Patriotism vs nationalism

[Machjo]

I'd like to know your understanding of the differences between patriotism and nationalism, and the impact each has on society.

As for me personally, I tend to define them as follows:

patriotism: a love for one's country

nationalism: a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another

Based on these definitions, I tend to see patriotism as being more benign, and also more flexible in its applicability. A country is not necessarily a political entity, but rather any piece of land and the people inhabiting it, which could be defined differently by each person. Some people might limit its application to only within the borders of their own political state, while others might apply it more generally to the large tract of land called earth. So it does allow for a wide interpretation. Also, since it merely involves love for that land and its people, it's also void of any political or ideological connotation.

As for nationalism, I see it as being more likely to be defined along the lines of a political state, along with perceived racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, ideological, and other attributes in the mind of the believer, who believes in this national ideology as the ideal for which to strive, and the ideal to promote abroad. It could be either a left-leaning or right-leaning nationalism, but either way, it will be based on a belief that the ways of a particular nation are superior to those of others.

Another possible distinction between nationalism and patriotism is as defined by George Orwell:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

I think he puts it better than I do.

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting idea. From your description, it's hard not to see value for natural patriotism. But is there any reason that I, an Ontarian, should feel love for Alberta over, say, Montana ?

There's no logical reason for lines on a map to evoke emotions is there ?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[wyly]

I see them as the same thing, both evil anachronisms that haved caused millions of deaths...I'm a member of the human race first and last, nothing else matters much...people who consider themselves better than me because of where the live(national/provincial), their ethnic origin, religious beliefs are ignorant butt holes...

Edited January 27, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Oleg Bach]

Nation means family and country designates physical territory. I suppose a patriot is someone who defends the extended national family. Seeing Canada is such a multi-cultural mix patriots are few and usuallay what is left of eastern ero and anglo stock...when was the last time you saw recent immigrants at the recruitment centre? Patriots almost don't exist...simply because the founding ancestoral group is dying out...but you will still find nationalist who love to use Canada as a base to further some goal for some other national family else where...oh and those people standing on bridges who never had an oringinal thought in their lives who salute dead passing soldiers...those are not patriots they are simpletons stupid enough to sacrafice a son or daughter to some banker who wages war for amusement.

[Pliny]

I see them as the same thing, both evil anachronisms that haved caused millions of deaths...I'm a member of the human race first and last, nothing else matters much...people who consider themselves better than me because of where the live(national/provincial), their ethnic origin, religious beliefs are ignorant butt holes...

Internationalism above all else. We are all one. All are equal, or else. Does your internationalist global equality idea make you better than most? Sure, it does.....Way above all those other ignorant butt holes....

[Shwa]

Interesting idea. From your description, it's hard not to see value for natural patriotism. But is there any reason that I, an Ontarian, should feel love for Alberta over, say, Montana ?

There's no logical reason for lines on a map to evoke emotions is there ?

Sure there is although it depends on the quality and quantity of myths you consume. (Or are force-fed.) Once you have consumed enough of the good stuff, those lines mean everything. Even those ones between Ontario and Alberta. That is "nationalism" in the Canadian sense I think. When someone (or something) challenges those internalized myths and you get your back up (or stand up), that is when patriotism (in the Canadian sense) comes into play.

Orwell's distinction is pretty good.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure there is although it depends on the quality and quantity of myths you consume. (Or are force-fed.) Once you have consumed enough of the good stuff, those lines mean everything. Even those ones between Ontario and Alberta. That is "nationalism" in the Canadian sense I think. When someone (or something) challenges those internalized myths and you get your back up (or stand up), that is when patriotism (in the Canadian sense) comes into play.

Orwell's distinction is pretty good.

Should I feel patriotic about Alberta ?

[wyly]

Should I feel patriotic about Alberta ?

I don't and I live here it's just arbitrary lines on a map that distingish me from someone in Sask or BC but the simple folk see it as Alberta vs greedy Canada...I also don't buy into the Alberta game of Calgary vs. Edmonton...it's okay for fun in sports competitions but some people take it past that level and into provincial politics...

[Shwa]

Should I feel patriotic about Alberta?

What is "Alberta?" That is the question you should ask first. Or maybe, who are Albertans since the thread is about nationalism and patriotism, not provincialism and patriotism.

[ZenOps]

I've always though it harder to be loyal and upstanding when the names of provinces are decidedly exclusionary.

