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

[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.