Yeah, thing with Lenin is that in 1917 he still thought that global revolution is coming, and thus patriotism is dangerous to the movement (and indeed in the socialchauvinist version it was). But after that failed, and socialism in one country became the only possible position, patriotism got back to graces, as entire list of later revolutionaries and AES leaders can attest.
Also, here and here.. As you can see the rise of socialist states complicated the matter somewhat, therefore it is important in this issue to have clear terminology - i think social-chauvinism is the most apropriate term, and using own labes of socialchauvinists is currently leading to heavy confusion. I mean, for example, you and me and everyone else here probably had to explain that the “national socialism” isn’t socialism hundreds of times by now, so let’s at least not do it to ourselves more times.
Also, read “Notes from the gallows” by Julius Fucik, he had some pretty obvious revelation about it there.
I’ve always understood “patsoc” as being a uniquely western left phenomena. Whenever someone here has a critique of patriotism, it’s always been in the context of western left chauvinists like Haz and Infrared urging for patriotism. I think we know why that might be problematic. I’ve never seen anyone here on lemmy/ reddit gzd being critical of Chinese patriotic socialism , cuban patriotic socialism, vietnamese patriotic socialism, etc. The socialism part of the patriotic socialism in those countries is probably more emphasized than the patriotic part I would assume.
Even the tweet in question focuses on Western leftists being opposed to patriotic socialism. One of the people he mentions, Henry Winston, doesn’t really just say “be patriotic”. Here, he delves into the “national question”. He says that the emancipation of men and women are universal notions, and hence, shouldn’t be restricted to theoretical ideas about the Soviet Union (or other AES i would imagine). He later says that we should deal with substance rather form when it comes to this topic. As it stands, there is no coalition government here in the US. There is no significant power that Marxists hold here in the US, so for that reason, ideas of patriotic socialism here in the US is mental masturbation.
I swear I didn’t make it up 😢. Mr Lenin used it first. But yeah, social chauvinist is a more apt term.
Yeah, thing with Lenin is that in 1917 he still thought that global revolution is coming, and thus patriotism is dangerous to the movement (and indeed in the socialchauvinist version it was). But after that failed, and socialism in one country became the only possible position, patriotism got back to graces, as entire list of later revolutionaries and AES leaders can attest. Also, here and here.. As you can see the rise of socialist states complicated the matter somewhat, therefore it is important in this issue to have clear terminology - i think social-chauvinism is the most apropriate term, and using own labes of socialchauvinists is currently leading to heavy confusion. I mean, for example, you and me and everyone else here probably had to explain that the “national socialism” isn’t socialism hundreds of times by now, so let’s at least not do it to ourselves more times.
Also, read “Notes from the gallows” by Julius Fucik, he had some pretty obvious revelation about it there.
I’ve always understood “patsoc” as being a uniquely western left phenomena. Whenever someone here has a critique of patriotism, it’s always been in the context of western left chauvinists like Haz and Infrared urging for patriotism. I think we know why that might be problematic. I’ve never seen anyone here on lemmy/ reddit gzd being critical of Chinese patriotic socialism , cuban patriotic socialism, vietnamese patriotic socialism, etc. The socialism part of the patriotic socialism in those countries is probably more emphasized than the patriotic part I would assume.
Even the tweet in question focuses on Western leftists being opposed to patriotic socialism. One of the people he mentions, Henry Winston, doesn’t really just say “be patriotic”. Here, he delves into the “national question”. He says that the emancipation of men and women are universal notions, and hence, shouldn’t be restricted to theoretical ideas about the Soviet Union (or other AES i would imagine). He later says that we should deal with substance rather form when it comes to this topic. As it stands, there is no coalition government here in the US. There is no significant power that Marxists hold here in the US, so for that reason, ideas of patriotic socialism here in the US is mental masturbation.