Pep talk to Socialists (Don't give up!)

[downbeatplumb]

The Nazis grew out of the FreiKorps which was an anti-communist organisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps

[kılıç_mehmet]

The Nazis grew out of the FreiKorps which was an anti-communist organisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps

There was also a prominent rock against communism band with the same name.
Damn good band.
The Freikorps are somewhat akin to our commandos, which we trained in secret facilities in hand-to-hand combat, stealth and etc.
They were responsible with taking care of the communist threat in our universities. I knew one of them, who is now a high ranking member in our organisation, that was a former commando. He also served in Azerbaijan and Chechnya. They were paramilitry, but they were a secret sub-organisation within our organisation.
They didn't have uniforms or something though, they preferred to go out as regular civillians, and they were only answerable to our leader at the time, Alparslan Türkeş, a prominent nationalist.

You can see several speeches that were delivered by Hitler and Mussolini and detect them a clear bias socialist. The rhetoric of these speeches and the name of national socialism was not simply a matter of markerting, the Nazi party was born of a communist party and Mussolini out for awhile socialist. There is a relationship here, during the Great Depression of the 30 people felt threatened their survival and turned to radical parties that promised to end the misery and great social distortions, hence fascism be a Keynesian of the boots.

Well, it doesn't really matter friend. A nationalist simply cannot become a capitalist. Capitalism requires you to be open to other countries for investments, not just that, it requires for the government to have a minimal hand in the industry too. In their time too, Germany had universal healthcare, and free education for their people.
As a matter of fact, I believe in that the success of a party depends on how radical they actually are. Radicals have complete faith and devotion to their ideals, and will not back off when they come across a small hurdle. I'm a radical, and I have complete devotion to my ideals, and I put them before anything else. Which is the reason why we're more active on the streets, we do our propaganda all-year round, while centrists only do them once in every election, and that is, to deceive people.

Aren't you forgetting the part where you two agree to divide Poland first? Only then are you free to murder each other.

When did I agree on that? As a communist, he should step up and be proud of the achivements of other communists, since communism is all about internationalist brotherhood. Nationalism on the other hand, not so.

[cratehorus]

Don't give me that now. All you communists do is to deny things.
Communism existed in the world, died, while causing the maximum amount of confusion in the meantime.

no socialism existed the ussr was socialist, do you know how i know??? ....it's in the name United Soviet Socialist Republics

Since internationalism doesn't work, meaning that the notion of uniting mankind under a single flag, the only way that is left is for individual nations to develop independently.
Besides, your idea was built on the notion of uniting mankind under a worker's dictatorship. However we all know that the worker class is dwindling with the developments in technology, people use less and less labor to archive higher efficiency.

devlop independently and then what??? take over the world and have everyone worship a single empire's city? isn't that also a more crueler form of internationalism?

If so, who is there to archive this "equal distribution" that you speak of?

a one world government is stateless

Communism is not stateless. There has to be a state to own the property and distribute it to people, supposedly, in an equal way.

no there doesn't

And? I've migrated and I've carved myself a niche that I hold with power.
Not with love. Besides, you've totally ignored my post.

so why souldn't we kill you after all your only logic is that you should rule because....nobody has KILLED YOU YET

And communism does? I hate people who own cows. Send them to the gulag!

economic prosperity not based on private property is an econmic opinion, my race is better than your race now let's kill eachother and let god sort it out...........is not

Well, in aspects regarding socioeconomic issues, no. But it's just that fascism is a specific kind of national socialism that is founded on the Italian nation.
You're too ignorant to know this though, as communists often label anyone who thinks different than them as "fascists" as though as anyone ever claimed this word for their own.
I don't.

no nazism is a specified form of fascism

I call myself a Turkist. I'm not Italian. But you're a communist, and I will call you what you are. You don't object to it, now do you?

fascism has nothing to with being italian racist retarded fuck

[Ferraro]

I mastered the subject well, but I have difficulties to express myself in English so I ask your patience.

Fascism is an ideology that preaches the existence of an all-powerful State to coordinate and control all aspects of social life. Such a state would be shaped in a militarized and undemocratic one-party state with a strong nationalist tendency. Society could only obey.

Fascism is totalitarianism considered right because the market economy continued to exist in the countries in which it was deployed. The market economy existed on state control in the name of social cohesion guarantee certain income distribution. Therefore fascism can be considered as Keynesianism boots, boots with the characteristic military. The name itself is something fascism of Mussolini and his party, but the term is used to name totalitarianism similar in other countries such as Franco's Spain. The socialism of the USSR is considered as a form of totalitarianism because the characteristics mentioned in my other comment. But is considered leftist totalitarianism because the economy was planned and income was socialized.

