Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

[The New Sea Territory]

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.

Nationalization could be a number of systems. State Capitalism, state socialism, National Socialism, corporatism, national syndicalism, mercantilism, etc.

I also like how people try to say "state capitalist=USSR, Nazi Germany and everyone else". State Capitalism is a statist system of capitalism. Therefore, the USSR and Nazi Germany are NOT state capitalist. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you get to put them over with the capitalists.

[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.

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.

No actual socialist actually has pride in his class.

There's a difference between class identity and class pride, the latter of which seems like a basis for classism if nothing else. Hell, if we go by the logic that it's a goal of socialism to convert national pride to class pride, the rich are basically encouraged to be proud of their riches and look down on everyone else.

It's ridiculous. Class nationalism is thankfully not an ideology yet.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Of course. They're only mutually exclusive in the strict Marxist sense, but Marx doesn't have a monopoly on leftist thinking.

[Olivaero]

People can call themselves socialists and natuionalists, however I think only civic nationalism and Socialism can coexist in a non-contradictory way. Pride in your country is fine but exclusionary pride seems contradictory to the goal of socialism. Helping the working class as long as they are your working class is in effect making your working class part of the global middle class. Whilst saying a big fuck you to the working class of countries still mired in capitalism whilst also creating a sense of "other" ing to the working classes of other countries.

Lets take a look at Scottish nationalism, it's arguably left wing in nature whilst not quite democratic socialist. If it's successful in it's end goal it's essentially going to make it harder for the left wing in the rest of the UK to accomplish it's goal namely, a left wing party in power. The Sinn Fien also do the same thing from within the Union by not sitting in their seats they are denying support to the greater British left wing. Nationalism separates people with the goal of helping ones own people but socialism is meant to be about helping all of the working class achieve a better lifestyle and democratic control over the means of production, so you can see why there might be some contradictions.

[Duvniask]

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.

Nationalization could be a number of systems. State Capitalism, state socialism, National Socialism, corporatism, national syndicalism, mercantilism, etc.

I also like how people try to say "state capitalist=USSR, Nazi Germany and everyone else". State Capitalism is a statist system of capitalism.

Which would seem to describe the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Therefore, the USSR and Nazi Germany are NOT state capitalist.

Well they "aren't", because they don't exist any more.

The USSR was built upon state ownership of the means of production, with the economy run as a single vast firm and the state acting as the universal capitalist. Despite the initial organizations of worker's soviets and factory committees, the state did not attempt any deeper restructuring towards economic socialization, meaning worker's control, which is the sine qua non of socialism. The final nail in the coffin came when the state decided to abolish the revolutionary collectivized workplaces, and re-instate capitalist modes of management. We need to go no further than Lenin to understand Soviet state capitalism, when he argues crap like "socialism is nothing but the state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people".

As for Nazi Germany: It still retained private ownership, which in turn was centred around the idea of class collaboration. The position of capitalism within German society was never threatened, it was only fused with the state through corporatism.

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you get to put them over with the capitalists.

Do me a favour and bugger off from such bullshit accusations. I'm not putting them over there because "I don't like them", I'm doing it because it's the factually correct thing to do.

[Greater Beggnig]

> Soviet Union in 1942

yes, they can coexist

Germany in 1933

[Arglorand]

> Soviet Union in 1942

yes, they can coexist

Germany in 1933

Oh, ffs.

Look up what the Nazis actually meant when they called themselves National Socialists, please. Here's a spoiler: it has nothing to do with actual socialism and they were dead against it.

[Greater Beggnig]

Germany in 1933

Oh, ffs.

Look up what the Nazis actually meant when they called themselves National Socialists, please. Here's a spoiler: it has nothing to do with actual socialism and they were dead against it.

I know, I know, they called themselves Socialists primarily to gain the support of the industrial workers of Germany.

[Cymbru]

You can have an economy that is nationalised (only one possible element of the many variations of socialism) by the government, that espouses nationalist rhertoic. But you cannot have whole socialism and nationalism together. They are antithetical; socialism posits all human being are equal and should be treated as such, nationalism on the other hand claims we're different based on schewed socially constructed identities that have formed within the last 800 years and been shoveled down our throat heavily, in the name of empire and commerce, within the last 200.

