Nationalism: Is it ok?

[Wewlad]

No.

It's taking credit for shit you didn't do in order to hate people you don't know.

Man, do you even think for yourself? This answer might as well have been copy/pasted, and for how bad of a misrepresentation it is, not the best choice.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Maybe the blacks in America could get over shit that happened 400 years ago?
Playing the victim is really getting old when you're a generation Z hipter fuckwad, but still whine about the white man empire, WHICH YOU LIVE IN, if you don't like your fucking cars, cell phones, electricity, fine dining, luxury, go back to mud huts in Africa.

Racism is still such a huge problem because the blacks aren't letting go. Get over it, and live together in peace. Our generation, of any color, should be free of these chains already.

American born blacks have a huge entitlement problem that is wound up in their ‘blackness’ as an identity. Just look at what African immigrants (1st and 2nd gen) to this country go on to achieve in education and income on average vs the multi-generation American blacks.

[lewdest]

Nationalism is great, everyone should be proud of where they live and their culture, but you should also learn to not condemn others based on your own morals.

- - - Updated - - -

American born blacks have a huge entitlement problem that is wound up in their ‘blackness’ as an identity. Just look at what African immigrants (1st and 2nd gen) to this country go on to achieve in education and income on average vs the multi-generation American blacks.

I had a college professor that was an African Immigrant, and he was the most "racist" person I've ever met. He taught economics and he'd interrupt class sometimes to go on huge rants about how "African Americans speaking of privilege makes him sick" and "They all just want handouts instead of working and earning things" and how horrible that is for the economy. It's kind of annoying to have a teacher preach their beliefs when you're trying to learn a subject, which happened ALL THE TIME IN COLLEGE, but at least his long tirades were funny.

[Ragedaug]

If people want to keep the discussion abstract, and use the wiki definition, seizing is not necessary for socialism, and it doesn't necessarily involve the state:
-You can have socialism at different levels other than the state. Cooperatives are socialist enterprises: they're jointly-owned and democratically-controlled by the owners.
-States can acquire the means of production by means other than seizing; for instance, buying them.

You aren't wrong, but this goes to show my point out the difference between using "socialism" as a proper noun or an adjective. I would agree that cooperatives are socialist enterprises and would go so far as to say communist in nature. And you know what? I've participated in them. I'm not against communism as a concept, when it is limited to a communal setting. The problem comes in when you decide what works for this small community will also work for a country of 300 million citizens, where you have no choice but to have a State in control of governing.

So there's two main problems as I see it:
1) You still have to have a ruling class when you create a Socialist or Communist State
2) There's very little or sometimes no personal accountability when you run this on a national scale.

So for the first point, the ruling class has been shown to still be corruptible. Under a Socialist Government there's very little recourse for the proletariat, if they become downtrodden or oppressed, short of either waiting for the entire system to crumble in on itself or start another revolution to overturn the leaders of the previous revolution. For the second point, with no accountability, production and supply become scarce. So that's why it can work at a community level, but not at a state level.

[omfgreally]

I think the main problem is that a group knows that it's underlings are stupid and will blindly follow everything they say and do, so that group teaches the underlings this is a bad thing and now go parrot that until you are blue in the face.

The best way to shut down those types is with one question and watch their heads explode into anger because that is the first emotion the brain dead will jump to.

If a black african loves africa and his people and will proudly tell you that he is a Nationalist, is that racist?

And if you say no and start doing mental gymnastics, please also say the same can be applied to white people.

[Ragedaug]

No, it just means we know that socialism is a broad and complex body of theory, so we don't simply say "I'm a socialist" full stop, we can specify "I'm a liberal democratic market socialist", which is how I'd self-describe. A body of theory where none of the nonsense you're been saying this whole thread has any truth to it whatsoever.

I'd like to go down this trail if you don't mind. You've provided a descriptive label, but can we dig a little deeper and see what it means, or how it plays out?

How do these scenarios that play out in your system?

