There's a difference between being cucked by the state and being unable to mobilize the citizenry because the state has barely any power @Gromp

I’m not an anarchist my dude, I never said that I totally reject the concept to transition to communism.
Just think you can have both civil liberties and a state to protect from imperialist aggression yk @The Desert Fox V

Maybe this helps to drive the point home

Ok

But why so internationalist?

Why so progressive?

These are gay

Internationalism: Cuz it’s literally a core tenet of communism

Progressivism; cuz technology and civil liberties are nice to have

Progressivism means the rejection of tradition, not new tech

Internationalism is gay regardless of what marx said

Kinda but traditionalism is mostly holding technological progress back yk, as to internationalism; well that’s where our viewpoints fundamentally diverge; you want to keep the state I want to let it wither away eventually

And spread the revolution as far and wide as possible

Nations are a naturally forming phenomenon and each nation forms its own traditions. Some of these traditions are different, but often times far apart nations hold the same values.

Traditionalism is the embrace of these values.

I’m not saying you’re not allowed to have those; I just think they should play no great part in politics

Why? A country needs a culture and that's why you need some traditions.

You need values

You can have them without the state, states merely came to embody these values they did not create them

Yes. So why not have a state embody the values through policy?

Because the debate should be a cultural level not a state level one

It should be decided by the people

Just because something is popular, doesn't mean something is right.

Modern society clearly shows this

Well that’s what traditions are tho

Unpopular ones just die out

People only keep what they like

If no one follows a tradition it dies out, true. But in the modern world you can see many traditions remain but are only followed by some people. Essentially any revolutionary government would have the option to save these traditions by promoting them or enforcing them.

Leaving it to the people won't necessarily give you the right choice.

Xactly but I see no inherent value in them hence my conviction of leaving it at a cultural level

If there's no inherent value then why are they so universal? Most traditional values have value. Honour for instance, it was a way to draw a line between legitimate acts of revenge, plus warfare and crime or murder.

It was in a way an ancient geneva convention lol

Yea but by now “honor” is codified, you’ve got laws, courts and conventions to cull excesses. They outlived their usefulness

There may be need for honor at an individual level

To keep going or rationalize behavior

But not a state one

Exactly. Just because somethinf is written in law doesn't mean people agree with it. Honour was and is something which an individual believes in and does regardless of laws. If the state collapsed tomorrow, a moral and honourable person would continue to not kill and steal whereas many might resort to that as no one is stopping them.

How many people in the modern day are really morally opposed to stealing? What if they needed the food?

Are you actually tryna tell me that before modern times no one ever looked out for number one first and foremost? History clearly shows otherwise

Also again: I’m not opposed to the concept of honor or whatever at an individual level

Just a state one

Not everyone in ancient times was honourable, but honour was a concept which more people held because it was culturally embedded. I hear what you're saying, but thay leaves no guarantee people will actually embrace the concept.