[Einherjar]

Close.

That website (folkandfaith.com) is by Christian Anarchists/ Communitarians.

Edit:

Most of the time it's better to sacrifice your traditionalism and permit trade, than to starve your own population (i.e. North Korea)

Why do you attribute famine to nationalism? Most third-world nations suffer famine and yet it seems only North Korea is pointed out because of her national-socialism.

[Oblisk]

I see no problem with being an anti-communist while being a pro-socialist.

[kami321]

Most third-world nations suffer famine and yet it seems only North Korea is pointed out because of her national-socialism.

Eh, North Korea is singled out because it shouldn't be suffering as much as it does. Unlike africans who have been backward and are still catching up, North Korea is not used to be so backward. In fact when it gained independence I think it was actually more industrial and advanced than the south. Look what condition it is in now. Isolation is the main problem here. Sure, North Korea is independent and is able to preserve its traditions (i guess), but it is paying a too high cost for that.

[Ixa]

See, you can't even maintain a firm stance on your own ideology.

I despise people who take firm ideological stances. World-views ought to undergo constant revision as scientific understanding and knowledge grow. A lack of mental plasticity is indicative of weak-mindedness.

Economically. On social issues (i.e. Jews and "racial purity") they were racist far-right.

Racism is not a left-wing / right-wing thing. Before WWII, the vast majority of leftists were what you would call 'racists' and 'anti-Semitic'. The Strasser brothers were normal German Socialists in that regard.

[kami321]

The goal of international Capitalism is an "open society", organised entirely in terms of economic function wherein collective distinctions -- nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture -- are abolished.

I'm not sure if this is a stated goal of capitalism, but I do know for sure that it is the goal of socialism (regular). And trade is not imperialistic unless you make it so. There was free and assisted trade between Comencon countries - did anyone's culture suffer as a result? Would it have been better if they instead were uber protectionist and isolationist like DPRK has become recently? Most certainly not.
Socialism in internationalism. Don't deny this. Nationalism and isolationism is never in anyone's interest.

I am a reactionary socialist, not a leftist.

Why don't you change the name of your ideology to end the confusion then?
I look in Wikipedia articles on Socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
And I can't see such section there as "reactionary socialism".
Please call yourself something else, if you are not a leftist you cannot be a socialist.

Socialism as a successor of Protestantism

Wtf does protestantism has to do with it? Did you read to many stories by our fellow Europa? If anything, protestantism is associated more with capitalism than anything.

anti-capitalist Feudalism

uh-oh

World-views ought to undergo constant revision

Evolution - yes, revision - no. If you can't maintain a firm stance on something, don't call yourself that.

the primary interest of the nationalist state is national self-rule

So everyone who has self rule is automatically a nationalist? Or by self-rule you again mean fanatic isolationism like of DPRK? You better come up with a firm definition of nationalism.

Before WWII, the vast majority of leftists were what you would call 'racists' and 'anti-Semitic'.

Wrong. Unsupported. Unproved.

[Ixa]

I'm not sure if this is a stated goal of capitalism,

The goal of capitalism is profit. Internationalism and multiculturalism are a source of profit under capitalism. The economic power structure which exists under this social system rests upon Corporations, bodies which transcend nations by moving Capital to many different parts of the Globe. Corporations are nationless. Their loyalty is not national. National loyalty is often at odds with maximising profit.

but I do know for sure that it is the goal of socialism (regular).

In practice, no. Most of the nations which have achieved socialism have been nationalistic. International socialism has been largely a failure.

So everyone who has self rule is automatically a nationalist?

The desire for national self-rule is a necessary component of nationalism.

Socialism in internationalism.

Practically speaking, no.

Nationalism and isolationism is never in anyone's interest.

False. From the standpoint of optimisation, it is doubtful whether evolutionarily stable nationalist/tribalist world-views would survive very long if they consistently led to reductions in the inclusive fitness of those believing them. Genetic similarity theory tells us that nationalism is an epigenetically guided evolutionary strategy whereby genes replicate copies of themselves more effectively. It is a genetically influenced cultural choice that individuals make, which, in turn, beneficially influence the replication of their genes.

Why don't you change the name of your ideology to end the confusion then?

