: : OK no fan of Orwell's "Lion and the Unicorn" I take it? : No, I can't stand his Imperial-Adminsitrative class attitude. 'One familly, but with teh wrong members in charge.'- he's basically a Liberal.
Yes, I thought it was very liberal of him to fight in the spanish civil war, deride those who wanted to reduce it to a war for parliamentry democracy and dismantle the soviets and workers councils and then eventually get shot in the throat by a facist.
: I am not eft-wing, and don't hold with Left-wing principles, left-wing, right-wing, both parts of the same damn bird.
Dont be stupid RD when I refer to left and right wing I'm doing it in the socialist sense of right wing defends elites and wealthy privileged folk while left is more inclined to attack such groupings and attitudes.
: And at that time Socialists opposed the war, because they thought the British Empire every bit as bad as hitler's,
Which is idiocy in my opinion...
:that Stalin was every bit as much a monster as Hitler, etc.
True...
: What do I have to gain- simply convincing people that capitalism cannot be made to work, and so must be done away with. As for co-ops, yes.
Well you might be better described as a communist than a socialist then I dont think your ever going to see a time when altruism over takes economics, that's as far as co-ops go, you know yourself what you have to gain from such an argument everyone wants to see their ideology established it has the same effect as a religious revival if your infatuated to that extent.
: Planned, smanned, by whom? Who for? The Atlee government saved British Capitalism with its Left-wing capitalism. Its still the amrket, still has poverty, still fights wars.
Did I say it was perfect?
: : Individualism versus common identity, strange for a socialist that.
: Not at all, nation states are undemocratic, nationalism is an ideological illusion of commonality, only through thorough free democracy can we have self-determination, slecting masters who speak the same language as you does not self-dtermination make.
Now if we had about 7 popular and competitive political parties and 100% turn out at elections etc. and things remained as they are I'd say the nation state is undemocratic, it is remote and discouraging with skills in detering rather than encouraging democratic participation but it's like a car that everyone wants to go some where when no one will put a key in the ignition.
If nationalism is a false communal identity where is your proof? Or perhaps that is the same old marxist religious rehortic that has led to left wing movements losing their support to right wing movements through the ages.
As to selecting masters etc. it really isnt going to matter to you what I say because you have not experienced the situations in which someone is forced to acknowledge the imposed nationalism of someone else.
: : Well that is something similar to what I'd have thought but like Ghandi said I'd prefer a rubbish government of my own to an excellent imperial one of someone elses.
: Why settle for an shite government of your own, when you could have a good government.
Well that's what I'd hope for and work towards.
:It is someone elses government, its the ruling class' government.
Right, this ruling class when do they meet to plan this ruling thing? That's dated and washed out rehtoric there are elites dominating society through lack of accountability but to suggest that they are coherently ruling after some fashion is nonsense, when Marx wrought this it was probubly the case fuedal lords simply embraced liberalism and became lords again but what about america or the "self-made" rich who are held in awe by the poor or millionaire wannabes.
: : Fair enough but how come I could be nationalist/patriotic without that kind of behaviour? Perhaps my nationalism is of a different, legitimate and positive nature as I stated before, generalise a bit more RD please do...
: Legitimate in whose eyes? Whom does it serve? Look, national identity is like the Stockholme Syndrome on a massive scale, our masters telling us that we have common interest with them, because we are their hostages, their needs must be met before ours, so we identify with their needs.
OK so there you go generalising again, a socialist nationalism would say that the primary producers of wealth are the foundations of the nation and require not just a fair deal but the whole deal.
: Its not the invention of the rulers alone, they have to select traditions and values in order to attract followers- look at pre-independance Ireland, Yeats et. al. trying to construct an echte Irische identity, going out into the peasant heartlands to borrow from folk-loric roots, in order to construct, actively and consciously, a national identity.
Good getting beyond rhetorical generalisations now, yeah, I know a lot of national identity is the product of consistant Machevellianism but I never said abandon socialism in favour of it, I meant taint it with socialism.
