Can Socialists Embrace Patriotism? w/ David Griscom
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- David Griscom joins Jen Pan to discuss to what extent socialists should or can be patriots. Is socialist patriotism meeting people where they are, or is it something we should avoid as much as possible?
Subscribe to the channel and hit the like button!
Subscribe to Jacobin in print for just $10: jacobinmag.com...
Music provided by Zonkey: linktr.ee/zonkey
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want mass politics you need people to believe they're part of something bigger. Tapping into notions of the nation is extremely useful for that purpose.
Can billionaire capitalists be patriotic? That's the real question. Making this a better country is patriotic.
We did in Ireland, look up James Connolly
Patriotism is love of country. That is distinctly different and separate from blindly supporting the government of your country which is not patriotism at all.
Well said. Conservatives only support the troops because they want to virtue signal. If they really supported the troops, they would be fighting for better benefits and treatment of the troops. Instead, it's more money for contractors. Patriotism is about supporting the actual people in your country, not the corporations that make money off them.
I love that you guys are exploring this topic. Both Jen and David are well-spoken here.
Yeah, I enjoyed hearing a history of American socialism and how people weren't always the hyperindividualist messes many of them have been brainwashed into being today.
Thank you David Griscom. Thank you Jen.
'super patriotism vs real patriotism' by Michael Parenti is worth reading for more analysis on this subject.
Thank you
If you start with the clear position that national allegiance is merely the base of a renewed internationalism, it may be possible
"Allegiance" may even be too strong, too exclusive. "Attachment" or "affection" may be better. Patriotism tends to be easily connected to national chauvinism and racism, so if we are to embrace any form of it, it has to be a sort that does not have that kind of affinity.
No f***in way!
Griscom on Jacobin?
Awesome.
Stellar interview David.
I'm fairly sure I've seen him on Jacobin like a year ago or more
@@robertdingleton1929 - Aw crap, now I have to go trawling through the Jacobin archives.
Cheers 👍
Bernie just voted for $40B in aid to Ukraine including billions for weapons. That’s not an anti-war position Jen.
Many people have a hard time accepting that Republicans aren’t the only war hawks. In an oligarchy, most people who make it into the legislative are going to be war hawks. Why? They are the largest industry and therefore have undue influence even compared to other lobbying special interests .
He is not an actual socialist.
Yes I am really disappointed with Bernie and the squad being warmongers towards Russia and China, true patriots are anti new Cold War, China and Russia are not our enemies
Socdem moment.
@@JohnT.4321 100% correct
In the imperial core? Absolutely not. As a tool against US imperialism for instance? Certainly. That said, criticism of nationalism should be centered on policy and the material interest of the country's citizens, not presented as some manner of abstraction of a "vision for the future" as is all too common, as to avoid alienating the masses. What David notes here is effectively to take the angle of "What is American" or typical of each nation, and trying to argue the angle that what is also typical for that country, owing to its history, is also a rich Socialist tradition. A re-framing of the conversation in this manner is probably the only viable way forward in the imperial core, in that sense, and one that actually gives us a "way out" in conversations about patriotism or nationalist fervor.
"Hugging the flag" as he notes, is self-defeating. Whatever self-ascribed comrades I've seen in the US that purport to be "patriotic socialists" have inevitably expressed horrendously chauvinistic views about their country and its foreign policy, making them indistinguishable from liberals (or even conservatives) who just want national healthcare and better worker protections.
Well said. I think there's also a big difference between recognizing left-wing nationalism isn't a viable or genuinely Marxist project in the imperial core and looking down on working people who watch sports, embracing subculture/anti-universalism, and other self-defeating cultural behavior on the Left.
Nationalistic fervency that translates into the US defocusing the rest of the globe would actually be a net improvement. For example, the low standards of living and education are a sign that Americans are not benefiting from imperialism. The wealthy and ultra-wealthy are the ones who benefit. So a form of patriotism that refocused military on reactive defense only as opposed to capitalist wars over commodities and resources, and one that shifted economic spending from corporate handouts to getting rid of poverty, this would actually benefit the left and benefit socialism.