Nationalism is the gateway to fascism; socialism's prime enemy.

[Iuronia]

Yes, it's called national socialism.

[Margno]

No. In capitalism the people are slaves to the economic elite through the institution of the corporations, and in nationalism the people are slaves to the political elite through the institution of the state. In nationalism, the means of production cannot be said to be owned by the people, because the state is not owned by the people, but the people by the state.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

Uh, yeah. One can argue that they work well in tandem, support for your nation of people and support for the state that runs it.

[Arglorand]

No. In capitalism the people are slaves to the economic elite through the institution of the corporations, and in nationalism the people are slaves to the political elite through the institution of the state. In nationalism, the means of production cannot be said to be owned by the people, because the state is not owned by the people, but the people by the state.

Not all nationalism is fascism.

[Murkwood]

Baathism, the Nazis, the USSR in the 40s, Yugoslavia under Tito...

[Arglorand]

Baathism, the Nazis, the USSR in the 40s, Yugoslavia under Tito...

Will you people PLEASE stop saying the Nazis are Socialist.

All the other things you listed I can let go. They at least claimed to be socialist. The Nazis, no.

[Estado Paulista]

Sure, and that often happened in human history.

[Murkwood]

Baathism, the Nazis, the USSR in the 40s, Yugoslavia under Tito...

Will you people PLEASE stop saying the Nazis are Socialist.

All the other things you listed I can let go. They at least claimed to be socialist. The Nazis, no.

I'm pretty sure calling your party the National Socialists constitutes claiming yourself to be one.

[Alcase]

You mean like National Socialism?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Will you people PLEASE stop saying the Nazis are Socialist.

All the other things you listed I can let go. They at least claimed to be socialist. The Nazis, no.

I'm pretty sure calling your party the National Socialists constitutes claiming yourself to be one.

Just like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea(North Korea) constitutes being a Democratic Republic?
No, Nazism has already been classified as a Ethnocentric form of Fascism, NOT a branch of Socialism.

[Estado Paulista]

I'm pretty sure calling your party the National Socialists constitutes claiming yourself to be one.

Just like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea(North Korea) constitutes being a Democratic Republic?
No, Nazism has already classified as a Ethnocentric form of Fascism, NOT a branch of Socialism.

Fascism — like all other forms of extreme nationalism — are by definition, ethnocentric.

[Murkwood]

I'm pretty sure calling your party the National Socialists constitutes claiming yourself to be one.

Just like the Democratic Republic of Korea(North Korea) constitutes being a Democratic Republic?
No, Nazism has already classified as a Ethnocentric form of Fascism, NOT a branch of Socialism.

I didn't say they were Socialists (they are, but that's not the debate). Calling yourself the Democratic Republic of Korea continuities that you are claimingto be democratic, which was Argoland's standards.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Just like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea(North Korea) constitutes being a Democratic Republic?
No, Nazism has already classified as a Ethnocentric form of Fascism, NOT a branch of Socialism.

Fascism — like all other forms of extreme nationalism — are by definition, ethnocentric.

False. Nationalism can simply be focused on Nation, not race. A person can be an extremely fanatic Civic Nationalist, rather than an Ethnic Nationalist.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Just like the Democratic Republic of Korea(North Korea) constitutes being a Democratic Republic?
No, Nazism has already classified as a Ethnocentric form of Fascism, NOT a branch of Socialism.

I didn't say they were Socialists (they are, but that's not the debate). Calling yourself the Democratic Republic of Korea continuities that you are claimingto be democratic, which was Argoland's standards.

Fine, Ill concede I missed that point.

[Murkwood]

I didn't say they were Socialists (they are, but that's not the debate). Calling yourself the Democratic Republic of Korea continuities that you are claimingto be democratic, which was Argoland's standards.

Fine, Ill concede I missed that point.

Well, I'm glad.

[The Abbadids]

If you mean the concept that we are better than others because ... , no.

If you mean patriotism, yes: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Soviet_patriotism