# Nationalism-



## Cardboard (Aug 20, 2014)

So having a conversation with a friend the other day, and I found myself defending and supporting nationalism, which was kind of a shock for me. I for one am not a nationalist and never have been, but the point I came to I still cant shake.
Basically this:
I do not support a one world government. I believe that many modern liberals, some going so far as to call themselves radicals (even anarchists), continue to push more and more for big government, which I, as a self identified anarchist, cannot understand.
This conversation was on the topic of libertarian standpoints to current trending news, specifically this shit that happened recently with hobby lobby/ hormonal birth control.
Anyways, the question stuck in my head is this;
In facing a coming one world Government, isn't nationalism one of the strongest opponents to this? I can easily relate to what is happening in Ukraine right now, as a nationalist force has tried to revolt, against a government that was playing games with jumping on the western (EU and US) or Russian bandwagon. Does nationalism not support regional autonomy, when compared to a world government?


----------



## Kim Chee (Aug 20, 2014)

I'm guessing that a single world governing body will be comprised of nationalists who succumb to the unification process.

I would think it would be simpler to unify nationalists than to appeal to people who aren't pledging their allegiance to a flag, an army or a political figure.


----------



## Beegod Santana (Sep 16, 2014)

I think its really a desire to have one world economy, not government that so many liberals are actually striving for. Whether you can ever truly have a one world economy (where $1 has the same value and labor receives equal compensation everywhere on the planet) and still have separate governments that respect local interests seems to be the big question.


----------



## Kim Chee (Sep 16, 2014)

sixxer1048 said:


> As for equality of the dollar (or whatever unit of exchange we're using), I don't think that's ever going to happen. Even in the US it varies greatly: there are apartments in NYC that cost more than three-story ranch houses in the middle of nowhere.



True. Isn't that similar to comparing a Ferrari to a Taurus?


----------



## Beegod Santana (Sep 16, 2014)

Just because the economic elite can purchase goods from all over the world doesn't mean we're anywhere near a one world economy. What we currently have is world trade run by oligarchs over hundreds of smaller economies and currencies. You can trade all over the planet, but it's a pay to play system and only those at the very top can afford the ticket.


----------



## roughsleeper (Apr 18, 2018)

nationalism is basically for white people/fascists. however some types such as black nationalism and palestinian nationalism I can stand behind because I believe in the free association and self-determination of all oppressed people.

"a big government" is a scare word used by conservatives to describe state controlled social spending which is desperately needed. recall the racist RR term "welfare queen", and other rhetorical racism. 

These programs are not antithetical to social anarchists. In fact there's plenty of welfare the state gives out, but that's to the elite class. With subsidization, bail outs, and the like the rich are guarded and supported by the nanny state, whereas the working class suffers from cuts in labor spending, austerity measures, and gentrification. 

The thing that distorts lots of people's view of anarchism is what's called anti-politics - which is not the same as anarchism, which is a force to liberate all oppressed people. This is when we blame the government for anything, while forgetting about corporations who are the fuckers that actually create the wage cuts and influence the government. 



https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm#s7


----------



## FenrirFox (Oct 12, 2018)

roughsleeper said:


> nationalism is basically for white people/fascists. however some types such as black nationalism and palestinian nationalism I can stand behind because I believe in the free association and self-determination of all oppressed people.


What you recommend would intentionally make us whites an oppressed/disadvantaged group.


----------



## Frypan Meatboots (Oct 12, 2018)

This country was built on slavery. People like Trump just want to support the rich elites. The future of this country is continued slavery but of the whole world financially. Nationalists just want to control people with ideologies like that men should join the military and women should stay at home and cook and be quiet and people should get jobs and not travel. Because that is what helps the nation which is run by billionaires that people stay in one town all their lives to work 9-5s for because the billionaires provide jobs to work for the billionaires enough for them to have money to spend at Walmart for their food and clothing. While people in China and other places are outsourced so that items are cheaper at Walmart so people can think the money they earn at work in the US is worth more.


----------



## roughsleeper (Oct 12, 2018)

FenrirFox said:


> What you recommend would intentionally make us whites an oppressed/disadvantaged group.


 
Your statement is false. 
Also first off when you use the phrase "us whites" and have the username "fenrir" it makes you look like a white supremacist. 

Also yeah, in order for the power dynamics to become more stable white people will have to become less advantaged, but thats okay


----------



## FenrirFox (Oct 12, 2018)

How does it make me look like a white supremacist?

You don't understand power dynamics if you think what you are promoting is equality.

It is wrong to give power to "minorities" (global majorities) over whites or vice versa.

You are not promoting stability, but instead you are promoting discrimination against whites, and I will not accept being attacked for my race just as any other race should not accept it just because of a perceived power imbalance and a poor idea to balance power that would actually be an imbalance by the nature of the plan.

There is nothing logical about promoting nationalism for some but not for others. It is just an attack on those you say cannot have nationalism while you say that others can.


----------