IE: British Columbia. Sure, everyone in Canada knows the British own our asses - but do you really have to keep the name? Plain Columbia will do just fine. I can only imagine the uproar if a religious group or other empire tried to setup a naming scheme like that. French Quebec or Chinese Alberta anyone, How about Islamic Winnipeg?

I think the naming still puts Canada in a colonial subservient state (which it is mind you, we are still very dependant on external countries for military support)

Edited January 6, 2010 by ZenOps

[Pliny]

What is "Alberta?" That is the question you should ask first. Or maybe, who are Albertans since the thread is about nationalism and patriotism, not provincialism and patriotism.

I agree that Orwell makes the clear distinction between nationalism and patriotism by making "nationalism" ideologically the primary consideration. If Canada were threatened I am sure that Ontarians and Albertans would forgo their provincial "Patriotism" for the national interest. Would they forgo the national interest above anything?

I suppose, if we use Orwell's analysis, that patriotism could turn to nationalism. "My country wrong or right" could be initially patriotic if the country is threatened but might become nationalistic if it is a strategy ideologically cultivated to take the offensive.

I should clarify what concept I mean to convey by the term "ideology". It is to me basically a vision of how things should be and if that were attained it would be perfection. Marxism is an ideology, Christianity is an ideology. Marxism is about the achievement of a perfect society of equality and Christianity is about reaching heaven -the most perfect place off Earth. In living the ideology one attempts to create the "ideal" the vision they have of perfection. Now perfection to some is an impossible achievement and may refute my concept of the term "ideology" but their ideological view would then include perfection to be minimizing imperfection and that being a part of their ideal itself.

I have an ideal concept of how things should be. Ideally, as an individual, I would be entirely in charge of my own life and in the societal sense we would all be living in reason, harmony and co-operation. I realize that this is an ideal and even may not be desirable to achieve. I certainly enjoy the benefit of other people's knowledge and some benefit form my knowledge, I certainly cannot be all things to myself. So my ideal from an individual perspective must be mitigated by my societal perspective. Tying it all together is matter of balance. I cannot be an island unto myself and I cannot totally sacrifice my individuality to the collective good. All I can do is attempt to find a happy medium, the correct balance in it all. Some ideology's might forfeit the individual entirely - Environmentalism perhaps does this. Anarchy would perhaps totally forfeit society to the individual. These two ideologies are exclusive of one another and offer no balance, the problem is in finding the correct balance.

Others here may have noticed my derision of "socialism" in government. It is only because I recognize it as a process toward an imbalance of individual responsibility.

while there are advantages in acting collectively, the individual cannot be entirely abandoned for the "collective good" which is the end goal of the socialist process in government. I have also mentioned that all organizational structure is socialistic and outside of government is entirely valid. Government, being an organization, is then, within it's structure, socialistic but since it is about governing it tends to wish to be the organization that governs all organizations and that would be it's ideal; that it govern everything. If it could it could make everything right, or so those with that ideological bent would agree.

Although, I may appear, in my ideological proclivity to be focused upon individuality it is in an attempt to correct what I perceive to be an imbalance of individuality and the State in the construct of society. If the individual does not participate in the creation of a society and it is left entirely to the State then the individual takes no responsibility for it. He feels separate from it. It is interesting to note that he will still attempt to create a society outside the State. An undergound economy, a secretive society where individualism is expressed and recognizably contributive.

Gotta go! Sorry for the typos, etc.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

I suppose, if we use Orwell's analysis, that patriotism could turn to nationalism.

I am sure there is a provenance to that from a poli-sci perspective; that the emotional aspect of an attachment to a particular 'place' was intellectualized or idealized and evolved into the various stages of social organization throughout Western history.

[Pliny]

I am sure there is a provenance to that from a poli-sci perspective; that the emotional aspect of an attachment to a particular 'place' was intellectualized or idealized and evolved into the various stages of social organization throughout Western history.

Yes, I think so. Communism pushed the ideal to the international level. It transcended national interests but became a failed socio-economic experiment in the totalitarian State. Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state which is better being achieved by creeping socialism. It is almost impossible to stop the progressive march of socialism unless special interests are willing to forgo favour and/or privilege out of the public largesse. I suppose what evolves out of the inequities granted those special interests creates what Marx labelled the class struggle. There is no class struggle as long as any distinction of class is fluid. Social democracies tend to solidify the class distinction. If individuals are able to raise their living standard by their effort then there is no class struggle. There is only the level of individual attainment that the individual feels comfortable with. As long as that fluidity exists there is no collective action to gain political-economic privilege because each individual has access to all classes and can rise to the level to which they are capable and comfortable with. As long as they not oppressed and are enabled to reach their potential they should be content.

