• masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    How can the working class own something if the state owns it?

    It’s very simple.

    Nationalists nationalize.

    Socialists socialize.

    If one is doing the other it means somebody is lying to you.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s just nonsense there’s plenty of reasons certain resources should be nationalized. Why do I care if the company that owns all the clean water is owned by one asshole or a group of them? Certain things in a nation belong to the people of the nation as a whole. Namely the national resources. No one company deserves to own that.

      • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I like the idea of having just a cool government we trust and who do the right thing. Imagine that. Making parks and stuff. But also cool citizens who also sometimes disagree with the government. Like at their core. Without having a big ass conniption every time like the sky is about to fall.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s just nonsense

        No. It isn’t. If nationalism is your game, fine… but just be honest about it. Don’t confuse it with socialism (unknowingly or otherwise) - the two aren’t compatible in any way whatsoever.

        If you’re a nationalist, you believe that all resources should be controlled for the benefit of the people living inside the territory demarcated by imaginary lines drawn on a map - that is a very distinct thing from capitalism, which holds that resources must be privately owned and fuck the people living inside (or outside) said territory.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You have completely and utterly misused the term nationalized and nationalist here and are applying a meaning that they do not have. Nationalists don’t nationalize resources and Industry. You can say it as much as you want but it’s just complete fiction what you’re talking about. The historic link between nationalism and capitalism is so incredibly ingrained and strong that you saying otherwise is simply put unbelievable. This is simply nonsense and drivel that you have created from nothing.

          I’m honestly not sure if this is the most intellectually dishonest comment I’ve ever seen or if you’re having some kind of fever dream where the meaning of words are different to you and you’re going to wake up in 2 days and be like oh shit what did I say?

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            You have completely and utterly misused

            Lol! No Clyde - I haven’t. Nationalism is a very simple thing - it’s not my fault you associate nationalism with fascism (which is always just false nationalism) or capitalism (which is perfectly incompatible with the beliefs of anyone who actually fetishizes a given nation state - even fascists like Francisco Franco understood that). The US has spent more resources combating nationalism in the middle-east than socialism - do you think they did that because nationalism is so “compatible” with capitalism?

            I hate to be the one to break it to you - but Fidel Castro was far more of a nationalist than Adolf Hitler was. In fact, the majority of the anti-imperialist campaigns waged against colonial power during the (so-called) “Cold War” was nationalist in nature - not socialist.

            The historic link between nationalism and capitalism

            There are those who will pretend that there are “historic links” between liberalism and democracy, too - even though they are violently incompatible concepts. “Historic links” doesn’t mean anything.

            You can call the US “democratic” and the USSR “socialist” all you want - but that does not make any of it reality.

            • Caveman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler were both nationalists, Hitler was also fascist. I think you might have a inaccurate definition of nationalism.

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                I think you might have a inaccurate definition of nationalism.

                Sorry - I don’t see it. It’s very easy for fascists to wear the trappings of nationalism - fascists will wear whatever gets them into power - but of all the things Fascist Italy, Showa Japan and Nazi Germany had in common a concern with the welfare of the people living inside the nation state wasn’t one of them… you know - the only point nationalism ever had? There’s a reason we separate the concept of ethno-nationalism from that of just plain ole’ nationalism.

                Nationalism is concerned with the welfare of the actually existing nation state - not the alt-fantasy empires fetishized by fascists. In fact, the three fascist examples above was far, far more imperialist than they were nationalist, and you’d be hard-pressed to get any political philosopher to argue that nationalism inherently demands genocidal imperialist expansion.

                • Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Nationalism is inherently concerned with expanding the State through the ostensible ‘reunification’ of ethnic groups, or more overtly at the expense of other nations. Like, yknow, Lebensraum

                  This idea that Imperialism and Nationalism are conflicting ideologies is just… so dumb

                  • masquenox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Nationalism is inherently concerned

                    Hey, don’t tell me… tell every African nationalist in history that they are doing nationalism wrong because you, an armchair genius, only ascribes to the meaning of the term nationalism as it was presented to you by white liberal western media. Go tell every nation-state in the (so-called) “3rd world” that the nationalists that helped free them from your country’s imperialist yoke cannot possibly be nationalists because you, still an armchair genius, have decided that they aren’t based on internet “definitions” written by people just like you.

                    Go on. I’ll wait here.

                    This idea that Imperialism and Nationalism are conflicting ideologies is just… so dumb

                    Again… don’t tell me - tell it to all the nation states that aren’t fundamentally imperialist, since, according to you (still just an armchair genius) nationalism cannot exist without imperialism.

                    Don’t worry… I’m still waiting right here.

