naptalsismd

You wrongly believe that this author's take on Nationalism  is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe that Korenizatsiya is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe that Mikhail Bukinin was a right wing , racist/anti semetic fascist, xenophobe based on his nationalism views

You wrongly believe that Revolutionary Progressive Nationalism is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe that Civic Nationalism is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe this leftish nationalism is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe former President Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe that Pro Western Leftism and fraternalism are bigoted, xenophobic etc ideologies 

You wrongly believe this view "One critique I have of Nationalisms is the whole National Memory make up of Nationalism. Nations change and many forms of Nationalism that seek to shove our history down our throat (i.e Garden of Heroes nonsense, Memorial Day or Patriots Day etc), makes me anathemic to a lot to most forms of Nationalism. Fascists and deep Right wingers ruined Nationalism

However, I believe that the nation is defined as the totality of persons bound together through a common destiny into a community of character. To me, national identity is not necessarily obstructive toward class consciousness, existing as a useful praxis for the self determination of the worker. 

The issues with National identity (within a capitalist society) was not national identify itself but really the tendency of the lower classes to cling to traditions which tether them to the institutions of the old bureaucratic and capitalistic systems in addition to nationality being conceived of exclusive racial/ethnic and territorial means .

I feel that the notions of territorial principle can be substituted in situations where minority populations risked being subjugated by majorities. 

We can use Karl Renner's notion of the "personal principle" as a way of gathering the geographically divided people of the same nation. The personal principle can be used to organize nations not in territorial bodies but in a simple association of persons.

This would radically disjoin a nation from its territory thus creating a non territorial associated nation. It is important to doing way with sub national territorial identities as undemocratic and allowing for the treatment of non majority populations within each nation that Karl Renner wrote about here. 

Basically, the nation should be conceived as an evolutionary process via open, plural and political construction" is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe this view "Nationality doesn’t exist, material conditions do exist however. Nationality is self-referentially cultural —- a person is part of a nation because the person perceives his/herself or is perceived to be part of that. 

Though material conditions are objective: one is proletarian or bourgeoisie no matter what someone believes him/herself to be. There are obvious prerequisites for being proletarian or bourgeoisie, whereas ethnicities or nationalities are not sufficiently clear and are not consistent. Being “working class” is not an identity, working class is a state of being. You can’t just choose that you are not working class.

National identities are "existent" in that they are believed in, yes, yet these identities emerge from and are molded by the subtle material forces at play: forces of capitalist production and reproduction. 

National identities are also always in flux in bourgeois/capitalist societies, and cosmopolitanism is born of the predominant nature of production every place on Earth. This is due to cosmopolitanism serving productive aims, and due to capitalism's motivation for growth and to expand out of necessity. This too is why attempting to fuse reactionary traditionalism with capitalism is doomed and will thus fail.

Nationality is an example of an imagined community, it is not an authentic relationship whereas class is. 

We obviously should show zero tolerance or ethnic discrimination, however it cannot create a sound basis for political action, since idpol not only obfuscates class along with inequality, but also reinforces capitalism, and ultimately leads to genocides. Idpol should thus be opposed.

The traditions of a community moreover are for the most part irrelevant. They are historically malleable, and continuingly exchanged and negotiated between communities throughout the ages. Greek religion robbed from the near East, Rome culture from Greece, Catholicism robbed from Rome, etc. Nothing is ongoing. What is meaningful is people, and how well people live"  is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe this view "I do not want the US to lose its national identity in a way where the US culture is unrecognizable to what it traditionally is. Otherwise why have a country at all? We should share our common historical solidarity. Our nations are a reflection of our unique spirit and ideas." is right wing, racist/anti semetic, fascist, xenophobic, etc

You wrongly believe that ANTIFA doesn't exist as an anti-racist political movement in the United States that consists of a highly decentralized array of autonomous groups 

You wrongly are not against ANTIFA's extremism they did in Chile when the new Chilean constitution was rejected in 2022 and ANTIFA's extremism in France in 2023 due to Emmanuel Macron's working law change and or you wrongly believe people who rightfully condemn ANTIFA's actions in those cases are right wing, fascists, racists, anti semeties etc

You wrongly don't support even some of the ANTIFA critique here (or especially here)/You wrongly believe that ANTIFA is perfect and has never enflamed or provked people at least 15 percent of the time 

You wrongly deny that ANTIFA has used violence (even in self defense) and or you wrongly smear people who believe they have used violence (even in self defense) as right wing, fascist, racist, anti semetic etc

You wrongly believe that supporting Patriotism (especially Progressive Patriotism and Social Patriotism) is right wing, fascist, racist, anti semetic etc

You wrongly believe this view:

FLINTA helps EVERYONE who is marginalized by patriarchal society

FLINTA is for anyone who's not a cis guy, in most cases,. so it makes sense to use it in a number contexts, in other contexts you would have LGBTQIA+ spaces (LGBTQIA+ spaces includes gay and bi cis men,) other times you would have womens spaces (womens spaces includes both cis and trans women,) sometimes you would have mens spaces (mens spaces includes both cis and trans men,) etc. It's just another space in the arsenal of classifying spaces for discussion , meetings and what have you, and I haven't seen the equivalent in english.