Patriotism isnt some monolithic thing, it can and has been defined to support the working class before even if intellectuals in the west are primed to be really suspicious of nationalism. Well, the intellectuals in the west are also primed to be rather under-suspicious and oftentimes unquestioningly zealous of globalization and cosmopolitanism. Similar to how people were distracted by the optimistic feelings they got when thinking about big tech, compared to the actual totalitarian results of big tech. In the real world not all nationalism is equivalent to N@zis, and not all globalization is benevolent. One would think the latter is obvious, until the sentiments of western intellectuals betray how virulently anti-localist they are, and how many leftists actually want a centralized international bureau of cosmopolitan scientists to benevolently manage the world. Rather than challenge the state, many of these leftists want to uphold an even more centralized and global state than already exists.
Edit: an example; anti-localist leftists who think the UN and NATO are forces of good and order in the world as opposed to being colonial institutions. Often to the point of denying criticism of these highly corrupt and violent institutions . So this would be one example of how many intellectuals are primed to be against localism (even leftists they disagree with) and for beneficent centralized globalization (even in its current corporate-corrupted form).
Imperialism is now multipolar. Move on. It's the 21st century
@@ultravioletiris6241 you are regarding nationalism to be an empty signifier ready to be molded. It has history and contemporary meanings that cannot be ignored for this or that fantasy.
@@benzur3503 I never said that its an empty signifier, i said that it is incorrect to view it as simply one thing (namely the American interpretation). It is quintessentially American quasi-leftist to malign real socialist countries for being too nationalist or patriotic for the tastes of armchair marxists. This elitist perspective has popped up in discourse since before my parents were born. You arent the first to use this line of argumentation to make borderline-bigoted blanket statements about a whole collection of nations and their political systems. Im not surprised you havent been able to respond to the minutiae
We need to say it's BECAUSE I am pro-soldier that I am anti-war! It's BECAUSE I love my community, my culture, my neighbours that I stand in solidarity with people across the world who also love their communities, their cultures, their neighbours and want nothing more than the freedom to live together in peace.
Thre is nothing less "patriotic" than Capital.
We've all learned a lot since early days Jacobin, great comment section
Arabs confronted a similar problem in the 60s with the rise of pan-Arab movements that aimed at consolidating the Arab countries into larger, political unions, The theory they advanced was one of concentric circles of country (Egypt, Syria), region (Arab world, variously defined), and Islamic world (variously defined). Muslims are generally aware of belonging to a community that is larger than their country or nation, though individually, they tend toward parochialism. In the Western world, this natural parochialism has been co-opted to serve militaristic and imperialist policies.
Nested communities and affection for them are keys to a safe and useful variation on patriotism and it'd be hard to do socialism either without them. You do still run into problems when the communities are defined against enemies - other states, other religions - that get you into fights that do not end up supporting actual human needs, or when they conceal the conflicts that DO hurt people, e.g. putting "our" capitalists' interests inside "our" country's goals.
@@jeffengel2607 I haven't studied Soviet history but I suspect that this is how the Soviets constructed their political union from the various bits and pieces of the Russian Empire. I know they made little effort toward devolution or de-colonization and suspect they opposed this idea whenever it arose, and probably had some difficulty overcoming Russian centrist sentiments, even while Russia itself is quite diverse.
@@MCJSA It sounds at least like a theoretical account of Soviet political structure. But yeah, it would in practice run into trouble with, on the one hand, a sense of Russian national identity that tends to include other groups that may otherwise define themselves as non-Russian (e.g. Ukrainians) and on the other, the ambitions and pressures that made for strong central authorities that would not support genuine power bases in subunits of the Union. Similar considerations could be run for China.
