Transervice - UK needs Polish drivers!

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Let’s get this right by your logic Hitler was so against the ideology of Socialism that he called his Party the National ‘Socialist’ German Workers Party.

That’s precisely my logic, just like poison gas nozzles were called “showers”.

With the aim of setting up a third Reich.The definition of ‘Reich’ being a centralised government system ( Federation ) which ignored Nation State borders and National Sovereignty of those countries he took over to form it.

The willingness to fight and conquer other nation states does not (necessarily) make it contrary to nationalism - the British Empire went around the whole world whacking other nations, but only so those other nations could be subordinated and exploited, not to create a new common citizenry of Britain (and certainly not to smash those other nations to smithereens, when kept together they could be tapped for substantial wealth).

Hitler also had other bugbears based on ideology, race, and religion, but nevertheless a clear position about the supremacy of the German nation.

I accept that Hitler looked to expand Germany’s borders, but again that does not make it a socialist project - any more so than William the Conqueror was a socialist - nor does it negate the nationalist element of ■■■■ ideology.

That’s not to say every nationalist is a ■■■■ - that was just a radical form of nationalism, which it had to adopt because the milder, everyday political nationalism of the time was what helped bring European economies to their knees, with the various mutually-respectful empires at deadlock, and with no way out (except to fight and conquer - the only other alternative was for nationalists to do the unthinkable and unify).

Which until 1941 was ‘allied’ to Stalin’s ‘Union’ of Soviet ‘Socialist’ Republics culminating in the joint invasion of Poland.The definition of ‘Union’ again in that case meaning a centralised government system ( Federation ) which ignored the Nation State status of those countries,not just Russia,taken over by Bolshevism to form it.

I accept this in parts. I just don’t see why nationalism can’t (in a world consisting of more than one nation) involve fighting other nations and maybe even taking territory - as if being a dog means you can’t be top dog or eat other dogs.

As for Merkel no she’s an ethnic Pole with proven links to the East German Socialist regime.Who’s made her views clear regarding the typical Socialist doctrine of Federal government to the point of removing National borders between Europe and Asia.

I don’t know her ethnic background and I’m not saying Merkel is or isn’t influenced by some sort of socialist ideas. The fact remains she is a national politician, representing the present-day nation of Germany, with a national democratic mandate.

As for the bs that the prescence of two neighbouring sovereign states robs both of almost all power of self determination.Michael Collins rightly didn’t follow that idea nor Norway from 1814 or Finland v Soviet Union nor Israel in 1947 for just four examples.

Israel is dogged by its neighbours not to mention its internal opponents, and has been almost permanently at war since its inception in 1948. The whole thing stays upright only because of infusions of American (“federalist”?) cash and military support - it’s not even remotely a free-standing, self-determining nation, and it certainly has no respect for any existing or historic borders.

Michael Collins’ descendant state is a member of the EU, and Norway is functionally part of the EU (with treaties binding it to providing funds, free movement, etc.). I don’t know about Finland off the top of my head.

While historically and if push ever came to shove I’m sure that,bearing in mind the differences between us,we’d both find ourselves on opposite sides looking down the barrel of a gun at each other in a typical Nationalist v Socialist/Federalist fight.Which says everything about your bs claims that Federalism and Socialism is the way to peaceful coexistence.To which no doubt as usual your answer would be that it’s the friends with fences ideology of Nationalism which is the aggressor.

I’m not saying political unity is necessarily a peaceful way to live - we could be governed by a unified dictator. But we could also be governed by ten separate national dictators. And the EU isn’t a vile dictator - it remains a basically progressive organisation that has promoted Europe’s peace and development.

Firstly the poison gas nozzle description analogy could just as easily apply to Hitler calling his actually Socialist regime so called ‘Nationalist’.Bearing in mind in that case ‘if’ he was supposedly so against Socialism as the Socialists make out then why would he have wanted to lumber his new Party with the name even by association.That’s assuming the term ‘National’ wasn’t just referring to the ethnic origins of the project not the project itself Bearing in mind he wasn’t a ‘German’ at all by the standards of being from within Germany’s borders just as Stalin wasn’t a Russian.

In which case if it looks like a Socialist trans national duck and quacks like a Socialist duck,in the form of allying itself to Stalin’s trans national Socialist Soviet Union,with the same aim of wiping out Sovereign Nation States to form centralised ruled puppet provinces subservient to the rule of the ‘Union’/‘Reich’ then it’s a duck.

