you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

Hahah, lemme tell you this... there's a difference between nationalism necessarily birthed,

under backdrop of oppressed masses of Imperialism

(eg. Vietnamese nationalism truly developed under France, with the destruction of local Vietnamese feudal economy to pave away for imperial capitalist exploitation of land and labor; to make plantations and industry, dependent on building the French imperial economy)

and one under the backdrop of 'oppressed' Americans wanting their share of the pie; stolen Indigenous land and African slaves

(eg. American nationalism, who wanted independence from Britain, mainly due to the British trying to restrict their land expansion, worries of the British restricting slavery, and overall British empire co-optation of settler-colonial political economy)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    I understand and agree with you

    But I don't just pay attention to what a group says, I care about material impact

    Organizing labor against the American bourgeois weakens the hold of the American bourgeois, which in turn is good for the nations oppressed by the empire

  • source
  • parent