: Still remains his views were more than a little touched with his Imperial up-bringing-He wrote "eyeless in Gaza" about his horror at experiencing imperialism first hand have you thought about what your saying here or is this mere rehortic?
: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'...
He was a sincere and ardent socialist RD, I only made note of what he did because I thought it would provide material proof of his views, it is also a different matter to oppose war morally but support engagement where no alternative exists, EG reluctant militarism as opposed to pacifism.
It wasnt facist it was "objectively pro hitler"...
: 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.
Fine, regardless of their origins the terms have made it into convential language to give expression to political positions rejecting them is like saying to someone who asks you the weather well I oppose rain and sunshine so I cant tell you what is happening.
: 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.
Yet another gross generalisation when my dad asked my grandad, who volunteered with a bunch of NI Labour party people etc. to fight in WW2(conscription being non-compulsory in NI), why he did so he said it was because facism had to be stopped. You cant speak for every man women and child.
: They mean exactly the same thing to me- a moneyless, classless, stateless society.
Well they dont to me just as every decision people make isnt dictated by self-interest it isnt dictated by altruism or absolutist rationality either.
: I don't want to see altruism take over economics, socialism is all about self-interest. Altruism is idealist Christian-Socialism.
See above.
: :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.
I never said it was perfect, just more realistic...
: It is undemocratic because formal liberal democracy is geared towards minority rule.
The representative delegation that you advocate could become the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
: 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.
Nation STATES being the operative word, EG not simply nations/national identities.
: I have, some bugger keeps trying to impose Englishness upon me.
What would you like to be irish, I'll allow you if you want.
: Then why work towards a shite government?
No work towards good government, then no, or next to no government.
: 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.
I dont think it's all as deliberate and all as you make out, the elites that dominate compete to dominate each other as well.
: Right, but they'd still be competing against otehr nations, still be involved in the market, and the 'nation' would own everything.
Why RD? Remember your telling me what I believe here and it doesnt sound the same as when I thought it.
: : 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.
That's funny I've been to Irish communities in Spain, US, England etc. and they've never claimed that the land they live in is part of the Irish Republic. Macavalianism, that is manipulative government with the input of conscious planning rulers, would have been consistant with your ideas about nationalism maybe not.