I do get a "Women, and everyone we misgender as women vibe from FLINTA"  is bigoted, right wing, xenophobic etc

You wrongly believe this view "More and more hispanic voters are voting Republican than Democrat so that disproves Tucker Carlson’s wild migration theories

Even if migrants voted more D than R, (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/22/are-unauthorized-immigrants-overwhelmingly-democrats) , so what? 

It may be true but there is no hidden 'conspiracy' by Democrats to have Democrat voter migrants magically replace non Democrat voter migrants. The Democrats aren't smart enough to devise such a scheme.  We can't even pass Left wing economic policies with a Democrat house.  

In the Emerging Democratic Majority, a 2002 book by John Judis and Teixeira, predicted the coalition of college graduates and minority voters that brought former President Barack Obama to power. Democrats path’s to victory involves expanding the electorate with young and diverse voters something that the Republicans neglect

In 2013, the Center for American Progress said, "Supporting real immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for our nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future."

The Republicans appealing to mostly white voters (like in 2016 in Donald’s Trump faux election victory)  ,being border-hawks and being hard on migration pushes many migrants (many of whom come from Liberal 2.0 or Democrat countries in Europe, Canada, South America etc) to vote Democrat.

Democrats may know somewhere inside what that pew article says in terms of more migrants probasily voting D than R but that isn’t why they are pro migrant. 

Though it might unconsciously or very deep down inside push Democrats to not move right at all on illegal immigration, securing the border, bipartisanship on migration etc.

If Republicans would ease up on migration , come left a bit and be more inclusive and big tent, maybe they can get the migrant vote over the Democrats. If Republicans want to stop migrants from voting Democrat then the Republicans should try to win the migrant vote instead of coming up with wild theories   

America has always been a haven for migrants of all identities. Our country was Native American before it was stolen by aristocratic imperialist bourgeois colonist Europeans so even if it we became majority BIPOC, it would be like the pre colonized US. " is xenophobic, racist, anti semetic, right wing/conspiracy laden etc

You wrongly believe this view "Using the UK as an example but this can apply to my fellow Americans as well:

UK nationalists who get all bent out of shape over the 'mass influx' of working-class Muslim immigrants, seems to forget that during the Victorian era, there was a mass immigration influx of working-class Irish immigrants to England which followed the famines at the time. 

There was a ton of anti-Irish propaganda back then, with eerily similar messages to the Anti Muslim rhetoric we hear today, about immigrants 'taking their jobs' and being not quite as good as the English.

And yet has Irish immigration caused English society to collapse? Has Irish terrorism prevailed over England? The answer is, of course not,  it has not. 

But English Nationalists tend to believe that any perceived difference to the status quo of English culture is the first time it's happened on record, and it's going to be some horrible destruction of the country. Like, calm down" is xenophobic, racist, anti semetic, right wing/ etc

You wrongly believe this view by Chris Hedges is xenophobic, racist, anti semetic, right wing/ etc

You wrongly believe that Manitoba Canada type Multiculturalism is xenophobic, racist, anti semetic, right wing/ etc

You wrongly believe this view "We cannot fight against the extreme right with its forms or methods. We must organize to deepens the, dialogue and practices to curb them

We cannot definitively ignore that one of the elements of their negative speeches is that which undermines the authority and legitimacy of women which it does by exercising political hostility toward them, which can hinder their access to the exercise of their political rights which can hurt both sexes. 

We need tools to stop these anti woman reactions from the right in a way that upholds the values of the feminist movement

It is good to have an inclusive society in which each person is part of the entire fabric of our society and has access to social, political, labor and gender rights in order to create an environment where cultural and social diversity is key to social development as opposed to using bourgeois aristocratic saviorism, political opportunism, having to rely on Liberal leftist reactionarism (like SJW and cancel culture) and cold bureaucracy to do so. 

The fight against injustice and prejudice must move toward a more inclusive, dynamic and committed form of participation with the plural and complex realities in our current era

So we must focus on implementing comprehensive policies which don’t focus on immigrants or BIPOC persons but instead focuses on the origin and consequences of the exact problem as a whole

Immigrants and BIPOC people, active subjects with rights, not victims and through direct democracy and having a foot in the street so to speak, the state must work to guarantee that. It is important that they get the recognition of their agency, capacity and their political subjectivity. 