@@jeffengel2607 Well, the original question was about "patirotism", which is constructed within an American political context. The term comes from the Revolutionary War - supporters of white colonists' demands for expanded autonomy and political rights from Parliament styled themselves "patirots" - a neologism at the time, while supporters of "the Crown" were referred to as "Loyalists". At some point in our history, the term came to be mapped to militaristic and jingoistic policies and positions in the United States. I am not aware of the term being used in the sense of "one who loves ones country" in other English speaking countries. So, the question probably should be, is love for one's country contradictory to internationalism? Put this way, I think we'd probably ask for evidence that internationalism excludes love for ones own country - love in the sense of a feeling of belonging, sense of security, familiarity, comfort etc. being in familiar surroundings, with familiar people who share a common culture, history, and heritage. I know "patriotism" goes beyond this, it is, after all, the invention of American imperalism and the myth of American exceptionalism.
For far to many people love is unconditional, unquestioned and uncritical...hence you get statements like... "I will never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are.“ - George H. W. Bush
Yes. Patriotism is at odds with internationalism.
If internationalism (why does your argument sound so much like Clintonian globalism?) doesn't begin with the people on and around your city block or your little city, then it doesn't mean anything. Internationalism starts here or it isn't at all.
Very interesting interview, cool to hear about the fence cutters
Some would say our patriotism is deeply antisocial. Both in a social sense and a psychopathic sense.
You must have pride in your class, not the nation-stste
We wouldn't want to descend into workerism, though, as the point is to abolish the working class in the end.
@@voxomnes9537 The proletariat can only "abolish" itself, and thus resolving class contradiction in human society, after achieving what Marx described as decades of struggle, strife and civil war.
If the "center of gravity" of efforts and energy of a movement are not orientated towards the workers and bringing about Socialist revolution, then it cannot call itself a working-class ideology
@@joesteel6361 I don't disagree.
Yes, but not if it comes at the cost of our commitment to democracy, class struggle, and international solidarity.
If "patriotic socialism" means you're a Caleb Maupin type that's socially conservative and occasionally even fascistic while having a sheen of leftism, then no.
You obviously made this comment without watching the whole video.
So we can't have socially conservative people in the movement?
@@bigbrother787 Why would socially conservative people wish to be socialists instead of adopting left-wing rhetoric and symbolism to go along with their right-wing views and policies? Caleb Maupin is a Nazbol, that is, a National Bolshevik, which is a right-wing ideology. A mistake common to former socialism is the adoption of mechanical materialism over dialectical materialism, and that's why they were socially conservative in a lot of ways. Dialectical materialism is a more complete analysis of social conditions as well as economic ones, any Marxist movement needs to adopt it so as correctly address superstructural issues.
@@sentientnatalie "Why would socially conservative people wish to be socialists..." because they are workers.
@@bigbrother787 Sure, but while class is the biggest issue, it is not the only one. If they can manage to avoid seeing Queer women like me as subhumans who should be treated violently simply for existing, as well as ethnic, other social and religious minorities, then they might have a chance at succeeding at such. See Marxist Paul's "Conservative Communism" video for a more thorough analysis.
Also, did you read *anything* of what I wrote beyond your quoted portion?
What is duty?
Duty is obligation to a greater whole.
It means fulfilling your responsibility to the people you belong to, to do your part and contribute your effort for a better life and you can't have even a good life in solitude.
What is the purpose?
Honor is upholding the values of your duty as if your character were infused to the morals that represent it.
Not just, men have to compete to ensure our duties withstand doubt, and compare just as attractive as the popular alternatives.
That duty, for men, must be synonymous with the names that claim to hold them, and men, when dealing with solemn morals, know that even though no one is looking, dishonor still stains the soul regardless.
What is the point, if there is anytime at all to disregard your faith?
It means it is not absolute.
It shows weakness in virtue and conviction.
For masculinity, our duty is protecting the women and children.
Protecting means keeping them safe, keeping them safe means they must also feel safe!
They must feel protected: their bodies, their minds, and their identities. Whatever they offer to the World, it is our duty, bound by honor, to protect the safety of our creators and successors.
