Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

[Arkolon]

.. what?

He's saying you're an edgy teenager because he's being lazy and doesn't want to really argue.

Remind me to download the "Statist Translator" Firefox addon later.

[The Liberated Territories]

Communities don't exist, except in legal definitions.

You're kidding me, right? If communities didn't exist, then how would we able to talk about them?

Psychological process of clumping.

[Dejanic]

Libertarianism doesn't abolish the government nor the state.

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

Meh, I hate arguments like this, regardless of my political positions, I'd personally rather follow beliefs that work, instead of a belief system that adheres to a very specific end goal (like smashing the state for the absolute sake of it) and refuses to budge from that ideological pathway, no matter the possible consequences, because adherents of said system wish to please the death-gods of "true Capitalism/Communism/Anarchism/Whateverism. An-Caps and Communists are pretty similar when it comes down to it, both ideological groups are full of steaming ideologues.

I have more respect for a "fake Libertarian" like Ron Paul, who respects material facts and wants to minimise the state to promote economic activity, than a radical such as yourself who has the grand idea to "smash the state" for the absolute sake of it, and makes no argument to defend or promote such a belief, other than the fact that it's "true Libertarianism".

[Arkolon]

Ironically, self-proclaimed anarcho-communists are in favour of confiscating all private property, in favour of gun control, want to regulate business as much as possible, tax the rich at higher rates, institute a higher minimum wage, give the central authority more power under the guise of democracy, all the while still claiming to want to bash the state. It's like political multitasking, right? It's pretty impressive.

Don't forget those who support hate speech laws.

Those were the biggest giveaway, in my opinion. When I heard about them, I reckoned the ancoms just gave up trying with their anarchist label.

[The New Sea Territory]

That's the American form of Libertarianism (Libertarian Capitalism), New Sea is right on this one, Libertarian Socialism largely refers to Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, and Anarcho-Mutualism, it's an old term that's existed much longer than the American form of Libertarianism. I can't think of a non Anarchist form of Libertarian Socialism.

Ironically, self-proclaimed anarcho-communists are in favour of confiscating all private property, in favour of gun control, want to regulate business as much as possible, tax the rich at higher rates, institute a higher minimum wage, give the central authority more power under the guise of democracy, all the while still claiming to want to bash the state. It's like political multitasking, right? It's pretty impressive.

True anarcho-communism would be in favor of personal property and gun ownership.

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

"Real libertarianism"

So tell me more about real libertarianism is, Scotty?

Libertarians who don't compromise their principles. Basically, anything outside the "Conservative Libertarian" of Tea Party movements. With the exceptions of Objectivism and other minarchist ideologies, all true libertarianism is anti-statist.

[Arkolon]

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

Meh, I hate arguments like this, regardless of my political positions, I'd personally rather follow beliefs that work, instead of a belief system that adheres to a very specific end goal (like smashing the state for the absolute sake of it) and refuses to budge from that ideological pathway, no matter the possible consequences, because adherents of said system wish to please the death-gods of "true Capitalism/Communism/Anarchism/Whateverism. An-Caps and Communists are pretty similar when it comes down to it, both ideological groups are full of steaming ideologues.

When in the extremes, there is usually a strong philosophical background to the ideology. There are many defects with "pragmatism", consequentialism, or utilitarianism, which I shan't get onto just yet.

[Kamchastkia]

Yes they can, it's called Strasserism.

[Dejanic]

Meh, I hate arguments like this, regardless of my political positions, I'd personally rather follow beliefs that work, instead of a belief system that adheres to a very specific end goal (like smashing the state for the absolute sake of it) and refuses to budge from that ideological pathway, no matter the possible consequences, because adherents of said system wish to please the death-gods of "true Capitalism/Communism/Anarchism/Whateverism. An-Caps and Communists are pretty similar when it comes down to it, both ideological groups are full of steaming ideologues.

When in the extremes, there is usually a strong philosophical background to the ideology. There are many defects with "pragmatism", consequentialism, or utilitarianism, which I shan't get onto just yet.

I'm going to be honest, I have no time for philosophical arguments that argue for the abolishment of Capitalism or the State or whatever, this is why I I'll listen to Libertarian arguments, which typically make strong economic and financial arguments as to why free-market capitalism is the system of choice, as opposed to An-Caps, who simply preach free-market Capitalism as it's morally the "correct" system, I try to work in logic, not pure emotion.

