the slogan, "All Power to the Soviets."

Vikzhel was a representative of the Executive Committee of the All-Russian Union of Railway Workers. And he said that all, "revolutionary socialist," parties should be in government—and by government he meant the Constituent Assembly. Further, he wanted Lenin and Trotsky out of control of the Bolsheviks.

Keep in mind, Lenin and Trotsky were elected.

Even after he announced, this two workers denounced him and called him a, "political corpse that no longer represented the sentiments of its constituents." Which, of course, would be consistent with the desire for the soviets—the workers—to be in charge.

Thenthe Mensheviki and the Left SRs gave a tacit endorsement to the Bolsheviks to pull the plug on the Constituent Assembly, which was one of their main slogans. And they did.

Let me recap this: Vikzhel and his cronies wanted to resurrect the same government that had kept the war going, had smashed the unions, and had proven to be so completely unattractive to the masses of Russians that they en masse stormed the Winter Palace without so much as a shot having to have been fired.

Then, that not being enough, Vikzhel said that the Bolshevik Party had to get rid of its two elected members and form itself on how he thought—as an outsider—they should vote. The people he was working for immediately denounced him. The other parties he was pretending to represent denounced him.

The Bolsheviks conceded to open the Assembly up anyway, despite their long promise to smash it and put all power to the soviets. People didn't like it and cheered when it was shut down and all power was put into the hands of the soviets.

This revolution has shown in practice how the people must take into their own hands, the hands of the workers’ and peasants state, the land, the natural resources, and the means of transport and production. Our cry was, All power to the Soviets; it is for this we are fighting. The people wanted the Constituent Assembly summoned, and we summoned it. But they sensed immediately what this famous Constituent Assembly really was. And now we have carried out the will of the people, which is~— All power to the Soviets. As for the saboteurs, we shall crush them. When I came from Smolny, that fount of life and vigour, to the Taurida Palace, I felt as though I were in the company of corpses and lifeless mummies. They drew on all their available resources in order to fight socialism, they resorted to violence and sabotage, they even turned knowledge—the great pride of humanity—into a means of exploiting the working people. But although they managed to hinder somewhat the advance towards the socialist revolution, they could not stop it and will never be able to. Indeed the Soviets that have begun to smash the old, outworn foundations of the bourgeois system, not in gentlemanly, but in a blunt proletarian and peasant fashion, are much too strong.

To hand over power to the Constituent Assembly would again be compromising with the malignant bourgeoisie. The Russian Soviets place the interests of the working people far above the interests of a treacherous policy of compromise disguised in a new garb. The speeches of those outdated politicians, Chernov and Tsereteli, who continue whining tediously for the cessation of civil war, give off the stale and musty odour of antiquity. But as long as Kaledin exists, and as long as the slogan “All power to the Constituent Assembly“ conceals the slogan “Down with Soviet power“, civil war is inevitable. For nothing in the world will make us give up Soviet power! (Stormy applause.) And when the Constituent Assembly again revealed its readiness to post-pont’ all the painfully urgent problems and tasks that were placed before it by the Soviets, we told the Constituent Assembly that they must not be postponed for one single moment. And by the will of Soviet power the Constituent Assembly, which has refused to recognise the power of the people, is being dissolved. The Byabushinskys have lost their stakes; their attempts at resistance will only accentuate and provoke a new outbreak of civil war.

The Constituent Assembly is dissolved. The Soviet revolutionary republic will triumph, no matter what. the cost. (Stormy applause. Ovation.)

It was then replaced with the Congress of Soviets which was composed of the following parties:

The Bolsheviks comprised 441 of the 707 delegates. On the fourth day January 13 (26), more delegates who had been at the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Peasants' Deputies arrived. By the end there were 1,587 delegates.

The Congress had a Praesidium composed of ten Bolsheviks and three Left Socialist-Revolutionaries with a further delegate from each other group (Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, etc.)

The Swiss, Rumanian, Swedish and Norwegian Social-Democratic parties, the British Socialist Party and the Socialist Party of America sent messages of solidarity.

So your position is, what?

That you're the real revolutionaries because you would have demanded that someone can go into different parties and dictate who got to lead them and not? That this individual should not be inhibited by the workers he represented while doing so? That this individual should rule from a hated institution that had been a mechanism for oppressing the workers' councils and power?