On that note we can then view everything which you’ve said in that light.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
[… missed your edit from previous reply]

On that note you still haven’t answered the question as to which side you’d have been on in the Soviet invasion of Poland or JNA v Slovenian/Croatian militias during the breakup of former Yugoslavia,or even Israel v Soviet backed Syria and Egypt in 1967 and 73 for example.Bearing in mind that being on the side of Poland and Slovenia/Croatia or Israel would make you a Nationalist.

I don’t know enough of the details of the specific conflicts, although I suspect I might well be on nobody’s side in principle.

I think we know enough to know that in all those cases we’re describing Nationalist v Socialist/Socialist backed conflicts caused by the aggression of the Socialist doctrine in trying to wipe out the idea and sovereignty of the nation state.To which your answer is you don’t want to commit yourself to either the Socialist cause or Nationalist.Probably because in all cases it contains the truth which smashes the lie of it being Nationalism which was the aggressor.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly the poison gas nozzle description analogy could just as easily apply to Hitler calling his actually Socialist regime so called ‘Nationalist’.

Indeed, but it does establish the principle that dictatorial regimes do lie.

Bearing in mind in that case ‘if’ he was supposedly so against Socialism as the Socialists make out then why would he have wanted to lumber his new Party with the name even by association.

Because socialism had only positive connotations for ordinary people (like the offer of showers does at the end of a journey in a cattle truck), whose support the party was trying to attract. The party was not “lumbered” by the association any more so than gas chambers are “lumbered” by association with showers.

Also, Hitler himself didn’t choose the name, and although we might like to think of him today as a crazed man of uncompromising principles, he was actually a well-rounded character, a reputable soldier, and an eminently successful organiser and leader of a political party. Some hardliners did resign in outrage at the name, though.

That’s assuming the term ‘National’ wasn’t just referring to the ethnic origins of the project not the project itself Bearing in mind he wasn’t a ‘German’ at all by the standards of being from within Germany’s borders just as Stalin wasn’t a Russian.

Indeed, but what makes you think that to be a “nationalist” means accepting borders as they happen to be at any particular time? Such ‘status-quoism’ is a feature of conservatism, not nationalism.

I can’t see any logical reason why a nationalist cannot propose the creation of a new nation which doesn’t already exist, the redrawing of an existing nation’s borders, or the extinguishing of an opposing nation by military means.

In which case if it looks like a Socialist trans national duck and quacks like a Socialist duck,in the form of allying itself to Stalin’s trans national Socialist Soviet Union,with the same aim of wiping out Sovereign Nation States to form centralised ruled puppet provinces subservient to the rule of the ‘Union’/‘Reich’ then it’s a duck.

On that note we can then view everything which you’ve said in that light.

There are similarities in this respect, I agree. But I don’t accept that the similarity is in shared socialism, rather than in shared nationalism.

Anyway, as I’ve said earlier, what I don’t see (and a key difference here) is why nationalism can’t involve merger with or conquest of other nations?

It’s akin to saying that a gangster is only a gangster if he does not form a gang or fight other gangs - and that a person who does form a new gang, or fight other gangs, or poach new members, is not a gangster, and not a subscriber to “gangsterism”.

In reality, a gangster who is not part of a gang, and does not fight other gangs, is not a gangster at all. And if he is currently a gangster (on account of his previous “socialism”), he won’t be a gangster for very long if he adopts the sort of “gangsterism” which is analogous to your “nationalism” (with its tenets of non-unification and non-aggression).

Clearly, if the gang merges with or conquers all others and no longer has any non-members to exploit or compete with, then it would no longer be a gangster-like organisation (and a gangster leader who held such an aim would not be a subscriber to gangsterism). A leader in a post-gang world, who wanted to return to gangs fighting and exploiting, would be a subscriber to gangsterism (even though no gang exists at that point).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly the poison gas nozzle description analogy could just as easily apply to Hitler calling his actually Socialist regime so called ‘Nationalist’.

Indeed, but it does establish the principle that dictatorial regimes do lie.

Bearing in mind in that case ‘if’ he was supposedly so against Socialism as the Socialists make out then why would he have wanted to lumber his new Party with the name even by association.

Because socialism had only positive connotations for ordinary people (like the offer of showers does at the end of a journey in a cattle truck), whose support the party was trying to attract. The party was not “lumbered” by the association any more so than gas chambers are “lumbered” by association with showers.

