What do those crimes against outcasts have to do with nationhood, and needing to forbid it? This is a very strange POV to me. I think that at the beginning of the French Revolution they had it right: Liberty (Rightism), Equality (Leftism), and Fraternity (at root, shared identity as a people).
None of these, or any other, components of a nation, properly constituted -- yes, including "communists, socialists, alcoholics, the disabled, gypsies, vagabonds, gay, Jehova's Witnesses, other Christians, feminists", etc. etc. -- need be exiled. To foment do so is a perversion of idea of "Fraternite".
But then, it was Marx that began setting internal components of nation at (supposed necessary) war -- no longer negotiation -- with each other, and the rest has been a very sorry history.
Cher citoyen! If there is a nation, it would be defined by identity. The 'outcasts' were not outcast at all, but they provided identity: the markets, the music, books, art, language, religion. After the holocaust, culture was kitsch. False identity for everyone.
National borders however, are traditionally made by militarists. A real national identity has fractal borders like an island: the more you zoom in, the longer is its coastline. The coastline paradox. Israel has a fractal Palestine inside of it, besides kibbuzim, and are these not communist?
"Workers of the world, unite!" was a *war* cry. And with it, Marx hijacked Leftism. Leftism is about democracy (the "egalite" AND "fraternite" parts of the French motto) at its most fundamental. Democracy requires eternal, open-minded fluidity in politics, not rigid dogma.
Marx likes to speak of alienation. However, for him alienation (in the relatively new industrialization) not only occurs (explicitly) in the divorce of product from use. It also occurs (implicitly) in the fact that the parties -- worker and owner -- to the crime of property alienation were *themselves* alienated from each other. The destruction of national fraternity led to a "crystalized" alienation of citizen from citizen.
The latter didn't have to occur. But, IMO, Marxists *wanted* it to occur, to create an army of the powerless under their thumbs. This was implemented eventually under Lenin and his vanguards, and we all know how that cry of "power to the people" worked out, not only in Russia, but as well in nearly *all* similar efforts of the twentieth century. That's what happens when you foment a war and create a power vacuum without explaining what you're doing. "Oh, wow, *we* the vanguard will fill that vacuum! Don't worry your pretty little heads over it, soldiers-slash-worker bees!"
Now, since roughly the 50s, when the population of unherdable class-cats (that is, who migrate between classes) started going out of fashion, this so-called "Left" have the bright idea of separating people not by mutable characteristics (class), but by *immutable* ones (all the embedded identities of humans), whipped up and organized by the vanguard inheritors of Marxism. Does this sound like a way to "bring people together"?
Any diatribe about Marx that does not even mention capitalism or economic class is either incredibly ignorant or based on anti-Marxist propaganda, and not even well done propaganda at that.
"alienation ... in the divorce of product from use" [I should have said "production" here]
"worker and owner"
"unherdable class-cats (that is, who migrate between classes)"
i.e. Did I not identify that there are problems with class? There's not a lot one can cover in a handful of paragraphs -- especially when pointing out a different problem.
So, what are some great new insights about class today, that will be just the trick to turn the world around to an actually *viable* solution? Hint: We Leftists are barking up the wrong tree. We need to figure out better how societies actually work. If Marx himself actually understood, then we have to ask about his motives.
Just because Marx identified class (and eloquently) didn't mean he knew what to do about it. We in the 21st century have the great advantage of seeing what happened when his followers attempted to implement a revolt, and *dozens* of times. In my opinion, this is in large part based on a rigid *war* attitude, of implacable us-vs.-them, my team right or wrong, and of fight-to-the-death. It is this same war mindset that infects modern societies to this day. Made sense, maybe, in existential confrontations between hunter-gatherer bands tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. But the only war needed *today* is to quarantine sociopaths/psychopaths -- they're the true enemies of society, and they're found everywhere. We need to put our thinking caps on.
So, it's past high time to step out of this box. I'd like to recognize that Leftism (social fairness), Rightism (individualist freedom), and Nationhood (societal belonging) are all pieces of the same puzzle of how to run a society.
I mean that as in geographic -- and in consequence, language, culture, etc. -- realms, where it has been natural and near-universal for a very long time. That is, since the dawn of agriculture. But where that goes awry, then, it seems, there can be problems.