You seem to be abysmally ignorant of the history of Socialism. Karl Marx himself discusses at length four different varieties of reactionary socialism in his Communist Manifesto. How would you classify such socialists as Rodbertus, Hughes, and Durhing, and Spengler? They are rightly classified as right-wing socialists; Marx himself would agree with me on this.

if you are not a leftist you cannot be a socialist.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Wtf does protestantism has to do with it? Did you read to many stories by our fellow Europa? If anything, protestantism is associated more with capitalism than anything.

I am talking about a broad historical tendency. In basic terms, the Protestant Reformation sprung from two sources, the people and the princes. The people wanted to turn Christianity into a power of righteousness, particularly against the rich and powerful, and the Princes simply wanted to replace the Pope with the Prince as the head of the Religion. The Leftist variety of socialism has part of its origins in this movement.

And yes, socialism does have a lot of similarities with capitalism in its historical origins.

If you can't maintain a firm stance on something, don't call yourself that.

The normative basis of my beliefs has remained stable.

You better come up with a firm definition of nationalism.

I already have.

Wrong. Unsupported. Unproved.

Only the Bolsheviks were not racist amongst pre-WWII socialists. Karl Marx, Engels, H.G. Wells, Shaw, Hughes, Durhing, Beatrice Webb, Hyndman, Blatchford, and most other prominent pre-WWII socialists were racist and/or anti-Semitic.

[Kon]

And I can't see such section there as "reactionary socialism".
Please call yourself something else, if you are not a leftist you cannot be a socialist.

Incorrect, socialism is an economic theory calling for the redistrubution of property via various means, there can be (and there is) such a thing a right wing socialism, it'spretty much the opposite of libertarianism, conservative social values and socialistic economic ones.

As for socialism and nationalism mixing, socialism has a had a long and fruitful history with "national liberation" movements, but I don't believe it could be nearly as effective with "nationalistic" movements representing the majority in a soveriegn country.

[kami321]

The goal of capitalism is profit.

Sure, trade favors profit for any entity - capitalist corporation or socialist country, no difference. No trade favors no one.

national self-rule is a necessary component of nationalism.

Sure, but not the only.

It is a genetically influenced cultural choice that individuals make, which, in turn, beneficially influence the replication of their genes.

Nationalism creates cultural variety. Is variety your ultimate interest? How about your well-being and the well-bing of your neighbors? I already told you how these notions contradict.

In practice, no. Most of the nations which have achieved socialism have been nationalistic.

But in theory, yes. So do you then support Soviet Union and its allies since you describe them as nationalistic socialists? By the way they were probably the least nationalistic of the socialists. The notion of nationality was being consistently erased in USSR and didn't really re-emerge until 1980s.

rightly classified as right-wing socialists

By whom?
Can you give me a quote by Karl Marx in which he classified someone as "right-wing socialist"?

The Leftist variety of socialism has part of its origins in this movement.

Verry loosely connected though. In this way you could tell that every reformation/rebellion against the rich is a leftist movement. But it isn't. A reformation that displaces a religion with another religion is hardly leftist.

I already have.

State it. I need a firm definition of your version of nationalism. Don't give me just the self-determination bulshit which every country already has.

Karl Marx, Engels, H.G. Wells, Shaw, Hughes, Durhing, Beatrice Webb, Hyndman, Blatchford, and most other prominent pre-WWII socialists were racist and/or anti-Semitic.

Still wrong. Still unsupported. Still unproved.
You need to show that the majority of socialists were racist, but you won't be able to do it, as you have no such data.

it'spretty much the opposite of libertarianism,

WHAT? You must be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertariansim is generally a right-wing and nationalist ideology.

[Ixa]

Sure, trade favors profit for any entity

And that is why capitalism has nothing to do with nationalism. The capitalist's loyalty is extra-national and therefore in conflict with national interests. The socialist, on the other hand, fights for a nation, establishes socialism in a nation, and he gains most of his support by appealing to national interests and patriotic sentiments. His loyalty is national, whilst the capitalist's loyalty is in effect trans-national. It is the capitalist, not the socialist, who is an internationalist.

Sure, but not the only.

The other components of socialism have already been enumerated, and instead of repeating myself I ask you to turn back to page one of the present thread. The crucial point here, however, is that expansionism is not as you claimed a necessary component of nationalism - nationalism may exist with or without expansionism; non-nationalist states can be and often are at least equally as expansive and imperialistic as nationalist states are capable of being.

Nationalism creates cultural variety.

Nationalism is desirable not only because it is culturally beneficial but it positively influences the replication of selfish genes; it offers an alternative to the genetic deterrioration effected by multiculturalism. Nationalism is the most logical and viable intermediary between cultureless/dysgenic globalisation, and hedonistic individualism.