The Black civil rights movement is an example of breaking down social and class barriers. Those barriers were held ingrained by "laws". Mostly local laws that made Blacks second class citizens. Although the public may have held the view that Blacks were a second class that was being eroded and the main resistance was from laws that cultivated segregation. The fact Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, have seperate washrooms and were barred from white only establishments was not primarily out of prejudice but upheld by law. It was only the concept of equality in society that saw those laws being challenged and changed. They would not have changed if there were no social movement from the established majority. Martin Luther King attempted to accelerate the drive for equality which was already in progress. The mistake that is made is making new laws regarding race such as affirmative action. All that was necessary was to remove the laws that held class distinction in place and minatianed the concept of the second class citizen. Essentially the removal of oppression and any distinction of race as ensconced in law was all that was necessary. Blacks then would have had the opportunity, at the consternation of some holding prejudice, to move out of segregation if they so chose. Choice being imperative. It would certainly have been a tougher ride to begin with but eventually they would be able to have moved anywhere in society. They can now, by law, but reverse discrimination in newly created laws, in my mind, creates a backlash of resentment which is divisive in itself and is not conducive to the alleviation of racial tensions. Acting in a "collective" manner implies separation. Races acting collectively maintain a racial barrier. The right of association cannot be denied so in acting collectively any race-based association must not be for the purposes of maintaining segregation outside the association into other areas of society.

I think the ideal brought forth by the designers of the American Constitution was of equality under the law for all men. But we have to remember that at that time Women and Blacks were not considered "men", they fell more under the definition of chattel than person. So really the fight for equal rights has been a fight to be considered an individual equal to "men". It must also be understood that the title of "man" was exclusive even among men, politically to some it meant only landowners. So the inequities were not in essence racial or gender based. Some States at the inception of the Union did, I think, actually grant universal suffrage, women were allowed the vote.

So progress is not really made when government engineers society as in social democracies. What is won is privilege and favour for special interests creating divisions and pitting those special interests against each other in the Marxist struggle of the classes.

That's my thoughts on that. It's another glorious day!

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny,

You mix subjective feelings with objective observations in a way that is aggravating.

I'll illustrate.

Yes, I think so. Communism pushed the ideal to the international level. It transcended national interests but became a failed socio-economic experiment in the totalitarian State.

Objective, and so demonstrably true that we don't need a link to agree with you.

Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state which is better being achieved by creeping socialism.

Huh ? Communism is not a means to achieve the totalitarian state, it's a means for workers to "throw off their chains". It's right there in the Communist Manifesto.

It is almost impossible to stop the progressive march of socialism unless special interests are willing to forgo favour and/or privilege out of the public largesse. I suppose what evolves out of the inequities granted those special interests creates what Marx labelled the class struggle.

This is deeply weird. Now you're saying that the "class struggle" is about the privileged special interests versus the rest of us ? That's not what the class struggle has ever meant.

There is no class struggle as long as any distinction of class is fluid. Social democracies tend to solidify the class distinction. If individuals are able to raise their living standard by their effort then there is no class struggle. There is only the level of individual attainment that the individual feels comfortable with. As long as that fluidity exists there is no collective action to gain political-economic privilege because each individual has access to all classes and can rise to the level to which they are capable and comfortable with. As long as they not oppressed and are enabled to reach their potential they should be content.

What does 'fluid' mean ? Fluidity should mean that people go from upper class to lower class as well as vice-versa, and at comparable and not insignificant rates. Define some of those numbers first, then we can go and look at the numbers for social democracies. It may indeed be that more lower-class citizens go to middle class in, say, the US but if that number is marginal and the lower classes are much worse off in the US then that situation may not be better.

But I admire you for focusing on the overall good, and that you appear to think your belief system delivers the best environment.

The Black civil rights movement is an example of breaking down social and class barriers. Those barriers were held ingrained by "laws". Mostly local laws that made Blacks second class citizens. Although the public may have held the view that Blacks were a second class that was being eroded and the main resistance was from laws that cultivated segregation. The fact Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, have seperate washrooms and were barred from white only establishments was not primarily out of prejudice but upheld by law. It was only the concept of equality in society that saw those laws being challenged and changed. They would not have changed if there were no social movement from the established majority.

