Lol, just to clarify, because your American(?) mind probably cannot understand what I wrote, and you respond with “???”:
You think I’m calling you a liberal because you support human rights and NGOs or whatever. I’m calling you a liberal because your basic unit of analysis is the nation. “The nation is its people” is not a Marxist statement. It’s a liberal-nationalist one, romantic nationalist: Mazzini, Fichte, Michelet, Paparigopoulos. Marxists don’t accept the “nation” as the unit of analysis. We ask where are the class antagonisms, political conflicts, and repressed social movements. Where did this go when you collapsed them all into “the nation”? In the “anti-imperialism” dualism, the clash of civilizations. Huntington, nationalism, clash of civilizations and romanticism. That’s the paradigmatic disagreement.
Lol, just to clarify, because your American(?) mind probably cannot understand what I wrote, and you respond with “???”:
You think I’m calling you a liberal because you support human rights and NGOs or whatever. I’m calling you a liberal because your basic unit of analysis is the nation. “The nation is its people” is not a Marxist statement. It’s a liberal-nationalist one, romantic nationalist: Mazzini, Fichte, Michelet, Paparigopoulos. Marxists don’t accept the “nation” as the unit of analysis. We ask where are the class antagonisms, political conflicts, and repressed social movements. Where did this go when you collapsed them all into “the nation”? In the “anti-imperialism” dualism, the clash of civilizations. Huntington, nationalism, clash of civilizations and romanticism. That’s the paradigmatic disagreement.
Bye.