Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

[Estado Paulista]

Nationalism can simply be focused on Nation, not race.

Considering that ethnocentrism can be defined as the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture, the fact that certain branches of fascism — which is, to some extent, a manifestation of extreme nationalism — don't focus on race, but on the wider nation (i.e. the culture, among plenty of other thigns) doesn't mean they're not ethnocentric.

A person can be an extremely fanatic Civic Nationalist, rather than an Ethnic Nationalist.

Civic nationalists are by definition, non-extremists. Fascism isn't the thread's topic, however.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Nationalism can simply be focused on Nation, not race.

Considering that ethnocentrism can be defined as the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture, the fact that certain branches of fascism — which is, to some extent, a manifestation of extreme nationalism — don't focus on race, but on the wider nation (i.e. the culture, among plenty of other thigns) doesn't mean they're not ethnocentric.

A person can be an extremely fanatic Civic Nationalist, rather than an Ethnic Nationalist.

Civic nationalists are by definition, non-extremists. Fascism isn't the thread's topic, however.

Fine, given the definition isn't strictly on race, but can be on culture too. I see your point.

[Arglorand]

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.

I don't think you quite understand why they did it.

The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

They weren't even claiming to be socialists. They were literally just trying to hijack the name and ergo socialist voters, much like what would happen if far-leftists suddenly decided that they are the Capitalist Party for no purpose other than to redefine the word, but kept saying they were anything but that. Hell, the Nazis kept repeating how National Socialism is not only different from just Socialism, but is also opposed to the very concept.

[Murkwood]

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

I don't think you quite understand why they did it.

The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

They weren't even claiming to be socialists. They were literally just trying to hijack the name and ergo socialist voters, much like what would happen if far-leftists suddenly decided that they are the Capitalist Party for no purpose other than to redefine the word, but kept saying they were anything but that. Hell, the Nazis kept repeating how National Socialism is not only different from just Socialism, but is also opposed to the very concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... capitalism

The National Socialists were big anti-capitalists. True, they did also hate Communism, but only because it was blocking their success, not for any ideological reasons.

[Arglorand]

I don't think you quite understand why they did it.

The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

They weren't even claiming to be socialists. They were literally just trying to hijack the name and ergo socialist voters, much like what would happen if far-leftists suddenly decided that they are the Capitalist Party for no purpose other than to redefine the word, but kept saying they were anything but that. Hell, the Nazis kept repeating how National Socialism is not only different from just Socialism, but is also opposed to the very concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... capitalism

The National Socialists were big anti-capitalists. True, they did also hate Communism, but only because it was blocking their success, not for any ideological reasons.

Being anti-capitalist does not automatically make you socialist. At all.

Otherwise, that one neo-feudalist we used to have here is a socialist, and I'm sure even you will disagree with that.

Also, that's entirely and completely wrong. Nazis hated Communists for a shitton of ideological reasons, not least of which is the fact that Communism, at least in theory (we are not considering certain examples in mostly stalinist regimes simply because let's be honest here ideology is built on theory and not on practice - if we evaluate practice alone, stalinist regimes are simply red nazis anyway) rejected ethnic and national pride and put the class above the nation in the list of priorities. Not to mention Nazis did not believe in any main principle of communism. They rejected solidarity in favour of loyalty, equality in favour of worshipping the Leader, and class interest in favour of a very narrow and racist definition of "national interest".

Contrary to what you seem to think, they did not hate capitalism because they wanted to abolish the class system or because they wanted economic equality. They hated unlimited, untamed capitalism because they hated the idea of the economy being subject to the whim of individuals rather than nations, and because they thought the nation was an organic organism composed of many parts. This ideology was, as proven, absolutely disconnected from reality, but that's what they thought. If those parts were capitalists, they were quite okay with those people having their private enterprise as long as those people weren't Jewish, Polish, other "untermensch" or dissenters in any way - and developing economic growth without looking at the needs of the State first, in the eyes of a fascist, is dissent. So naturally they clamped down on this.

Not to mention that laissez faire capitalism does not help when building a war economy.

[Quintium]

In fact, I believe nationalism is a key requirement for any form of socialism. Why? Because socialism is based almost entirely on solidarity, and it's a fact of life that intensive voluntary solidarity is only possible between people who are a lot like each other in appearance, in heritage, in history and in religion. First the family, second the community (geographical or religious), third the nation and nothing after that. The highest possible level at which solidarity is a possibility is the national level, and so socialism is only possible at a national level.

If you want examples - don't bother going into the 'that was not socialism' thing, because I am not interested - look at the Soviet Union. They called it the Great Patriotic War, because that - along with a gun to the head - was the only way they could possibly get people to fight in defence of the high and mighty ideals of the Soviet Union. They could have called it the War In Defence of Socialism, but then half of their army would have deserted and the other half would have surrendered to the Germans immediately.

