

It is literally “are the national movements helping to place the nation above others in the imperial order or about escaping the imperial order in general”. ‘Global South’ is not definable outside of the relationship that they have to imperialism, so parties pushing to gain imperial power or gain benefits from it are bad nationalists.






I think it’s often important to sometimes (though dont get carried away and lose the kernel) discuss how Marxism is really at least 2 major schools/claims brought together. The method of analysis call dialectical materialism is a sort of ontological and historical claim about how the world works, which makes no prescriptive claims about what that exactly means for 'good’and ‘bad’. Then you have marxism as a normative system which discusses how the system of inefficiencies and exploitation are good to be removed through processes which the former side of marxism can describe. Marx was a much more interesting polemicist than many because he was able to freely move between these fields throughout a work, and really gives no indication that I know of that these are really separable to any meaningful extent.
But this reading means that the morality might not be central to scientific claims, but cannot be seen as apart from the whole of marxism, which makes claims about exploitation with the assumption that it’s bad (actually marx argues why, including in efficiency terms instead of morality)