Thanks for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have responded to my question. I don’t disagree with your conclusion, although you seem to have phrased this as if we are not on the same side, which is unfortunate.
Given the threats of bans and purges, there is not much room left to discuss and criticise. I feel that I can safely add and must add, before I am accused of being a ‘PatSoc’:
Any movement that tries to erase Indigenous Americans or other colonised peoples in any sense must be resisted;
On the one hand you assert the right of Indigenous Americans to sovereignty, and on the other hand you reject any form of patriotism within the US. Is this not a contradiction?
There remains no agreed definition of ‘PatSoc’;
I am not from the US;
I was not trying to define ‘nation’;
I was trying to synthesise the discussion in this thread to make sense of the arguments;
There seems to be a real problem of US-centrism in the criticisms of patriotism – again, centred on the view of the US presented in the media as an homogenous bloc, which seems to deny that Indigenous Americans live within the US jurisdiction;
I did not say that class is determined by media representation;
I did not say that labour aristocracy = upper middle class;
It seems impossible for people outside the US to comment on some issues without being pulled into a US-centric framework and criticised (impliedly or explicitly) for falling into one side or the other of a framework they are not necessarily part of; and
Without agreed definitions most of us are still talking past one another.
On the one hand you assert the right of Indigenous Americans to sovereignty, and on the other hand you reject any form of patriotism within the US. Is this not a contradiction?
This is not a contradiction. America is derived from the name of an Italian explorer. The concept of indigenous peoples exists only in contrast to settler. For indigenous people to have sovereignty is not patriotism. There is no civic or cultural nationalism involved here. It is about power, not about ideology. Patriotism is an ideology, that is, it is a set of beliefs instantiated in the minds of a group of people such these beliefs guide their behavior. That is not what decolonization requires, decolonization only requires transference of power.
There remains no agreed definition of ‘PatSoc’
The definition I’m working with - socialism that uses cultural and civic nationalism as an aesthetic and as a framework for prioritizing and deprioritizing aspects of intersectionality.
There seems to be a real problem of US-centrism in the criticisms of patriotism
There’s a lot of reasons for this, but it’s not a problem of analysis but of the mechanics discourse. Patriotic Socialism is a problem everywhere. In settler colonies, especially USA, Canada, Australia, but also inclusive of ALL states that exist on “The Americas”, the problem of Patriotic Socialism runs into the problem of colonization. But the problem of Patriotic Socialism in non-colonial states shows up constantly because it deprioritizes intersectionality to the point of dismissing it as bourgeois ideology. When those types of claims are made, it’s a very clear step in the progression to violent repression of minorities. PatSocs the world over make the argument that we must not demand tolerance, but rather build a big tent and bring into the movement people who would vote in favor of violently oppressing marginalized communities. If it was just aesthetics, no one would have a problem with PatSocs. It’s not just aesthetics. It’s tactics. PatSocs consistently prioritize populist tactics that threaten the safety of marginalized communities because they put forth a theory of action that says larger numbers are more important than ending oppression of marginalized groups.
It’s not just US-centric crticisms, PatSocs are simply arguing that anti-patsoc arguments don’t apply to them if they don’t exist in a settler-colonial state. You can tell they’re disingenuous because they then turn around and argue in another debate that Israeli settlers in Palestine aren’t a problem because the settler colony will eventually dissolve from its own contradictions so in the meantime it’s fine for Palestinians to get mass murdered in the worlds largest open-air prison.
I did not say that labour aristocracy = upper middle class;
You said:
The important point for our discussion is that any presentation of the US as mainly labour aristocratic or petite bourgeois seems to accept the vision of the US that is shown in the entertainment and news media – created by the US ruling class.
I don’t think this is important for our discussion at all, because I think its factually incorrect and pure speculative tripe. Any presentation of the US as mainly labor aristocratic does not, in fact, accept the vision of entertainment and news media. If you think you’re arguing in good faith by latching on to my use of the words “upper middle class”, and then using that framing to completely erase how baseless your original claim here was, you need to re-examine how you engage in discourse.
