NationStates

Go Socialism!
I think that most capitalists still don't understand what communism is about. The Press and the American Capitalist Dream Propaganda have dissolved our brains into money mulch.

Again, this calls for a defining feature of a "nation", because they are are quite often just made up. Nations try to refer to a group of people who share genetic qualities, culture and are self-identifying. This means people need to come up with the idea of nation before the nation can even exist. Which means a people would cease to be a nation if they simply stop identifying as one, is that right?

That's definitely true in the larger nations of Europe. What is "French?" Even Occitan and Cosmopolitaine are subjective because of in-country migration.

Jakaragua wrote:

Greater Tezdrian wrote:Pan-nationalism is heavily debated among 3Pists, but I personally would let them go, as they are not part of the national culture, and have their own.

Then there are big contradictions amongst many nations if we had this "Pan Nationalism". English/Welsh/Scottish Nationalists and British Nationalists... Spanish and Catalan/Basque nationalists... Albanian and Serbian nationalists.

Again, this calls for a defining feature of a "nation", because they are are quite often just made up. Nations try to refer to a group of people who share genetic qualities, culture and are self-identifying. This means people need to come up with the idea of nation before the nation can even exist. Which means a people would cease to be a nation if they simply stop identifying as one, is that right?

And therein lies the problem with pan-nationalism. A nation is defined by some as just a group of people united by blood and language. But I believe a more strict definition is required. I define a nation as a group of people united by common ethnic heritage, language, and common shared history and length of identification. By that, I mean that a nation is a nation when it's citizens have long identified themselves and each other as citizens.

Why though? Im nothing like anyone else. Im an individual.

Reoy wrote:

Again, this calls for a defining feature of a "nation", because they are are quite often just made up. Nations try to refer to a group of people who share genetic qualities, culture and are self-identifying. This means people need to come up with the idea of nation before the nation can even exist. Which means a people would cease to be a nation if they simply stop identifying as one, is that right?

That's definitely true in the larger nations of Europe. What is "French?" Even Occitan and Cosmopolitaine are subjective because of in-country migration.

The reason why this doesn't spawn new nations is the fact that these groups did not come up with the idea of national identity. If, for example, Bavarians just came up with the idea of Bavarian nation they would immediately fulfill all the necessary definitions of nationality. As an example of the opposite, culture and genetics of the English colonists in America had no difference in relation to their British oppressors. Simply because the Americans identified themselves as a nation, they became one.

When politics is a way to solve issues of power and authority between groups, it is obvious that people should engage politics in groups based on power and authority, not petty differences. As differences between nations are entirely created by nationalist politics, choosing to organize by nationality is like choosing your favourite song based on the appearance of the singer.

Mercator Terra wrote:Why though? Im nothing like anyone else. Im an individual.

You're affected by other individuals around you. In your current form, you are part of a collective. The only way to escape it is to roam alone.

Reoy wrote:

Mercator Terra wrote:Why though? Im nothing like anyone else. Im an individual.

You're affected by other individuals around you. In your current form, you are part of a collective. The only way to escape it is to roam alone.

SO why must we celebrate us being alike? I celebrate how I am different then all of you.

Jakaragua wrote:

Reoy wrote:
That's definitely true in the larger nations of Europe. What is "French?" Even Occitan and Cosmopolitaine are subjective because of in-country migration.

The reason why this doesn't spawn new nations is the fact that these groups did not come up with the idea of national identity. If, for example, Bavarians just came up with the idea of Bavarian nation they would immediately fulfill all the necessary definitions of nationality. As an example of the opposite, culture and genetics of the English colonists in America had no difference in relation to their British oppressors. Simply because the Americans identified themselves as a nation, they became one.quote]

That example is not true at all, the United States called themselves British until the war of 1812. And after that, the people identified by their state, not the Union. It was only during and after the Civil War that Americans considered themselves a single nation, and only in the North. I think your example goes against your point that nations are simple constructs, although I agree that national identity is petty.

Jakaragua wrote:

Reoy wrote:
That's definitely true in the larger nations of Europe. What is "French?" Even Occitan and Cosmopolitaine are subjective because of in-country migration.

The reason why this doesn't spawn new nations is the fact that these groups did not come up with the idea of national identity. If, for example, Bavarians just came up with the idea of Bavarian nation they would immediately fulfill all the necessary definitions of nationality. As an example of the opposite, culture and genetics of the English colonists in America had no difference in relation to their British oppressors. Simply because the Americans identified themselves as a nation, they became one.