They are our future, and they are the ONLY thing that matters.
We work together, settle differences, overcome our own arrogance in order to add to the strength of our defenses, to ensure the survival AND SAFETY of ours, those close to them, their neighbors, and the next thing you know, you'll be defending the whole damn world: women, children, the brethren that fight by our sides, and the support that turns the gears of war on our behalf.
For the loyalty our people put in us, we must always look to find better ways for both ourselves and our culture.
So our people may become stronger, in the case of our absence, and ensure our survival and prosperity long after our time has passed.
It is a desire for immortality, it is them that will carry our names to glory, in memory and song.
I learned the most profound lessons of military command under the leadership of Captain Jean-Luc Picard on the USS Enterprise-D, my service training was with the United Federation of Planets on a galaxy class starship, training that helped me throughout my life when it came to team cohesion, good management, the responsibility of caring for your subordinates, and how your behavior matters outside the uniform as much as it does donning on the Starfleet Insignia.
To boldly go where no one has gone before, in peace.
My duty is to serve, on my honor as a Starfleet Officer.
The duty is a pleasure, the honor is mine.
The Clones of the Old Republic were exactly the same way.
Their honor and duty was with the Jedi, and not even absolute betrayal would be enough to absolve the Determination Immortal of reconciling your failures and restoring your honor!
Picard left the Borg, Vader was brought back to the light, Commander Rex has saved more Jedi than anyone after Order 66.
For the Federation
For democracy.
For the Republic.
For honor and duty.
Live long and prosper, and may the Force be with you.
So say we all!
Patriotic socialism that turns towards chauvinism sounds a whole lot like the fascism of Mussolini or the Strasser brothers. But as others have said outside the imperial core it can galvanize people around resisting the imperialism of global capitalist enterprise.
Socialism/Communism is patriotic in its essence. Without embracing thay aspect it's just liberalism.
Socialism is about the collective well-being of us all. Democracy was SUPPOSED to be about the collective well-being of We the People (like in our founding documents)! The parallels between socialism and democracy have been forgotten and undermined by a capitalist class which has subtly introduced ubiquitous "wage slavery" in to most of our lives. The process was so subtle, and the American People have been so dumbed-down and pacified that they couldn't even see it happen.
Socialism is about the worker ownership and control of the means of production, that does not equate to collective well being or public need. There are many many people, including most of those in poverty in the US, that are not workers: children, disabled, elderly, students, unemployed, temporarily ill.
Speaking of American Socialism. American Socialist Daniel De Leon along with Eugene V. Debs founded the Industrial Workers of the World Union. I will point out that there was a disagreement between Daniel De Leon and the IWW. What never took off was De Leon's Socialist Industrial Unionism in which workers would organize in the workplace and politically to create the economic organization with a union structure. That union membership would create an economic form of central planning. However, politically, De Leon isolated himself along with the Socialist Labor Party of America by declaring that they have the only true socialism and rejected all reforms to capitalism. This is only an opinion of mine of what I understand as to what has happen historically.
All of these things she calls “American traditions” are just normal things that happen all over the world. There’s nothing she mentioned that is special to America 🤷🏻♂️
Ima stick with humanism and never contest anyone elses claim to patriotism. Patriotism carries with it the history that brought the prosperity U.S. citizens enjoy which came at the expense of the suffering of people worldwide. There is a certain amount of contempt due.
Let the MAGAts lay claim to that essentially meaningless terminology.
Sure they can !
A little internationalism takes one away from the homeland, a lot brings it back." Jean Jaurès.
"Un peu d'internationalisme éloigne de la patrie, beaucoup y ramène". Jean Jaurès.
No.
Socalism means internationalism
I'm 57 and this is my thought on patriotism.
My country right or wrong. I don't like it and I don't believe in it.
If you believe the propaganda that has been sold in movies, literature and in our TV shows. I call that a yes for patriotism. When we actually make our country into the shape of that propaganda we will be living by example!
Peace love and solidarity!
