A Different Approach

Isakenaz wrote:The 'united front' approach hasn't worked in the past, it always disintegrates into the usual arguments. Any attempt to try and get the various strains of socialism working together is doomed to failure.
What we need is a totaly new approach one dedicated to destroying the main enemy, capitalism, and not another party, or umbrella organisation, that will join the usual intelectual minority rights arguments that plague the left.
I don't know what that 'approach' is, but if we keep addressing the question without declining into the "Marx said this" and "Yes but Lenin said..." we might start to get somewhere,

It is true that such attempts failed in the past. What could work is for that united front to be solely the junction of similar tendencies. Clearly, social democrats, leninists, and anarchists cannot work together in a unified manner. That was not my contention.

As for dogmatism, that spells death for any theory. Appeals to authority should be stamped out. If ideas cannot hold their own without a name being associated with them then those ideas must be discarded.

TheocWulf wrote:Exactly forget the dogma.I personally use many individuals to form my political opinions the likes of Marx,Lilburne,Strasser,Owen,Murros,X,Choamsky and a few other individuals go towards my Folkish Socialism.

We need our national and ethnic identities fused with Socialism to bring a real alternative.

I don't think so. Ethnic and national identities need not be mixed with Socialism. They needn't interfere with one another either. Cosmopolitan aversion to the acknowledgement of drastic cultural differences need not push us to the idolization of those differences. If you want to hold your culture as the best then fine.

Also, your list of influences does not count as an endorsement does it?

Red Aegis wrote:Also, your list of influences does not count as an endorsement does it?

So what's the point of social nationalism if we don't mix socialism with our national and/or ethnic identities?,Sounds like Cosmo socialism except with borders.

TheocWulf wrote:So what's the point of social nationalism if we don't mix socialism with our national and/or ethnic identities?,Sounds like Cosmo socialism except with borders.

The point is not to alienate the general population. If you really think that what I said was cosmopolitan then why don't you explain why. I doubt that you would be successfully convincing.

I don't know how it is in America, but here in Britain most socialists openly embrace cosmopolitanism. Try and convince them that socialism can embrace any form of nationalism and they will attack.
Red, I may be wrong, but Theocwulf is right, how can we embrace social-nationalism without ethnic consideration?

Isakenaz wrote:I don't know how it is in America, but here in Britain most socialists openly embrace cosmopolitanism. Try and convince them that socialism can embrace any form of nationalism and they will attack.
Red, I may be wrong, but Theocwulf is right, how can we embrace social-nationalism without ethnic consideration?

Could you be more specific in what you mean by 'consideration'?

Red Aegis wrote:The point is not to alienate the general population. If you really think that what I said was cosmopolitan then why don't you explain why. I doubt that you would be successfully convincing.

Luckily I'm not trying to convince you or anybody on your side of the Atlantic.

Firstly-You have no idea what alienates the General population of my country.Do you know who the biggest BNP supporters are these days,old working class people from former industrial towns and city's in the north of England who used to vote Labour until they.

A-They didn't reverse the Conservatives privitisations,sold out the unions they were members of,Sold out to the bankers and became the "Champagne Socialist party"

B-Filled the country full of immigrants which made it harder for there children to find work and access to essential services.

Secondly-Ethnic and national identities need not be mixed with Socialism.Sounds pretty Cosmo to me

Uh-huh. You still haven't explained why it is cosmopolitan in nature. I doubt that you understand the meaning of the word since when questioned about it you attempt to divert the dialogue towards how the Labour Party sucks.

Why don't you explain why it isn't then professor Marx?

They just aren't related by necessity. How can you not see that? Socialism just doesn't have to interfere with national identity and culture and vice versa. Socialism is an economic mode, nationalism is a political stance that just does not necessarily have to do with economics. What about that is hard for you to understand?