That majority was in the Northern States, though, and could be seen as an alien authority.

Martin Luther King attempted to accelerate the drive for equality which was already in progress. The mistake that is made is making new laws regarding race such as affirmative action.

Does that mean that you support the Federal government imposing laws on Southern States ? That seems rather unlibertarian. How about the businesses who indicated that civil rights would ruin them, and did not want external authorities telling them how to do business ?

All that was necessary was to remove the laws that held class distinction in place and minatianed the concept of the second class citizen. Essentially the removal of oppression and any distinction of race as ensconced in law was all that was necessary. Blacks then would have had the opportunity, at the consternation of some holding prejudice, to move out of segregation if they so chose. Choice being imperative. It would certainly have been a tougher ride to begin with but eventually they would be able to have moved anywhere in society. They can now, by law, but reverse discrimination in newly created laws, in my mind, creates a backlash of resentment which is divisive in itself and is not conducive to the alleviation of racial tensions. Acting in a "collective" manner implies separation. Races acting collectively maintain a racial barrier. The right of association cannot be denied so in acting collectively any race-based association must not be for the purposes of maintaining segregation outside the association into other areas of society.

There was more required than that. There had to be social change in all parts of the US, but more in parts of the US where African Americans were regarded as property just 100 years before.

That social change was facilitated by social engineering that mandated de-segregation, such as busing laws, and affirmative action.

I think the ideal brought forth by the designers of the American Constitution was of equality under the law for all men. But we have to remember that at that time Women and Blacks were not considered "men", they fell more under the definition of chattel than person. So really the fight for equal rights has been a fight to be considered an individual equal to "men". It must also be understood that the title of "man" was exclusive even among men, politically to some it meant only landowners. So the inequities were not in essence racial or gender based. Some States at the inception of the Union did, I think, actually grant universal suffrage, women were allowed the vote.

So progress is not really made when government engineers society as in social democracies. What is won is privilege and favour for special interests creating divisions and pitting those special interests against each other in the Marxist struggle of the classes.

That's my thoughts on that. It's another glorious day!

Somebody has to engineer society, and in certain cases government is best suited to do it. Marxist struggle can't reasonably be applied to, say, employed white middle class people who are applying for a government job in a department that has created an affirmative action job. It's contrived to position it as such.

[Pliny]

Pliny,

You mix subjective feelings with objective observations in a way that is aggravating.

I'll illustrate.

Objective, and so demonstrably true that we don't need a link to agree with you.

You don't need a link to agree with me perhaps, but some will.

Huh ? Communism is not a means to achieve the totalitarian state, it's a means for workers to "throw off their chains". It's right there in the Communist Manifesto.

A means to throw off their chains and do what? Have each individual decide whether he should have his wealth diminished or supplemented, sorry that was the State's mandate.

If you believe communism was a means to "throw off their chains" then you must realize this was done through revolution. The revolution established a class that determined the ownership of production to be everyone and all production and it's distribution was determined by that class - essentially the State.

This is deeply weird. Now you're saying that the "class struggle" is about the privileged special interests versus the rest of us ? That's not what the class struggle has ever meant.

No. I think I said it was between all the special interests - there is no "rest of us".

We all have our own interests and we can find and form alliances as "special interests". The "rest of us" could be a special interest.

What does 'fluid' mean ? Fluidity should mean that people go from upper class to lower class as well as vice-versa, and at comparable and not insignificant rates. Define some of those numbers first, then we can go and look at the numbers for social democracies. It may indeed be that more lower-class citizens go to middle class in, say, the US but if that number is marginal and the lower classes are much worse off in the US then that situation may not be better.

You have the right concept of "fluid" as I intend it.

All we need do is see that social democracies end in a form of Statism that is only concerned with "leveling the playing field" and bringing about "equality". It attempts to create one class forgetting that it is establishing itself as an exclusive ruling class. Do you not see an attempt by government to eliminate class distinction? If classes exist then it is used to by government to play one class against another and argue for "a leveling of the playing field".

But I admire you for focusing on the overall good, and that you appear to think your belief system delivers the best environment.

I don't know what you mean by "the best environment" but It delivers the most challenging environment that will call for each individual to reach his potential. It isn't about serving the needs of victims who have already realized the potential of being one.

It may seem I over-rate the individual but each of us is different and has different abilities, goals and aspirations. Most of us will include a healthy society as part of our ideal.

