What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Nationalism - a discussion (5 Viewers)

Not for the act of treachery itself. But the invocation of the Fifth can absolutely be an act of patriotism, under certain circumstances. It was for Dalton Trumbo and the Hollywood Ten. 
Some people see Kapernick action as treachery.   He has a right to speak out against how police treat blacks, but his actions speak out against the country.   It takes a lot of spinning to make that patriotism.  

 
Some people see Kapernick action as treachery.   He has a right to speak out against how police treat blacks, but his actions speak out against the country.   It takes a lot of spinning to make that patriotism.  
No more than saying his actions speaking out against the country :shrug:

At best, his actions are speaking out against what this country is allowing....the country itself?  Not so much

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No more than saying his actions speaking out against the country :shrug:

At best, his actions are speaking out against what this country is allowing....the country itself?  Not so much
Of course it was the same guy who did not bother to vote, so his conviction to whatever issue is was kneeling for is questionable.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
jon_mx said:
Communism in theory could work, except it goes against human nature and inevitably turns into a failing tyrannical state. 
Sorry how is this not evil? In theory it takes all private property, establishes a dictatorship and eliminates all individual rights.
I think a lot of Communists mean well. Their intent isn't evil. It's just the results that are evil.

 
Intent is important, especially when we judge people personally. There are millions of nationalists who are good people with benign intent. There were, in the past, millions of communists who were good people with benign intent (not anymore, it’s been pretty much discredited.) But that doesn’t change the point that, IMO, both ideologies are evil, because they produce evil results as an inevitable outcome. 

 
Nationalism can be encapsulated in the phrase, “My country right or wrong.” 

Patriotism, American style, is “I support my country only when I think it’s right; when I think it’s wrong, I dissent.” 

 
Nationalism can be encapsulated in the phrase, “My country right or wrong.” 

Patriotism, American style, is “I support my country only when I think it’s right; when I think it’s wrong, I dissent.” 
Actually I disagree with this. I think nationalism means defining a government based on establishing who is an American based on ethnic or religious principles. Patriotism is just love of homeland, which can mean the land, the people, the constitution, DOI and all that. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sorry how is this not evil? In theory it takes all private property, establishes a dictatorship and eliminates all individual rights.
Communism as a theory is not pro-dictator. 

 
No more than saying his actions speaking out against the country :shrug:

At best, his actions are speaking out against what this country is allowing....the country itself?  Not so much
Of course it was the same guy who did not bother to vote, so his conviction to whatever issue is was kneeling for is questionable.
Perhaps.  Though it was Hillary vs Donnie Two Scoops so.....

Regardless has no real bearing on your statement prior to this around the quantity of spinning.  Two sides of the same coin.  Not all that much effort required either way.

 
Here you go.

And yet it has always gotten there.  
Well, yes.  Which is why people on the right in this country who refer to people on the left (generally) as communists sound just as monumentally stupid as people on the left here who refer to people on the right (generally) as fascists. 

 
But discussing “theoretical” communism as being evil because of dictators isn’t reasonable because theory-wise it abhors a dictator.  It’s just not possible to institute “theoretical” communism in the real world.  Much like “theoretical” capitalism. 

 
jon_mx said:
It works for bees.  People on the other hand are more selfish and are driven by self interest more than community.  So the rights you mention are valued more.   I would not classify bees setup as evil.  
The society of bees is genetically stratified thus hardly an analogue to human society

 
We spend a lot of time and money fighting over disagreements in culture. The world needs to start seeing the big picture, start pooling our knowledge and wealth to improve the human condition across the globe. Look at how much money is spent during an election cycle, waste of time and money. Look at all the money spent on the militaries across the globe, it’s a waste. The lack of empathy for other humans and for the planet in general is going to be our downfall. Greed pushes people to say “screw that guy, he’s poor.” Life has become a bunch of people who work their butt off the just get by, while the people with wealth do whatever they can not to lose it. I guess I’m anti nationalist....

 
We spend a lot of time and money fighting over disagreements in culture. The world needs to start seeing the big picture, start pooling our knowledge and wealth to improve the human condition across the globe. Look at how much money is spent during an election cycle, waste of time and money. Look at all the money spent on the militaries across the globe, it’s a waste. The lack of empathy for other humans and for the planet in general is going to be our downfall. Greed pushes people to say “screw that guy, he’s poor.” Life has become a bunch of people who work their butt off the just get by, while the people with wealth do whatever they can not to lose it. I guess I’m anti nationalist....
The problem with internationalism is it will eventually concentrate power into the hands of a few elitist far removed from the influence of the people.  Decisions will be made global community level and individual rights will fade.  Property ownership and freedom of speech will essentially disappear where things like environment and wealth distribution will take over.  Goods and services will be rationed and individual motives to produce will diminish.   Those who make the decisions will live lavishly while those who don't will have to survive on an ever decreasing amount.  Power needs to be limited and distributed so that it is answerable to the people.  Otherwise we will head into a state which is not very pretty.

