Comrade Juche, we've had this discussion before, remember? I imagine it must be hard for a person living in the imperial core to understand. But, in any case, I will patiently respond point-by-point and remind you what you still haven't understood.

I want my country to embrace socialism and anti-imperialism because I want things to IMPROVE for my country. Why? Because I LOVE my fellow citizens. Imperialism HURTS my countrymen (globalism and monopolies seeking profits abroad has deindustrialized my country)

Loving your people has nothing to do with patriotism. Patriotism is the love for a country, and every thing it stands for. The United States of America does not stand for anything except genocide, imperialism, oppression and exploitation. Being patriotic in the way these PatSocs are is to either neglect this aspect of your country or even embrace it. You are misusing the term patriotism.

You might dislike certain PatSocs. That's fine. But to reject patriotic socialism is fucking intolerable. I am angry because the implication is that in order for me to be a "good communist" I must hate my country. Why shall I improve something if I hate it? shall I not just sit back and let the imperialist kill my fellow citizens?

You confuse your "fellow citizens" with your country. Your country is the state, its history and its legacy. Your country oppresses your fellow citizens. If you love your fellow citizens so much, you should definitely hate your country as it is, at least if you want to be a "good communist", or rather, a principled Marxist-Leninist. But do not take my word for it. Funnily enough, Lenin struggled with a group of chauvinists who called themselves "social-patriots", which according to him should be named social-chauvinists because in his words the term social-patriotism "embellishes the evil". Here's what Lenin had to say about the PatSocs of his time:

That is why our “struggle against annexations” will be meaningless and will not scare the social-patriots in the least, unless we declare that a socialist of an oppressor nation who does not conduct both peacetime and wartime propaganda in favour of freedom of secession for oppressed nations, is no socialist and no internationalist, but a chauvinist! The socialist of an oppressor nation who fails to conduct such propaganda in defiance of government bans, i.e., in the free, i.e., in the illegal press, is a hypocritical advocate of equal rights for nations! (link)

Lenin advocated for revolutionary defeatism, which is to actively engage people to defy your country and your government against their imperialist actions. Take a closer look at the picture of the PatSocs in the article, proudly wearing the flag of the US. Does this look like revolutionary defeatism to you?

This is asinine. I will not change the page to be pro-PatSoc. But we need a serious, encyclopedic tone. I am exhausted by this which appears to be an ultra-leftist deviation.

"I hate America, vote for me" -- Communists running for office?
"I hate America, here's why you should listen to me" -- Communists standing on their Soap Boxes in the Town Squares

On the contrary, I think this page is very on point on what Patriotic socialism is. But revolutionary defeatism does not mean to openly state that you hate your country to attract people to the socialist cause. This reductio ad absurdum does not help you at all. But to revert the situation, you don't have to appeal to ultra-nationalistic imagery to attract workers to the socialist cause either, the same way you don't need to be racist to approach the poor whites to socialism, you don't have to be misogynistic to approach men to socialism, etc. By appealing to patriotism in an oppressor nation, you are promoting bourgeois nationalism, not fighting it.

Did the communists of the 1930s reject proletarian patriotism? Does the modern CPUSA reject patriotism? Did British communists in the 1930s reject patriotism? Anyone who LOVES their country would want an END to corruption, wars of aggression, and other various evils carried out by their state.

Your country is based on corruption, wars of aggression and other various evils. If you want an end to this, you de facto want an end to your country as it is. A revolution is a violent act of destruction. A revolution destroys the old, and by destroying the old, it creates the new.

Shall Americanism be the sole property of the corrupt, evil, greedy bourgeoisie? Shall the American proletariat not seek to re-take it for itself, fighting against the New Economic Royalists? Seems defeatist to me. I reject national chauvinism. I also reject anti-patriotism. A patriot would want to end neoliberalism and imperialism. A patriot wants peaceful coexistence between civilization-states, a patriot wants colonized groups to have sovereignty, economy growth, social support, and all the resources necessary for their national cultures to be preserved and enhanced.

There's something else you need to understand. "Patriotic socialism" is somewhat of a movement, represented by specific people which the article indicates. It's not "patriotism" in abstract, the article describes this specific group and movement which calls itself patriotic socialism. However, this does not absolve patriotism in imperial nations. I assume your emotional attachment to this concept is an influence of the Midwestern Marx group. Midwestern Marx is great, but their flaw is on this specific point.

You do not reject national chauvinism, you are drawn towards it, comrade. I'm sorry to say, but your position is borderline chauvinism. You cannot be proud and patriotic of a country which is the most powerful force against the liberation of the peoples in the whole world and call yourself a communist. If you are a communist and you are aware of your country's history, you have absolutely no reason to call yourself a patriot and appeal to nationalism.