Does that mean that you support the Federal government imposing laws on Southern States ? That seems rather unlibertarian. How about the businesses who indicated that civil rights would ruin them, and did not want external authorities telling them how to do business ?

Who cares what businesses thought. If they thought civil rights would ruin them they only had to change their business practices. They agreed with laws of segregation and knew that if those laws weren't on the books backing their racist concepts then their little world may collapse.

There was more required than that. There had to be social change in all parts of the US, but more in parts of the US where African Americans were regarded as property just 100 years before.

What more was required? That the oppressors had to be legislated as second class citizens? The "we want and we want it now" crowd was justified by racist laws that should have been scrapped.

That social change was facilitated by social engineering that mandated de-segregation, such as busing laws, and affirmative action.

The social change was necessary because of social engineering that created segregation. Busing laws and affirmative action were stupid, politically correct, reverse discrimination laws, and are indeed social engineering if there are any of us who doubt that social engineering exists. They are as divisive and inciteful as the segregation laws were. Whites feel just as much the effect of these forceful laws as those forced to sit at the back of the bus. We can't appeal to a fellow citizen about a law that seems unjust we can only follow the law or lobby and protest for change - which is what Martin Luther King rightly did.

Somebody has to engineer society, and in certain cases government is best suited to do it.

Government could perhaps advise on justice matters but that is all I will give you on this. The centralization of power means one person, or a small group of people, engineers society. What person or board of directors can you name that knows what's best for all of us? Maybe others should have some input.

The Marxist struggle can't reasonably be applied to, say, employed white middle class people who are applying for a government job in a department that has created an affirmative action job. It's contrived to position it as such.

The Marxist struggle is generally regarding economic classes. It attempts through revolution to eliminate economic inequities that are perceived by the people.

This exists only when the lower economic classes are oppressed and their is no means to raise one's status, i.e., there is no fluidity between the classes. The ability to raise one's living standard by hard work and individual effort is the hallmark of a free society. If government demands more from you because of your individual initiative then that is oppression of the same genre as any protectionist racket that has ever been created.

Good night! Gotta go. Hope that wasn't too aggravating.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

A means to throw off their chains and do what? Have each individual decide whether he should have his wealth diminished or supplemented, sorry that was the State's mandate.

If you believe communism was a means to "throw off their chains" then you must realize this was done through revolution. The revolution established a class that determined the ownership of production to be everyone and all production and it's distribution was determined by that class - essentially the State.

You're talking about what happened in reality versus the theory here. In reality, a ruling elite seized control, but still a sentence like:

"Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state" sets a series of historical events as through it was executed as a plan to achieve totalitarianism from the beginning, which is at best a restatement of what the plan really was.

No. I think I said it was between all the special interests - there is no "rest of us".

We all have our own interests and we can find and form alliances as "special interests". The "rest of us" could be a special interest.

Ok, but even then special interests as you have laid them out don't correspond to classes. There have always been special interests, in fascist states as well as egalitarian democracies.

Do you not see an attempt by government to eliminate class distinction? If classes exist then it is used to by government to play one class against another and argue for "a leveling of the playing field".

Then wouldn't government want to keep classes around to use them, rather than eliminate them ? I don't understand.

Who cares what businesses thought. If they thought civil rights would ruin them they only had to change their business practices. They agreed with laws of segregation and knew that if those laws weren't on the books backing their racist concepts then their little world may collapse.

What more was required? That the oppressors had to be legislated as second class citizens? The "we want and we want it now" crowd was justified by racist laws that should have been scrapped.

You're standing on the 'segregation is wrong' point, but the point is that a lot of libertarian and states' rights arguments were used by those who wanted segregation to stand. And my point is that alien orders - right or wrong - had to come from the North to make the right thing happen.

The social change was necessary because of social engineering that created segregation. Busing laws and affirmative action were stupid, politically correct, reverse discrimination laws, and are indeed social engineering if there are any of us who doubt that social engineering exists. They are as divisive and inciteful as the segregation laws were. Whites feel just as much the effect of these forceful laws as those forced to sit at the back of the bus. We can't appeal to a fellow citizen about a law that seems unjust we can only follow the law or lobby and protest for change - which is what Martin Luther King rightly did.

So social engineering is necessary in some cases - specifically to correct social engineering ? Sounds right to me.

What about when an individual owns the means to broadcast ideas to large masses of people ? Isn't what the individual does in this case social engineering ? Or is it the marketplace of ideas ?