        • Caveman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nationalism is more about elevating a certain ethnic group and creating a nation in the process if needed. WW2 Germany was all about elevating Germans at the cost of everyone else. It rose to prominence in 18th century Europe when nations in Europe declared themselves as independent.

          Nationalizing is about taking a resource or a company and putting it into the hands of the state for the people.

          These are two completely different concepts with a small overlap.

          • masquenox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Nationalism is more about elevating a certain ethnic group

            No it isn’t - that is so distinct from garden-variety nationalism that we call it ethno-nationalism. There are plenty of nationalist projects that doesn’t have an ethno-nationalist aspect to them - there are plenty of them outside the imperial core in the (so-called) “third-world.” You wanna be the one to tell them they are doing nationalism wrong?

            WW2 Germany was all about elevating Germans at the cost of everyone else.

            Violently building an alt-fantasy empire has nothing to do with “elevating” a people - that’s imperialism, not nationalism. You can argue that the two concepts may be related - but you can’t argue that nationalism inherently requires genocidal imperialism.

            Nationalizing is about taking a resource or a company and putting it into the hands of the state for the people.

            In other words… the only possible benefit that nationalism has ever presented as a justification for it’s own existence?

            Fancy that.

            • Caveman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Here’s a link that with a definition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

              Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, it presupposes the existence and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. There are various definitions of a “nation”, which leads to different types of nationalism. The two main divergent forms are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.

              And here is another one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

              Nationalization (nationalisation in British English) is the process of transforming privately-owned assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization contrasts with privatization and with demutualization. When previously nationalized assets are privatized and subsequently returned to public ownership at a later stage, they are said to have undergone renationalization. Industries often subject to nationalization include telecommunications, electric power, fossil fuels, railways, airlines, iron ore, media, postal services, banks, and water (sometimes called the commanding heights of the economy), and in many jurisdictions such entities have no history of private ownership.

              Nationalization may occur with or without financial compensation to the former owners. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, in 1945 the French government seized the car-maker Renault because its owners had collaborated with the 1940–1944 Nazi occupiers of France.[2] In September 2021, Berliners voted to expropriate over 240,000 housing units, many of which were being held unoccupied as investment property.[3][4]

              • masquenox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Well, let’s have a look at this description of yours, shall we?

                As a movement, it presupposes the existence and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state.

                Oh yes… you are absolutely correct - I have no idea where I got the idea from that nationalization would be the most logical, direct and dependable method for a nationalist “to promote the interests of a particular nation” and “gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland.” There is no way state control over resources and industries could ever “promote the interests of a particular nation,” could it?

                Quick, somebody call Cuba - driving your citizens into abject poverty through privatized medical debt is how real nationalists do it.

                that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.

                This is not descriptive - it’s just the pseudo-scientific gibberish used to justify nation sates which does absolutely no justifying whatsoever.

                Naturally, what proposed benefit (if any) the existence of nation states offers to it’s citizens doesn’t form part of this description… which is telling.

      • Damionsipher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Governance, government and states are all different and nebulous within themselves. You can achieve governance models that better resist the consolidation of power while still operating towards the goal of the collective good. That alone does not denote nationalization, which is a particular form of statehood (often referred to as a sovereign state). Watershed governance is managed across existing levels of international, regional and local governing bodies, often with a high level of success to best ensure sufficient water is available for the communities within.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That seems like an awfully swell nice ideal there, the reality though is where I live and people like me live where local governments just sells your water to private corporations and now you don’t have enough water.

          • Damionsipher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Definitely not saying it works pervasively, lots of jurisdictions work as plutocracies and have vacated any sense of public good. That some jurisdictions suck doesn’t nullify the possibilities of cooperation and public good being the foundations of good governance.

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’d say it does. Because it’s not an aberration. That’s how capitalism works. If a corporation can Corner the market on a natural resource and screw the people over it will. That’s by Design. That’s why I don’t trust any situation in which private ownership can own a natural resource that people rely upon. It will happen every single time.

    • Damionsipher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Simple if you understand the theory and history. The main difference between Communists and anarchists is the involvement of the state.

    • Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      …what? Have you just assumed that words are the same because they sound similar?

      Nationalisation of industries and resources refers to public ownership vs private ownership

      Nationalism is an ideology that became widespread in the late 19th Century, that emphasises the codification of States on ethnic grounds

      Nachos are a type of corn or potato chip, often combined with cheese and guacomole

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The problem isn’t usually nationalization but the utter lack of democratic control of what is owned by the state

        I’d say that before that your problem is that if a state has the power to nationalize something it also has the power to privatize it again… all it takes is one Reagan or Thatcher. Or hell, an Obama - who essentially nationalized General Motors after the 2008 crash and then handed it all straight back to the capitalists again.