Nazism can be considered a form of fascism. But Nazism is also a distortion of it because he preaches state servitude to a race (ethnicity actually) while Fascism preaches servitude of all races to the State. The idea of ethnic cleansing is Nazism. A person can be fascist and not discriminatory.

Being nationalistic is simply exalting his State National. Be internationalist is to give less importance to their nation and to think more globally. Terms are vague and that alone does not mark a complete positioning. A person can be in favor of economic freedoms and restrictions on individual freedoms (the right-wing conservatives) and being nationalistic, not these Republicans? A person can also be in favor of individual freedoms and restrictions on economic freedoms (leftist reformers) and being nationalist or internationalist, no Democrats who are nationalists?

Only libertarians who favor complete economic freedom and personal freedom tend to be more internationalists, but even in this case can be found nationalists....

Nationalist is usually the guy who thinks it is right that their nation subjugating other people get benefits or who want to preserve an ideal of nationality usually something that is associated with a particular ethnicity. These subjects are also much more common in the central than in the peripheral due to the early imperial mentality. The U.S. is prodigious that.

We live in capitalism. He is the current mode of production. It is also the current system of social organization. Currently we are in the third or fourth industrial revolution and capitalism in today's globalized monopoly stage. There really choose between capitalism or anything else, you may not like your company, but it exists regardless of your tastes. What countries like Cuba and North Korea do is isolate themselves and lose the opportunity to develop. But even these and the former socialist countries were entered into the capitalist context.

Communism has never existed. The real socialism had said several features of capitalism, so some Marxists regard as state capitalism. Authors and revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg criticized the Bolshevik revolution as it happened. The criticism was that the model revolutionary Lenin would cause a dictatorship and not the end of class society. This model was the party's hierarchical, bureaucratic and intellectual vanguard. Socialism in the USSR and other countries would still be a class society because there would still be the leaders (bureaucrats and party cadres) and directed (the rest of society). Communist parties were called up Social-Democrats, including the Russian Lenin, but this has changed the name of his party to Communist separating it from other European parties that were becoming reformers.

The planned economy failed for obvious reasons. At one point the developed capitalist countries offered better quality of life that the socialist countries that have socialized poverty, but been unable to thrive properly.

[kılıç_mehmet]

no socialism existed the ussr was socialist, do you know how i know??? ....it's in the name United Soviet Socialist Republics

How do you plan to create your worldwide communist paradise if you deny your own comrades, friend?

devlop independently and then what??? take over the world and have everyone worship a single empire's city? isn't that also a more crueler form of internationalism?

If every nation worked towards it's own goals, while helping eachother in assisting worldwide problems, there would be no such thing.
Besides, I don't know what you mean by worshipping a single empire's city. Some cities are wealthier than others, sometimes just due to the fact that they are built in a strategic trade location such as ports, or crossroads of civilisations, but that doesn't mean that everyone would worship it.
Do I worship New York? Do I worship Wall Street? But communists all around the earth once have worshipped Moscow!

a one world government is stateless

A government implies that a state exists.
Without the notion of a state, what sense would there be to have a government?
Stating communism is stateless is stupid. It's stated that it's stateless due to a play of words, that say "the people are the state" and "people own capital" and by proxy, the party owns the capital and distributes it accordingly, or that's how its supposed to be.

no there doesn't

Then explain to me how you're going to manage this.

so why souldn't we kill you after all your only logic is that you should rule because....nobody has KILLED YOU YET

Well, you're most welcome to try, and I'd say that I wouldn't expect anything different from a communist.

Communism has only come to power by means of armed insurrections, by means of "revolution". This means that you have killed a lot of people already, just look at Russia(communism came to power with civil war), China(same), North Korea(same!), Vietnam(same, oh my god), Cuba(still same, and then they went on to bring it to the rest of South America, again, by armed insurrection, though that ruffian Che Guavera died before it became a reality).

Anywhere else, like Germany, Poland, Hungary, Tzechoslovakia and the Balkans, it was forced by an occupying power(Soviet Union).

Don't talk to me like you were so peaceful and all.

economic prosperity not based on private property is an econmic opinion, my race is better than your race now let's kill eachother and let god sort it out...........is not

Why would I want people to kill eachother? I just want people to live in peace, without disturbing eachother. Especially my own.

no nazism is a specified form of fascism

It isn't. Fascism is Italian nationalism, while "nazism" is German nationalism.

fascism has nothing to with being italian racist retarded fuck

Just as Turk nationalism has nothing to do with being a Turk?
Communists have bad mouths, usually cursing when they cannot comprehend a subject.

