Ask TNF

[H. Ross Peron]

Who are you favourite non-Marxist/leftist posters on the forum?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

In the context of a nation-state being inherently an organization constituted on an exclusionary basis, sure.

Jumping off this, I assume your ideal would be for a Polish nation (basically encompassing Poland's borders now) to be a member state of a greater socialist union? Assuming this (I think I can), would the Polish language and culture remain (while of course accepting outside diversity) or would you want all differing cultures to be more or less assimilated into a single global culture?

(this question applies to all existing nation-states obviously)

[TNF]

Who are you favourite non-Marxist/leftist posters on the forum?

As far as non-Marxist left-wingers go, I would have to say that I always enjoy reading whatever it is Mechaman is posting these days. Especially when it comes to historical stuff, since he doesn't buy into the 'great man theory of history' nonsense that is so prevalent on the Internet. The IRC regulars fall into this category in a big way, too. Oakvale and I have almost nothing in common ideologically, but he's a good guy and I always like his take on things. Ditto for Gully and dallasfan65.

In the context of a nation-state being inherently an organization constituted on an exclusionary basis, sure.

Jumping off this, I assume your ideal would be for a Polish nation (basically encompassing Poland's borders now) to be a member state of a greater socialist union? Assuming this (I think I can), would the Polish language and culture remain (while of course accepting outside diversity) or would you want all differing cultures to be more or less assimilated into a single global culture?

(this question applies to all existing nation-states obviously)

I think that self-determination is important, but yeah, I think that would probably be pretty close to my ideal. I think a singular global culture would be something worth working toward, but I don't see why it couldn't co-exist with local linguistic or national traditions, which I think are certainly worth preserving.

[traininthedistance]

Do you think Poland's very existence is an act of aggression?

In the context of a nation-state being inherently an organization constituted on an exclusionary basis, sure.

I admire your consistency, as well as your ability to parry and dodge.  Here's a follow-up: do you realize why I chose Poland, specifically, out of all the many nation-states out there?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I think a singular global culture would be something worth working toward, but I don't see why it couldn't co-exist with local linguistic or national traditions, which I think are certainly worth preserving.

How do you see this differing from the currently prevailing situation (or the situation currently on the horizon)? Only in terms of the specific tenets or idiologems (for lack of better words) of the global culture, or in other ways as well?

[TNF]

Do you think Poland's very existence is an act of aggression?

In the context of a nation-state being inherently an organization constituted on an exclusionary basis, sure.

I admire your consistency, as well as your ability to parry and dodge.  Here's a follow-up: do you realize why I chose Poland, specifically, out of all the many nation-states out there?

Would it have something to do with the Polish-Soviet War?

I think a singular global culture would be something worth working toward, but I don't see why it couldn't co-exist with local linguistic or national traditions, which I think are certainly worth preserving.

How do you see this differing from the currently prevailing situation (or the situation currently on the horizon)? Only in terms of the specific tenets or idiologems (for lack of better words) of the global culture, or in other ways as well?

Well I think that it would, at the very least, require the breaking down of parochial nationalisms in favor of proletarian internationalism. Language would definitely be something that I think would change, as well. I don't see why we ultimately wouldn't see the amalgamation of all human languages into some kind of unified, global language, at some point, especially if everyone in our hypothetical global socialist state learns multiple languages from a young age and blends them together in conversation with others. As for other things, I'm not entirely sure. I'll admit I haven't done a lot of thinking on this specific subject, largely because I feel like that, even if one or two new workers' states are established in my lifetime (which would be great), I don't see the world revolution triumphing in a single or even two generations afterward, at best. Though I suppose that just depends on where it takes root. If the first socialist state emerges in the U.S., then I think global capitalism collapses within a few decades.

[Frodo]

How can you ever reach an efficient distribution of capital, labor and resources without a free market system?  

How can you ever reach an efficient distribution of capital, labor, and resources with a free market system? The idea that capitalism effectively distributes resources, deploys capital, and utilizes labor is absurd when one remembers that we have both homeless people and peopleless homes and when we have something like 13 percent real unemployment and capitalists are moving production overseas or just sitting on their hands. But to answer your question, I think that under a socialist system, you would have far more efficiency because you wouldn't have a situation in which something like a fourth of the population is written off to unemployment, disease, starvation, ghettoization, etc. Labor-saving devices, which now exist to enrich the capitalist and make the workday worse for the worker, would be put to work for the worker and help get rid of the kind of mindless work many of us find ourselves in today. Capital would not be moved out of the country to increase the bottom line for capitalists; instead it would be put to good use doing whatever it is that needs doing, be it building solar panels or mass transit or building pre-fab housing. Resources would be distributed on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of ability to buy and sell.