The Marxist struggle is generally regarding economic classes. It attempts through revolution to eliminate economic inequities that are perceived by the people.

This exists only when the lower economic classes are oppressed and their is no means to raise one's status, i.e., there is no fluidity between the classes. The ability to raise one's living standard by hard work and individual effort is the hallmark of a free society. If government demands more from you because of your individual initiative then that is oppression of the same genre as any protectionist racket that has ever been created.

Good night! Gotta go. Hope that wasn't too aggravating.

So are you saying that Marxist struggle is justified in some cases ? Do you have examples ?

[Oleg Bach]

Canada is much like the old Mongolian empire - We did not stock pile gold and plunder - we stock piled people gathered from the four corners of the earth - we gathered the best talent - the best at all things - we are the richest nation on earth. We are the most powerful also - We do not need weapons like the Americans do (stay out of this one BC, I'm on a roll), We like the anient mongolians understand that gold is worthless - it is people that are the money...America still does not get this ---and that is why we dominate America - because though the brain drain that sent some of our best south - we kept the very best for ourselves - those not materially motivated..Canada has spirit!

[Pliny]

"Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state" sets a series of historical events as through it was executed as a plan to achieve totalitarianism from the beginning, which is at best a restatement of what the plan really was.

What?

Ok, but even then special interests as you have laid them out don't correspond to classes. There have always been special interests, in fascist states as well as egalitarian democracies.

The difference is that in an egalitarian democracy all special interests demand a voice.

Then wouldn't government want to keep classes around to use them, rather than eliminate them ? I don't understand.

Who has eliminated them? They claim to want to but they only widen the divide.

You're standing on the 'segregation is wrong' point, but the point is that a lot of libertarian and states' rights arguments were used by those who wanted segregation to stand. And my point is that alien orders - right or wrong - had to come from the North to make the right thing happen.

No. The right thing was happening, the North forced the issue.

So social engineering is necessary in some cases - specifically to correct social engineering ? Sounds right to me.

What about when an individual owns the means to broadcast ideas to large masses of people ? Isn't what the individual does in this case social engineering ? Or is it the marketplace of ideas ?

No, social engineering to correct social engineering wouldn't be necessary if the initial social engineering hadn't occurred.

Is the person who owns the means of broadcasting forcing someone to do something? Is he using force? Social engineering is about using force.

So are you saying that Marxist struggle is justified in some cases ? Do you have examples ?

The Marxist struggle is about the elimination of classes. I am not suggesting that at all.

[Michael Hardner]

What?

Ok I posted just above:

"Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state" sets a series of historical events as through it was executed as a plan to achieve totalitarianism from the beginning, which is at best a restatement of what the plan really was

I posted that because you posted "Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state", as though that's the purpose of communism. That's a misstatement of purposes, and it puts the history of Communism, the works of Marx, the industrial revolution into a distorted perspective - as though the purpose of Communism is to seize power for its own sake.

It's like me writing "Pliny, your posts - as a means of making you rich - lack references." I've buried in there an assumption that you're posting for the purposes of making you rich. If I wrote it as "Pliny, your posts lack references and will never make you rich" then that's different. I'm attaching a purpose that isn't assumed to be there from the start.

Do you see that now ?

The difference is that in an egalitarian democracy all special interests demand a voice.

Still not the same as classes. And btw - is all special interests having a voice a bad or good thing ?

No, social engineering to correct social engineering wouldn't be necessary if the initial social engineering hadn't occurred.

Huh ? No ? But you just SAID "wouldn't be necessary" - so that implies is necessary sometimes ?

Is the person who owns the means of broadcasting forcing someone to do something? Is he using force? Social engineering is about using force.

Force sounds like a reasonable criteria to draw the line. But what if he's brainwashing people, or preying on people who have no access to other, better, information ?

The Marxist struggle is about the elimination of classes. I am not suggesting that at all.

Ok, I read this again. You're merely describing economic conditions that induce Marxism then.

Interesting.

[Pliny]

Ok I posted just above:

I posted that because you posted "Communism is dead as a means to achieve the totalitarian state", as though that's the purpose of communism. That's a misstatement of purposes, and it puts the history of Communism, the works of Marx, the industrial revolution into a distorted perspective - as though the purpose of Communism is to seize power for its own sake.