[Murkwood]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... capitalism

The National Socialists were big anti-capitalists. True, they did also hate Communism, but only because it was blocking their success, not for any ideological reasons.

Contrary to what you seem to think, they did not hate capitalism because they wanted to abolish the class system or because they wanted economic equality. They hated unlimited, untamed capitalism.

Proof?

[Robert Magoo]

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.)

Germany and Italy both say that yes, they can coexist.

[Aquillus]

I suppose, but I think the concept of Nationalism does run contrary to Socialist principles, such as the proletariat developing a united class consciousness and overcoming petty differences used to divide them (at least, according to some people) in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

I would say it is like mixing custard and brussel sprouts. You could do it, but who in their right mind would?

[Herrebrugh]

I suppose, but I think the concept of Nationalism does run contrary to Socialist principles, such as the proletariat developing a united class consciousness and overcoming petty differences used to divide them (at least, according to some people) in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

I would say it is like mixing custard and brussel sprouts. You could do it, but who in their right mind would?

Socialism is simply the means of production being socially owned.

[Herrebrugh]

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.)

Germany and Italy both say that yes, they can coexist.

... What?

[Kainesia]

Ahem.... National Socialism. Can it exist? Hmmm now, if only there were some famous national socialists to refer to...

[Herrebrugh]

Ahem.... National Socialism. Can it exist? Hmmm now, if only there were some famous national socialists to refer to...

National socialism isn't socialism.

[Aquillus]

I suppose, but I think the concept of Nationalism does run contrary to Socialist principles, such as the proletariat developing a united class consciousness and overcoming petty differences used to divide them (at least, according to some people) in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

I would say it is like mixing custard and brussel sprouts. You could do it, but who in their right mind would?

Socialism is simply the means of production being socially owned.

Indeed, that is why I did not say it was impossible, just that a lot of Socialists hold principles which contradict Nationalism, and so I do not think (I would hope) there would be as many people who claim to follow both.

[Arglorand]

Contrary to what you seem to think, they did not hate capitalism because they wanted to abolish the class system or because they wanted economic equality. They hated unlimited, untamed capitalism.

Proof?

You should actually read the articles you link.

And you should also stop omitting half of my paragraphs, because just those two lines alone aren't enough to get the idea I was trying to get across, and you just come across as just a huge bit intellectually dishonest when you do.

"Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk."

If you actually bother to look into what Hitler always meant by "interests of the Volk" you usually find that they were just plainly the interests of the state. Hitler did not want an economically democratic, classless society - he wanted a society subordinated in absolutely every aspect of life, including the economic, to the state, or if we go by his rhetoric, to "the Volk". Subordinated. Which is why although in his war economy it did not make any major difference, but he did not convert to an actual "state socialist" (of course we can spend the next 5 hours talking about how it's not actually socialist but not now pls) economy in the style of the USSR, instead leading an economy where the state only controlled the commanding heights of industry - cracking down on small and middle business was simply not in the State's interests at the time.

"In Mein Kampf, Hitler effectively supported mercantilism"

This sentence alone shoots down the idea that he was any sort of socialist. Mercantilism is fundamentally not socialist.

You should look into economic nationalism (aka the idea that the economy should be subordinated not to the interests of the people as a whole or the people as private individuals, but to the interest of the state and even more the interest of the nation - modernday attempts at mercantilism are usually expressions of economic nationalism). Hitler's economic ideology, if summed up in a handful of simple words, was "let's make as much shit as we can ourselves and sell as little as we can to others, because in economy, just like in everything else, we're paranoid idiots."

[Herrebrugh]

Socialism is simply the means of production being socially owned.

Indeed, that is why I did not say it was impossible, just that a lot of Socialists hold principles which contradict Nationalism, and so I do not think (I would hope) there would be as many people who claim to follow both.

Those aren't "socialist principles", though. Socialism really only has one principle. Those are the principles of many people who describe themselves as socialists.

But I digress, I may be, as we call it in Netherland, "ant-fucking" here

[Aquillus]

Indeed, that is why I did not say it was impossible, just that a lot of Socialists hold principles which contradict Nationalism, and so I do not think (I would hope) there would be as many people who claim to follow both.

Those aren't "socialist principles", though. Socialism really only has one principle. Those are the principles of many people who describe themselves as socialists.

But I digress, I may be, as we call it in Netherland, "ant-fucking" here

Yeah, my wording could have been improved, but I tried to address that in my second post. While an individual could be both Nationalist and Socialist, it is not such a common occurrence. Of course, the means of production can still be owned by workers in conjunction with nationalist policies, but I just feel that the reasons which lead people to desire the former commonly mean they would likely not support the later. Still, people have different motivations, which is why I have not denied that it is possible.

