Nationalism = Socialism Branded with a Flag... Is this accurate?

[ClayTrainor]

I posted this in another thread, but I wanted to make a new thread out of it to encourage some open discussion as to whether or not the case I've presented is flawed or accurate, and why.

Nationalism = Socialism branded with a flag. It's entirely based on collective ownership of property. Political policies based on this "nationalist" idea, are virtually always justified using the same mythical "We" that socialists use to push for virtually everything they push for. Like all statist philosophies, Nationalism itself has a complete lack of regard for the individual. It's just a clever marketing strategy used to sell more of their bullshit to you. Don't buy it!

So... to get a little more specific...

Socialism = Collective/State ownership of capital.
Capitalism = Individual/Private ownership of capital.

Nationalism requires some degree of nation-state ownership of capital, or else there is no nation. It is a socialist idea, at it's very core... branded with a flag

Just looking for some honest input and critiques. Cheers!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I posted this in another thread, but I wanted to make a new thread out of it to encourage some open discussion as to whether or not the case I've presented is flawed or accurate, and why.



So... to get a little more specific...

Socialism = Collective/State ownership of capital.
Capitalism = Individual/Private ownership of capital.

Nationalism requires some degree of nation-state ownership of capital, or else there is no nation. It is a socialist idea, at it's very core... branded with a flag

Just looking for some honest input and critiques. Cheers!

In the modern sense, yes. However, in 19th century Europe (and America to an extent) Nationalism was a sort of quasi-relgion. People were inventing fantastical stories about the origins of their respective countries. ("Ma Blast" by Smetana is an example) If you read the fairy tales people made up about the origins of their countries, you'll get a laugh.

As the 19th century was pretty well underway (a decade or so), Nationalism came to have a cheauvanist tinge to it. That keep building throughout the 19th century and eventually led to WWI/WWII. Petty nationalism and cheauvanism animates pretty much everything that is done by national governments the world over now (and has since about the post-war period).

 

[ClayTrainor]

In the modern sense, yes. However, in 19th century Europe (and America to an extent) Nationalism was a sort of quasi-relgion. People were inventing fantastical stories about the origins of their respective countries. ("Ma Blast" by Smetana is an example) If you read the fairy tales people made up about the origins of their countries, you'll get a laugh.

I don't doubt it, haha. I often get a laugh when I hear some of the fairy tales people make up about the origins of existing countries today.

As the 19th century was pretty well underway (a decade or so), Nationalism came to have a cheauvanist tinge to it. That keep building throughout the 19th century and eventually led to WWI/WWII. Petty nationalism and cheauvanism animates pretty much everything that is done by national governments the world over now (and has since about the post-war period).

Yea, that all makes a lot of sense. There definitely seems to be some link between nationalism and religion. Nationalism, I would say, is the religious aspect of statism. It is all about worship, and blind faith some arbitrary and vague idea that no one even fully agrees on. The masses worship the nation,, which ultimately grants the very legitimacy that the state thrives on and grows out of. It's that one thing that every politician has to appeal to, in order to have any chance of getting into office, no matter what their ideas. How many times do we hear shit like... "America/Canada/England is the greatest nation in the world!...", "I'm an American/Canadian and I love my country, and that's why i'm running for office."

I guess it's fair to say that Nationalism is the religious aspect of socialism?

 

[Sentient Void]

Absolutely. Appeal to Nationalism should be a logical fallacy in and of itself and have it's own name as such.

Goering said it best.

"Whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. [Just] tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country." - Nazi Reichmarshall Hermann Goering (Nuremberg Diaries & Interviews)

 

[ClayTrainor]

Absolutely. Appeal to Nationalism should be a logical fallacy in and of itself and have it's own name as such.

Goering said it best.

"Whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. [Just] tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country." - Nazi Reichmarshall Hermann Goering (Nuremberg Diaries & Interviews)

Dam, what a quote... Goering was an evil genius.

I'm curious any of the self-proclaimed Nationalists on this board have any objections to the case laid out in this thread?

 

[TortoiseDream]

So instead of calling them Nazis we should call them "Nana"s to avoid redundancy?

lol

 

[Wesker1982]

I'm curious any of the self-proclaimed Nationalists on this board have any objections to the case laid out in this thread?

I think all of the self-proclaimed nationalists here are probably all anti-socialist. Trying to make sense of doublethink is probably a hard thing to do...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What is a nation? Theoretically, a group of individual, contiguous landowners could come to some agreements, and create a “nation”. Human history shows us that is what usually happens. Is a family socialism? Is an extended family socialism? Is a tribe socialism? If you really want to go to the root, any and all cooperation between humans could be described as “socialism”. We are social, by design, by nature, or by survival necessity. We are territorial for the same reason. In that regard, your premise is accurate.

Does having a nation equal the policies and ideals of Hillary, Pelosi and Obama? That definition of “socialism” is pretty specific, and has a certain political meaning, not being equal to people being “social” in nature, or to having a nation.

If you were to ask Hillary, she would probably say that they are equal. Political socialists will try to argue that a one world socialist government is the logical and final extension of the human desire to be social. After all, it takes a Village. A global village, with an all powerful Oligarchy to rule it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

What is a nation? Theoretically, a group of individual, contiguous landowners could come to some agreements, and create a “nation”.

If it was just a matter of property owners coming to some kind of agreement with eachother, why don't you just call it a contract?

Could it be because a Nation is not a valid contract, and does not require the consent of all parties involved?

Human history shows us that is what usually happens. Is a family socialism? Is an extended family socialism? Is a tribe socialism? If you really want to go to the root, any and all cooperation between humans could be described as “socialism”. We are social, by design, by nature, or by survival necessity. We are territorial for the same reason. In that regard, your premise is accurate.

You seem to be under the impression that I think "being social = Socialism" and, with due respect, that's flatout wrong and I am not using socialism to mean that. I'm using the working economic definition for socialism to construct my position, not that.

Socialism = Collective/State ownership of capital.
Capitalism = Individual/Private ownership of capital.

Nationalism requires some degree of nation-state ownership of capital, or else there is no nation. It is a socialist idea, at it's very core..

Does having a nation equal the policies and ideals of Hillary, Pelosi and Obama? That definition of “socialism” is pretty specific, and has a certain political meaning, not being equal to people being “social” in nature, or to having a nation.

There are varying degrees of socialism. Having a Nation seems to be 100% Dependant on Socialist economic theory, in order to exist. Can you describe a Nation that doesn't fit the working economic definition of socialism, to at least some degree?

 

[Clairvoyant]

Can you describe a Nation that doesn't fit the working economic definition of socialism, to at least some degree?

This is a good point. All nations are socialist, it's just a question of how much.

Think about irony of the good old USA fighting "communism" for the sake of "freedom" and "capitalism" while using drafted soldiers and a tax paid military. The only reason we don't have a draft anymore is because they have wrecked the economy to the point that plenty of high school grads are always willing to sign up.

Never mind public schools, welfare, and all sorts of other socialist crap.

 

[Grubb556]

I think you bring a good point, why should one feel proud of the nation they were born in ? It's not like they picked to be born in that nation, they were just arbitarily born there.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This thread reminds me a bit of the above vid.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Bump for AF...

Looking forward to it, whenever you have the time.