: 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.Still remains his views were more than a little touched with his Imperial up-bringing- and no matter what he *did* its till doesn't make his turn-coatism right- he said he would oppose WWII, then turned round and started broadcasting propaganda for the BBC calling the Anti-War folk 'Fascifists'...
: 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 I'm not left-wing- the terms derive from the French national assembnly, when the aristocracy sat on the King's right, and the liberals on the King's left. Left-wingism is a branch of capitalism.
: Which is idiocy in my opinion...
Why/ Britain conquored half the world, and brutalised teh locals, which is just what Hitler wanted to do- Britain only joined teh war to stop Germany expanding towards teh middle-east and carving a mittel-europan empire to challeng british hegemony with (plus the olotov von-Ribbontov pact). It wasn't fuaght for freedom, nor to stop evil.
: Well you might be better described as a communist than a socialist
They mean exactly the same thing to me- a moneyless, classless, stateless society.
:then I dont think your ever going to see a time when altruism over takes economics,
I don't want to see altruism take over economics, socialism is all about self-interest. Altruism is idealist Christian-Socialism.
: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.
Its nothing todo with infatuation, and everything to do with seeing that Co-ops can't abolish capitalism, can't abolish poverty, and don't particulalry work well under capitalist economic.
: 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.
It is undemocratic because formal liberal democracy is geared towards minority rule.
: 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.
Well, the fact that nation states just didn't exist until the seventeenth century, that they had to be invented, that they *annot* be defined, tends to suggest to me, that they are not a natural entity. Under fuedalism you'd have Czech peasants living under a german Lord for a Polish King, etc.
: 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.
I have, some bugger keeps trying to impose Englishness upon me.
: Well that's what I'd hope for and work towards.
Then why work towards a shite 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.
No, it is exactly those ruling elits you spoke of, working systemically to ensure a guiding sway- governments don't rule, teh market does, governments react to teh market, the capitalist class can always ensure, more or less, through control of finance, etc. that the Government serves their interest. the ruling class set teh rules under which the Government exists, and those rules/systems work to their advantage. No-one ever suggested they were consciously planning this, it is simply them working out their self interest in society.
: 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.
Right, but they'd still be competing against otehr nations, still be involved in the market, and the 'nation' would own everything.
: 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.
Nothing to do with machiavelianism, and if we try to embrace it with socialism, we have to embrace its logic, which is anti-socialist: a nation says 'we own this area', thats about as good a definition as you'll get- thats a property claim.