I mean, this is pre-Civil War stuff. The stuff after and during the Civil War gets a little more dicey so far as the one-party state and everything (still, I think, necessary, but at least there's room for argument here). This claim is just a childish attempt to throw anything you can at the Bolsheviks and hope that it sticks. I don't think either of you actually can think that someone should sit as a dictator to dismantle party leadership as he feels fit while dismissing his constituents and crushes the rule of the workers.

[guplord]

I'm not a cultural conservative. I'm a nationalist, in the sense that I believe nationalities should be preserved (how they express themselves, and how they develop, is of little concern). I am against the present arrangement only because the English people were not consulted on the cultural future of their country, it was decided for them (by the international ruling class) that Britain would become a multiracial and multicultural society.

The problem with nationalism is that it involves an imaginary construct of some essential nationhood. What exactly is so 'english' about the english? Other than two english people may have some shared experience (both come from london, both know what the tube is like at 8:00am, both like to talk about the weather), there may still be a greater number of differences between two english people than with an englishman and an american. An essential nationhood is a distortion of reality. And the reality is people have been moving around and mixing with each other since prehistory. Borders have moved around plenty of times throughout history. Furthermore it is a dangerous distortion, one that allows different races to be construed as some kind of absolute 'other'. Not all nationalists are racists of course, but all racists I know of have much in common with nationalists. I suppose I'm making a sort of slippery slope argument, on the basis that the construction of some imaginary, essential category of identity (race, nationhood) are both shared by nationalism and racism, even if the two are not necessarily bound together by some strict logical law.

[Noob]

london

english

No.

What exactly is so 'english' about the english?

No - we ask what is specifically English - not who is English.

[guplord]

No.

Uh, I know not everyone in England comes from London. Or were you commenting on me not capitalising them?

No - we ask what is specifically English - not who is English.

Yes.

[Noob]

there may still be a greater number of differences between to english people than with an englishman and an american.

Furthermore it is a dangerous distortion, one that allows different races to be construed as some kind of absolute 'other'.

Nonsense. The affirmation of oneself is the acknowledgement and acceptance of the other. There is nothing inherently dangerous about this - there only is if you believe in a universalism of all peoples, and that differences - in the form of nationalities, languages, cultures, which are essentially defence mechanisms - between peoples should be eroded, and that value is what should reign supreme. At the moment, such an erosion of differences would happen at the hands of the United States - the most powerful country on the face of the Earth. Clearly this social disintegration and homogenisation of all peoples at the hands of an American-led cultural vampire empire is totally undesirable. Xenophobia is not the result when one acknowledges the existence of the 'Other'. The only people who have a problem acknowledging the existence of the 'Other' are universalist internationalists who want to convince everyone that the Other is a small thing compared to the Same and Our Common Humanity (what is the common denominator of 'humanity'? There isn't one).

Uh, I know not everyone in England comes from London. Or were you commenting on me not capitalising them?

Link that 'No' to 'what is specifically English'. London, certainly, does not represent what is English or what it is to be English - in any way imaginable.

[Cromwell]

Marxism is already illiberal your whole idea is based on a false premise.

It was meant to be emphatic. Anyway, I think I can appreciate what's been said in the meantime. As in, below:

Kind of a slightly dusty thread but...

I don't think anyone has been proposing a blob of a one world culture. Already, we do have a global lingua franca, but it doesn't stop Norwegians from teaching their children Norwegian any more than southern Chinese learn Cantonese. From some of the back and forth posts it sounds like there was miscommunication on culture vs nation-state identity. I don't think anyone is advocating abandoning cultural identities or even many traditions. What is being advocated is the abolition of arbitrary, artificial barriers between the masses of humanity that serves only to divide us. There will still be a Hungarian culture, a Mongolian people, Russians, and people speaking Italian and cooking gravy in Florence. Nationalism serves only to divide humanity and provide the tacit support for war and imperialism that TIG mentioned previously in this thread.

Perhaps, there has been. I was trying, I think, to nail this down. I was speaking in terms of national heritage, culture and identity rather than in the need for the continuance of the Nation-State. The nation, as opposed to the state.