When politics is a way to solve issues of power and authority between groups, it is obvious that people should engage politics in groups based on power and authority, not petty differences. As differences between nations are entirely created by nationalist politics, choosing to organize by nationality is like choosing your favourite song based on the appearance of the singer.

Please see my definition of nation. Discussing this with you is a refreshing intellectual exercise.

CTALNH wrote:Changed the title happy

Of course it's an ideology. That's not a point of contention.

CTALNH wrote:You all have heard something about communism and you all have some kind of opinion on it so let's talk about it.
And vote
Personally I am a hardcore Stalinist.

Please keep Flamming to a minimum

Capitalism , Communism , Socialism , Fascism , and Monarchy are all on different scales and are different systems of societies ; Communism and Fascism are two types of societies all together ( Communism and Communist societies varies between different types of Communist ideologies of societies , ranging From Totalitarian Communism ( Psychotic Dictatorship ) all the way to Anarcho - Communism ( Left - Wing Utopia ) varies of Communist societies , with Fascist societies being generally considered to be that of societies from Psychotic Dictatorships to Corporate Police States , on the NS system of rating of societies ) , Capitalism sand Socialism are both types of Economic System , and Monarchies are a type of Government , most closely relating to a low level of political freedom of societies in which Monarchies are present within those societies .

Well i'm basically a council communist or council marxist. Democratic communism ftw!

Herrebrugh wrote:Well i'm basically a council communist or council marxist. Democratic communism ftw!

*high fives*

Greater Tezdrian wrote:Authority is the only thing that gets things done and keeps people in check.

Do you need authority to go buy a beer? If it weren't for authority, would you gun people down in the street?

Herrebrugh wrote:Well i'm basically a council communist or council marxist. Democratic communism ftw!

Council communism/Luxembourgism is one of the forms of Marxism that I actually like. Generally, I can appreciate non-Leninist Marxism.

Herrebrugh wrote:Well i'm basically a council communist or council marxist. Democratic communism ftw!

That's one of the Marxist tendencies I can actually get behind.

Meryuma wrote:

Herrebrugh wrote:Well i'm basically a council communist or council marxist. Democratic communism ftw!

That's one of the Marxist tendencies I can actually get behind.

The Leninist interpretation of Marxism seems to fail, since allowing a few group of people control society(Vanguard party) will allow for the nation to become an authoritarian hellhole.(almost every 20th century attempt at socialism)

Meryuma wrote:

Greater Tezdrian wrote:Authority is the only thing that gets things done and keeps people in check.

Do you need authority to go buy a beer? If it weren't for authority, would you gun people down in the street?

No, but authority is needed to make sure the people who make and sell the beer are paid. And to make sure that you don't die on your way to the pub. And no, I would not. But others sure as hell will.

*Gasp* "Oh look (insert authoritarian dictator here)" *fapfapfapfapfap*

Mercator Terra wrote:*Gasp* "Oh look (insert authoritarian dictator here)" *fapfapfapfapfap*

Ya' know, I really don't get much flak for my views, but that is crossing a line.

Define "crossing the line".

Mercator Terra wrote:*Gasp* "Oh look (Fidel Castro Ruz)" *fapfapfapfapfap*

:


Fidel Castro Ruz. LOL.

Greater Tezdrian wrote:

Meryuma wrote:
Do you need authority to go buy a beer? If it weren't for authority, would you gun people down in the street?

No, but authority is needed to make sure the people who make and sell the beer are paid. And to make sure that you don't die on your way to the pub. And no, I would not. But others sure as hell will.

What powers do authorities have over "regular" people to decide those things? Why can't people decide those things for themselves? Also, I don't see why anyone would want to gun someone down in the street, unless they had severe mental issues. Besides, if someone was trying to gun you down in the street, you could fight back, plus try and get them to compensate you for what they did.

Mercator Terra wrote:*Gasp* "Oh look (insert authoritarian dictator here)" *fapfapfapfapfap*

*vomits a little bit in reaction to the quoted post*
Ewwww..

Look at that piece of sexy dictatorship.

Meryuma wrote:

Greater Tezdrian wrote:
No, but authority is needed to make sure the people who make and sell the beer are paid. And to make sure that you don't die on your way to the pub. And no, I would not. But others sure as hell will.

What powers do authorities have over "regular" people to decide those things? Why can't people decide those things for themselves? Also, I don't see why anyone would want to gun someone down in the street, unless they had severe mental issues. Besides, if someone was trying to gun you down in the street, you could fight back, plus try and get them to compensate you for what they did.

If there was no government, there would be no cops. No cops means not enforcing the law. So, people could take out others without any thought of punishment. And, why would someone with money give it to others?