How about your well-being and the well-bing of your neighbors?

Yes - that is why I support nationalism. Mixing different nationalities together creates unnecessary conflict resulting in ethnic cleansing, genocide, genetic deterioration, and misery. The nation's well-being is completely and wholly dependent on the extent of its nationalism and the hereditary amelioration of the population.

I already told you how these notions contradict.

Yes, you have done a lot of 'telling', but little arguing.

But in theory, yes.

In practice, no; theory without a practical foundation is politically meaningless. Besides, it is, as I said, only amongst post-WWII Western socialists and Bolsheviks, for the most part, that this is so, even "in theory". Such socialists do not by any means comprehend the entire scope of 'socialism'.

Can you give me a quote by Karl Marx in which he classified someone as "right-wing socialist"?

'Reactionary socialist' was the term he employed, and the quotations can be found in his Communist Manifesto under the same name.

I need a firm definition of your version of nationalism.

See above.

Still wrong.

If it is wrong, you ought to be able to give contrary information.

You need to show that the majority of socialists were racist,

It might reasonably be inferred that the majority of European socialists at that time were what you would call 'racist' by considering the prevailing contemporary beliefs on racial issues, and examining contemporary socialist publications and the pronouncements of leading socialists touching on race relations at the time. My contention is that racism was not then a left-wing / right-wing thing. Do you have any 'data' that racism was prevalent amongst conservatives during the 1890? With the absence of survey data, I suppose your answer might be 'no'; but, on the other hand, we may consider the beliefs promulgated in conservative publications and the pronouncements of leading conservatives on race issues, and I think we shall find the answer to be in the positive. The same method may be applied to pre-WWII socialists, with the same result.

[Kon]

WHAT? You must be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertariansim is generally a right-wing and nationalist ideology.

WHAT! you don't understand what I meant at all.

Libertarianism= Free market economics

Right Wing Socialism= Socialist (command) economics

Libertarianism= Liberal social stances

Right Wing Socialism= Conservative social stances.

[Andres]

National interests = socialist interests.

If every national interest is a socialist interest, and if every socialist interest is a national interest, then there is no need to have two words to describe the same object. Yet, you partly 'defined' nationalism as

The enemy of the "open society" is always the closed system, national autonomy, denial of economic access to penetration and exploitation - in a word, Nationalism.

A closed system, a nationalistic system according to you, can exist without being socialist, and you even gave the example of Nazi Germany which while nationalistic, was certainly not socialist.

Nationalistic interests are not all socialist interests, and socialist interests are not all nationalistic interests, even though some might be both. Being that they are clearly not equal, I dont see a reason why they cannot stand in oposition with respect to an issue.

[Ixa]

Nationalism is a genetically influenced disposition whereby genes replicate themselves more effectively. Socialism is an ideology the proponents of which seeks to increase social cohesiveness. Socialism is perhaps a good example of an ideology which increases genetic fitness by improving the social well-being of a people, thereby allowing them to replicate their genes more effectively. That is how national interests = social(ist) interests.

[Potemkin]

I look in Wikipedia articles on Socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
And I can't see such section there as "reactionary socialism".

It's defined in the The Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto also says:

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

[Potemkin]

the capitalist's loyalty is in effect trans-national. It is the capitalist, not the socialist, who is an internationalist.

Marx believed that the internationalism of capitalism would inevitably lead to the internationalism of the proletariat, which he regarded as an entirely good thing. Marx saw internationalism as an achievement of the bourgeoisie, an achievement which the proletariat will inherit when they seize power. Socialism is internationalist because capitalism is internationalist.

[Ixa]

Marx believed that the internationalism of capitalism would inevitably lead to the internationalism of the proletariat,

I am aware of that. Marx's mistake was to assume that man is simply an economic unit; that identity of economic function (i.e., being a worker) is a sufficient condition for international unity. But there are clearly non-economic factors which divide the international working class - language, ethnicity, culture, geography, etc., etc. - many of which have a genetic basis. Kinship, in particular, is capable of overriding class identity. I, as a worker, will always identify more with a Canadian petty-bourgeois than with a worker from Somalia. The fact that we both happen to be workers - that we both have one trait in common - is simply insufficient: man is more than an economic unit. Marx often failed to take this into accoutn.

Socialism is internationalist because capitalism is internationalist.

