You are digging your own grave, you think if a flatfoot is willing to choke a man to death for selling cigarettes he wouldn't be willing to bust down your door for your guns? Come on, they're the big government you fraudulent conservatives claim to oppose. Who do you think is going to take your guns? Are politicians in washington are going to go house to house for guns? Feck no, they're going to use swine for it. Stop being bootlickers and actually stand for small government, or stop saying you want a small government.

why are you generalizing everytime Tupacito?

This is directed towards small government conservatives who support the police, not towards national socialists (not trying to insult) like Eklipse and you.

But not every conservative supports Police, this was my point here.

WTF

Your calling Eklipse and Koala NAZIS??????????


MGSB, you need to be re-educated. I'm sorry, but you need it.

They're nationalist and socialist. It's a pretty good term for them. I don't think they're bad folk or anything though.

Perhaps you just used the random words nationalist and socialist in one sentence solely because they sound bad, didn't you?

Well no, Panda and Eklipse are both nationalists and both socialists. They don't fit the confines of the Nazi party but the descriptor "National Socialist" fits them well. Like how a nationalist who likes Bolshevism and would like it implemented would be a National Bolshevist.

Edited 5/3/2016 19:27:44

http://i.imgur.com/67RZUx6.png

Well no, Panda and Eklipse are both nationalists and both socialists. They don't fit the confines of the Nazi party but the descriptor "National Socialist" fits them well. Like how a nationalist who likes Bolshevism and would like it implemented would be a National Bolshevist.

Wait, what?

^^lol hahaha, I find that graph funny like hell. It's true though, every right wing on warlight that had half decent arguments is becoming just dumb with time...

Being nationalist and socialist is impossible, you can't trully be both at once without being a hypocrite. The more socialist one is, the less nationalist he will be as a consequence and vice and versa. Sure, you can mix some aspects of each, but you can't truly be both.

Edited 5/3/2016 19:54:11

Socialism is believing that the government should control the means of production directly or control them through indirect means while greatly regulating them(the second being the more mainstream definition), nationalism is believing that the government and the country is great. They fit like puzzle pieces.

Edited 5/3/2016 20:05:29

Uncorrect. You forgot 2 key ideas of both ideologies:


A socialist country has a government where everyone should be equal, it doesn't matter if you were born in the country or not, it doesn't matter either if you are from such ethnicity or from such religion. Plus socialism has a vocation to be international and wants to spread for the own benefit of the ideology. If a socialist country conquers something, the laws of equality and no difference will be established on the new land. Socialist countries will also often help other countries with foreign aid like Cuba does with it's medics for example.


A nationalist country on the other hand has a government where the people, the culture and sometimes the religion/ethnicity of the country is put ahead of everything. If you manage to archieve equality for these citizens, outsiders will still be viewed as inferiors, thus creating a class system socialism is radically against. When nationalism tend to go for international and conquers something, the conquered will always be seen as inferiors as they're not "true citizens", the conquered land isn't done for the spread of the ideology, but the spread of the nation, the new land and it's people will often be exploited for the benefit of the citizens of the main country. Nationalist countries will hardly send foreign aid to others, and when they do it's most of the time in order to help a country that has the same nation/ethnicity (ex: russian aid to the russian-ukrainian gvt).


So socialism and nationalism can't both be archieved and keep consistent with their ideology.

Socialism is an economic system, nationalism is a cultural system, I see no grounds why they can not work together. You can say that same thing about capitalism, that capitalist countries help other capitalist countries - but that doesn't mean they're not still nationalist, and really, no country puts other countries ahead of itself.

You are assuming that the extremes of socialism can be achieved. In short, classlessness cannot be achieved with a government and with capitalism. In socialist countries there was always still class, Government higher up class and civilian class. Government higher ups had many privileges and ruled over the other folk. This could easily be present in a situation where the country conquers a piece of land, with the government still being on top and the folk being on the bottom.

It is true that no country put's others ahead of itself, but socialist countries tend to do help others more than nationalist ones.

I disagree that socialism is just an economic system. The ideology is also anti-cultural: it has no religion (or even declares war to religion itself), destroys the culture and tries to erase history; all of this can't subsist with nationalism.

That's why even if I agree that you can mix the economic part of socialism with nationalism, you can't really incorporate all of it to the system; so they can't work together if they're fully put in place.

===================

Edit for MGSB:

For the class thingy, it's true that socialist countries all finished up creating new rulling classes after some point, but that's just a corruption of the system.

Edited 5/3/2016 20:41:53

Socialism does have a religion, the Cult of the State. And they don't really erase history, more just rewrite it, like nationalism does.

Socialism is believing that the government should control the means of production directly or control them through indirect means while greatly regulating them(the second being the more mainstream definition)

Um... You're forgetting the main division between fascism and socialism. Fascism believes in the glorification of the state is most important, while socialism believes the worker is most important.

The worker is not the most important in either socialism or fascism, it's a talking point yes, but in practice and truth it's really the state that's most important. The workers are indoctrinated and forced to believe that government is effectively god in both, and the workers do not tell the government what to do, the government tells them what to do.

Edited 5/3/2016 20:49:32

I disagree that socialism is just an economic system. The ideology is also anti-cultural: it has no religion (or even declares war to religion itself), destroys the culture and tries to erase history; all of this can't subsist with nationalism.

You are thinking of Leninism or something like that, maybe Trotskyism. A country can be socialist and have a government faith (f.e. Norway), and it can have an offical tongue, and governmental holidays (based on cultural traditions), and all this, Norway has. Socialism can stay in one country, it does not have to be worldly, and thus nationalism (love of your country), I see no why not.