I wonder if the Russian would defend on h right we know internationalist would protect you!
Socialism is an international effort for the working class. Patriotism in small ways can be justified, but must be carefully checked in our moral endeavor.
A nation is a hostage situation and patriotism is Stockholm syndrome
At the heart of socialism and patriotism is the subjugation of one's personal interest to that of the common concern or good of all. I think patriotism is being discussed here from the perspective of conservatism. There should be inherently a sense of patriotism among those on the Left, but it is not promoted, cultivated, nor propagated by intellectual and activist socialist, among the masses of people, a significant number of whom are by default, the constituency of the Left. The Left must look out for their interest, because the Right significantly ignores their interest. Griscom in saying "rooting it in people rather than symbols" is close to what I'm say here.
Culture is a very contentious and pressing issue among us African-Americans, and I think culture is also a pressing issue among the Left. Values and culture are explicably linked. Socialism puts more value on the group, than does Conservatism, which is more aligned with social-Darwinism. They give primacy to the individual, to the point of being extreme. The Left should be emphasizing the kind of patriotism, that is more true to the values of the Left. As I pause and write these comments, Griscom then mentioned living these very values growing up.
This leads me back to the issue of culture - the culture of socialism and youth/pop/consumer culture. I see pop culture as the proverbial opiate of the masses, that Marx saw religion as. It certainly does more harm to society than does religion. I can't help but think, that pop culture is what is responsible for the level of crime and violence that exist in the U.S., especially in Black communities. I witnessed the celebration, glorification, and emulation of the image of the drug dealer and pimp, and tough guy, growing up in the 60's and 70's. The Blaxploitation film certainly earned its name. In the late 70's the late congressmen from Maryland Parren J. Mitchell coined the term 'Us Killing Us Equals Genocide', to speak out against the high rate of homicides and drug overdoses, that were occurring, and that were largely associated with drug selling and use.
By the 80's, Black people doubled-down on our self-destruction, by using crack. Hip-Hop responded with an anti violence movement and produced songs like we're headed for self destruction. Come the 90's children and women were getting killed, again because of the sale and use of drugs. It was so bad in D.C. during Mayor Barry reigns, that the late Dr. Francis Cress Welshing, (who along with Mr. Neeley Fuller Jr., made the terms White supremacy and systemic racism, house-hold terms among Black people), asked the residents of D.C., to consider asking the National Guard be brought in, to help end the violence. I won't go into the history of D.C. after that.
Somewhere between the 80 and 90's, I started to hear among some Black people, what seem to be a mantra. It went - "our people sell drugs to survive". I never understood this explanation/excuse. It was said 'matter of fact-ly', without any sadness or even frustration attached. It is obvious that using and selling drugs, in a violent manner, is counter-productive to survival, but this is what many outspoken people with public platforms, were saying. Many of the same people were also emphasizing that drugs and guns were being brought into our communities. They felt that this exonerated Black people, who used and sold drugs, and the violence and death, that resulted from it. Not long after this, if I'm not mistaken , I began to hear terms, like OG, ride and die, and the word dope, morph into a new meaning - meaning something that is good. All this was contemporaneous with gangster rap music. Misogyny and the celebration of the thug, became a big part of the music that young people were consuming continuously, with the media inventions that had come about. Crime and violence glorified through gangster rap- music had become normalized, in Black pop/culture, which was then becoming the face of Black culture to the world. Hip-Hop with its ego-centric, aggressive, and combative nature, supplanted Black music in general, the Black Church, and the Civil Rights Movement as the face of Black people to the world. Today the cities and communities we live in are given nicknames by us to denote how violent they are.
At some point in the festering problem of police excessive force, misconduct, and corruption, when it had reached a boiling point and conservative were doing anything they could, to not face the hard really of police wrongdoing, they brought up the issue of Black on Black crime. Black activist and intellectuals like Michael Eric Dyson somehow saw more value in being defensive about the image of Black people killing one another, at a higher rate than most, rather than see the actual deaths as the serious and harmful calamity it is, and one that requires proactive measures, to save Black lives. That is when I first started to hear them say - "Black on Black crime is not a thing". They would go on to say - " no other people talk about how much they kill one another', and that " people kill people they live near", or something equivalent to, the same sentiment.