It seems impossible for people outside the US to comment on some issues without being pulled into a US-centric framework and criticised
Decolonization is a euro-centric framework because Europeans did the colonization. Criticisms of European nationalism have deep roots that are connected to US nationalism because the US is a European colony. To say that Patriotic Socialism in Europe is somehow different that Patriotic Socialism in the US because the US is a settler colony is to ignore that fact that it is European patriotism that created and sustained the US. The critiques of US Patriotic Socialism traverse the ocean and come home to European socialists because the contradictions in Patriotic Socialism exist regardless of what continent you’re on. The demand of European PatSocs to never have to contend with the contradictions of Patriotic Socialism if the critique mentions settlerism is merely deflection and a claim to innocence to protect themselves from the very real criticism that Patriotic Socialism is 100% of the time used, in practice, to rationalize exclusion of existing marginalized communities.
Without agreed definitions most of us are still talking past one another.
It’s not merely definitions, it’s analysis. The people who feel like they are disagreeing on the definition of patriotic socialism are either people who have not engaged rigorously with the theory and historical and contemporary practice of Patriotic Socialism, or they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the analysis with a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have responded to my question. I don’t disagree with your conclusion, although you seem to have phrased this as if we are not on the same side, which is unfortunate.
Given the threats of bans and purges, there is not much room left to discuss and criticise. I feel that I can safely add and must add, before I am accused of being a ‘PatSoc’:
This is not a contradiction. America is derived from the name of an Italian explorer. The concept of indigenous peoples exists only in contrast to settler. For indigenous people to have sovereignty is not patriotism. There is no civic or cultural nationalism involved here. It is about power, not about ideology. Patriotism is an ideology, that is, it is a set of beliefs instantiated in the minds of a group of people such these beliefs guide their behavior. That is not what decolonization requires, decolonization only requires transference of power.
The definition I’m working with - socialism that uses cultural and civic nationalism as an aesthetic and as a framework for prioritizing and deprioritizing aspects of intersectionality.
There’s a lot of reasons for this, but it’s not a problem of analysis but of the mechanics discourse. Patriotic Socialism is a problem everywhere. In settler colonies, especially USA, Canada, Australia, but also inclusive of ALL states that exist on “The Americas”, the problem of Patriotic Socialism runs into the problem of colonization. But the problem of Patriotic Socialism in non-colonial states shows up constantly because it deprioritizes intersectionality to the point of dismissing it as bourgeois ideology. When those types of claims are made, it’s a very clear step in the progression to violent repression of minorities. PatSocs the world over make the argument that we must not demand tolerance, but rather build a big tent and bring into the movement people who would vote in favor of violently oppressing marginalized communities. If it was just aesthetics, no one would have a problem with PatSocs. It’s not just aesthetics. It’s tactics. PatSocs consistently prioritize populist tactics that threaten the safety of marginalized communities because they put forth a theory of action that says larger numbers are more important than ending oppression of marginalized groups.
It’s not just US-centric crticisms, PatSocs are simply arguing that anti-patsoc arguments don’t apply to them if they don’t exist in a settler-colonial state. You can tell they’re disingenuous because they then turn around and argue in another debate that Israeli settlers in Palestine aren’t a problem because the settler colony will eventually dissolve from its own contradictions so in the meantime it’s fine for Palestinians to get mass murdered in the worlds largest open-air prison.
You said:
I don’t think this is important for our discussion at all, because I think its factually incorrect and pure speculative tripe. Any presentation of the US as mainly labor aristocratic does not, in fact, accept the vision of entertainment and news media. If you think you’re arguing in good faith by latching on to my use of the words “upper middle class”, and then using that framing to completely erase how baseless your original claim here was, you need to re-examine how you engage in discourse.
Decolonization is a euro-centric framework because Europeans did the colonization. Criticisms of European nationalism have deep roots that are connected to US nationalism because the US is a European colony. To say that Patriotic Socialism in Europe is somehow different that Patriotic Socialism in the US because the US is a settler colony is to ignore that fact that it is European patriotism that created and sustained the US. The critiques of US Patriotic Socialism traverse the ocean and come home to European socialists because the contradictions in Patriotic Socialism exist regardless of what continent you’re on. The demand of European PatSocs to never have to contend with the contradictions of Patriotic Socialism if the critique mentions settlerism is merely deflection and a claim to innocence to protect themselves from the very real criticism that Patriotic Socialism is 100% of the time used, in practice, to rationalize exclusion of existing marginalized communities.
It’s not merely definitions, it’s analysis. The people who feel like they are disagreeing on the definition of patriotic socialism are either people who have not engaged rigorously with the theory and historical and contemporary practice of Patriotic Socialism, or they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the analysis with a No True Scotsman fallacy.