Out o’ all the superstitious political ideas that still have power, probably the only 1 dumber than laissez-faire is nationalism, ’specially “left-wing” nationalism. Thus it’s with deep misgivings that I see inane laissy libertarianism be surpassed by an e’en dumber ideology. That this ideology’s primary defense is simply to assert that it’s the only thing that’s “practical,” despite no evidence, other than simply arguing that it’s starting to happen now, which is simply appeal to the status-quo, as if we should just blindly accept any patterns that are happening now, as well as making the guilty-by-association argument that anyone who dares to be skeptical o’ a “pro-working-class” ideology that claims to benefit 17% o’ the working-class by screwing o’er the world majority o’ working-class people are just like laissez-faire libertarianism only reveals the intellectual bankruptcy o’ such “nationalist socialism.”
There’s nothing mo’ hypocritical than people who claim to support egalitarianism—so long as it applies to one’s narrow country—but reject international egalitarianism based on arguments logically equivalent to those used by economic elites to defend inequality. There’s nothing mo’ hypocritical than working-class people who criticize the 1% for monopolizing the means o’ production & pushing them out while trying to monopolize the means o’ production for their nation ’way from working-class people o’ other countries. Such people are not trying to make the world mo’ “fair”; they’re simply trying to join in on the corruption themselves by finding an e’en lower class to exploit. It’s not an attack gainst neoliberalism @ all, but simply a further extension o’ its race to the bottom.
There’s a reason ol’ socialists opposed nationalism: “nations” are a concept logically equivalent to private property. Indeed, they are literally private property, held privately by a narrow group based on a convoluted mess o’ inconsistent rationales mostly influenced by tradition. Tripe like “Europe for Europeans,” based on the argument that they are the “rightful” owners, due purely to tradition, is as irrational as the idea that someone is objectively the rightful owner o’ whatever they own, simply ’cause they already have it, without any question o’ the historical complications that led such a distribution to happen. It’s self-perpetuating circular logic, & therefore irrational.
In essence, it is aristocracy. Natural-born citizens o’ a nation are said to deserve their wealth simply ’cause they’re born inheritors, regardless o’ what they themselves have done themselves. Indeed, if anything, it’s mo’ likely that immigrants are deserving than natural-born: to immigrate into the US either requires that the official immigration rules determined one to be competitively skilled gainst the other immigrants trying to come in or that one is skillful @ sneaking past national boundaries, which certainly requires some craftiness. Natural-born Americans could be the laziest, most useless waste o’ oxygen in the world & still be given what immigrants actually have to earn, much as those born rich can be lazy wastes o’ oxygen to earn what those born poor must earn.
Which is, to say, that “natioanlist socialism” is simply capitalism: it’s the use o’ political power to keep property in the hands o’ the few based purely on tradition & the status-quo.
Similarly, the concept o’ “national democracy” is hypocritical. “Democracy ’mong a certain select elite” is typically considered oligarchy when it happens within a nation; ¿why should that be different when treating the world as a whole? Europe & North America (excluding Mexico—though I could include them & the point would still keep) only make up ’bout 17% o’ the population—not quite “the 1%,” but still a considerable minority. To argue that they should determine the power & economic distribution o’ the world—e’en if that’s just to perpetuate arbitrary tradition—is international oligarchy; & anyone who supports this but pretends to support democracy should be laughed right into their inane faces. Thus, logically, the only coherent form o’ “democracy” that could exist would be an international one. Otherwise, we’d have to count tiny oligarchies—that, nonetheless, are democratic within their tiny group—controlling others to be “democratic.”
Economically, nationalism falls under the same problem as “laissez-faire”: before you can leave people to control their own things themselves, you have to determine who has the right to control what, a social issue that could include any sapient human—since any human or combination o’ humans could or could not be a candidate for control. To argue that “Europeans” should decide “Europe’s” economics relies on a nonarbitrary (thus, nontraditional) means o’ determining who counts as “European” & who not & what property belongs within “Europe” & which doesn’t; & anyone who thinks that means that have currently decided that were rational is clearly irrational. E’en “culture,” which is nothing mo’ than a collection o’ traditions, falls under the same—as if some omniscient deity decided that the Latin language should split into Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, & French the way it did.
(To be fair, this applies in the other direction, too: it’s irrational to argue, for instance, that a “Middle-Eastern” man has mo’ right to say what a “Middle-Eastern” woman can or cannot do simply ’cause they reside in the same historically-decided—& largely European-decided, to boot—plot o’ land & ’cause there happen to be some specific traditions historically associated with those lands.)
The rhetoric o’ class conflict used by “nationalist socialists” is also hypocritical, & ironically similar to the narrow economic-only definition Feminists & Friends™ criticized Marxists for, despite “nationalist socialists” usually being anti-Marxist. They, rightfully, treat the conflict caused by economic equality as something that realistically must be dealt with & can’t be ignored, but act as if the immigration issue can just be brushed out o’ the west. They argue that right-wing violence in the west is caused by economic resentment, & thus that further stepping down on poor Westerners will only cause them to become e’en mo’ extreme, but don’t see the connection ’tween economic problems in the Middle East & Islamic Fundamentalism. There’s something arbitrary ’bout humanizing right-wing Westerners with giving them the sympathetic portrayal o’ psychological problems caused by economic hardship, but portraying Islamic Fundamentalists as just brain-dead robots who are hypnotized by the words o’ the Quran. (The blatant hypocrisy o’ these Fundamentalists’ most famous leaders doesn’t make them question this. ¿Remember that supposedly raving hater o’ the west Osama Bin Laden’s love o’ Pepsi? ¿Remember how ridiculously rich he was & how he lived in a huge mansion? Now, I wonder why such a rich person would’ve wanted the poor mass public to focus on religion & being gainst the west & not focusing on other reasons for their poverty… Hmm…)
’Course, pointing out this peculiar inconsistency gets one labeled a “SJW” or “politically correct,” which… doesn’t mean anything. “¡O, no! ¡They have our true name! ¡According to Ursula K. Le Guin, (who knows a lot ’bout ‘political correctness’) that means they can control us!” Furthermo’, arguing that economic issues might influence Islamic Fundamentalism is apparently paramount to arguing that Islam has no affect on Middle Eastern right-wing extremism, which is insane, ’cause… ’cause some people just say it is, that’s why. Either way, both can’t be key influences, or the economic influence can’t just be greater, not the whole, ’cause, duh, nuance doesn’t exist.
From an intellectual point, I’m less disheartened by some o’ the people who fall into this, since there’s always been that ignorant & assholish faction. I’m mo’ embarrassed by the rise o’ hipster “very serious” pundits who fall into this in the name o’ “practicality.” ’Cause nothing’s mo’ practical than electing a 4-times business failure who had to whore himself out as a living cartoon like Paris Hilton1 to enrich himself & has no political experience @ all. Watching these pundits is like watching someone talk seriously ’bout their imagined acumen while shitting their pants—it’s just comical.
TLDR: 2017 headline: The Western World: O, How the Mighty Have Fallen.
&, yes, I’m ’ware o’ the infamously unsavory word associated with “Nationalist Socialist.” Don’t blame me: they’re the ones who emphasize nationalism & socialism together. Those in a society full o’ people too dumb to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