It's like me writing "Pliny, your posts - as a means of making you rich - lack references." I've buried in there an assumption that you're posting for the purposes of making you rich. If I wrote it as "Pliny, your posts lack references and will never make you rich" then that's different. I'm attaching a purpose that isn't assumed to be there from the start.

Do you see that now ?

I see the difference.

Communism achieves it's goals through revolutionary means. It's goals and purposes are secondary to my statement that "communism is dead as a means of achieving the totalitarian state".

It does undeniably attempt to achieve the totalitarian state as one of it's initial goals. Historically, it appears that wherever communism has succeeded in achieving it's initial goal of seizing power and establishing the State that it's prime objective purpose was the seizing of power for it's own purpose. Stalin, Mao, Castro, are all examples of the communistic revolutionary means of achieving the totalitarian state. The fact it metamorphoses into a dictatorship may be a betrayal of communism in the eyes of communists but it has achieved the total socialistic state through revolution.

"Revolution" as means of achieving the totally socialistic state is what is dead. There seems to be no political will toward revolution. Total socialism will be achieved democratically. Socialism, at it's end, is a centrally planned society and economy where the power of the State is total in all aspects of society and the economy.

Still not the same as classes. And btw - is all special interests having a voice a bad or good thing ?

I recently read an article about Henry Hazlitt on the subject of special interests - well, actually, on the subject of government and how it's mandate should be determined upon the broadest of agreement. What I gleaned from it is that if men can broadly agree upon a course of governance then the government can successfully govern. If it is filled with divergent opinion or special interest then there can be no consensus to govern and government should not include those areas in their mandate. They should be left to society and the economy to determine itself.

We can all agree that education is important but there is such a divergent need for education that we can not agree what is important in an education. The differing opinions and points of view and special interests involved in education make anything but the most elementary aspects of it impossible to govern. So a national government or even a provincial government, beyond providing fundamentals to learning, would make a complete education an impossibility to govern. It cannot cater to special interests or differing opinions without appearing prejudiced or socially unjust. We see that today in our education system with the public and private education clamoring for equal treatment and social justice (equal funding). If we want one education system and can agree upon it then ok, government can probably successfully govern it.

Huh ? No ? But you just SAID "wouldn't be necessary" - so that implies is necessary sometimes ?

No. only necessary to make corrections to unnecessary intervention.

Force sounds like a reasonable criteria to draw the line. But what if he's brainwashing people, or preying on people who have no access to other, better, information ?

Then he is wrong. We aren't always right we just like to think we are.

Ok, I read this again. You're merely describing economic conditions that induce Marxism then.

Interesting.

Yes. Marx's means of achieving the communist ideal was thought to be through the inevitability of revolution. There was no other way to seize the means of production except through force.

[Oleg Bach]

Take care of your national family and encouage all other nations to do the same..and the rest will take care of it self. Those that want to unite the world have the agenda of plundering the world..they are liars.

[Shwa]

Been following along, happily lurking. A couple of questions and comments if I may:

Historically, it appears that wherever communism has succeeded in achieving it's initial goal of seizing power and establishing the State that it's prime objective purpose was the seizing of power for it's own purpose.

This is confusing for two reasons. 1. Are you saying that communism, after achieving power, described itself as only having power as its main objective (in retrospect I mean, is that what they teach their populous about their original intentions?) 2. It would seem to me that - if the objective was seizing power for its own purposes - would apply to every other political movement that seized power throughout history.

"Revolution" as means of achieving the totally socialistic state is what is dead.

I am wary of such blanket statements without a qualification. Could you qualify this in other terms to better illustrate what you mean please?

What I gleaned from it is that if men can broadly agree upon a course of governance then the government can successfully govern. If it is filled with divergent opinion or special interest then there can be no consensus to govern and government should not include those areas in their mandate. They should be left to society and the economy to determine itself.

I presume by "men" you mean "people?"

By and large we are organized so that 'society and the economy' determine most areas of interest through administration-by-agency which are, for all intents and purposes, fairly autonomous at the regional and city level and below (with a political caveat though). In our case people have agreed upon a broad course of government which moves from the very general (federal) to the specific - provincial, municipal, city, and so on, including all types of public groups. I have access to the formal and informal agencies of these various layers of government and I interact with them according to the subject areas that suit my requirement.

So a national government or even a provincial government, beyond providing fundamentals to learning, would make a complete education an impossibility to govern. It cannot cater to special interests or differing opinions without appearing prejudiced or socially unjust.