 
Which is not a dictatorship. 
Sure in the sense it is supposed to be democratic and benificent. It also envisions revolution, seizure of power by a minority, confiscation of property and suppression of rights. Even in the idea it is not one man rule like we think of dictatorships it still contemplates the concept of a council, soviet, junta or what have you. Marx knew the bourgeoisie would never vote away their own power. See Fabianism for how that’s done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with internationalism is it will eventually concentrate power into the hands of a few elitist far removed from the influence of the people.  Decisions will be made global community level and individual rights will fade.  Property ownership and freedom of speech will essentially disappear where things like environment and wealth distribution will take over.  Goods and services will be rationed and individual motives to produce will diminish.   Those who make the decisions will live lavishly while those who don't will have to survive on an ever decreasing amount.  Power needs to be limited and distributed so that it is answerable to the people.  Otherwise we will head into a state which is not very pretty.
I’m going to need you to show your work and walk me through how internationalism makes all of these awful things happen. 

 
And the revolution to forcibly overthrow all social conditions to effect this benificent non-dictatorship is... what?
I haven’t commented on whether theoretical communism in general is evil, I’m discussing the issues with communism and dictatorships.  Personally, not a fan of overthrowing all social conditions.  I do see where it would likely be necessary to institute communism, however.  Some sort of revolution is generally necessary for such a thing.  Going from monarchic feudalism to democratic capitalism certainly seemed to need it. 

 
I’m going to need you to show your work and walk me through how internationalism makes all of these awful things happen. 
I think I can make a pretty good argument that if the UN ran the world Israel wouldn't likely exist as a political entity or country at this point, no?

 
I think I can make a pretty good argument that if the UN ran the world Israel wouldn't likely exist as a political entity or country at this point, no?
Actually it’s the exact opposite, since it’s the UN that created the state of Israel in the first place. 

 
I haven’t commented on whether theoretical communism in general is evil, I’m discussing the issues with communism and dictatorships.  Personally, not a fan of overthrowing all social conditions.  I do see where it would likely be necessary to institute communism, however.  Some sort of revolution is generally necessary for such a thing.  Going from monarchic feudalism to democratic capitalism certainly seemed to need it. 
Marx was explicit about it, it would be bloody and require just that. The ‘dictatorship’ would effectuate that. Dictatorship was a word that related to most of the governments at the time, to him it meant using governmental authority to enforce capitalist laws. So maybe we don’t have the Third French Republic or Prussia and it’s German satellites on our list of notorious dictatorships, but that’s how Marx considered them, Marx just saw the workers as supplanting the owners in the place of rule. That sounds innocuous but he wasn’t reluctant at all about the bloody terror (his term) that would be required to do that. Of course Marx wrote this, setting off 150 years of mayhem, often while enjoying very comfortable bourgeois conditions himself.  

 
I meant now, and I strongly disagree with you.  
The answer is still no. Israel would have to eventually give up the occupied territories; that’s about all. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding; the Security Council resolutions are, but the USA has veto power and has vetoed all resolutions that would threaten Israel’s security. The most damaging Security Council resolution to Israel, ever, is 242, which only says that Israel must eventually give up its occupied territories taken in the 6 Day War, excluding Jerusalem. 

Believe it or not, the UN works. 

 
Marx was explicit about it, it would be bloody and require just that. The ‘dictatorship’ would effectuate that. Dictatorship was a word that related to most of the governments at the time, to him it meant using governmental authority to enforce capitalist laws. So maybe we don’t have the Third French Republic or Prussia and it’s German satellites on our list of notorious dictatorships, but that’s how Marx considered them, Marx just saw the workers as supplanting the owners in the place of rule. That sounds innocuous but he wasn’t reluctant at all about the bloody terror (his term) that would be required to do that. Of course Marx wrote this, setting off 150 years of mayhem, often while enjoying very comfortable bourgeois conditions himself.  
Right. Which is why saying theoretical communism supports dictatorship is disingenuous. Because that isn’t an actual dictatorship. 

 
Right. Which is why saying theoretical communism supports dictatorship is disingenuous. Because that isn’t an actual dictatorship. 
If you want to move the point off ‘dictatorship’ to what that dictatorship was to effectuate and how it was to be created as defining the evil of communism, I’m fine with that.

 
The answer is still no. Israel would have to eventually give up the occupied territories; that’s about all. General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding; the Security Council resolutions are, but the USA has veto power and has vetoed all resolutions that would threaten Israel’s security. The most damaging Security Council resolution to Israel, ever, is 242, which only says that Israel must eventually give up its occupied territories taken in the 6 Day War, excluding Jerusalem. 