Since you don't get the definition I'll give it to you:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:Cosmopolitanism
First published Sat Feb 23, 2002; substantive revision Tue Nov 28, 2006

The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-political philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, do (or at least can) belong to a single community, and that this community should be cultivated. Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. The philosophical interest in cosmopolitanism lies in its challenge to commonly recognized attachments to fellow-citizens, the local state, parochially shared cultures, and the like.

Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to worship your culture. It only means that you don't want to force other cultures to change to accommodate yours or the other way around.

Red Aegis wrote:Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to worship your culture. It only means that you don't want to force other cultures to change to accommodate yours or the other way around.

Okay so Theocwulf may have indulgedin a spot of Labour bashing, but we in this country have quite a lot of 'champagne socialists' who seem more interested in placating the capitalist than fullfilling the needs of the worker. He could have easily attacked the coservative or liberal policies as they're no less shambolic
But your definition of nationalism is a bit strange, since it is the ethnic British who are having to be more accomodating to the different cultures being introduced by the immigrant. However, I may be misreading it.
The fact is that the white Britisher is indigenous to these islands, a fact I'm tired of trying to get across to the cosmopolitan socialist of the left, so for socialism to win acceptance by the majority of British workers, who still happen to be white, it has to include ethnic considerations.
The question of socialism for this country is a topic that must be dealt with from a British perspective, no matter how unaceptable it is to onlookers from other nations.

Isakenaz wrote:But your definition of nationalism is a bit strange, since it is the ethnic British who are having to be more accomodating to the different cultures being introduced by the immigrant. However, I may be misreading it.

I think that people should have control over their own borders - where they live - in regards to newcomers that are not born there. It should be up to the people who they invite to live with them and in what manner. If a society, in this case a nation, does not mind multiculturalism and decides to allow another culture to set up their own society with possible overlap in their region then that is their concern. I do not think that Socialism has anything to do with that political decision. If that nation requires that business be done in the official language then I support that too.

The fact is that the white Britisher is indigenous to these islands, a fact I'm tired of trying to get across to the cosmopolitan socialist of the left, so for socialism to win acceptance by the majority of British workers, who still happen to be white, it has to include ethnic considerations.
The question of socialism for this country is a topic that must be dealt with from a British perspective, no matter how unaceptable it is to onlookers from other nations.

It needn't include ethnic considerations since that would be a political decision that is separate from the decision to run the economy socialistically. Where I am coming from is that the analysis of how all proletarians are exploited and that it would be more equitable for the entire population of the Earth if Socialism were the prevailing economic mode does not mean that the governance of the Earth need be united. There could be an argument made for the benefits of such a government, but that government would necessarily in my view be consensual in nature, without an imbalance of power in the negotiations.

I am a nationalist in the sense that I think that groups of people within a traditional geographic area, a nation, should be free to determine its governing body and maintain its borders. My nationalism has nothing to do with a fear of the destruction of some sort of abstract identity.

Red Aegis wrote:
My nationalism has nothing to do with a fear of the destruction of some sort of abstract identity.

Fine, but I think that to describe peoples sense of identity as "abstract" is a bit strong. In Britain we see daily how the government on all levels panders to the immigrant. We are subjected to situations in which the culture of the incomer is given priority, when we, the indigenous English, attempt to celebrate our culture we are told it is racist, supremacist and downright nasty. When we are forced to watch the history of our people rewritten to accomodate the immigrant. On top of that we watch as our children are used and abused by those of alien cultures. We are not living in fear for our identity, we are watching as it disapears. Yes we want socialism, but we want it on a national scale. For that reason we embrace left wing-nationalism not as Theocwulf put it 'cosmopolitanism with borders'.

Red Aegis wrote:Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to worship your culture. It only means that you don't want to force other cultures to change to accommodate yours or the other way around.

Excellent in that case ill let the Native Americans know that once Social Nationalism is archived they won't have to put up with your culture anymore.