[Arglorand]

Those aren't "socialist principles", though. Socialism really only has one principle. Those are the principles of many people who describe themselves as socialists.

But I digress, I may be, as we call it in Netherland, "ant-fucking" here

Yeah, my wording could have been improved, but I tried to address that in my second post. While an individual could be both Nationalist and Socialist, it is not such a common occurrence. Of course, the means of production can still be owned by workers in conjunction with nationalist policies, but I just feel that the reasons which lead people to desire the former commonly mean they would likely not support the later. Still, people have different motivations, which is why I have not denied that it is possible.

I have to admit that while I'm something of a democratic socialist I often have civic nationalist tendencies.

Not because of beliefs I hold so much as purely because sometimes my natural affection for my country erupts into my political views like a geyser without precedent.

[Aquillus]

Yeah, my wording could have been improved, but I tried to address that in my second post. While an individual could be both Nationalist and Socialist, it is not such a common occurrence. Of course, the means of production can still be owned by workers in conjunction with nationalist policies, but I just feel that the reasons which lead people to desire the former commonly mean they would likely not support the later. Still, people have different motivations, which is why I have not denied that it is possible.

I have to admit that while I'm something of a democratic socialist I often have civic nationalist tendencies.

Not because of beliefs I hold so much as purely because sometimes my natural affection for my country erupts into my political views like a geyser without precedent.

I find civic nationalism, though, a much less dangerous and more open ideology than ethnic nationalism, so I can see that being more likely for a socialist than the latter.

[Herrebrugh]

Yeah, my wording could have been improved, but I tried to address that in my second post. While an individual could be both Nationalist and Socialist, it is not such a common occurrence. Of course, the means of production can still be owned by workers in conjunction with nationalist policies, but I just feel that the reasons which lead people to desire the former commonly mean they would likely not support the later. Still, people have different motivations, which is why I have not denied that it is possible.

I have to admit that while I'm something of a democratic socialist I often have civic nationalist tendencies.

Not because of beliefs I hold so much as purely because sometimes my natural affection for my country erupts into my political views like a geyser without precedent.

I'm quite fond of my country as well, which generally involves possibly somewhat irrational views considering language in Netherland... I've developed a bit of a dislike towards seeing English all over the place...

But I suppose if you don't believe your country or people are intrinsically better than others there isn't that much of a problem.

[Arglorand]

I have to admit that while I'm something of a democratic socialist I often have civic nationalist tendencies.

Not because of beliefs I hold so much as purely because sometimes my natural affection for my country erupts into my political views like a geyser without precedent.

I find civic nationalism, though, a much less dangerous and more open ideology than ethnic nationalism, so I can see that being more likely for a socialist than the latter.

Ethnic nationalism is certainly not likely for socialists, aye. I can only think of one real example: the Soviet Union's ideology in the 1940s was arguably just unadulterated Russian ethnic nationalism, but it was only compatible with ideological (not practical, because there was none in practice) socialism by a lot of doublethink and by tagging said Russian nationalism as "internationalism" in a marketing trick that was disturbingly successful for as long as Stalin was alive.

[Korouse]

yes

[Arglorand]

I have to admit that while I'm something of a democratic socialist I often have civic nationalist tendencies.

Not because of beliefs I hold so much as purely because sometimes my natural affection for my country erupts into my political views like a geyser without precedent.

I'm quite fond of my country as well, which generally involves possibly somewhat irrational views considering language in Netherland... I've developed a bit of a dislike towards seeing English all over the place...

But I suppose if you don't believe your country or people are intrinsically better than others there isn't that much of a problem.

Nah, certainly not. I just feel a certain sort of concern for it when developing political views, if that makes any sense.

[Herrebrugh]

I'm quite fond of my country as well, which generally involves possibly somewhat irrational views considering language in Netherland... I've developed a bit of a dislike towards seeing English all over the place...

But I suppose if you don't believe your country or people are intrinsically better than others there isn't that much of a problem.

Nah, certainly not. I just feel a certain sort of concern for it when developing political views, if that makes any sense.

What, being afraid you're (becoming) too nationalist?

[Arglorand]

Nah, certainly not. I just feel a certain sort of concern for it when developing political views, if that makes any sense.

What, being afraid you're (becoming) too nationalist?

Not for my nationalism. I meant a certain sort of concern for my country.

I do tend to view things sometimes through a prism where I value the wellbeing of my country's residents above quite a handful of other things, is what I meant to say. I certainly don't believe we're intrinsically superior to anyone and I'm of the opinion that the whole human race has more in common than apart, however.