- I want to open a lemonade stand on my private property
- I want to start my own PC repair business
- I want to be able to buy and sell property

Am I allowed to?
Do I need society's permission?
How are prices set?
Who determines how much profit I can charge?
Do I have a choice in who I can sell to?
Do I have a choice in my suppliers?
Do the suppliers have the ability to set their price to me, or are they all compelled to set the same prices so as not to compete?

[Spectral]

We probably need to all be operating on the same working definition to have the conversation. This is probably a reasonable starting point:

Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland.

Having some amount of that is essentially a precondition for having a nation at all. The problem we immediately bump into is how much is acceptable, which is going to be a challenge to a broader set of morals than just policy. Most people can agree that there's a moral obligation to not deliberately harm others, but how much of an obligation there is to help is obviously open to debate.

To answer the straightforward "is [some] nationalism OK?" question, I think it's pretty clearly a yes. The only other positions that can exist are anarchy or a totalizing global government.

[Endus]

I'd like to go down this trail if you don't mind. You've provided a descriptive label, but can we dig a little deeper and see what it means, or how it plays out?

How do these scenarios that play out in your system?

- I want to open a lemonade stand on my private property
- I want to start my own PC repair business
- I want to be able to buy and sell property

Am I allowed to?
Do I need society's permission?
How are prices set?
Who determines how much profit I can charge?
Do I have a choice in who I can sell to?
Do I have a choice in my suppliers?
Do the suppliers have the ability to set their price to me, or are they all compelled to set the same prices so as not to compete?

The answers to the first two are the same, and the third is irrelevant since "property" isn't part of the equation in the first place outside the most extreme variants (pure Marxist communism, largely).

Yes, you're allowed to.
No, you don't need "society's permission", other than meeting the regulatory standards for that kind of business (particularly health regulations for the lemonade stand).
Prices are set however you want to set them.
You determine how much profit you make per item, by setting said price.
Yes, you get to pick who you sell to, beholden to similar anti-discrimination laws as we have everywhere in the Western world.
Yes, you get to pick your suppliers.
Yes, your suppliers also get to set their price, because you're free to shop around for a better price.

Market socialism, at this level of focus, looks a lot like modern Western mixed economies. The variance is at the top end, with how profits are distributed, and to whom they are distributed. I tend to favor employee-owned measures, which aren't that different; companies are owned by those who work them, proportionally to income (generally, you can establish more-generous rules if you like). Companies are not privately traded/owned on stock markets; investment into a company functions more as a direct loan than an ownership arrangement.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We probably need to all be operating on the same working definition to have the conversation. This is probably a reasonable starting point:

Having some amount of that is essentially a precondition for having a nation at all. The problem we immediately bump into is how much is acceptable, which is going to be a challenge to a broader set of morals than just policy. Most people can agree that there's a moral obligation to not deliberately harm others, but how much of an obligation there is to help is obviously open to debate.

To answer the straightforward "is [some] nationalism OK?" question, I think it's pretty clearly a yes. The only other positions that can exist are anarchy or a totalizing global government.

No it isn't pretty clearly yes, and where did you get that out of context definition, google?

Because no that is NOT what Nationalism is or about, and that theory doesn't hold up to the practice, than is say Communism ok?


Yeah well some communism is ok? I mean everybody clearly believes that everyone's basic needs should be provided for. So clearly the answer is Yes

[judgementofantonidas]

No.

It's taking credit for shit you didn't do in order to hate people you don't know.

But I did do that shit, in five different countries over the past 20 years, and got to know the people I hate thouroughly while in those shitty places.

[Kuntantee]

We probably need to all be operating on the same working definition to have the conversation. This is probably a reasonable starting point:

That's not a reasonable starting point. That definition is out of touch with reality. If you've ever met a nationalist in your life, you'd know it. Then again, USA or Canada (which ever you are from) are not nation states, so you wouldn't know. Second, the last part is possible root cause for potential the shitstorm. Many terrorist organizations think it's okay to blow people up, because they think they need to "self-govern". Spain, Turkey, England are some well-known examples.

