by Libervida » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:35 pm
by Couasia » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:36 pm
by Kuzestan » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:41 pm
by Kumuri » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:49 pm
by The German Democratic Reich » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:52 pm
by Cyyro » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:54 pm
by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:54 pm
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria
by Unitaristic Regions » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:55 pm
by The Serbian Empire » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:56 pm
by Wisconsin9 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:56 pm
by Neo Rome Republic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:58 pm
by Arkolon » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:00 pm
Kumuri wrote:"In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation."
-V. I. Lenin
Basically, a huge capitalist empire would be a no, but a small nation trying to get out of the clutches of said empire would be a yes.
Obviously, this would be the Leninist perspective. As for other types of socialist ideologies, I'm not sure.
by Unitaristic Regions » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:01 pm
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Yup. There's such a thing as National Socialism, so they can coexist.
by Neo Rome Republic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:03 pm
by Dejanic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:15 pm
by Dayaar Mongol » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:17 pm
by Dejanic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:18 pm
The Serbian Empire wrote:See Stalinism in WWII and Nazi Germany (National Socialism).
by Dejanic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:19 pm
Dayaar Mongol wrote:Totally. I am both a State Socialist and a Mongolian Nationalist.
by Arkolon » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:20 pm
Dejanic wrote:Theoretically, but for Socialism to be ideal and democratic, it would probably have to be spread out across an entire continent at the bare minimum, or world wide, as a lone Socialist nation would be easily isolated and shut down, and would probably easily devolve into Authoritarianism and State Capitalism.
Arguably, one could say that if Socialism was achieved Democratically, instead of through revolutionary means, that perhaps it could exist in one nation, but I find that to be an unlikely and impossible goal. But could Socialism work on a much larger scale, internationally? Possibly.
So no, I don't think Socialism and Nationalism can reasonably co-exist, a Socialist Europe would probably more workable than say a Socialist Greece, or Ireland (that's not to say either are workable).
by Dejanic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:23 pm
Arkolon wrote:Dejanic wrote:Theoretically, but for Socialism to be ideal and democratic, it would probably have to be spread out across an entire continent at the bare minimum, or world wide, as a lone Socialist nation would be easily isolated and shut down, and would probably easily devolve into Authoritarianism and State Capitalism.
Arguably, one could say that if Socialism was achieved Democratically, instead of through revolutionary means, that perhaps it could exist in one nation, but I find that to be an unlikely and impossible goal. But could Socialism work on a much larger scale, internationally? Possibly.
So no, I don't think Socialism and Nationalism can reasonably co-exist, a Socialist Europe would probably more workable than say a Socialist Greece, or Ireland (that's not to say either are workable).
If socialism was such a good idea, and the united workers of the world universally shared the feeling of treachery and slavery on their employer's behalf, why don't workers in capitalistic enterprises set up their own cooperatives through just and voluntary means? Where is the impedence? Why isn't it popular?
by Arkolon » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:26 pm
Dejanic wrote:Arkolon wrote:If socialism was such a good idea, and the united workers of the world universally shared the feeling of treachery and slavery on their employer's behalf, why don't workers in capitalistic enterprises set up their own cooperatives through just and voluntary means? Where is the impedence? Why isn't it popular?
I don't know, go ask a Socialist.
This is a pretty weak question though, it's like asking why Ron Paul didn't win the US election even though so many people love his ideas, or why a third party can never gain any popular support even though many people despise the two main parties, it's because people don't think there independent ideas or actions matter in the grand scheme of things, they'd rather play it safe and stick to the status quo.
by The United Communist Solar Republic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:35 pm
by Dejanic » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:37 pm
Arkolon wrote:Dejanic wrote:I don't know, go ask a Socialist.
This is a pretty weak question though, it's like asking why Ron Paul didn't win the US election even though so many people love his ideas, or why a third party can never gain any popular support even though many people despise the two main parties, it's because people don't think there independent ideas or actions matter in the grand scheme of things, they'd rather play it safe and stick to the status quo.
Ron Paul lost because he didn't have sufficient support. I did say that all workers universally shared these beliefs in my example, which would be a whole lot more than 50%+1 anyway, so the comparison is totally unrelated.
I was just making allusion to voluntary socialism as opposed to socialism arising from a statist reallocation of resources through a violent upheaval of the administration, implementing collectivisation coercively in the latter but not the former case.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Deblar, Hiybkk, Hurdergaryp, Hwiteard, Ifreann, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Niolia, Ors Might, Perchan, Philjia, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Seukard, Shrillland, Stellar Colonies, Tesseris, The Lone Alliance, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, WandersFar, Western Utah
Advertisement