Isakenaz wrote:Fine, but I think that to describe peoples sense of identity as "abstract" is a bit strong. In Britain we see daily how the government on all levels panders to the immigrant. We are subjected to situations in which the culture of the incomer is given priority, when we, the indigenous English, attempt to celebrate our culture we are told it is racist, supremacist and downright nasty. When we are forced to watch the history of our people rewritten to accomodate the immigrant. On top of that we watch as our children are used and abused by those of alien cultures. We are not living in fear for our identity, we are watching as it disapears.

That is unfortunate and there really should be a national referendum on immigration and related policies.

Yes we want socialism, but we want it on a national scale. For that reason we embrace left wing-nationalism not as Theocwulf put it 'cosmopolitanism with borders'.

I trust that you are not referring to my views, as he was, to such.

TheocWulf wrote:Excellent in that case ill let the Native Americans know that once Social Nationalism is archived they won't have to put up with your culture anymore.

Unfortunately, I was born here and that was not my fault. Actually, my state was bought mostly fairly and the natives got along with the immigrants here.

Red Aegis wrote:Unfortunately, I was born here and that was not my fault. Actually, my state was bought mostly fairly and the natives got along with the immigrants here.

Oh as long it was bought fair square no dramas big lad,I don't think the descendants of the Indians would buy that excuse if they had a chance to throw of the chains of the oppressor.

You do realize that "native" british are a mix right?

Red Aegis wrote:You do realize that "native" british are a mix right?

I thought you might say that.

Well that may not even be the case.One genetic study shows that the british population perhaps up to 95% hasn't changed since the Bronze Age.Another study shows that the English population is 95% Germanic this would include the Anglo Saxon,Viking and Norman people's.Even if the second test could conclusively be proved I'd hardly call a group of Kindred people's living on a small island a mix in the modern sense.

TheocWulf wrote:Well that may not even be the case.One genetic study shows that the british population perhaps up to 95% hasn't changed since the Bronze Age.Another study shows that the English population is 95% Germanic this would include the Anglo Saxon,Viking and Norman people's.Even if the second test could conclusively be proved I'd hardly call a group of Kindred people's living on a small island a mix in the modern sense.

Nope, by your logic everyone who is majority germanic should get the hell out since they are part of a non-native group. If it matters what percentage of the total population an ethnicity is then your argument for me to leave the US would also be faulty. You can't have that cake and eat it too. Nice try.

Red Aegis wrote:Nope, by your logic everyone who is majority germanic should get the hell out since they are part of a non-native group. If it matters what percentage of the total population an ethnicity is then your argument for me to leave the US would also be faulty. You can't have that cake and eat it too. Nice try.

None of these Genetic study's can be conclusively proved so ill just stay where I am actually,how do we know which test is correct (its probably a mix of the two).However if a European and Native American stood next to each other I wouldn't have to conduct a Genetic study to prove who was about in that part of the world first would I?

And when did I say you should leave North America?

Over to you

The point is that your argument is ridiculous and I already explained why. If you have any real points to make then do so instead of contradicting yourself.

Red Aegis wrote:The point is that your argument is ridiculous and I already explained why. If you have any real points to make then do so instead of contradicting yourself.

Actually I was pointing out your contradiction when you said.

Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to worship your culture. It only means that you don't want to force other cultures to change to accommodate yours or the other way around.

A contradictory statement for somebody from a nation based on destroying a few native cultures isn't it?

No, because I do not support any further action of the same and do not deserve the consequences of the actions of those that came before me. This is highlighted by the fact that my family has all immigrated here legally a maximum of 100 years ago.

Who's having there cake and eating it now?

Are you drunk? If you are serious then elaborate.

Red Aegis wrote:Nationalism doesn't mean that you have to worship your culture. It only means that you don't want to force other cultures to change to accommodate yours or the other way around.

That statement and the inherit contradiction of it coming from an American who was telling English people that our culture is in some way abstract and we should accommodate other cultures and visa versa,when your people ethnically cleansed a people of the very land you are typing from now.

And I don't drink on a school night thanks.