Nationalism: Is it ok?

[Deleted]

Right so you're conflating socialism with authoritarianism. Socialism doesn't have to be authoritarian and what you're describing is socialism.

Yes it does.

Socialism demands that the means of production be controlled by the "people" and works to redistribute wealth and land.

I do not beleive in seizing the means of production from anyone. Fundamentally, all Socialism demands Authoritarianism.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes it is. Social Democracy is Socialism hiding in the gut of Democracy like a tape worm, feeding off of the benefits Democracy brings it until it's ready to burst forth and ruin it's host.

I outlined what I liked about Blair, which was very fucking little. But it's more than Corbyn, who wants to bankrupt the country for his petty socialist projects and fix no fucking issues at all.

Do tell me Gilrak, how does Nationalizing the Railways again make them better?

And yes, I am very far left, I am not a Socialist, I believe in the Nation and Society that must provide benefits for those who pay into the Nation and Society.

I demand a strong Civic Government, but a Weak Bureaucratic Government.

If social democracy is too far left for you... you're not left wing at all, stop bullshitting to yourself. Nobody is buying it.

[SinAscendant]

Yes it is. Social Democracy is Socialism hiding in the gut of Democracy like a tape worm, feeding off of the benefits Democracy brings it until it's ready to burst forth and ruin it's host.

I outlined what I liked about Blair, which was very fucking little. But it's more than Corbyn, who wants to bankrupt the country for his petty socialist projects and fix no fucking issues at all.

Do tell me Gilrak, how does Nationalizing the Railways again make them better?

And yes, I am very far left, I am not a Socialist, I believe in the Nation and Society that must provide benefits for those who pay into the Nation and Society.

I demand a strong Civic Government, but a Weak Bureaucratic Government.

So you're libertarian then. That's not far left at all, that's moderate left socially, right economically.

I'll go ahead and answer for Gilrak - nationalizing public transport means better upkeep of the system, the ability for everyone to use it, and less cost for upkeep as tbe government can get better prices than any private company. The same applies to every service the government provides.

If they aren't handling it properly, then the answer is to fix that, not get rid of it.

You aren't looking towards the future. In 20, 30 years (maybe it'll be a bit longer, but it's coming) automation is going to be taking over, we will have millions upon millions with no job and no way to get one because robots will be flipping burgers at McDonalds, retail stores will be self service with 3 or 4 people to help with questions etc, robots will be mining, robots will be cleaning, building, repairing things, and so on. The ONLY way to go at that point is socialism, you can't expect millions of people to support themselves on jobs that don't exist.

At that point we'll need to move to universal basic income and social services across the board, why not start now instead of letting hundreds of thousands suffer and starve in the interim?

[Deleted]

My favorite part of talking with you guys is the road I give you to leave racism, but you happily turn the car around in protest.

Man, I am not racist, I have my rather narrow opinions of people based on tertiary sources that may make me skeptical of some concepts or wary of persons ideals, but I will instantly throw that side and give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes down to a personal meaningful interaction.

I like to have my prejudices broken. I like meeting people who go against my conceptions. But I don't delusionally see everyone and everything as equal or a blank slate. to think so sounds like Hubris and Arrogance.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yes it does.

Socialism demands that the means of production be controlled by the "people" and works to redistribute wealth and land.

I do not beleive in seizing the means of production from anyone. Fundamentally, all Socialism demands Authoritarianism.

Limiting the free market is not authoritarianism.

[Deleted]

So you're libertarian then. That's not far left at all, that's moderate left socially, right economically.

I'll go ahead and answer for Gilrak - nationalizing public transport means better upkeep of the system, the ability for everyone to use it, and less cost for upkeep as tbe government can get better prices than any private company. The same applies to every service the government provides.

If they aren't handling it properly, then the answer is to fix that, not get rid of it.

You aren't looking towards the future. In 20, 30 years (maybe it'll be a bit longer, but it's coming) automation is going to be taking over, we will have millions upon millions with no job and no way to get one because robots will be flipping burgers at McDonalds, retail stores will be self service with 3 or 4 people to help with questions etc, robots will be mining, robots will be cleaning, building, repairing things, and so on. The ONLY way to go at that point is socialism, you can't expect millions of people to support themselves on jobs that don't exist.

At that point we'll need to move to universal basic income and social services across the board, why not start now instead of letting hundreds of thousands suffer and starve in the interim?

No, you do not understand me at all, and your narrow Political viewpoint shows. I am not a Libertarian, I do not believe in a lack of government and an unrestricted Free Market. I believe the Government should provide protections within law against unfair economic practices.

To me a Government that tells institutions what to do and regulates them is fine, It's when the Government tells Individuals what to do and regulates individuals.

I don't see how Nationalising the Railways, Aka, Buying back or buying new railcars, restructuring over a dozen separate companies and so forth is LESS money, and I don't see how doing so will make them "Run better"

A better option would be to simply regulate and monitor the companies better, like Denmark and Norway does. Instead of simply trying to "Take" the Trains back.

[Deleted]

Limiting the free market is not authoritarianism.

No, it's not.

Taking the means of Production is.

Or literally taking property like Corbyn wants to do.

[Macaquerie]

Man, I am not racist, I have my rather narrow opinions of people based on tertiary sources that may make me skeptical of some concepts or wary of persons ideals, but I will instantly throw that side and give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes down to a personal meaningful interaction.

I like to have my prejudices broken. I like meeting people who go against my conceptions. But I don't delusionally see everyone and everything as equal or a blank slate. to think so sounds like Hubris and Arrogance.