For example, I am a part of the English nation but no such thing as an English nation-state exists (the United Kingdom is a multi-national state, for which I care very little). I'm not interested in creating one, either.

As TIG said previously and as I agree as well, this is pretty bourgeois. Nations only exist because we think they exist. Sure, there are cultures, languages, etc, but nationalism runs contrary to the spirit of communism. Limiting the movement of the people is a mainstay of feudalism and would serve only to heighten cultural tensions and animosity between groups of people. It would provide ammunition to the very people you worry about who would try to forcibly homogenize disparate groups of people and oppress the rest.

Yes, I appreciate this now. I was thinking in the wrong mind-set, socialism would not see immigration on the same level or for the same motivation as capitalism does. People would live where they want to live, instead of where they need to live (to secure higher wages, for example).

[SolarCross]

For example, I am a part of the English nation but no such thing as an English nation-state exists (the United Kingdom is a multi-national state, for which I care very little). I'm meant interested in creating one, either.

The thing is these kind of tribal associations from which nationalists try give life to their abstractions are rather fluid, plastic things that change over time. You say Britain or the UK is a multi-national state, which for now it is, but the "English" nation itself was a hodge-podge of different tribal / national associations once upon a time, being a fusion of the kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria, Anglia, Wessex and so on.. Would a Cromwell in Tudor Times be posting on the Tudor equivalent of the internetz his regrets that England was a multi-national state and we should go back to being Anglians... ?

[Cromwell]

The thing is these kind of tribal associations from which nationalists try give life to their abstractions are rather fluid, plastic things that change over time. You say Britain or the UK is a multi-national state, which for now it is, but the "English" nation itself was a hodge-podge of different tribal / national associations once upon a time, being a fusion of the kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria, Anglia, Wessex and so on.. Would a Cromwell in Tudor Times be posting on the Tudor equivalent of the internetz his regrets that England was a multi-national state and we should go back to being Anglians... ?

I apologise for not noticing my mistake. That shout read "I'm not" rather than "I'm meant". I sometimes change the sentence I'm attempting to construct half way through and forget to fix it.

So, no. I do not lament the fact that there is no English Nation-State.

Also, I'm from the East Midlands not East Anglia.

[Decky]

Also, I'm from the East Midlands not East Anglia.

One of Rei's countrymen what a surprise.

One Midlands, West Midlands, best Midlands!

Yes, I appreciate this now. I was thinking in the wrong mind-set, socialism would not see immigration on the same level or for the same motivation as capitalism does. People would live where they want to live, instead of where they need to live (to secure higher wages, for example).

This is the key point, the vast majority of immigration has an economic basis, people want to move somewhere where they can get a decent job. Once socialism is here there would be far less moving around (on a permanent basis I'm not talking about tourism). After all what reason would there be to move? People tend to like their mother tongue and have an attachment to to the place they they grew up.

I wouldn't want to leave Mercia and go live in Leeds or Cardiff or London, the idea disgusts me.

[guplord]

Nonsense. The affirmation of oneself is the acknowledgement and acceptance of the other. There is nothing inherently dangerous about this - there only is if you believe in a universalism of all peoples, and that differences - in the form of nationalities, languages, cultures, which are essentially defence mechanisms - between peoples should be eroded, and that value is what should reign supreme. At the moment, such an erosion of differences would happen at the hands of the United States - the most powerful country on the face of the Earth. Clearly this social disintegration and homogenisation of all peoples at the hands of an American-led cultural vampire empire is totally undesirable. Xenophobia is not the result when one acknowledges the existence of the 'Other'. The only people who have a problem acknowledging the existence of the 'Other' are universalist internationalists who want to convince everyone that the Other is a small thing compared to the Same and Our Common Humanity (what is the common denominator of 'humanity'? There isn't one).