I don't see this because I see administration-by-agency. Education is administered through very many levels of agency and each level has an area of responsibility that is a subset of it's parent's responsibilities until you have the actual delivery agency (i.e. a school). Those service delivery agents can be finely tuned to reflect the requirements of its constituents while still reflecting the policy of its parent organization. Again there are caveats, and they are political, but overall I see this system as fairly rational.

[Pliny]

Been following along, happily lurking. A couple of questions and comments if I may:

This is confusing for two reasons. 1. Are you saying that communism, after achieving power, described itself as only having power as its main objective (in retrospect I mean, is that what they teach their populous about their original intentions?) 2. It would seem to me that - if the objective was seizing power for its own purposes - would apply to every other political movement that seized power throughout history.

Communism never described itself as only having power as it's main objective. Somehow the State was supposed to disappear. It has never in history proven to even approach a Stateless society.

A central authority will not relinquish power once gained. In our democracy power is progressively centralized. It is creeping socialism. Europe is further ahead in their evolutionary movement to the total state than Canada and the US is the biggest anchor in the movement. That's how I see it.

I am wary of such blanket statements without a qualification. Could you qualify this in other terms to better illustrate what you mean please?

Communism is defined as the attainment of the totalitarian state through revolutionary means. That was the definition when I went to school. Socialism was defined as the attainment of the totalitarian state through evolutionary means. Communism is an end and an establishment of an ideal. Socialism is a progression towards an ideal. Both achieve the total State.

Power can only be restricted from centralization through the agreement of the general populace that private property exists. The concept of private property is being whittled away.

I presume by "men" you mean "people?"

Yes.

By and large we are organized so that 'society and the economy' determine most areas of interest through administration-by-agency which are, for all intents and purposes, fairly autonomous at the regional and city level and below (with a political caveat though). In our case people have agreed upon a broad course of government which moves from the very general (federal) to the specific - provincial, municipal, city, and so on, including all types of public groups. I have access to the formal and informal agencies of these various layers of government and I interact with them according to the subject areas that suit my requirement.

I don't see this because I see administration-by-agency. Education is administered through very many levels of agency and each level has an area of responsibility that is a subset of it's parent's responsibilities until you have the actual delivery agency (i.e. a school). Those service delivery agents can be finely tuned to reflect the requirements of its constituents while still reflecting the policy of its parent organization. Again there are caveats, and they are political, but overall I see this system as fairly rational.

The apparency is that all is well but we are not in a static state we are in a progressive state. Some are adversely affected by the current state already. Political correctness and social justice, both being results of the inability of government to correct injustices it has itself created or neglected to correct, are demands for equality. There is some resistance to the State "creating" equality instead of treating it's citizens in an equal manner. The right and left of the political spectrum is not where the resistance to the progression of the State comes from. It comes from those who are advocates of private property and limited government. I believe their numbers are increasing in the US but the rest of the democratic nations seem oblivious to the progression of the State. I find they are making increasing demands upon it thus accelerating the concentration of power and increasingly infringing upon the property rights of it's citizens.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

A central authority will not relinquish power once gained. In our democracy power is progressively centralized. It is creeping socialism. Europe is further ahead in their evolutionary movement to the total state than Canada and the US is the biggest anchor in the movement. That's how I see it.

I see this to a certain degree, however... do you see the word "power" interchangebale with the phrase "power structure?"

through revolutionary means

From Merrian-Webster: ": a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed"

It would seem that, given time, most political organizations experience revolutionary changes - civil wars, revolutions (by name), coups. Do you have an example or two of any political organization that has evolved over a significant amount of time without any fundamental changes?

The concept of private property is being whittled away.

How so?

[Pliny]

I see this to a certain degree, however... do you see the word "power" interchangebale with the phrase "power structure?"

Not entirely but almost.

What was the difference between power during the thirties in Germany and power in the USSR? Not much, in my view. The structure ensures power is centralized.

From Merrian-Webster: ": a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed"

It would seem that, given time, most political organizations experience revolutionary changes - civil wars, revolutions (by name), coups. Do you have an example or two of any political organization that has evolved over a significant amount of time without any fundamental changes?

They all eventually overstep their mandates and attempt to centralize authority. It is this centralization of power that brings a forth the struggle. Of course, it is all brought about by a governments failure to provide justice.

How so?

How are private property rights being infringed upon?

The most obvious example is in our method of taxation. The government owns and demands almost half of my production.