• 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.

            • 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.

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

        It’s important to consider the conditions in which state ownership was deemed necessary. Countries with a starving and illiterate working class isn’t as capable at a true worker owned economy as one that already has a well fed and educated working class. A true socialist society needs basic infrastructure and fulfillment of the basic needs of its people before it can be properly implemented.

        Lenin’s concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was intended to be a temporary system intended on rapid development and growth of the economy. It was more important to try and stop starvation and establish railroads than build worker co-ops. The mistake was when the leaders that came after decided to never cede power back to the working class.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          The mistake was when the leaders that came after decided to never cede power back to the working class.

          Unfortunately I see this as a permanent road block because we can’t rid ourselves of the worst kinds of people, they’re just born psychopaths/sociopaths and seek positions of power to exploit :(

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

          I have a new working theory. We reward assholes and no system we can ever hope for will ever overcome the asshole engorgement paradox therefore all systems will always turn to shit.

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

          Certainly Lenin and good compatriots has the best of intentions with their vanguard approach to intention. But, as you noted, that concentration of power ultimately corrupted in the hands of a nefarious few. These ideas were not Lenin’s alone and even Marx promoted the idea of a Vanguard long before the Bolshevik revolution, which Bakunin (an early anarchist) was opposed due to the likelihood of the vanguard becoming entrenched within that power. That concentration of power by a class of elite was the mistake. To argue there wasn’t time to educate the masses is to ignore the fallout of that approach. These are important lessons to remember, even should the future approach to revolution be focused on the establishment of worker co-ops. Positions of power and power between cooperatives are likely to remain and we will need systems of control to mediate these types of emergent hierarchies.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Lenin’s concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was intended to be a temporary system intended on rapid development and growth of the economy. It was more important to try and stop starvation and establish railroads than build worker co-ops. The mistake was when the leaders that came after decided to never cede power back to the working class.

          Marx came up with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not Lenin, and it didn’t mean Dictatorship over the Proletariat, but of the Proletariat, as a contrast to the Capitalist Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

          The DotP is not to stop starvation or anything, it’s to protect against the resurgance of Capitalism. It additionally wasn’t meant to be “ceded back to the working class,” but become unnecessary as the mechanisms for Capitalism to come back were erased.

          Neither Marx nor Lenin were advocating for literal modern conceptions of dictatorship, but consolidating all power away from the bourgeoisie and into the hands of the Proletariat.

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

            Marx coined the term, sure. But he didn’t come up with much more than that and a very rudimentary theory on how it would work. Lenin put it into practice and actually created it as an economic model. Everything else you’re arguing is theoretical semantics. How the thing works is how the thing works.