Might be flogging a dead horse here, other posters have said the same thing as me articulately. You don't have to be in favour of nationalism in order to think cultural differences ought to be preserved. Cultural differences are observable facts, it would be silly to deny them. We can say what they are--a difference in collective 'ways of life', or, to quote wikipedia, a difference between ensembles 'of symbolic codes used by a society'. And thus we come to know them through being part of some particular society. What aren't so observable are essentialist categories. What exactly is 'englishness'? How do we know about 'englishness'? The same cannot be said for a universal human nature. We know what this nature consists in thanks to sciences such as psychology and neuroscience. These are disciplines with which we have a clear idea of the basis of their knowledge (experimentation, observation and reason), and more relevantly, the facts we get out of them are universal. Sexual drive, emotions, affect have always shaped and been shaped by culture and always will, unless we turn into cyborgs. To admit the existence of a universal human nature does not preclude the admittance of cultural difference.

To deny nationalism is simply a separate issue from acknowledging cultural difference. The American-led cultural vampire can be understood in terms of observable, social facts. 'Otherness', as the cultural phenomena which can be observed in stories, poems, film, means the conception of someone being different to you by means of mystical, essential nature. Thus, it is a distortion of reality.

Link that 'No' to 'what is specifically English'. London, certainly, does not represent what is English or what it is to be English - in any way imaginable.

The only acceptable version of Englishness consists of networks of cultural facts, which encompass everyday lived experience such as happening to live in London, happening to live in Blackpool etc. Alternative versions of Englishness are queer objects--we can't say what they are or how we know them.

[Stormvessel]

Buddy, I wouldn't expect a fond reception from the reds. Your views are far too rational. What you espouse runs counter to communism and is more in line with National Syndicalism/Italian Fascism.

Mussolini, a former socialist, became privy to these same very truths. The first World War stands as the final refutation of Marx; the proles will always be loyal to nation and folk rather than class. In fact, Mussolini was not the only socialist to become disillusioned due to the first World War. Many left Marxism, and switched to National Syndicalism, a rational alternative.

It is the proletariat failure of WW1 that caused the most faithful of Marx's devotees to switch gears into a cultural form of Marxism. They felt that in order for Marxism to take hold, the ties that bind within these societies must first be eradicated. Hence, the cultural war that has been waged for the better part of the last century. A war against the family, religion, patriotism, folk and race, etc. The reds feel that if these social institutions can be undermined, proletarian revolution can take hold. That is why the leftists have infiltrated our universities and mass media and constantly spread their filth (by the 1930s, the Marxists/Bolsheviks were well under way with their plans. Hitler's war was a reaction to their plans in Europe. He killed many innocent people, this is true, but "Adolf the Monster" was 100%, a reaction to cultural Marxism).

The answer, my friend, is not communism. The answer is National Syndicalism (i.e ideological Fascism). It is only beyond the greed of the right and the insanity of the left can our salvation be found, and social justice be brought to the people.

[The Immortal Goon]

What rubbish.

World War I ended as the communists took over Russia. There was a Soviet in Ireland as the United Kingdom was pulled into trying to put down workers fighting for communism. The French military had been flying red flags and singing the Internationale as they marched home. Hungary, Austria, and Romania all had Reds in charge for verying amounts of time. Germany's most conservative region, Bavaria, established a Soviet that had communications with Lenin until it was put down. And after it was put down, the communists rose in the rest of Germany, and continued to rise. Spain errupted into revolution.

Meanwhile, the Chinese started flying red flags. So did many other Asians, from old Indochina, well into Inida (where the reds had a real strong place) and into the Middle East.

And on and on.

The liberal powers and fascists you support teamed up to try and put the reds down, and they still haven't fully succeeded.

Admittedly, if you had chosen almost any other time period, things would look bleak. But right after WWI was when the Reds were strongest.

[Stormvessel]

:lol:

What rubbish.

World War I ended as the communists took over Russia. There was a Soviet in Ireland as the United Kingdom was pulled into trying to put down workers fighting for communism. The French military had been flying red flags and singing the Internationale as they marched home. Hungary, Austria, and Romania all had Reds in charge for verying amounts of time. Germany's most conservative region, Bavaria, established a Soviet that had communications with Lenin until it was put down. And after it was put down, the communists rose in the rest of Germany, and continued to rise. Spain errupted into revolution.

Meanwhile, the Chinese started flying red flags. So did many other Asians, from old Indochina, well into Inida (where the reds had a real strong place) and into the Middle East.

And on and on.

The liberal powers and fascists you support teamed up to try and put the reds down, and they still haven't fully succeeded.

