Welcome again to everybody! Make yourself at home <3 In the time honoured tradition of our group, here is our weekly discussion thread!
We are excited to announce a new discord server for Trans Communists. Check it out! https://discord.gg/WqcjV2sZ
Also check out our telegram https://t.me/real_genzedong!
uwu
Could you give an example of a definition given by such a person? I think it would be useful to know how they use the term
No, not me. I don’t follow them. Caleb Maupen or someone who knows what he thinks could.
Emphasizing a working class history and promoting pride for that history is already an aspect of socialism. Adding a new name seems childish or wrong headed to me.
I’ve seen people like Hinckle and Haz promote the bourgeois national myth under the name, pilgrims and Indians, Manifest Destiny. Overall it seems like there are two schools of thought; the Caleb school which seems to be socialism but emphasizing the People’s History, and the Haz/Hinckle school of adolescent pretenders.
I don’t know how well these two schools blend together. I don’t know what if anything I’m missing, as I don’t pay close attention to anyone mentioned. My concern is that the former school would provide cover for the latter.
At best the Caleb school is an exercise in branding. I have books up to my knees that deal with a proper understanding of history. If you’re having trouble understanding what patriotic socialism even is, it’s because it’s just socialism rebranded to emphasize proletarian history.
All right. By “proletarian history”, do you mean a necessarily distorted form (downplaying the genocide of indigenous people, etc.)?
What do you think proletarian means? Read People’s history of the United States or counter-revolution of 1776. The latter being written by a renowned black scholar.
Why would we downplay it when our point is to show how evil the bourgeoisie is? I don’t believe the goal should be to downplay. Nor should it be to reinforce an association between the subject and the slaver or the colonizer. The goal is to present a history of class struggle and to associate the working class with that history.
Proletarian History is an attempted to present history from the perspective of the proletariat. The purpose is to break through the national myth and expose the history of class struggle and generational injury.
If your asking me what somebody else thinks on the issue I don’t know. As I said I don’t follow them close enough to know everything they say.
I’m aware of what the word means. You wrote that patriotic socialism is “just socialism rebranded to emphasize proletarian history”, but you also mentioned people who seem to be considered PatSocs (Hinckle and Haz) yet promote a distorted version of history (glorifying the past of the US), which would contradict the definition – however, re-reading your previous comment, I suppose you meant that you don’t actually consider these two PatSocs.
I personally just call myself a socialist or ML if people need more information. I wouldn’t add anything to it.
I don’t know how legitimate the movement is. I’m generally suspicious of qualifiers of any sort. Think democratic socialist or Anarcho Socialist. The one word in front of Socialist is there to negate Socialism. It’s Socialism but not really.
For that prejudice I’m suspecious of anyone calling themselves patsoc. That and it’s a little too close to national socialist.
Like I said I’m just a socialist. I’m not anything else. My point wasn’t that it was one thing or the other, but that it might be this or it might be that. It could be benign or it could be senister. Both camps exist. I think it better to just be socialist.
Addendum:
I think some people just like to wear different hats. They can never just be socialist. They have to be socialist plus their hat. I’m sure a not insignificant amount of patsoc’s just want to try on a new name. How many of them are in their early twenties or younger? They don’t know anything yet.
Yeah, that makes sense.