It seems the latest discoveries in evolutionary biology and behavioural genetics just haven't got through to Marxists.

[Andres]

That is how national interests = social(ist) interests.

I am not claiming that nationalism and socialism cannot have common interests, but that there have been nationalistic governments that were not socialist should prove that they do not share a complete set of interests. Even if, as you claim, the goal of both ideollogies is to replicate genes more effectively, this does not necesarily mean that both ideollogies share the same idea of what would be the most effective way of accomplishing tha goal, and hence that all national interests are social interests and viceversa.

[kami321]

And that is why capitalism has nothing to do with nationalism.

At least in the developed nations capitalism and nationalism don't have conflicting interests with each other. A nationalist wants to conquer more territory, a capitalist wants to conquer more markets, the two can easily cooperate.
In the third world nations though nationalism tends to be in opposition to capitalism.

On the other hand, the ideas of socialism always and in all nations are in conflict with (classical) natinalsm for the reason I already said - war, isolation, discrimination, protectionsim, mercantilism, hatred, etc - is against the interests of the workers.

The socialist, on the other hand, fights for a nation

Who are you trying to fool? By substituting word socialism for word nationalism you aren't proving anything. The whole point that you made in the paragraph is null because of this.

The other components of socialism have already been enumerated

Nationalism, not socialism. Stop substituting words. I asked you about what nationalism is according to you, not socialism.
The words that you used to describe nationlism would more likely be a description of protectionism/isolationism rather than nationalism. And they are still not a description - they are just a list of words. Can you give about a sentence long description of nationalism?

non-nationalist states can be and often are at least equally as expansive and imperialistic as nationalist states are capable of being.

I agree with you here. A state is capable of being expansive due to the market demands of its capitalists. But nationalism fuels expansion too, and certaily does nothing to stop it. Can you imagine American nationalists protesting war in Iraq? Or Russian nationalists protesting war in Chechnya? No, (classical) naitonalists always cheer expansion of national interests.

Nationalism is the most logical

No, it is only logical to you and people like you.

Besides, the importance of difference between races has long ago become obsolete. No nation progressed better than another because of its racial superiority or genetical advantage. We aren't living in the age where genes decide whether we live or die - education decides much more.

Mixing different nationalities together creates unnecessary conflict resulting in ethnic cleansing, genocide, genetic deterioration, and misery.

You've got it totally wrong way around and you have no proof of what you said. Internationalism stands for international peace and mutual respect between all nations. Nationalism doesn't (Georgia? Fuck georgia. Poland? fuck poland etc etc). Please do tell me, how much national/racial conflict was there between the members of the soviet union during its finest years? None at all. People literally didn't even care what nation they belonged too. How much conflict was created when nationalism was reborn? I don't think I have to remind you. And with such historical examples you then dare to say that nationalism promotes peace while internationalism disturbs it? You are crazy.

Yes, you have done a lot of 'telling', but little arguing.

If you have trouble understanding something it's your problem, not mine.

If it is wrong, you ought to be able to give contrary information.

No, I don't. According to pure logic, the person who makes the claim has to present the evidence, not the other way around.
In the very pre-WW1 period (early 1900s) it is likely that a lot of socialists became nationalistic (but not racist), hence the collapse of second international.

Konulu

Right Wing Socialism= Socialist (command) economics

You are too simplistic about this. Would you call every nation which excercizes power over economy "socialist"? Command economy /= socialism.

Potemkin

It's defined in the The Communist Manifesto.

Damn he gave a shitload of definitions of socialism. I would prefere much more to have one definition of true socialism and the rest be named something else. Even the term itself - "reactionary socialsm" seems to me contradictory.

[sophia]

American nationalists protesting war in Iraq?

Its perfectly possible to be a isolationaist and a nationalist and therfore oppose all non defensive conflicts. I know some american nationalists who protested the war on iraq.

Please do tell me, how much national/racial conflict was there between the members of the soviet union during its finest years? None at all. People literally didn't even care what nation they belonged too.

ROFL!

[Kon]

You are too simplistic about this. Would you call every nation which excercizes power over economy "socialist"? Command economy /= socialism.

I would call any nation which practise the redistribution of wealth socialistic.

[kami321]

Its perfectly possible to be a isolationaist and a nationalist and therfore oppose all non defensive conflicts. I know some american nationalists who protested the war on iraq.

They are probably a small minority though, aren't they?

I mean it's reare that a person who believes in superiority of his nation doesn't want to spread this superiority around.