Communism has never existed. The real socialism had said several features of capitalism, so some Marxists regard as state capitalism. Authors and revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg criticized the Bolshevik revolution as it happened.

And they say things like "communism never existed", "the USSR, China and North Korea aren't communist", well they certainly are communist. There is no way for communism to come to power without the means of civil war, and an oppressive government.
May I ask you wher the "real communists" were when this was happening? Brooding over their books? Philosophizing?
Marx himself has denounced such individuals. He claimed that communism must come to power with an armed revolution, and he has stated this in the communist manifesto that the proletariat should arise and crush whatever he saw as being the oppressors.

The socialism of the USSR is considered as a form of totalitarianism because the characteristics mentioned in my other comment. But is considered leftist totalitarianism because the economy was planned and income was socialized.

Indeed, but totalitarianism does not really divide ideologies, as you have said. Communism in and out itself, is too a totalitarian ideology.
So are most forms of nationalism, including mine. However in my mind, the state and the people share a common place. The state exists due to the people, and the people exist due to the state that allows them to be an independent ethnic and political entity.

Fascism is an ideology that preaches the existence of an all-powerful State to coordinate and control all aspects of social life. Such a state would be shaped in a militarized and undemocratic one-party state with a strong nationalist tendency. Society could only obey.

Well, you cannot form a state without a society. The state is there to guarantee the existence of society, while society simply exists. However for it to continue its existence it must have a state that is independent from the othes. So it is in the best interests of society to allow the continuation of a state, else they would simply be absorbed into another one.
And that state ought to have powers. In monarchy, the state, which is the King, gets his power by divine mandate in most cases.
In a state without a King, the state is ruled by representatives of the public. As in all states, they have the power to make laws and enact policies. Where totalitarianism differs from liberal ideologies is that it also takes up the mantle in social engineering. It tries to maintain the good aspects of society, while discarding the bad aspects. It does so through laws, and schooling. What is so bad about this?
The communists have done this too. But communism, in its denial of human nature itself, has tried to condition people against their nature. It backfired of course.

Only libertarians who favor complete economic freedom and personal freedom tend to be more internationalists, but even in this case can be found nationalists....

Libertarians are also strong individualists. Nationalists do not dwell on individuals.

A person can be in favor of economic freedoms and restrictions on individual freedoms (the right-wing conservatives) and being nationalistic

No. A nationalist loves his nation, a concept that binds him to the people of a nation by blood, language, culture and history.
What kind of super-economic freedoms does this allow for? Does nationalism allow for foreign capital to invade one's lands?
Does nationalism involve the emancipation of the state in terms of education and healthcare?
Nationalism incorporates the basic economic freedoms of personal property, the right of inheritance and buying and selling of property, yet it has strong social policies, something a nationalist cannot oppose. If a nationalist is okay with just the rich getting the best healthcare and education, or that the poor are to be exploited by the economically more powerful, he simply isn't one.

A person can also be in favor of individual freedoms and restrictions on economic freedoms (leftist reformers) and being nationalist or internationalist, no Democrats who are nationalists?

Individualists cannot become neither nationalists, nor communists, as individualism is the exact opposite of these. Neither can people who are nationalists be in favor of policies that disregard social welfare in favour of "economic freedoms".
There are people that fit your description in my country, who called themselves "social democrats". They also claim to be nationalists.
A claim they don't really back up.

Nationalist is usually the guy who thinks it is right that their nation subjugating other people get benefits or who want to preserve an ideal of nationality usually something that is associated with a particular ethnicity. These subjects are also much more common in the central than in the peripheral due to the early imperial mentality. The U.S. is prodigious that.

Well a nationalist is usually a person that incorporates both ideals and reality into his ideology.
Reality is, that there are nations on the earth that are greater than others. Nations that are weak have to bow to those who are greater then they are, or team up with another nation that is equal to the power of with whom he has a problem with.
Indeed, nationalism is strongly connected with ethnicity. Ethnicities have their own language, ancestry, history and culture. But that does not make them into nations. A nation is formed when the said ethnicity has a concept of moving together towards a common goal with his fellow ethnics.
Something that I don't think that the US politics can handle due to it's multiethnic nature, the lack of common ancestry, culture and history, which is a requirement for a nation. So where do you think that nationalism fits into American politics? I think it fits nowhere because there is no nation to begin with.

