Controversial and/or Unpopular, Personal/Political opinions

Post Reply New Topic

That doesn't contradict what I wrote.

I myself , if I have to pick a specific tendency , am a Titoist . So I am not against national communism as such . I just feel that it must be a left-wing nationalism . And also , if I might add , it is capitalism that is at odds with nationalism , not socialism .

While I may also be with Tito since I am a Yugoslav, I'd not go for market socialism and IMF loans he did. I also agree that capitalism is ad odds with nationalism. Because capitalism is global since like the 20th century. Capitalism no longer is patriotic. It only destroys nations in pursuit of profit. What exactly will capitalism do for the nation? Nothing! It will only create discord and chaos in its pursuit for profit!

As defined, here is the following

Capitalism - an economic system run on private property and profit
Nationalism - an ideology which prioritizes national development over international investments
Socialism - an economic system run on worker-owned property and production for use

Socialism is inevitably more compatible with nationalism as both strive to provide for the people. Both strive for prosperity of the people. Capitalism strives for profit, and nothing else. A borderless world is a capitalist dream. No socialist would want to abolish borders (unlike the revisionistic libertarians and anarchists). The weaker the nation, the stronger the wealthy! But a weaker nation will turn against the rich. It is socialism that will carry the flame of national pride and ensure a free world of sovereign nations, united in an economic socialist pact.

In the past, leaders could be both capitalistic and nationalist. An example might be mid-century USA which produced most of its infrastructure and consumer goods. No need to import anything from outside the country. On the other hand, the US practiced economic colonialism such that manufacturing may have been outsourced to Canada and Latin America, but in such a way that the US exerted control over those enterprises.

At least if you are to consider supremacy over other nations as a form of nationalism.

Probably less likely nowadays, but the attitude of that era lives on.

It's refreshing to see people honestly discuss the merits of mixing socialism and nationalism without pissing and sh*****g over superficial semantic similarities with nazis.
I agree with many socialist ideas (free education, nationalised public transport, very limited private renting etc), or atleast a strong social safety net. I also tend to be more hands off about interfering with international affairs and I would prefer societies to be much smaller and focused on themselves. A small community is easier to govern and easier to care for too, and more high trust.

What I want is for people to stop being conservative

I'm a pizza conservative.

If Kim Davis won't pay what she owes she ought to be jailed until she's paid the entire amount.

Philosophic correlationism as described by Quentin Meillassoux in 'After Finitude', a tradition popular from Kant onward, institutionally undermined people's perceived right to think for themselves because there's no 'God's eye view' and it became a 'therefor no independent reality to inspect' (trying to do so should socially get you flogged), 'truth' is whatever helps you survive the room (believe whatever they believe) otherwise you're toast and there's no benefit to caring what's true if true and popular aren't synonymous. It really does a lot to reinforce and strengthen the old Kegan 3 'If you're not just like me you're wrong'.

I'd say similar things of 'tabula rasa' - it taught us to ignore all of our obvious lived experience about kids, gender, etc., it taught men and women that they should find someone in the opposite sex whose 'just like them' (not available for almost anyone), and gave us pablum that was unfortunately needed by both neo-Marxists and neoliberals to muck up the world - made fungible economic meat Legos (or the appearance thereof) who were owed no gender accommodation, like for women with young children, for neoliberals and for neo-Marxists they could campaign forever saying that all of our problems were instructional, cultural, and that they could solve all of it through defeating capitalism when our fixed animal nature is precisely why Marxism doesn't work (love E.O. Wilson's remark 'Great idea, wrong species').

Also I do not believe racism, capitalism, or any of that is the 'final boss' after which defeating them we have lions and lams laying down together and swords turning into ploughshares and I think people have a way of going stark, raving mad when a 'final boss' problem gets solved that was supposed to revolutionize quality of life, they believe the propaganda too literally, and no such thing comes of it. Scott Alexander outlines why any particular issue is not the 'final boss' problem:

https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/ ... -On-Moloch

Bigots are worse than pedophiles.

It's a lot easier to believe this as a child-free adult, after pedophiles have ceased to be a personal threat.

Yep, the distance between being heckled or annoyed by someone of a different race vs getting your colon perforated is pretty big.

Are you even aware of how offensive that statement is to people who were victims of being molested? Or do you simply not give a s**t?

Capitalism inevitably globalized because it pursues money. The pursuit of money has no boundaries. Capitalist globalization was inevitable, thus we, socialists, must take the flame of patriotism and establish an united world of sovereign socialist states, to ensure people that we want an united free world and a world which respects national boundaries and international fraternity of the working people.

In its globalization, capitalism aimed to import cheap foreign labor, displace the working class, and destroy a third world country's sovereignty. Even in the past, capitalist nations like USA, Britain, and France weren't really nationalist. USA very much began playing a global role since 1941. Britain and France still relied on colonies (UK especially relies on colonies today).

Here's a pretty wild realization that's quite likely true, I've triangulated it and I'm not sure how much it will surprise anyone but:

MGTOW is not a new phenomena, nor does it really have all that much to do with women (ie. it's not a reaction against women so much as an overbearing and usurious system). This happened back in Rome in the late 1st century BCE with the Lex Julia laws, it happened in ancient Greece and Epicurus's 'Garden', those are two confirmed situations, and I've seen suggestion that its happened on and off through the middle ages and Renaissance through different places.

The gist - a society gets overly bureaucratic, no one can do anything without kissing the ring of power, everything has rents attached, men realize that the system is vampiric enough that it will suck their soul down to a shell and rather than losing their health and reasoning capacity or needing to perform corruption and lying for favor they just start exiting a system en mass when they realize it's effectively predatory and that integrity will make them Ned Stark.

The predictable move in the next ten years - any western country that's having men withdraw who has the legal wiggle room to levy 'bachelor taxes' (ie. financial punishment for men being single) likely will, because that's been the historical pattern for what power does when it runs into a problem - wrench on it or turn it into a revenue stream even if you don't believe it will do much you're at least getting $$. The reason it's less likely in the US is that it's unconstitutional, they could only repeal tax benefits and deductions for all singles which would hit women too and defeat the purpose or worse - cause significant political backlash.