What do those crimes against outcasts have to do with nationhood, and needing to forbid it? This is a very strange POV to me. I think that at the beginning of the French Revolution they had it right: Liberty (Rightism), Equality (Leftism), and Fraternity (at root, shared identity as a people).
None of these, or any other, components of a nation, properly constituted -- yes, including "communists, socialists, alcoholics, the disabled, gypsies, vagabonds, gay, Jehova's Witnesses, other Christians, feminists", etc. etc. -- need be exiled. To foment do so is a perversion of idea of "Fraternite".
But then, it was Marx that began setting internal components of nation at (supposed necessary) war -- no longer negotiation -- with each other, and the rest has been a very sorry history.
Cher citoyen! If there is a nation, it would be defined by identity. The 'outcasts' were not outcast at all, but they provided identity: the markets, the music, books, art, language, religion. After the holocaust, culture was kitsch. False identity for everyone.
National borders however, are traditionally made by militarists. A real national identity has fractal borders like an island: the more you zoom in, the longer is its coastline. The coastline paradox. Israel has a fractal Palestine inside of it, besides kibbuzim, and are these not communist?
I don't understand what you say about Marx.
"I don't understand what you say about Marx."
"Workers of the world, unite!" was a *war* cry. And with it, Marx hijacked Leftism. Leftism is about democracy (the "egalite" AND "fraternite" parts of the French motto) at its most fundamental. Democracy requires eternal, open-minded fluidity in politics, not rigid dogma.
Marx likes to speak of alienation. However, for him alienation (in the relatively new industrialization) not only occurs (explicitly) in the divorce of product from use. It also occurs (implicitly) in the fact that the parties -- worker and owner -- to the crime of property alienation were *themselves* alienated from each other. The destruction of national fraternity led to a "crystalized" alienation of citizen from citizen.
The latter didn't have to occur. But, IMO, Marxists *wanted* it to occur, to create an army of the powerless under their thumbs. This was implemented eventually under Lenin and his vanguards, and we all know how that cry of "power to the people" worked out, not only in Russia, but as well in nearly *all* similar efforts of the twentieth century. That's what happens when you foment a war and create a power vacuum without explaining what you're doing. "Oh, wow, *we* the vanguard will fill that vacuum! Don't worry your pretty little heads over it, soldiers-slash-worker bees!"
Now, since roughly the 50s, when the population of unherdable class-cats (that is, who migrate between classes) started going out of fashion, this so-called "Left" have the bright idea of separating people not by mutable characteristics (class), but by *immutable* ones (all the embedded identities of humans), whipped up and organized by the vanguard inheritors of Marxism. Does this sound like a way to "bring people together"?
Any diatribe about Marx that does not even mention capitalism or economic class is either incredibly ignorant or based on anti-Marxist propaganda, and not even well done propaganda at that.
"alienation ... in the divorce of product from use" [I should have said "production" here]
"worker and owner"
"unherdable class-cats (that is, who migrate between classes)"
i.e. Did I not identify that there are problems with class? There's not a lot one can cover in a handful of paragraphs -- especially when pointing out a different problem.
So, what are some great new insights about class today, that will be just the trick to turn the world around to an actually *viable* solution? Hint: We Leftists are barking up the wrong tree. We need to figure out better how societies actually work. If Marx himself actually understood, then we have to ask about his motives.
Just because Marx identified class (and eloquently) didn't mean he knew what to do about it. We in the 21st century have the great advantage of seeing what happened when his followers attempted to implement a revolt, and *dozens* of times. In my opinion, this is in large part based on a rigid *war* attitude, of implacable us-vs.-them, my team right or wrong, and of fight-to-the-death. It is this same war mindset that infects modern societies to this day. Made sense, maybe, in existential confrontations between hunter-gatherer bands tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. But the only war needed *today* is to quarantine sociopaths/psychopaths -- they're the true enemies of society, and they're found everywhere. We need to put our thinking caps on.
So, it's past high time to step out of this box. I'd like to recognize that Leftism (social fairness), Rightism (individualist freedom), and Nationhood (societal belonging) are all pieces of the same puzzle of how to run a society.
"shared identity as a people"
I mean that as in geographic -- and in consequence, language, culture, etc. -- realms, where it has been natural and near-universal for a very long time. That is, since the dawn of agriculture. But where that goes awry, then, it seems, there can be problems.
TRIBALISM is a mindset in which NO ONE is a complete winner, one group loses territory, the other loses ethics / morals & soul, it crumbles away.