Believe it or not, the UN works. 
I have to be honest with you, sometimes having any of these kinds of conversations with you is mind numbing.  

I will grant I didn't write something really long, but I would have assumed that when I wrote, "if the UN ran the world," the reader would have understood that then its resolutions would be binding because it would be............ running the world.'  And with that the power of the individual states within its control wouldn't be nearly as individualistic as they are now if they would even exist, because, again, the UN would be running the world.

 
Are we still talking dictatorship as governmental form? The Committee for Public Safety was ultimately, yes. That was likely the kind of dictatorship that Marx had in mind.
I was talking bloody revolution to overthrow all social conditions, but whatever you’d prefer to discuss. 

 
The revolution wasn’t a whole. The Reign of Terror was evil IMO. 
That’s fair.  I don’t know when you consider it to have started, but I assume you’d lump the government decision to execute thousands of prisoners so they couldn’t be freed and join the revolution in with that evil. 

But if we can say that there was an evil to it but that it was not as a whole evil, I think we can say the same about communism. 

 
That’s fair.  I don’t know when you consider it to have started, but I assume you’d lump the government decision to execute thousands of prisoners so they couldn’t be freed and join the revolution in with that evil. 

But if we can say that there was an evil to it but that it was not as a whole evil, I think we can say the same about communism. 
Eh I’m comparing the Committee for Public Safety to Marx’s concept of dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism is not equated to revolution though revolution is required for it. I view revolution as a right of the people, but we’re talking forms of government here.

 
That’s fair.  I don’t know when you consider it to have started, but I assume you’d lump the government decision to execute thousands of prisoners so they couldn’t be freed and join the revolution in with that evil. 

But if we can say that there was an evil to it but that it was not as a whole evil, I think we can say the same about communism. 
Not to get too theoretical (well, maybe a little) but isn't all form of government, that is the associations of peoples working together in some defined fashion, set atop a potential volcano of evil simply based on the people involved?  And if so, wouldn't any change of such structure, have the potential for evil?

Revolution itself I don't think is evil.  It is an action.  Or better, a reaction, to the government that has the ability to be evil.  It is a reaction controlled by people, who have evil tendencies.  But even in the midst of a revolution that is bloody, that uses war to kill numerous people - you could easily make the argument that it also has inherent beneficial points and is therefore a good.

We all want to change the world.  There are tools at our disposal.  Our intent, ultimately, with a healthy dose of the actions taken, is what allows the definition of evil or good once we use those tools, right?

 
Right. Which is why saying theoretical communism supports dictatorship is disingenuous. Because that isn’t an actual dictatorship. 
You guys are both partly right here. According to Marx and Engels, a dictatorship of the proletariat was not an actual dictatorship. But according to Lenin, in theory well before he became an actual dictator, it was. So it depends on which theory of Communism you’re referring to. 

 
I have to be honest with you, sometimes having any of these kinds of conversations with you is mind numbing.  

I will grant I didn't write something really long, but I would have assumed that when I wrote, "if the UN ran the world," the reader would have understood that then its resolutions would be binding because it would be............ running the world.'  And with that the power of the individual states within its control wouldn't be nearly as individualistic as they are now if they would even exist, because, again, the UN would be running the world.
But the UN does run the world. And you misunderstand the UN. 

The resolutions of the General Assembly were never meant to be binding. It was meant to express the majority of world opinion, nothing more. The GA has no spending power either. The only real power they have is to elect non-permanent members of the Security Council. The Security Council does run the world. 

The New Dealers under FDR who designed the United Nations knew exactly what they were about. They were heavily influenced by our constitution, and wanted to be able to place limits on majority power. But ever since it began, people read about how the General Assembly declares this and that and thinks that it’s synonymous with the UN attempting to do something which it is not. 

 
You guys are both partly right here. According to Marx and Engels, a dictatorship of the proletariat was not an actual dictatorship. But according to Lenin, in theory well before he became an actual dictator, it was. So it depends on which theory of Communism you’re referring to. 
Which is a failure of communism from its foundation, because there is no such thing a pure proletariat. (Not that other forms of government don't suffer similar types of foundational failures, because they all do) 

 
You guys are both partly right here. According to Marx and Engels, a dictatorship of the proletariat was not an actual dictatorship. But according to Lenin, in theory well before he became an actual dictator, it was. So it depends on which theory of Communism you’re referring to. 
And that’s the rub. The doing of it. Lenin’s Executive Committee also proves the point. Marx was saying oh hey we need to form a democratic (good) government which will grant workers all these things they deserve (super) and in order to do that we will have to take everyone’s property, suppress individual rights and it will be a bloody terror. :mellow:

 
The story of the nationalists is not nearly as well known or discussed but Bismarck, Garibaldi and those guys had their own ideas of course. Communism only came to the fore in 1917 on the failures of nationalism.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top