The question of patriotism and its relation to nationalism and internationalism is an important one for Communists. What is correct and what is erroneous?
What a day to be an Iranian socialist! And how I side with American proletarians cause they are oppressed too. People in Iran actually believe that American people are oppressed by their own government. So whenever a Ziopahlavist called you anything harassing or threatening know that we don’t collect them as Iranians, most of them are Israeli citizens. Also do I have to mention how we love Chinese and Russian people? Long live the patriotism and internationalism! ⭐️❤️
The same „Marxists“ who will whine about the purists and revisionists will not fail to feed you liberal definitions of the Gegenstand/Object, whenever it suits them. The points outlined in this article illustrate what happens when self-proclaimed "voices" of the proletariat lack any theoretical foundation.
To be a nationalist you don‘t have to emphasizes superiority. Nationalism is the ideological form in which a population is imagined as a unified political community across class divisions. It turns workers, capitalists and bureaucrats into members of one national family. That is already mystification even when it is inclusive or non-racial. That means a more „inclusive” patriotism can celebrate diversity, unity and responsibility while still demanding loyalty to class rule and national development.
The “nation as family” metaphor used here is reactionary and paternalist. A communist party is not the parent of the masses just as much as the proletariat is not a child. Class contradictions aren‘t family quarrels, but state loyalists will try to use this vocabulary to suppress concern over who controls production and the party-state apparatus.
The article’s own wording shows the substitution clearly: Party + masses = nation-family. The party is placed as the conscious parent of society, MLs have come so far to even admit that their dreams about the party being an instrument of the proletariat are just false, and have therefore turned to just becoming open apologists of class antagonisms, as long as it carries their preferred flag. Solidarity with oppressed peoples is one thing. Loyalty to “anti-imperialist states” is another. A state can oppose US imperialism while still exploiting its own working class, repressing dissent, enforcing wage labor, defending national capital and disciplining society for geopolitical competition.
The article managers to by accident show what patriotism actually is: It organizes loyalty of the working masses toward the Party-state and its national-developmental project. It asks them to experience their subordination as unity, their sacrifice as national duty, and their class conflict as an internal family contradiction.
What a way to demonstrate your Western ignorance. As I stated clearly in the article, I used this metaphor specifically and solely for China. Chinese culture is collectivist and we greatly value familial relations. No one in China sees the CPC as paternalist.
There is also no real “capitalist class” in China. There are capitalists, but they are tightly regulated and always subordinate to the Party.
These kinds of attacks from the western left have a definite structure. They're idealistic, they use complicated language and lack clarity, and they use logical fallacies (often strawman and no true Scotsman) instead of concrete analysis.
Calling a critique “Western ignorance” is exactly the move nationalists will make when they cannot rebut the critique; to replace class analysis with civilizational loyalty. You haven't even addressed how you use liberal definitions of nationalism and patriotism instead of Marxist ones. Just saying the family metaphor is culturally chinese isn't a response either.
When the Party is described as guiding the masses “like parents” that is paternalist in form whether or not you personally experience it as such. Ideology often works by appearing familiar and culturally organic.
You also did not answer the point that the “nation-family” metaphor dissolves class antagonism. Workers and party officials are all presented as members of one harmonious national body. That is the mystification I criticized. Saying “Chinese culture is collectivist” does not explain away the class content of this unity it reproduces it.
Furthermore, a capitalist class is defined by its relation to production. If capitalists exist as capitalists, then the capitalist class relation exists. Every capitalist class is regulated by law and state policy. If capital is subordinated to the Party-state that does not make it magically non-capitalist. It merely means capital is politically managed inside a national developmental project.
You avoid every central point.
You did not defend your definition of nationalism.
You did not explain why “inclusive patriotism” does not still erase class antagonism.
You did not answer why the Party-as-parent metaphor is compatible with proletarian self-emancipation.
You did not show that wage labor, capital accumulation, and class power are abolished in China.
You simply replaced class analysis with cultural apologetics: “This is China, you don’t understand". In what world can this pass off as "Marxism"?