There really choose between capitalism or anything else, you may not like your company, but it exists regardless of your tastes

I do not dislike trade between nations of countries. However what I dislike is that a nation uses its economy in order to enslave another nation. But no nation would be able to do this if all nations were to keep their economy national.
This is what I propose. A national economy.
IF all nations were bent on preserving their national economy, their own capital, we would have no capitalism, as capitalism destroys by infiltrating the economy of other nations, and binding them. Worse than any occupation in my book, as you can fight off occupations with heath and weapons of steel.

[cratehorus]

a 1 world government has never existed therefore communism has never existed communism by definition is stateless, yes real communists are violent murderers these peaceful hippies redefining communims are not......... people like u should be killed because........ well many reasons........... but u should remember when criticizing communism that china russia nkorea and cuba....... etc........ were sociaist movements nothing more............. we beleive u should lined up and shot or atleast forced too work in the beet feilds and not allowed too speak......the worst part about this convo is that i am not even debating a strong form of nationalism like the americans, the germans, the canadians or the japs im debating a fucking turk a country that most people doesn't even know exists

[Fidel_Castronaut]

[Ferraro]

And they say things like "communism never existed", "the USSR, China and North Korea aren't communist", well they certainly are communist. There is no way for communism to come to power without the means of civil war, and an oppressive government.
May I ask you wher the "real communists" were when this was happening? Brooding over their books? Philosophizing?
Marx himself has denounced such individuals. He claimed that communism must come to power with an armed revolution, and he has stated this in the communist manifesto that the proletariat should arise and crush whatever he saw as being the oppressors.

Communism would be a historic step in that society no longer divided into social classes, and consequently there is no longer the state. In prehistoric times before the state is said that there was a primitive communism. And what Marx said was that industrial capitalism would bring up a new communism. Not only Marxists who plead for communism, many anarchists also do this.

Unlike Marxists to anarchists is that Marx talked about the need for an interim phase would be socialism in which workers would take control of the state to ensure the revolution. Anarchists criticized it saying that such a thing would result in a dictatorship. But anarchists are divided over the need for a violent revolution.

The split between anarchists and Marxists on the subject can be seen in the conflict that took place at the First International where Marx and Bakunin and their supporters fought each other. Bakunin is the greatest exponent of what we know as the collectivist anarchism as today. Marx was the winner of the fight and Bakunin was expelled from the organization. On occasion Bakunin named libertarian socialism as its ideology and the ideology of Marx's authoritarian socialism.

A violent revolution does not define communism, communism has never existed because the state and class division never reached their end. I do not know what the difficulty is here.

There is also the problem that in order for communism was actually implemented it would need to be deployed through a world revolution. Some anarchists speak of this revolution as something that would happen at the same time while Marxists tended to be more pragmatic imagining a revolution over time.

As I have said, some Marxists also say the so-called socialist countries were not even socialist because there continued to be a framework, wage and consumption equal to the capitalist countries, and then these countries have been state capitalism. I'm not saying they're right about that, but that's what they say.

Rosa Luxemburg and other critics of Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution in Germany died fighting for the revolution.

And no, I'm not a communist.

Indeed, but totalitarianism does not really divide ideologies, as you have said. Communism in and out itself, is too a totalitarian ideology.
So are most forms of nationalism, including mine. However in my mind, the state and the people share a common place. The state exists due to the people, and the people exist due to the state that allows them to be an independent ethnic and political entity.

The division between the right and left totalitarianism is quite common and necessary for political study. There are differences between fascism and socialism and the difference lies in the existence of the market and of the bourgeoisie and fascism in the absence of them in real socialism.

Well, you cannot form a state without a society. The state is there to guarantee the existence of society, while society simply exists. However for it to continue its existence it must have a state that is independent from the othes. So it is in the best interests of society to allow the continuation of a state, else they would simply be absorbed into another one.
And that state ought to have powers. In monarchy, the state, which is the King, gets his power by divine mandate in most cases.
In a state without a King, the state is ruled by representatives of the public. As in all states, they have the power to make laws and enact policies. Where totalitarianism differs from liberal ideologies is that it also takes up the mantle in social engineering. It tries to maintain the good aspects of society, while discarding the bad aspects. It does so through laws, and schooling. What is so bad about this?
The communists have done this too. But communism, in its denial of human nature itself, has tried to condition people against their nature. It backfired of course.

Yes, the state and society are related entities that depend on each other in the way of civilization. The difference here is that in a democratic state as it occurs in much of the West is the state certain limitations in that it does not find totalitarian regime. And in a democratic state the government is elected and takes its legitimacy from the people while totalitarianism or dictatorship government though it may be supported by the majority of the population does not go through electoral processes and critical to democratic governments.

