We are all African apes. Nationalism is nonsense.
- This topic has 56 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Those chunks of lands, pieces of real estate, farms for production for the bourgeoisie known as nations were created with blood, cohesion, killing, wars and expropriation, they are like Christmas trees with many bulbs with colors and decoration to create fantasies and illusions in our brains, it is a real stupidity to die for a piece of fabric known as the national flag. All of them are mythology and imaginary conception, if you travel in an airplane for several hours over different continents you will not see any borders, they are imaginary conceptions too, therefore, dying for them is wasting our precious life. We are citizens of the world
How will socialism deal with people who want to follow their own ethnic traditions and not mix with other groups of people they don’t like?
@Thomas More:
“The nationalist, holding his mother’s hand, and she holding her mother’s hand, and so on in a line of only 500 miles, the one at the end of the line would be a nonhuman.”
If we accept that all human beings have a common origin, how does this preclude nationalism?
@MovimientoSocialista:
“I have seen large sections of empty lands, therefore overpopulation is just another illusion”
Were these lands you refer to truly ’empty’ or were they being utilised, just not for accommodating all these extra people you want?
Won’t human populations in socialism require space for agriculture, infrastructure and so on?
Erik, the question of overpopulation is one that has been debated since the 18th C. There has always been disagreement on what is the optimum population.
You actually raise the question of population density.
Much of Africa is UNDER-populated. There are enormous swathes of suitable arable land not used,(The Great Guinea Savannah, for example). There is great potential.
How are the Netherlands and Belgium food-exporting countries despite being far more crowded than many others?
And we do have mega-cities with enormous districts that are slums and shanty-towns. Isn’t it poverty that resulted in those growing? Aren’t there many architects and town-planners with solutions that are never implemented?
And does living cheek to jowl with others in packed cities really reduce our quality of life? Some claim it creates a stronger sense of community with enhanced sharing of amenities…concert halls, theatres, social and leisure facilities that low-populated rural areas can not offer, albeit ceilidhs and pub music sessions are a great alternative.
Urban farming is not theoretical but practical. I, as a child, remember the public park in the centre of my home city having flocks of sheep grazing on it.
And what about all those vanishing allotments?
Locavore diets were once prevalent, eating what was close-by and in season. Why shouldn’t we revert back to not expecting certain fruit and veg to be all-year-round?
Of course, there are deserts, mountains and other geographical features that hinder agriculture, livestock rearing and human settlement. But a study of the Scottish Highland’s history shows a thriving cattle trade that has all but disappeared.
Yes, you’re right, socialism will still require decisions on how we produce and allot our resources. Some choices will be contested. But the process will be democratic and the criteria won’t be determined by monetary reasons. Mistakes may well be made, but they will be rectified and not protected by vested interests.
“How will socialism deal with people who want to follow their own ethnic traditions and not mix with other groups of people they don’t like?”
Why should they be “dealt with”?
Socialism, unlike capitalism, will leave people alone. Only if people commit violence and harm others will restraint be necessary. I stress, NOT punishment, simply restraint.Socialism will revel in diversity and celebrate difference.
The Amish and the Mennonite communities come to mind of those who seek to keep a distance from other cultures.
They still interact with the broader society, though, don’t they?
I suppose some survivalist cult may seek to isolate themselves.
Overpopulation is a Malthusian issue. The problem is private over appropriation instead of overpopulation. Mankind produce enough foods, and resources to feed more than three times the actual population of the whole world, at the beginning of the pandemia millions of vegetales, chicken and food were destroyed or turned into compost due to over production
The whole population of the USA might easily fit in Texas or California, and some estimate have been made that the whole population of the world can fit in Texas.
It is up to the world working class to decide what they are going to do in the future society, we do not have a blueprint, the Bolsheviks were the ones who made a blueprint, it would be democratically decided by the vast majority of the peoples of the earth.
The peoples on a socialist society are going to have a different mentality and consciousness of what we have at the present time and the concept of solidarity is going to be universal, therefore, those conceptions about nations, identify, and ethnicity will be eliminated by the vast majority of the world population, probably only a minority will resist, and they would be forced to interact with the majority, probably we are going to have some remaining members of the capitalist class who would be forced to go along with the majority, and their money will not have any value of exchange, they can use it to decorate the walls.
We are not going to comeback from communism to capitalism, peoples are not going to be so foolish in order to exploit themselves, it was only and invention of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who were scared of a workers revolt against them
I disagree with “forced to interact.” Who will be forcing anyone? Only the violent will be restrained. The asocial and reclusive must be respected like anyone else. As long as they are non-violent.
The unhealthy impulse that fuels survivalist cults comes from capitalism/class society. Violence begets violence.
In this case forced means that they have to accept the decision of the majority. It is just semantic. That is what Kautsky said: Democracy will be the power of the majority and the respect of the minority
And a place of restraint, not being punishment but simply restraint, need not be hideous, smelly and violent like prison. The restrained should not be denied comfort.
For the Sioux, Apache and Cherokee the worst punishment was to be expelled from their own society
On my personal blog, several years ago I had exchanges with members of a group who described themselves as national anarchists.
They advocated communities that were ethnically homogeneous…white. They held it was a community’s right to decide its membership as they saw deserving.
If they wish to be a small exclusive society attracting like-minded then so be it. Let them get on with it themselves. They can live in seclusion, welcoming only those who share the same values. In the long term, they would not thrive, imho.
If they choose, however, to impose such segregation rules upon others that is quite another issue. One for those in socialism to deal with applying whatever measures they have available.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.