[The New Sea Territory]

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

Meh, I hate arguments like this, regardless of my political positions, I'd personally rather follow beliefs that work, instead of a belief system that adheres to a very specific end goal (like smashing the state for the absolute sake of it) and refuses to budge from that ideological pathway, no matter the possible consequences, because adherents of said system wish to please the death-gods of "true Capitalism/Communism/Anarchism/Whateverism. An-Caps and Communists are pretty similar when it comes down to it, both ideological groups are full of steaming ideologues.

I have more respect for a "fake Libertarian" like Ron Paul, who respects material facts and wants to minimise the state to promote economic activity, than a radical such as yourself who has the grand idea to "smash the state" for the absolute sake of it, and makes no argument to defend or promote such a belief, other than the fact that it's "true Libertarianism".

I'm trying to say anything outside of the "libertarians" in the Republican Party is usually anarchist.

[The Liberated Territories]

Yes they can, it's called Strasserism.

Unfortunately Hitler killed them off, otherwise the Nazi state wouldn't have been able to fund their death machines.

[The New Sea Territory]

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

Meh, I hate arguments like this, regardless of my political positions, I'd personally rather follow beliefs that work, instead of a belief system that adheres to a very specific end goal (like smashing the state for the absolute sake of it) and refuses to budge from that ideological pathway, no matter the possible consequences, because adherents of said system wish to please the death-gods of "true Capitalism/Communism/Anarchism/Whateverism. An-Caps and Communists are pretty similar when it comes down to it, both ideological groups are full of steaming ideologues.

I have more respect for a "fake Libertarian" like Ron Paul, who respects material facts and wants to minimise the state to promote economic activity, than a radical such as yourself who has the grand idea to "smash the state" for the absolute sake of it, and makes no argument to defend or promote such a belief, other than the fact that it's "true Libertarianism".

I do not disagree with the existence of the state "just for the sake of it", whatever that means. I oppose it based on principles.

[Arkolon]

Ironically, self-proclaimed anarcho-communists are in favour of confiscating all private property, in favour of gun control, want to regulate business as much as possible, tax the rich at higher rates, institute a higher minimum wage, give the central authority more power under the guise of democracy, all the while still claiming to want to bash the state. It's like political multitasking, right? It's pretty impressive.

True anarcho-communism would be in favor of personal property and gun ownership.

"Real libertarianism"

So tell me more about real libertarianism is, Scotty?

Libertarians who don't compromise their principles. Basically, anything outside the "Conservative Libertarian" of Tea Party movements. With the exceptions of Objectivism and other minarchist ideologies, all true libertarianism is anti-statist.

Gun ownership isn't the problem: it's having the state control and regulate it, that's all. It's just ironic that an "anarchist" would be in favour of state regulation.

Private property is not equal to personal property. Apparently, something is yours in Ancomistan if you mix your labour with it (usually an item of some kind), because workers are entitled to one-hundred percent of their labour-- but there's a very special exception when you apply the very same logic to other items, such as land or means of production.

[Genivaria]

Meh, I hate arguments like this, regardless of my political positions, I'd personally rather follow beliefs that work, instead of a belief system that adheres to a very specific end goal (like smashing the state for the absolute sake of it) and refuses to budge from that ideological pathway, no matter the possible consequences, because adherents of said system wish to please the death-gods of "true Capitalism/Communism/Anarchism/Whateverism. An-Caps and Communists are pretty similar when it comes down to it, both ideological groups are full of steaming ideologues.

I have more respect for a "fake Libertarian" like Ron Paul, who respects material facts and wants to minimise the state to promote economic activity, than a radical such as yourself who has the grand idea to "smash the state" for the absolute sake of it, and makes no argument to defend or promote such a belief, other than the fact that it's "true Libertarianism".

I do not disagree with the existence of the state "just for the sake of it", whatever that means. I oppose it based on principles.

With no consideration of practicality.

[Paisaje Rico]

Yes, I'd say it is very possible; in the initial stages of a socialist government coming to power, there is oftentimes a feeling of pride that could be termed patriotism or nationalism. While in more established, and more limiting, socialist regimes nationalism is rather sparse, the propaganda posters do have their uses- there is certainly a population or subdemographic within every MArxist state which is supportive and proud of their national interests.

[Arkolon]

When in the extremes, there is usually a strong philosophical background to the ideology. There are many defects with "pragmatism", consequentialism, or utilitarianism, which I shan't get onto just yet.