But what are the good aspects of society? What those who are liberal in relation to customs advocate is that the state should have minimal interference in the lives of individual people acting only when there is harm to another. The authoritarian state and even more totalitarian want to print a unique lifestyle for all people and suppress behaviors. In practice chides herself minorities towards majoritarian traditions.

Libertarians are also strong individualists. Nationalists do not dwell on individuals.

You are using the term nationalism to describe the ideology of totalitarian or authoritarian nationalist orientation.

Here in my country I do not see the word nationalists be used with this meaning in the West and I think it is also generally used so little. It is used more to describe a feeling, for example, a person may be nationalist in a day or something nationalism can cause in a person, or a person can have a nationalist reaction.

No. A nationalist loves his nation, a concept that binds him to the people of a nation by blood, language, culture and history.
What kind of super-economic freedoms does this allow for? Does nationalism allow for foreign capital to invade one's lands?
Does nationalism involve the emancipation of the state in terms of education and healthcare?
Nationalism incorporates the basic economic freedoms of personal property, the right of inheritance and buying and selling of property, yet it has strong social policies, something a nationalist cannot oppose. If a nationalist is okay with just the rich getting the best healthcare and education, or that the poor are to be exploited by the economically more powerful, he simply isn't one.

You are speaking from the point of view of their country. If you are a citizen of the center of capitalism, in a country such as USA, Germany and Japan you can encourage economic freedoms because it is their country that the foreign capital that will control the productive activities of other countries.

You're a fascist playbook since defends the existence of private property and the market and social policies of the Keynesian type because it creates a sense of cohesion and belonging. I agree that if a person truly exalts his nation that person should be conducive to a balanced distribution of income. But what about the Republicans? Again I say they affirm the right of the U.S. to intervene in the matter of other countries, but at the same time are not supportive of social policies. Of course there are individuals in the U.S. as a high per capita income and an ideology of individual effort. But it is a complex thing.

Individualists cannot become neither nationalists, nor communists, as individualism is the exact opposite of these. Neither can people who are nationalists be in favor of policies that disregard social welfare in favour of "economic freedoms".
There are people that fit your description in my country, who called themselves "social democrats". They also claim to be nationalists.
A claim they don't really back up.

They are called social democrats worldwide.

Well a nationalist is usually a person that incorporates both ideals and reality into his ideology.
Reality is, that there are nations on the earth that are greater than others. Nations that are weak have to bow to those who are greater then they are, or team up with another nation that is equal to the power of with whom he has a problem with.
Indeed, nationalism is strongly connected with ethnicity. Ethnicities have their own language, ancestry, history and culture. But that does not make them into nations. A nation is formed when the said ethnicity has a concept of moving together towards a common goal with his fellow ethnics.
Something that I don't think that the US politics can handle due to it's multiethnic nature, the lack of common ancestry, culture and history, which is a requirement for a nation. So where do you think that nationalism fits into American politics? I think it fits nowhere because there is no nation to begin with.

You should understand that there are different constitutions of nations, not all will be very smooth as you said.

Generally identifies the nation who has a language and a religion common root. This is a basic definition and simplistic, but it works most of the time.

In fact in the U.S. there are three major ethnic groups are whites, blacks and Latinos being that within each group there are people who come from many different regions also beyond Asian. Although there is a long unbroken line connecting all these groups, their story is somewhere recently that is more than enough to give them a sense of belonging to the same nation.

But I understand that for a better functioning of fascism exists the need for a homogeneous nation, otherwise, will become the totalitarian dictatorship of the politically dominant ethnic group of other ethnic groups.

I do not dislike trade between nations of countries. However what I dislike is that a nation uses its economy in order to enslave another nation. But no nation would be able to do this if all nations were to keep their economy national.
This is what I propose. A national economy.
IF all nations were bent on preserving their national economy, their own capital, we would have no capitalism, as capitalism destroys by infiltrating the economy of other nations, and binding them. Worse than any occupation in my book, as you can fight off occupations with heath and weapons of steel.

Capitalism has been nationalist. Since the great European voyages towards the American continent living in a period of globalization that has intensified in the postwar period with the spread of multinationals.


I agree that some countries maintain other countries enslaved by the economy, however, it ceased to be something decided by the state and became a natural process led by large corporations.

But I do not understand your idea of isolation. Cuba and this practice is an underdeveloped country, but countries like Singapore and South Korea have developed being anything but isolationists, the state played a key role in economic development, but these are only developing countries through international trade relations.