Can Socialism and Nationalism co-exist?

[Libervida]

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.)

[Couasia]

> Soviet Union in 1942

yes, they can coexist

[Kuzestan]

Yeah, you can be a nationalist and an advocator of social ownership of the means of production at the same time.

[Kumuri]

"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.

[The German Democratic Reich]

National Socialism

[Genivaria]

Depending on your definition of Socialism they obviously can if you look at the USSR under Stalin.
But then Nationalism is a disease to be fought anyway so I find it irrelevant.

[Cyyro]

Yes. I don't see why not. A random guy in a socialist would love his country and thinks it's the greatest country in the world partly because...it's socialist.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yup. There's such a thing as National Socialism, so they can coexist.

[Unitaristic Regions]

I can see how someone would say the nation (people) is more important than individuals, and so wants to hold property in common...

[The Serbian Empire]

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

[Wisconsin9]

Of course they can. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Of course, that turned out really really really really really badly, but it is possible.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Sure they can. A Nation can have Socialism and people living there can be very Nationalistic. Seems pretty compatible to me.
Corporatism is by it's own definition, distinct from Socialism.

[Arkolon]

"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.

Doesn't this totally-cohesive logic fall into the same strand of logic as "it's OK to be racist as long as you're not white"-- "it's OK to be a nationalist as long as you're not the dominant country". Pretty faulty if you ask me.

And [tru] capitalism and the modern state, and even less so an imperialist institution, cannot coexist.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Yup. There's such a thing as National Socialism, so they can coexist.

The "Socialism" in National Socialism was just propaganda to appeal to the working class.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Yup. There's such a thing as National Socialism, so they can coexist.

The "Socialism" in National Socialism was just propaganda to appeal to the working class.

Yeah, in reality, it's an Ethnocentric form of Fascism.

[Dejanic]

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).

[Dayaar Mongol]

Totally. I am both a State Socialist and a Mongolian Nationalist.

[Dejanic]

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.

[Dejanic]

Totally. I am both a State Socialist and a Mongolian Nationalist.

I think history has proven that State Socialism doesn't work, especially for a relatively barren Nation like Mongolia. Mongolia would just become isolated, economically deprived and would end up resembling North Korea.

The world is too integrated and the economy is too globalised.

[Arkolon]

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?

[MERIZoC]

Sure they could. Would it be preferable? No.

[Dejanic]

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?

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.

[Arkolon]

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.

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.

[The United Communist Solar Republic]

I am a Democratic Socialist and a nationalist, I love America with all my heart and would die for it, and I believe that Socialism is the best way to go for America. I don't misunderstand either of the concepts of Nationalism or Socialism. I am literally living proof that they can co-exist.

[Dejanic]

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.

I don't get your example at all, I never claimed that all workers share the feelings of treachery and slavery on behalf of there employer's behalf, so I can't even begin to comprehend or make a full retort to your point. I think most workers (in the 1st world) are relatively happy with Capitalism, and I'm relatively happy with Capitalism, I'm a Social Democrat not a Socialist.

I don't think that voluntary co-ops are often built on pure ideological grounds, Waitrose certainly wasn't created to spearhead an anti-capitalistic revolution, it was just built on a different business model that can be differentiated from the typical capitalist business model, but at the same time is compatible with the global market economy. I think it's quite possible that the typical capitalist business model will be slowly replaced over time by voluntary co-ops, but not over ideological reasons, over practical reasons, because I think it's very possible that more people will begin to see cooperatives as a viable and perhaps superior alternative to private business, but I don't think a future cooperative economy would even be called Socialism at that point.

Honestly, I sort of don't care, if I can be honest. I'd be happy with a well organised Social Democracy (Kapitalism ), if Socialism happens one day, then as long as it happens voluntarily and it improves living standards for all, then awesome. But that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's going to happen, or that I propose it does happen.