Venezuela (particularly after Hugo Chavez took over) is the best living example of a socialist state today, and I cannot imagine you would regard it as an example for us to follow.  Or do you?  And why?  Or why not? 

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

What drew you to socialism as a political ideaology?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Is your Atlasia persona actually... you?

[TNF]

How can you ever reach an efficient distribution of capital, labor and resources without a free market system?  

How can you ever reach an efficient distribution of capital, labor, and resources with a free market system? The idea that capitalism effectively distributes resources, deploys capital, and utilizes labor is absurd when one remembers that we have both homeless people and peopleless homes and when we have something like 13 percent real unemployment and capitalists are moving production overseas or just sitting on their hands. But to answer your question, I think that under a socialist system, you would have far more efficiency because you wouldn't have a situation in which something like a fourth of the population is written off to unemployment, disease, starvation, ghettoization, etc. Labor-saving devices, which now exist to enrich the capitalist and make the workday worse for the worker, would be put to work for the worker and help get rid of the kind of mindless work many of us find ourselves in today. Capital would not be moved out of the country to increase the bottom line for capitalists; instead it would be put to good use doing whatever it is that needs doing, be it building solar panels or mass transit or building pre-fab housing. Resources would be distributed on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of ability to buy and sell.

Venezuela (particularly after Hugo Chavez took over) is the best living example of a socialist state today, and I cannot imagine you would regard it as an example for us to follow.  Or do you?  And why?  Or why not? 

I do not think that Venezeula is the best living example of a socialist society today, but that's mostly because I would regard Venezeula not so much as a socialist society, but as a society wherein a revolutionary movement to establish socialism exists and is active, and is attempting to establish a socialist society. That isn't to say that Venezeula doesn't have a lot of things that are worth emulating or worth implementing here. After all, participatory democracy is an actual thing in Venezeula, what with referendums at the national level, the ability to recall federal officials, worker-owned enterprises, etc.

However, there are some obvious problems with the Venezuelan model but these mostly have to do with corruption and the over-reliance of individuals and the state as the means by which major policy is enacted and carried out. The inability of Venezuelan socialism to construct a truly socialist society in Venezuela itself only, in my mind, proves the point of socialism having to be constructed beyond the confines of one state or geographic area.

What drew you to socialism as a political ideaology?

A combination of me working in liberal politics and quickly understanding that the average liberal either doesn't care or doesn't understand how politics actually works and working a low wage job for a long period of time, mostly.  When I started out in fast food, I was more or less a 'progressive' Democrat, but having to deal with the inhumane conditions there helped push me over the edge and toward socialism.

Is your Atlasia persona actually... you?

What do you mean?

[traininthedistance]

Do you think Poland's very existence is an act of aggression?

In the context of a nation-state being inherently an organization constituted on an exclusionary basis, sure.

I admire your consistency, as well as your ability to parry and dodge.  Here's a follow-up: do you realize why I chose Poland, specifically, out of all the many nation-states out there?

Would it have something to do with the Polish-Soviet War?

Nope, not at all.  Obviously the reference is stale at this point, so it's probably not worth carrying on.  But, in case you do want to, this quote (from even longer ago) should clear it up.  Bolding mine.

I note that the really relevant part of his post - the reference to the Oder-Neisse line and the *ahem* 'population transfers' in the north of central Europe in the late 1940s - has been ignored. This is unfortunate because the two situations are about as comparable as situations get. Because in practice the creation of Israel and the conflict that followed resulted in a similar 'population transfer' in the Middle East to what was seen in that part of Europe: large numbers of Arabs fled from what is now Israel, and they were effectively replaced by large numbers of Jews fleeing - albeit over a couple of decades rather than a couple of years - from the rest of the Middle East.* This an uncomfortable and emotive subject, but in general I think it is better to accept that what's done is done. While the Right of Return is an understandable demand, it is not now a reasonable one.

_{*Which in turn led directly to a fundamental change in the social and political composition of Israel, leading ultimately to the victory of Likud in 1977.}