These days, most people think nationalism is answer to perceived "poor immigration policies" of the West. I suggest those people to read a bit of history.

- - - Updated - - -

But I did do that shit, in five different countries over the past 20 years, and got to know the people I hate thouroughly while in those shitty places.

Which countries and what occupation?

[Ragedaug]

The answers to the first two are the same, and the third is irrelevant since "property" isn't part of the equation in the first place outside the most extreme variants (pure Marxist communism, largely).

Yes, you're allowed to.
No, you don't need "society's permission", other than meeting the regulatory standards for that kind of business (particularly health regulations for the lemonade stand).
Prices are set however you want to set them.
You determine how much profit you make per item, by setting said price.
Yes, you get to pick who you sell to, beholden to similar anti-discrimination laws as we have everywhere in the Western world.
Yes, you get to pick your suppliers.
Yes, your suppliers also get to set their price, because you're free to shop around for a better price.

Market socialism, at this level of focus, looks a lot like modern Western mixed economies. The variance is at the top end, with how profits are distributed, and to whom they are distributed.

That sounds exactly like capitalism. So at the risk of being reductive, are you saying, it's pretty much like capitalism, except instead of deciding what you do with your profits, Society takes your profits, letting you keep how much they feel like you deserve?

I tend to favor employee-owned measures, which aren't that different; companies are owned by those who work them, proportionally to income (generally, you can establish more-generous rules if you like). Companies are not privately traded/owned on stock markets; investment into a company functions more as a direct loan than an ownership arrangement

Most companies start out as exactly that. Even the big ones, once upon a time started out as a small company that was worked by the owner. Over time, as the company grew, the owner hired people to help him/her handle the business of the company.

Under your proposal, it sound like you would forbid anyone from hiring an employee. The only people who can work in your company are people who can buy ownership into it? That's sounds like a plan for disaster. And not like "down the road", but it sounds like you could watch that fail in real time.

Hiring day labor and short term contractors would be illegal. "I need 10 people to help me build a housing foundation. Who has enough money to buy out shares of my construction company so you can help me build the house?" Although I would suspect you are implying, if you want to hire someone you have to give them a percentage of your company. Considering how tough it is to run a small business, I suspect this would kill small business outside of family owned, no non-family employees business'. **There's a reason people can't find work in systems set up like you are proposing.

Also, in your system, there is no more start up or business expansion money. People will risk hundreds of thousands or millions to have an ownership stake, but those same people aren't going to take the risk of loaning millions for a simple interest return. It's too risky, which is why you need bigger potential returns, because many of those business' you loan money too won't be able to pay you back.

There are basic economic principles at play that your system completely overlooks. The whole point of investing is to provide other people enough money to get their business working. Your system would ensure all business stagnates.

[Endus]

That sounds exactly like capitalism. So at the risk of being reductive, are you saying, it's pretty much like capitalism, except instead of deciding what you do with your profits, Society takes your profits, letting you keep how much they feel like you deserve?

No. You aren't listening, and keep trying to insert your own incorrect assumptions.

It's not like capitalism at all. What you're doing is confusing a relatively free market system with capitalism, and they aren't the same thing at all.

And there was no part of "Society takes your profits" nonsense in what I wrote. You're making that up and inserting it, based on nothing.

What you seem to be struggling with is the realization that socialism isn't really that different or extreme. Because it isn't. These are concepts that bleed into each other and aren't antagonistic in the first place.

[Ragedaug]

No. You aren't listening, and keep trying to insert your own incorrect assumptions.

It's not like capitalism at all. What you're doing is confusing a relatively free market system with capitalism, and they aren't the same thing at all.

And there was no part of "Society takes your profits" nonsense in what I wrote. You're making that up and inserting it, based on nothing.

Please don't get upset (not implying you are, just be patient with me). I'll try to draw out how I came to the conclusion I did based on what you said, and try to explain why I'm not understanding your point.

