Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

[Rob Halfordia]

Socialism never benefits anyone. It has never worked.

Incoming horde of sourced arguments from ancoms and ansocs in three, two...

Time to listen to idealistic fools argue with immoral, money grubbers.

[Arkolon]

Incoming horde of sourced arguments from ancoms and ansocs in three, two...

Time to listen to idealistic fools argue with immoral, money grubbers.

Ansocs arguing with who now?

[Communal Ecotopia]

I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

While your friend has the technical philosophy correct (and then only for certain Marxists who adhere to Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism ), you have the history and reality on your side. In many ways I would call those states that you describe corporatist too, but if we take their own label, of course Marxism and Nationalism can coexist. Not to mention the many socialists who voted as "social chauvinists" for WW1. So, though it pains me as a leftist, you're in the right.

[Arglorand]

I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

Nationalism and socialism can`t coexist. Nationalism favors people who are from there country like Poland-Polish, France-French, China-Chinese. Socialism will benefit everyone by public programs and efforts to close the gap between the rich and poor.

You have an entirely incorrect understanding of both nationalism and socialism, I'm sorry to say.

Socialism is the workers' ownership of the means of production. What you described is social democracy.

Nationalism is merely the belief that a certain people constitute a nation, and an attempt to apply that belief in political practice. Favouring a certain nation or people above others is the definition of chauvinism, not (just) nationalism. If that people is a specific ethnicity, like you mentioned, then it's also ethnic nationalism.

That said, socialism and nationalism are easily compatible. Believing in the social ownership of the means of production does not negate believing in the objectiveness of a nation.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Yes. Socialism describes a economic mode, Nationalism is a political agenda.

[Threlizdun]

Sure, they commonly are combined in anti-colonial movements. Now that isn't to say combining them cannot prove to be counter-intuitive at many times.

[Gigaverse]

Sure.

That doesn't mean they should.

[Provence-Corsica]

See Stalinism in WWII and Nazi Germany (National Socialism).

Ignoring the early rhetoric of the NAZI'S, it's clear that the market based pro business and pro corporate Nazi German economy was not Socialist.

It almost was. German corporations were for all intents and purposes acting as extensions of the Government, and if they didn't agree to that, they were confiscated from the owners and became formal extensions of the Government.

[Threlizdun]

Ignoring the early rhetoric of the NAZI'S, it's clear that the market based pro business and pro corporate Nazi German economy was not Socialist.

It almost was. German corporations were for all intents and purposes acting as extensions of the Government, and if they didn't agree to that, they were confiscated from the owners and became formal extensions of the Government.

Which is a common function of war economies. The Nazis employed extensive state intervention in the economy; they did not abolish private property and make the means of production socially owned and democratically administrated. The National Socialist German Worker's Party explained that the term "socialist" in their party named referred to a political and economic structure dedicated towards the promotion of societal needs rather than accumulation of capital for those in power. It was an attempt at reappropriating the term to earn the votes of the working class and disenchanted Social Democrats and Communists. They maintained fierce opposition to both socialism and other associated movements such as trade unionism throughout the entirety of their rule.

[Liberaxia]

Ignoring the early rhetoric of the NAZI'S, it's clear that the market based pro business and pro corporate Nazi German economy was not Socialist.

It almost was. German corporations were for all intents and purposes acting as extensions of the Government, and if they didn't agree to that, they were confiscated from the owners and became formal extensions of the Government.

Confiscation is socialist?

[Andarro]

I was having an argument with a friend who is a leftist. She argues that socialism and nationalism cannot exist together. However I feel that they can. She is going from a marxist perspective and definition of socialism which is explicitly against the bourguoise idea of nationalism, however I would simply define socialism in more pragmatic real terms: state ownership of production. (I realise the term is rather void of meaning over the last century) Our crux of difference was that she defined national socialism for example as corporatism rather than socialsm.)

I argued that ideologies using both have existed: IRA, Ba'thism, Mugabe, Ideologies of national liberation, some leftist palestinian organisations, pan-arabism etc. (It could be argued that one should not accept the self definition of such ideologies, but rather take a pragmatic analysis)

What say ye? Can nationalism and socialism exist side by side.

(pardon my English, it is not my first language.)

There is at least one example in history of socialism and nationalism coexisting.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) Germany circa 1920. Also known as Nazism.

[Arkolon]

It almost was. German corporations were for all intents and purposes acting as extensions of the Government, and if they didn't agree to that, they were confiscated from the owners and became formal extensions of the Government.

Confiscation is socialist?

State confiscation of private property is pretty socialist if you ask me.

[Wind in the Willows]

Yes.

[The Scientific States]

Yes, but it's a awful combination.

[Duvniask]

Confiscation is socialist?

State confiscation of private property is pretty socialist if you ask me.

Not by itself. Economic socialization is a deeper process of transforming the social relations of production instead of simply changing ownership.

[Liberaxia]

Confiscation is socialist?

State confiscation of private property is pretty socialist if you ask me.

Nah.

[Arkolon]

State confiscation of private property is pretty socialist if you ask me.

Not by itself. Economic socialization is a deeper process of transforming the social relations of production instead of simply changing ownership.

I was referring to socialism in the Marxian sense, ie the transition stage from capitalism to communism-- dictatorship of the proletariat, state socialism, and whatnot.

[Arkolon]

State confiscation of private property is pretty socialist if you ask me.

Nah.

Yeah.

[Augarundus]

Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

Not if America has anything to say about it.

[Zeouria]

Socialism attempts to unify the workers of different countries. Socialists attempt to break down feelings of Nationalism and replace them with feelings of pride for one's class.

[Arglorand]

Socialism attempts to unify the workers of different countries. Socialists attempt to break down feelings of Nationalism and replace them with feelings of pride for one's class.

Pride for one's class is not inherently a socialist idea.

I doubt if pride in general is a socialist idea.

[Duvniask]

Not by itself. Economic socialization is a deeper process of transforming the social relations of production instead of simply changing ownership.

I was referring to socialism in the Marxian sense, ie the transition stage from capitalism to communism-- dictatorship of the proletariat, state socialism, and whatnot.

Which is removed from the context of the prior posts. They were about Nazi Germany, not Marxism. The fact remains, nationalization by itself is just state capitalism.

Furthermore, Marxism is inherently hostile to the state, as the state is an instrument of class dictatorship. It's in no one's interest to give the state any more power than necessary under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The main functions of such state would be to defend against counterrevolution and foreign invasion, while the economy itself is organized around socialist participatory democracy. Although private property is abolished, it will not end up in the hands of the state.

[The Sotoan Union]

That was Castro's philosophy.

[The New Sea Territory]

Confiscation is socialist?

State confiscation of private property is pretty socialist if you ask me.

It could actually be a number of economic systems, such as mercantilism or corporatism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Socialism attempts to unify the workers of different countries. Socialists attempt to break down feelings of Nationalism and replace them with feelings of pride for one's class.

You shouldn't have fucking pride in anything like that. Have pride in who you actually are: an individual. Rather than arbitrary lines on maps or classes or age-old territorial disputes that are the major topic of drunken bar patrons or being dirt poor and living in a shack.