We all know Republicans use crime and violence, as political weapons and tools, to rile up their constituency. The rhetoric that is being called 'woke' today, and that is even causing many on the Left to question and criticize, has been brewing for a long time. The Left as a whole, looked the other way, from the rhetoric as well as the actions, that were counter, to all that we are supposed to stand for and value. I have no choice but to admit, that this is a situation of the chickens coming home to roost. I see parallels between the problems Black people have as a group, and those that the Left have. They both have been operating in a largely dysfunctional manner.
Giscom spoke of historical working class political movements. They also discussed the anti-war movement. Is it safe to say that neither really was what many call grassroots movements? I use the Black Panther Party, as my example of what grassroots, is spoken of as. I see efforts like it, being vanguard movements. The Panthers to my knowledge did not attract significant numbers of working class people. They amounted to what some might call a sect, in terms of sheer numbers. Pop/youth/consumer culture had already captured the minds of most Black people. People admired them, but we did not have their back. We did not take the ideology to heart, certainly not enough to override our interest in pop/culture.
The anti-war movement was much the same - a small fraction of the public. It also IMO, was an anti-war movement, more so than it was a peace movement. There was no significant love, harmony, peace, etc., movement, after the war ended. Many who were a part of the counter-culture, are said to have later shifted into the dominate 'Establishment". Giscom spoke of revolution, but I think more in terms of evolution. I think on both fronts, fighting more for what you want vs. fighting against what you don't what, would more quickly lead to the evolution, that is likely needed, to produce the transformation that is valued, by the Left.
I believe the concept of a peace dividend, that was presented, to the nations of the world, in the 90's, by former President George H.W. Bush, and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, would be a tool, that could help spur on this needed evolution. Much more has to been asked and expected of the people. If the Left can be so bold as to propose a 'Green New Deal' and Reparations for African-Americans, as contentious as they are, why can't a 'domestic peace dividend' be proposed to the people? There is no violence or aggression involved in a peace dividend. The best way to defund anything is to make it largely unneeded. Let the people act the adult in this situation, and set the example for government and the powerful/wealthy to follow. Trickle down morality and ethics, don't work any more than trickle down economics. The power of the people can't be given, it simply has to be used.
The fact of China has changed the design. A patriot like Senator Sanders is a good example of how powerless threading the needle can be. Capitalism versus Socialism is competition between two opposites. The correct mix of the two is a viable alternative to either/or. The two thousand twenty five storm cloud is overhead.
Read Mao Zedong.
Do they mention the Spanky Tanky?
Limited patriotism is OK for sure, stopped clocks and all that--- whatever else went on--- getting rid of the "divine right" of Kings and positing the right of the ruled to self government and representation were fundamentally good things. And if we need a revolutionary hero--- Tom Paine beats the hell out of Hamilton, and all the rest of em, for that matter.--- And the civil war and Lincoln (no matter what the revisionists say) was a great good effort by the majority of the country ( and a significant minority of the south, too).--- It's not a religion. Let the other side(s) corner the market on shaming and expelling heretics (especially if you're interested in the bottom 60% of the population who have too many non-doctrinal problems to wade through all that shit.)
Recommending Banal Nationalism by Michael Billig. It's on pastebin.
forming a more perfect union
👍💐
Socialism IS patriotism. Wanting a just society is as patriotic as it comes.
But we want it for all not just other people in our country
@@uhohhotdog 100% agree.
You ment to say the MIC military industrial complex, which Senator Sanders does and he is not a Socialist.