First, the answers to all the questions I had are almost exactly what's already in place in the U.S., which I think most people argue or demonize as the most capitalistic country in the world. So that's how I reached the first conclusion. Further, you basically said that in your initial statement after the questions:

"Market socialism, at this level of focus, looks a lot like modern Western mixed economies."

As far as the society gets to decide what to do with your profits, I gathered that from your next words:

"The variance is at the top end, with how profits are distributed, and to whom they are distributed. "

I don't understand how this doesn't mean society (or The State) gets to decides how much of your profit you get to keep. If how profits are distributed and who gets them isn't determined by the business owner, society, or the State, who determine how the profits are handled? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I really don't understand that statement if it doesn't mean society or the state determines what happens with your profits.

- - - Updated - - -

We probably need to all be operating on the same working definition to have the conversation. This is probably a reasonable starting point:

I pointed that several pages ago as well. The OP started a thread with a vague term, then proceeded to give two contradictory illustrations of that term, almost like he was ensuring this entire thread would be a flame war of cross talk.

[Endus]

Please don't get upset (not implying you are, just be patient with me). I'll try to draw out how I came to the conclusion I did based on what you said, and try to explain why I'm not understanding your point.

First, the answers to all the questions I had are almost exactly what's already in place in the U.S., which I think most people argue or demonize as the most capitalistic country in the world. So that's how I reached the first conclusion. Further, you basically said that in your initial statement after the questions:

"Market socialism, at this level of focus, looks a lot like modern Western mixed economies."

As far as the society gets to decide what to do with your profits, I gathered that from your next words:

"The variance is at the top end, with how profits are distributed, and to whom they are distributed. "

I don't understand how this doesn't mean society (or The State) gets to decides how much of your profit you get to keep. If how profits are distributed and who gets them isn't determined by the business owner, society, or the State, who determine how the profits are handled? I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I really don't understand that statement if it doesn't mean society or the state determines what happens with your profits.

The problem with the claim that "Society gets to decide how much of your profit you get to keep" is twofold.

The first is that, no matter what economic system we're talking about, society gets to determine how profits are distributed. Happens in an anarcho-capitalist system just as much as it does in a Stalinist communist system. "Society" isn't the State, automatically, it's how the economic system is structured and implemented. So it's a pointless thing to complain about, when targeting socialist theory specifically, because it's equally relevant to any other economic system; you're basically arguing against economic systems, which is silly.

The second issue is that you're labelling it "your profits". That's not a defensible position; it presumes a capitalist system. In a market socialist system with employee ownership of companies, they [i]aren't[i] "your profits", and never were, not unless the "you" in question is "all the employees of the company" as a group. You cannot presume that one person owning the company and taking the profits is the default setting of society; that's capitalism, not some natural default. It's just as artificial a structure as socialist systems, or mercantilist systems, or any other economic systems.

In an anarcho-capitalist system, "society" is still deciding who gets the profits. That's what you keep glossing over.

[Deleted]

@Endus
I suggest explaining how it all works, rather than correcting mistakes.

The problem people are having is understanding how the large scale works. A cooperative is relatively easy to comprehend; scaling this to the entirety of a country isn't as straightforward.
And I'd focus on explaining the benefits of social ownership as opposed to exclusively working for wages.

Oh!, and to everybody else, consider that some thinkers, like Bordiga, consider that market socialism is not socialist.
Just like many people consider social democracy isn't socialist either.

[apeiron1234]

I think nationalism is okay because there is nothing wrong with being proud of your country.

At the end of the day we're all human beings and we should love each other.

[Deleted]

Having some amount of that is essentially a precondition for having a nation at all.
The only other positions that can exist are anarchy or a totalizing global government.

Some of those items yes. Not all of them.
In particular self-governance and sovereignty are not needed to have a nation. They're needed to have a nation state, or a sovereign nation. But there are many nations that survive more or less happily within other states.
The many other positions are nation-less states of whatever type of governance. Separation of nation and state. Just like we did with religion.