What a day to be an Iranian socialist! And how I side with American proletarians cause they are oppressed too. People in Iran actually believe that American people are oppressed by their own government. So whenever a Ziopahlavist called you anything harassing or threatening know that we don’t collect them as Iranians, most of them are Israeli citizens. Also do I have to mention how we love Chinese and Russian people? Long live the patriotism and internationalism! ⭐️❤️
The same „Marxists“ who will whine about the purists and revisionists will not fail to feed you liberal definitions of the Gegenstand/Object, whenever it suits them. The points outlined in this article illustrate what happens when self-proclaimed "voices" of the proletariat lack any theoretical foundation.
To be a nationalist you don‘t have to emphasizes superiority. Nationalism is the ideological form in which a population is imagined as a unified political community across class divisions. It turns workers, capitalists and bureaucrats into members of one national family. That is already mystification even when it is inclusive or non-racial. That means a more „inclusive” patriotism can celebrate diversity, unity and responsibility while still demanding loyalty to class rule and national development.
The “nation as family” metaphor used here is reactionary and paternalist. A communist party is not the parent of the masses just as much as the proletariat is not a child. Class contradictions aren‘t family quarrels, but state loyalists will try to use this vocabulary to suppress concern over who controls production and the party-state apparatus.
The article’s own wording shows the substitution clearly: Party + masses = nation-family. The party is placed as the conscious parent of society, MLs have come so far to even admit that their dreams about the party being an instrument of the proletariat are just false, and have therefore turned to just becoming open apologists of class antagonisms, as long as it carries their preferred flag. Solidarity with oppressed peoples is one thing. Loyalty to “anti-imperialist states” is another. A state can oppose US imperialism while still exploiting its own working class, repressing dissent, enforcing wage labor, defending national capital and disciplining society for geopolitical competition.
The article managers to by accident show what patriotism actually is: It organizes loyalty of the working masses toward the Party-state and its national-developmental project. It asks them to experience their subordination as unity, their sacrifice as national duty, and their class conflict as an internal family contradiction.
-M.G.
What a way to demonstrate your Western ignorance. As I stated clearly in the article, I used this metaphor specifically and solely for China. Chinese culture is collectivist and we greatly value familial relations. No one in China sees the CPC as paternalist.
There is also no real “capitalist class” in China. There are capitalists, but they are tightly regulated and always subordinate to the Party.
These kinds of attacks from the western left have a definite structure. They're idealistic, they use complicated language and lack clarity, and they use logical fallacies (often strawman and no true Scotsman) instead of concrete analysis.
Thanks for the article btw
Calling a critique “Western ignorance” is exactly the move nationalists will make when they cannot rebut the critique; to replace class analysis with civilizational loyalty. You haven't even addressed how you use liberal definitions of nationalism and patriotism instead of Marxist ones. Just saying the family metaphor is culturally chinese isn't a response either.
When the Party is described as guiding the masses “like parents” that is paternalist in form whether or not you personally experience it as such. Ideology often works by appearing familiar and culturally organic.
You also did not answer the point that the “nation-family” metaphor dissolves class antagonism. Workers and party officials are all presented as members of one harmonious national body. That is the mystification I criticized. Saying “Chinese culture is collectivist” does not explain away the class content of this unity it reproduces it.
Furthermore, a capitalist class is defined by its relation to production. If capitalists exist as capitalists, then the capitalist class relation exists. Every capitalist class is regulated by law and state policy. If capital is subordinated to the Party-state that does not make it magically non-capitalist. It merely means capital is politically managed inside a national developmental project.
You avoid every central point.
You did not defend your definition of nationalism.
You did not explain why “inclusive patriotism” does not still erase class antagonism.
You did not answer why the Party-as-parent metaphor is compatible with proletarian self-emancipation.
You did not show that wage labor, capital accumulation, and class power are abolished in China.
You simply replaced class analysis with cultural apologetics: “This is China, you don’t understand". In what world can this pass off as "Marxism"?
-M.G.