The American exceptionalism propaganda is too strong, if you want to build a broad working class socialist movement you have to use patriotism
Nope. It’s a contradiction, patriotism demands tribalistic hierarchy that isn’t compatible with a universalist socialism freed from false hierarchies. I guess it could be mildly compatible with state socialism, but that’s an altogether different beast
This view requires a deeply abstract and non-existent international class consciousness in order to dissolve hierarchies. If such a dissolution of ‘false’ hierarchies is to be achieved consensually, then the vast majority of working class in the world must all be on the same page about a global and universalist socialism. This is clearly MUCH more utopian and unrealistic than nations adopting their own versions of socialism that suit the self-selected needs of the populations within.
A universalist socialism could most likely only be instituted through coercion and not democracy. At that point every major coercive institution (military, media, money) would have to be onboard with supporting socialism, which also doesnt seem realistic.
@@ultravioletiris6241 the question of “can and should socialism be patriotic” is distinct from “is it pragmatically useful for socialism to be patriotic”. Accepting patriotism as means is not the same as accepting patriotism as ends.
@@benzur3503 Actually i was implying that a non-patriotic and universal socialism is completely abstract and utopian.
The “cans and shoulds” are not what i was discussing. I was saying that patriotism is *possible* because it exists in the real world, whereas a non-patriotic and universal socialism doesnt exist at all outside of the imagination. So fighting against patriotism in a way is fighting against the natural human inclination to identify with communities. Really, rabid fans in fandoms would exhibit the same tribal hierarchical issues that patriots do. So an anti-patriotic anti-hierarchical socialism would likely also have to root out avid fandoms for being cesspools of tribalism. *Making such drastic controls just to implement a universal ideology or political system is bordering on religious engineering.*
All of that must be taken into account before one starts prescribing such abstract utopian notions as “pragmatically useful” or not. By definition it cant be pragmatic if it doesnt (and perhaps cannot) exist.
Stalin > Trotsky, theory only takes you so far
@@ultravioletiris6241 if you call any potential change to the existing system utopian and unrealistic, how are you a socialist and not just a conservative?
If we can stop looking at this subject as a dichotomy, and more of one thing that was inappropriately drawn apart - unnaturally - We should have a better template of how we can include and acclimate into the new and more Just Environmentally/Socially Based future.
I believe even Marx recognized that Socialism was both young and evolving, but that may have been more a cultural myth than a reality.
I certainly don't see an easy path to simply flicking a switch.
I hope you learn how to market democratic socialism better. Get some focus groups and figure it out.
No.
El che says yeah
Socialisms is patriotisms.
No. Socialist should not embrace patriotism. Any type of patriotism promotes us vs them. Patriotism embodies the spirit of competition which is one of the evils we are up against.
I've always found it interesting how people use the words patriotism while they hate most of the institutions of the country and many of their fellow citizens...
So I always have to ask what they're so patriotic too? The dirt; do we just have the best dirt in the world?
Pride is a useless emotion.
🇺🇲
How would a universalist socialism be possible? It makes much more sense to have a bunch of different socialist systems finely tuned to the populations of areas rather than one giant global all-encompassing socialist system. The global unified system couldn’t come about organically without magically forcing class consciousness on more than half of the world. On the otherhand, localism and patriotic affiliation with ones’ community are already naturally present in every population. So in many ways arguing against socialist patriotism is arguing for a global socialist utopia.
Yes, like socialism with Chinese characteristics and usa needs socialism with American characteristics, Latin America socialism uses a lot of Catholicism
@@texajp1946 good examples. Global socialism would force away all of these localized distinctions
Socialism would have to do something about the nation-state, though, no?
@@voxomnes9537 well that would require elaboration on where “nation-states” come from, what they are, what they are not, what they exist for, and what use they would have in the proposed future socialism.
Some would argue that nations are already sort of an artificial construct, especially considering how recent national borders are. So then one would have to create a new form of universalist socialism out of a system that is neither universal or using the base-unit of “nation-state”. So what unit would be used instead of nation to organize people? Or would people be placed under a single hegemonic and global bureaucratic administration?
Vox Omnes maybe eventually, socialism is a process not n event