[Endus]

@Endus
I suggest explaining how it all works, rather than correcting mistakes.

The problem people are having is understanding how the large scale works. A cooperative is relatively easy to comprehend; scaling this to the entirety of a country isn't as straightforward.
And I'd focus on explaining the benefits of social ownership as opposed to exclusively working for wages.

It works the same way a capitalist system works. The only major difference between a market socialist system and a mixed economy is that there's no longer private ownership, which only really matters when it comes down to who's getting the profits. Rather than being distributed among owners (whether single ownership, partnership, or shareholders), it's distributed among employees. Not equally, necessarily (it COULD be, but that's up to the company), but most likely in proportional relation to their salary distribution, for simplicity's sake. You could see it as employees getting a number of shares relative to their salary, with public shares and trading simply not existing.

The benefits are that it directly combats wealth inequality by ensuring that all those who work for a profitable compare share in those profits, giving a direct personal motive to bettering your workplace. It ensures you cannot have the wealthy makes themselves more wealthy by essentially profiting off the backs of wage-slavery, the work of those who cannot share in the revenues of their labour.

While we'd need different regulatory practices to ensure this all functions as desired, it's not really more regulation than is needed for a capitalist system.

[Ragedaug]

It works the same way a capitalist system works. The only major difference between a market socialist system and a mixed economy is that there's no longer private ownership, which only really matters when it comes down to who's getting the profits. Rather than being distributed among owners (whether single ownership, partnership, or shareholders), it's distributed among employees. Not equally, necessarily (it COULD be, but that's up to the company), but most likely in proportional relation to their salary distribution, for simplicity's sake. You could see it as employees getting a number of shares relative to their salary, with public shares and trading simply not existing.

The benefits are that it directly combats wealth inequality by ensuring that all those who work for a profitable compare share in those profits, giving a direct personal motive to bettering your workplace. It ensures you cannot have the wealthy makes themselves more wealthy by essentially profiting off the backs of wage-slavery, the work of those who cannot share in the revenues of their labour.

While we'd need different regulatory practices to ensure this all functions as desired, it's not really more regulation than is needed for a capitalist system.

You still aren't really answering any of the questions of how it works, other than giving some general overtures.

Most companies start out as exactly as you are saying - the owner is the one doing all the work. Likely they are working 60-80 hours a week and barely getting by. Even most of the big companies, once upon a time started out as a small company that was worked by the owner. Over time, as the company grew, the owner hired people to help him/her handle the business of the company.

Under your proposal, it sound like you would forbid anyone from hiring an employee. The only people who can work in your company are people who can buy ownership into it? That's sounds like a plan for disaster. And not like "down the road", but it sounds like you could watch that fail in real time.

Hiring day labor and short term help would be illegal. "I need 10 people to help me build a foundation for a house. Who has enough money to buy out shares of my construction company so you can help me build the house?" Although I would suspect you are implying, if you bring in laborers to help you handle your business, you have to give them a percentage of your company. Considering how tough it is to run a small business, I suspect this would kill small business outside of family owned, no non-family employees business'. But the option of giving a stake of the company to anyone they bring in to help would limit any choices they have of expanding. **There's a reason people can't find work in systems set up like you are proposing.

What about the concept a company hiring another company? Like food, telephony, or janitorial services. Would you have to give all those other companies an ownership stake in your company? What if the profits for the employees of your company are higher than the profits of the employees of the company that your company is hiring? How does that work?

Also, in your system, there is no more start up or business expansion money. People will risk hundreds of thousands or millions to have an ownership stake, but those same people aren't going to take the risk of loaning millions for a simple interest return. It's too risky, which is why you need bigger potential returns, because many of those business' you loan money too won't be able to pay you back.

There are basic economic principles at play that your system completely overlooks. The whole point of investing is to provide other people enough money to get their business working. Your system would ensure all business stagnates.