Admittedly, if you had chosen almost any other time period, things would look bleak. But right after WWI was when the Reds were strongest.

I never meant to imply the communism failed or even was weakened. My point was that in the eyes of many, the integrity of the Marxist ideology was weakened. And it was. The failure of the proles to align themselves according to class during the first World War was an ideological stumblingblock for Mussolini and many others, particularly in Italy. WWI was the utter and final refutation of Marx.

After which, Marxists conveniently moved the goalposts, claiming that the aforementioned social institutions must first be undermined before proletarian revolution can truly take hold. Hence, cultural marxism.

Deny it if you must. All communists are liars. I would expect nothing less. In fact, you knew full well that I was referring to the ideological integrity of Marxism rather than the prevalence of communist parties. You just wanted to derail my point.

[Rich]

World War I ended as the communists took over Russia. There was a Soviet in Ireland as the United Kingdom was pulled into trying to put down workers fighting for communism. The French military had been flying red flags and singing the Internationale as they marched home. Hungary, Austria, and Romania all had Reds in charge for verying amounts of time. Germany's most conservative region, Bavaria, established a Soviet that had communications with Lenin until it was put down. And after it was put down, the communists rose in the rest of Germany, and continued to rise. Spain errupted into revolution.

Meanwhile, the Chinese started flying red flags. So did many other Asians, from old Indochina, well into Inida (where the reds had a real strong place) and into the Middle East.

And on and on.

The liberal powers and fascists you support teamed up to try and put the reds down, and they still haven't fully succeeded.

Admittedly, if you had chosen almost any other time period, things would look bleak. But right after WWI was when the Reds were strongest.

Yes vital points IG. The workers, the socialists, the labour movements may have failed to stop World War I. International proletarian solidarity may have proved an empty suit, but it was Conservatives and Liberals that led Europe into the catastrophe of world war I. It wasn't socialists at least in the major powers, who led the charge to war. The European establishment had created this terrible war and now had to justify it. Blaming evil German militarism might have worked in Britain and America, but it wasn't going to work anywhere else.

It should also be remembered that Mussolini was a paid agent of MI5 during World War I. But no doubt people will say oh Rich and his conspiracy theories.

[The Immortal Goon]

The failure of the proles to align themselves according to class during the first World War was an ideological stumblingblock for Mussolini and many others, particularly in Italy. WWI was the utter and final refutation of Marx.

After which, Marxists conveniently moved the goalposts, claiming that the aforementioned social institutions must first be undermined before proletarian revolution can truly take hold. Hence, cultural marxism.

Deny it if you must. All communists are liars. I would expect nothing less. In fact, you knew full well that I was referring to the ideological integrity of Marxism rather than the prevalence of communist parties. You just wanted to derail my point.

1. Before the war, most Marxists did accept a form of social chauvinism that was later shown to be an error. However, during the war, those Marxists (like the Bolsheviks) that had long said that class was more important than bourgouis nationalism were proven correct. You're simply incorrect in saying that during the war this was a stumbling block in any way. The interpretation that Lenin and Connolly had used was proven correct, and nobody questions it any more.

2. Marxism is a form of anaylsis. The "Popes" of Marxism, all of two people, had been wrong to accept nationalism. Previous to the wars, it had been assumed that the revolution would have had to have taken place in industrial republics. This was predicated upon the idea that nations were very important. The war proved this wrong, and the Russian Revolution confirmed this. The theory that was floating around counter-to this idea was that capitalism, being a world system, could be opposed anywhere and everywhere on the planet. When Connolly helped lead revolution in 1916, even some Bolsheviks rejected the movement as legitimate because Ireland wasn't an independent industrialized republic. Lenin, however, saw this as confirmation of his own developing theories--no doubt influenced by Trotsky's work on Marx's conception of Peremenant Revolution.

In short, the Marxists that rejected nationality proved to be correct. So correct, that they could apply the theories to reduce Russia from a declining but giant power, to literally walking inside of the Winter Palace without firing a shot and founding a workers' state.

All the subsequent socialists followed suit. Nationalism peddled before the war was shown to be empty rhetoric.

3. Your point is lame. History derails it without my help.