gogogaodsodsodsoi

 On nationalism

Nationality isn’t real, material conditions are. Nationality is self-referentially cultural —- one belongs to a nation because one perceives oneself or is perceived to belong there. But material conditions are objective: one is proletarian or bourgeoisie regardless of whether one believes oneself to be. There are clear conditions for being proletarian or bourgeoisie, whereas ethnicities or nationalities are neither sufficiently clear nor consistent. Being “working class” isn’t an identity, it’s a state of being. You can’t just choose not to be working class.

National identities are "real" to the extent they're believed in, sure, but these identities emerge from and are shaped by the underlying material forces at work: that of capitalist production and reproduction. National identities are also constantly in flux in bourgeois (i.e. capitalist) societies, and cosmopolitanism emerges as the predominant character of production everywhere in the world. This is because cosmopolitanism serves productive purposes, and because of capitalism's drive for growth and expansion is out of necessity. This is also why trying to combine reactionary traditionalism with capitalism is doomed to fail.

Imagined community

Nationality is an imagined community, it is not a real relationship in the same way class is. We naturally shouldn't tolerate ethnic discrimination, but it cannot form a sound basis for political action, because identity politics not only obsfucates class and inequality, but reinforces capitalism, and inevitably leads to genocide. Identity politics should therefore be opposed.

The traditions of a community are also mostly irrelevant. They're historically malleable, and constantly traded and negotiated between communities throughout history. Greek religion stole from the near East, Rome style from Greece, Catholicism stole from Rome, etc. Nothing is constant. What matters is people, how well they live. Culturalism is the domain of liberals.