/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Both Mao and Fidel were internationalists retard.

>>412639
Not exactly, Mao ,Sankara and Castro's nationalism was socially progressive, like Castro's acceptance of Gay rights. Both Sankara Mao and Castro were also not racialists so they would not be Nazbol inspite of their nationalism.

>>412656
Unless if someone was going with pro lgbt and non racial or ethnic Nazbol, which I know only one person on the internet who holds this view, and then why would you even want to have the Naz.

lol, bourgeois ideologues call and still refer to Bolsheviks like Lenin and Stalin as German agents and anti-Russians.

It's called anticolonialism and antiimperialism. Now take off your flag.

>>412661
any examples this line of thought intrigues me as someone new to leftism

Because they took place in the context of anti colonial struggles, unless you are looking at the USSR in which case it really wasn’t that patriotic and was born in large part from ah internationalist anti war movement NEXT

>>412791
*wasn’t that nationalistic,

It had a normal dose of patriotism tho

All those people were communists who understood what bourgeois nationalism was. They fought for anti-imperialism and national liberation, not for nationalism. Nationalists actually sell their countries out.

>>412639
read a fucking book you mouthbreathing fucking retard

>>412639
Right-wing nationalism = nationalism of the oppressors
Left-wing nationalism = nationalism of the oppressed

Mao, Sankara, and Castro were all fighting to liberate oppressed peoples. It's not the same as the reactionary nationalism that prevails in the West.

>Why have so many successful historical communist and socialist movements outside the first world been pro-nationalist and patriotic?
nationalism and patriotism of opressed peoples is fundamentally different from the reactionary nationalism of westeners, as it almost always goes directly against colonial and imperialst forms of opression. hence why it is useful for class struggle.
>If Mao, Sankara, Castro etc were around currently, would people categorise them as NazBol for their emphasis on national liberation
what a stupid fucking question. no.

>>412958
>>If Mao, Sankara, Castro etc were around currently, would people categorise them as NazBol for their emphasis on national liberation
>what a stupid fucking question. no.
I want to add that this is a useless hypothetical because there are a bunch of current left-wing movements in the global south that emphasize national liberation and opposition to colonialism/neo-colonialism, that are correctly supported by the western (communist) left. PFLP in Palestine for example. Also the Cuban, Venezuelan governments and so on. Communists support national liberation and anti-(neo-)colonial movements. Only the most retarded anarchist or left-liberal slander such support as "nazbol" or "red-brown" or whatever the fuck.

Not rojava

This post is retarded and was probably made by a american.

>>412791
Because only non-Western socialist movements were organic, while socialist movements in the West were run and controlled by bouregoisie and thus rejected patriotism and nationalism which bourgeois feel threatened by, especially since WW2.

A lot of those movements were focused on freeing their countries from imperialism and colonialism. Socialism as an ideology was a different matter, but anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism are linked to socialism, because colonialism and imperialism are driven by capitalism.

The Communist Party of China for example chose Marxism-Leninism as their ideology because these young Chinese intellectuals in the 1910s and 1920s were trying all kinds of things and nothing seemed to work. Anarchism, liberalism, syndicalism, petty nationalism. All of these things were being discussed and applied, but didn't make much progress. An attempt at bourgeois nationalism by the KMT variety plunged the country into warlordism. Traditional ideologies and structures had also been discredited or collapsed being of the onrush of what we now call "modernity." And they were blamed in part for making their countries vulnerable to being taken over by imperialists and colonialists. So you can say that Marxism-Leninism is a "western" ideology but it was the only one that was imported that also contained the anti-imperialism from the beginning.

It was baked into the cake.

Or to put it another way, "they did it this way because it just worked that way." That's not a satisfying answer to some people though.

So you get a "left" nationalism that it links up and is part of a similar struggle, at least at the time, with other anti-imperialist and anti-colonial resistance movements. The reason why nationalism in the imperialist countries takes on a right-wing form is that nationalism is an effective way by which the monopoly capitalists who rule those countries can trick people into supporting aggressive wars which the capitalists use to rob people around the world.

>>413076
>Italian communists were run by the bourgeoisie
>German communists were run by the bourgeoisie
>Spanish CNT/FAI also run by the bourgeoisie

Wow big think time. Is that why the bourgeoisie created fascism to exterminate them? Fuck off and kill yourself

>>413076
Completely non-historical comprehension of nationalism. Do you know that the very concept of nation is an historical and fonctional creation of the bourgeoisie ? And if it has served the proletarian movement it is in the narrow context of imperialism and colonialism ? If nationalism has been can be a situational and limited tool, its overcoming is necessary for a global proletarian victory.

>>412639
because we are fighting for the liberation of our respective countries you fucking idiot.
Imagine if Castro would've shilled for japanese emancipation instead of Cuban.

what a retarded scenario.
If you are racist, a national chauvinist, or some other retardation, you have brain worms.