The thing is, you're unlikely to have any meaningful personal interactions with people from different backgrounds if you constantly go around talking about how people aren't all created equal and how national socialism is the answer to everything. Dial back the crazy and stop being so angry at everyone, then maybe you'll have some more positive contact with different people.

[Deleted]

Socialism does not "demand" that it desires it. Communism demands it.

Seizing the means of production is communism, moving towards the people as a whole owning the means of production is socialism.

Hence why I call Corbyn a communist.

And for the record, I don't want the people to own the means of production. I want people who funded and created the means of production to own the means of production.

[Deleted]

The thing is, you're unlikely to have any meaningful personal interactions with people from different backgrounds if you constantly go around talking about how people aren't all created equal and how national socialism is the answer to everything. Dial back the crazy and stop being so angry at everyone, then maybe you'll have some more positive contact with different people.

Dude, I have literally outlined my Political opinion. I do not want the State to force opinions and ideas on people, I want the state to provide a service. I don't claim people are not "Created" Equal, I claim other cultures are not equal to mine.

If a dude wants to join my nation, with all the ideas that nation represents, I welcome them with open fucking arms.

[JohnBrown1917]

Hence why I call Corbyn a communist.

And for the record, I don't want the people to own the means of production. I want people who funded and created the means of production to own the means of production.

So the 3 big things I get from this is that you

1) Don't know what communism is.
2) Don't know what it means to be left-wing(hint, you're not one, you're a liberal at best).
3) don't know what social democracy is.

[Macaquerie]

Dude, I have literally outlined my Political opinion. I do not want the State to force opinions and ideas on people, I want the state to provide a service. I don't claim people are not "Created" Equal, I claim other cultures are not equal to mine.

If a dude wants to join my nation, with all the ideas that nation represents, I welcome them with open fucking arms.

You don't want to force opinions on people, but you require people to adhere to all the ideas that your nation represents? How is that going to work?

[Deleted]

He doesn't demand the means of production though lol.

Yeah you're a centrist. You're really not as far left as you're trying to make out lol.

I find it rather funny just because I don't want Socialism, I am suddenly a Centrist. I mean fuck was Teddy Roosevelt a Centrist?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't want to force opinions on people, but you require people to adhere to all the ideas that your nation represents? How is that going to work?

Immigration policies? People who don't like my nations ideas can fuck off? Those already in my nation who don't like my nations ideas can just fucking suck it?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh wow so you're one of those racists that hides behind the thin veneer of cultural superiority.

Tell me what you think of these guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_First

I'm not a Social Conservative, So I disagree with that.

[Deleted]

So the 3 big things I get from this is that you

1) Don't know what communism is.
2) Don't know what it means to be left-wing(hint, you're not one, you're a liberal at best).
3) don't know what social democracy is.

So what IS communism then?

What IS being Left wing?

What IS Social Democracy?

Because Corbyn said he will literally take houses away from people not using them and give them to people. That is Literally taking Land, and that's pretty fucking Communist to me.

- - - Updated - - -

uh... yeah he pretty much was by today's standards.

Fuck me no.

Just because we have more Socialists does not move the Political Center!

Teddy Roosevelt was literally the first "Progressive!"

Not everything or everyone right from Stalin was a centrist.

[Macaquerie]

Immigration policies? People who don't like my nations ideas can fuck off? Those already in my nation who don't like my nations ideas can just fucking suck it?

Well I suppose if you rely on the private sector to supply the thought police, it wouldn't technically be totalitarianism?

[JohnBrown1917]

I find it rather funny just because I don't want Socialism, I am suddenly a Centrist. I mean fuck was Teddy Roosevelt a Centrist?

- - - Updated - - -



Immigration policies? People who don't like my nations ideas can fuck off? Those already in my nation who don't like my nations ideas can just fucking suck it?

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not a Social Conservative, So I disagree with that.

Even social democracy is too far left for you, yes, that means your ideology does not fit on the left-wing part. You already said you where a liberal, why deny it now?
And yes, Roosevelt was probably not on the left, but I lack knowledge about him.

[Deleted]

Well I suppose if you rely on the private sector to supply the thought police, it wouldn't technically be totalitarianism?

How does that event relate to my post? The government has no place in the realm of Opinions. it should listen and Obey the people. It has no place to be telling us what Opinions are right and wrong, That is for the People to decide.

[Deleted]

I'd suggest reading the page rather than the tags. They are not really that socially conservative by most standards. I mean that "if they don't agree with my nations ideals they can fuck off bit" is literally them in a nut shell. They are socially conservative in the sense in that they support referendums rather than legislation on laws like gay marriage.

That doesn't sound to bad then.

What exactly is wrong in wanting a Nation to be strong in supporting the ideals of the people.

- - - Updated - - -

Well considering the political spectrum is slowly shifting left it does.

The first progressive and things have progressed from there.

The political center is pretty subjective anyway. More and more people support some or many progressive views which means the center is further left than it was 100 years ago.

THAT IS NOT HOW THE POLITICAL GRAPH WORKS.

[dark666105]

The one big takeaway I take from this mess of a thread is that people are working from VASTLY different definitions/ideas of what certain terms mean. Maybe the first question asked/answered by people is what their definition/idea of those terms is so there is common ground before one person uses a term and another assumes it is something completely different from what the first person using it intended.

This is why not conflating words to make one point sound better or worse over time is extremely important.

DON'T WATER DOWN OR TWIST TERMS INTO THINGS THEY NEVER WERE INTENDED FOR.

[Deleted]

And yes, Roosevelt was probably not on the left, but I lack knowledge about him.

I swear to any god that listens I wish I could beat you for such slander.