It is important that diversity in political participation, decision making, public spaces and via representation, doesn’t occur exclusively in just debates and in the decision making spaces concerning only racial-ethnic oppression and the immigrant condition, but rather, they must be present in all debates on the political and social future of this country. So they can be the change they see

So public policies should be tilted toward constitutional guarantees of equalization of rights among all people and in the public square we must make sure our country fulfills this role and establishes mechanisms that allow the enforceability of rights.

We must use greater force to get our politicians to commit to Modern Egalitarian theory principals, and anti income/class inequality and anti injustice perspectives

We tend to defend culture as that which breaks the closure of the description of reality imposed from power/powers. 

For this rupture to happen, access to culture must be guaranteed for people in its greatest possible diversity, making it easier for all artistic discourses to find their audience. Let us avoid certain maxims: no, culture per se does not make us free. 

What gives us critical thinking tools, what allows emancipation processes, is the possibility of access to the different cultural manifestations and discourses. 

If we only stick to a deliberately reduced canon, culture will be serving to prop up a certain and privileged perspective, leaving dissenting views and voices silenced (or potentially silenced). 

The task we have as a political organization is to open the canon and at the same time favor the prescription of those compositions (in all areas) that for reasons of gender, class, ethnicity, language, sexual orientation or identity, can be left out being very valuable productions and works for the whole of our collective imagination.

In this task it is also necessary to emphasize that without citizenship there is no culture. This principle has been repeatedly ignored in the cultural policies that have been developed on the right and on the left since the transition to the present day. 

Large empty containers of content and interaction with society, and a process of unbridled privatization of the most popular and interesting initiatives are the mud that explains this sludge. 

We know that it is in neighborhood spaces, neighborhoods and towns, where grassroots cultural projects are proposed that find a greater citizen response and where the most interesting and innovative meetings and artistic manifestations take place. 

Basically we want and need these models for our great and consecrated structures. A new culture for the great museums of the State, that not only keep history in a showcase, but also allow citizens to build the museum every day, that permeates its time and the people of that time." is xenophobic, racist, anti semetic, right wing/ etc

You wrongly believe this view "The labor movements that came out of the 19th century had an international nature in that they were in dialogue and were supportive of each other, but all of the political wins of the labor movement was gotten within the limits of the nation-state. The reason is because the limit of effecting political change is the law: politics is altering, establishing, eradicating, policy modification and laws at the varied levels within the political realm. Ending slavery did what meaningful thing? It changing laws was meaningful. Anyone who believes that politics is social/cultural without politics being legal is a fool or lying. There is no nation-state that does not have a constitutional order, or a legal structure, or law.

Law is power because laws are enforced, and laws are enforced due to them being backed by the states violence monopoly. 

The state of our time is predicated on its consolidation of power of coercion: the princely state that goes all the way back to the 15th century Italian peninsula, in that they stated to its people: give the state power and the state will protect everyone within its boundaries from being subjected to violence externally (from France, more specifically). 

The kingly states that later emerged stated: give more power to us and we will protect you people from violence externally and internally. Every change in constitutional order, from the then and forward, are backed up by coercive power. This is a positive thing in that without it, people are exposed to arbitrary violence, which is normally much much worse than the codified violence that the state takes upon itself (with totalitarian exceptions, obviously).

All while the states in our day and age have both an internal constitutional order (for legitimizing their power to the citizens of their states) and an external calculated paradigm (for relational dealings with with other states). 

With the growth of the nation-state, laws were subsequently passed in the 20th century that constituted a order of the constitutional magnitude which was based on regulating nation wide economies in the interest of each given the citizens of the nation-states. Three different forms were needed in leading countries: liberalism, fascism, and communism. 

All three of these forms were various expressions of one and the matching historical trend, which was the increase of the national regulating the economy model at the nation-state level . With the increase of the global economy, though, the nation-state has needed to steadily give up its functionality to regulate the economy at the nation-state level ,and this has done for the state of affairs that is described, which the left doesn’t have a solution to overcome.

Politics is necessarily a manner of effecting law, and there isn’t a globalized constitutional order because there isn’t a globalized state that would be able enforce it. What remains is that politics is limited to nation-states, however nation-states themselves have lost their capacity to guide the global market. This state of affairs creates a virtually impossible situation for politics, and it lends to debates where neither side of the debate truly comprehends the historical conditions that have ushered us to where we are now" is bigoted, right wing, fascist, xenophobic etc

"