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

[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.