I'm going to be honest, I have no time for philosophical arguments that argue for the abolishment of Capitalism or the State or whatever, this is why I I'll listen to Libertarian arguments, which typically make strong economic and financial arguments as to why free-market capitalism is the system of choice, as opposed to An-Caps, who simply preach free-market Capitalism as it's morally the "correct" system, I try to work in logic, not pure emotion.

If killing a large number of innocent children one by one on your own with a rusty spoon gave everyone access to basic healthcare, would the deaths of the innocent children be justified (assuming we end up with a net positive utility of +1)?

A sound ideology needs a philosophical and practical basis behind it. Politics is largely a philosophical offshoot.

[Kiribati-Tarawa]

They nearly always do...

[The Liberated Territories]

Dejanic,

As a "moderate" Libertarian, I am willing to work with social liberals, conservatives, and occasionally socdems. I am willing to pardon with things like a NIT based welfare system, support for healthcare vouchers, charter schools as an alternative to full privatization, even stuff like humanitarian aid. I don't see any of the more radical forms of my ideology working as long as the world is in the chaotic state we are in, with terrorists and etc. That's just stupid to oppose things that could save lives or uplift millions out of principle.

[Genivaria]

I'm going to be honest, I have no time for philosophical arguments that argue for the abolishment of Capitalism or the State or whatever, this is why I I'll listen to Libertarian arguments, which typically make strong economic and financial arguments as to why free-market capitalism is the system of choice, as opposed to An-Caps, who simply preach free-market Capitalism as it's morally the "correct" system, I try to work in logic, not pure emotion.

If killing a large number of innocent children one by one on your own with a rusty spoon gave everyone access to basic healthcare, would the deaths of the innocent children be justified (assuming we end up with a net positive utility of +1)?

A sound ideology needs a philosophical and practical basis behind it. Politics is largely a philosophical offshoot.

You can take any line of thought to a ridiculous extreme, that doesn't invalidate it's ideas.

[Kamchastkia]

Yes they can, it's called Strasserism.

Unfortunately Hitler killed them off, otherwise the Nazi state wouldn't have been able to fund their death machines.

Germany wouldn't have been too bad had Gregor Strasser became Chancellor over Hitler.

[The Liberated Territories]

Unfortunately Hitler killed them off, otherwise the Nazi state wouldn't have been able to fund their death machines.

Germany wouldn't have been too bad had Gregor Strasser became Chancellor over Hitler.

Yes. Instead of the Jews dying, it would be their own people from starvation and poverty due to debunked socialist policies.

But I'll give you that the Holocaust may have never happened.

[Kamchastkia]

Germany wouldn't have been too bad had Gregor Strasser became Chancellor over Hitler.

Yes. Instead of the Jews dying, it would be their own people from starvation and poverty due to debunked socialist policies.

But I'll give you that the Holocaust may have never happened.

Except Strasserism/socialism has never really be implemented correctly.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

> Soviet Union in 1942

yes, they can coexist

Oh yes they can. Every Communist country had some form of nationalist rhetoric to defend themselves against fifth columnist imperialist plots.

Derivative Variants of Communism such as Nasserism, Ba'athism (Syria's, & Iraq's pre-Saddam), Qadhafist-Socialism, Soekarno's Marhaenist-Socialism/Nasakom/Pancasila, amongst others are also examples of it.

There is also a general term for this: left-wing nationalism. Sometimes you can call it revolutionary nationalism (as opposed to reactionary nationalism), as well as anti-imperialist nationalism.

[The New Sea Territory]

I do not disagree with the existence of the state "just for the sake of it", whatever that means. I oppose it based on principles.

With no consideration of practicality.

I consider practicality, so long as it doesn't compromise my principles.

[Pandeeria]

Libertarianism doesn't abolish the government nor the state.

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

No it doesn't. Real Libertarianism stresses extreme small government, and even stresses more rights to the states then federal government.

Anarchy abolishes the government.

[Arkolon]

Real libertarianism does. Left-libertarianism does, and non-Paulite or Randian libertarianism does.

No it doesn't. Real Libertarianism stresses extreme small government, and even stresses more rights to the states then federal government.

Anarchy abolishes the government.

You capitalised Libertarian (big-L libertarianism), which is actually quite different to small-l libertarianism. I'm not even kidding: you're both right, but that's because you're both saying different things.