Also, Hitler himself didn’t choose the name, and although we might like to think of him today as a crazed man of uncompromising principles, he was actually a well-rounded character, a reputable soldier, and an eminently successful organiser and leader of a political party. Some hardliners did resign in outrage at the name, though.

That’s assuming the term ‘National’ wasn’t just referring to the ethnic origins of the project not the project itself Bearing in mind he wasn’t a ‘German’ at all by the standards of being from within Germany’s borders just as Stalin wasn’t a Russian.

Indeed, but what makes you think that to be a “nationalist” means accepting borders as they happen to be at any particular time? Such ‘status-quoism’ is a feature of conservatism, not nationalism.

I can’t see any logical reason why a nationalist cannot propose the creation of a new nation which doesn’t already exist, the redrawing of an existing nation’s borders, or the extinguishing of an opposing nation by military means.

In which case if it looks like a Socialist trans national duck and quacks like a Socialist duck,in the form of allying itself to Stalin’s trans national Socialist Soviet Union,with the same aim of wiping out Sovereign Nation States to form centralised ruled puppet provinces subservient to the rule of the ‘Union’/‘Reich’ then it’s a duck.

On that note we can then view everything which you’ve said in that light.

There are similarities in this respect, I agree. But I don’t accept that the similarity is in shared socialism, rather than in shared nationalism.

Anyway, as I’ve said earlier, what I don’t see (and a key difference here) is why nationalism can’t involve merger with or conquest of other nations?

It’s akin to saying that a gangster is only a gangster if he does not form a gang or fight other gangs - and that a person who does form a new gang, or fight other gangs, or poach new members, is not a gangster, and not a subscriber to “gangsterism”.

In reality, a gangster who is not part of a gang, and does not fight other gangs, is not a gangster at all. And if he is currently a gangster (on account of his previous “socialism”), he won’t be a gangster for very long if he adopts the sort of “gangsterism” which is analogous to your “nationalism” (with its tenets of non-unification and non-aggression).

Clearly, if the gang merges with or conquers all others and no longer has any non-members to exploit or compete with, then it would no longer be a gangster-like organisation (and a gangster leader who held such an aim would not be a subscriber to gangsterism). A leader in a post-gang world, who wanted to return to gangs fighting and exploiting, would be a subscriber to gangsterism (even though no gang exists at that point).

Firstly it’s rare if not unheard of for any Nationalist agenda to involve an unjustified attempt to take land to which they aren’t entitled to by historic precedent.Realistically in that case the Irish example was the perfect reference which busts your Nationalist gangster myth.IE Nationalism by definition means respect of the right of self determination and sovereignty of others.Hence the Irish civil war in which Michael Collins died in the fight over pro v anti partition and thereby stopping the imposition of Irish Nationalism on the UK Unionist Loyalist community in the North.

As for Hitler no the Alliance with Stalin’s Socialist Soviet Union and as part of that joint invasion of Poland,is the smoking gun that seperates Nationalist,in the form of Michael Collins’ sovereign Irish Free State.From Socialist,in the form of both Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s Soviet Union IE both allied to each other being Socialist by name and both Socialist by nature.

While it’s the interaction between all types of Federalism whether so called Capitalist or Socialist which is the Gangsterism that fits your analogy.All containing the same aggressive sense of entitlement to trample all over the right of self determination of Sovereign Nation States.Whether it be the Austro Hungarian Empire v Serbia or Lincoln’s USA v CSA or the Franco/Norman/Plantagenet imposition of UK rule across all the previous Nation States of the British Isles.In all the cases the Nationalists are the good guys and the Federalists who are the gangsters.On that note ■■■■ means Socialist not Nationalist and by definition dictatorial Federalist just like Stalin.As for Lenin supposedly being a Russian Nationalist then how do you explain his putting a Georgian into a position of power over Russia ?.

The definition of ■■■■ being seen for what it is ( Socialist not Nationalist ) obviously having massive implications in stopping what is an obvious attempt by Socialists yet again trying to hijack Europe and it’s Nation States.With people like Le Pen being on the side of right ( police ) and Juncker and Merkel the Socialist gangsters.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly it’s rare if not unheard of for any Nationalist agenda to involve an unjustified attempt to take land to which they aren’t entitled to by historic precedent.Realistically in that case the Irish example was the perfect reference which busts your Nationalist gangster myth.IE Nationalism by definition means respect of the right of self determination and sovereignty of others.Hence the Irish civil war in which Michael Collins died in the fight over pro v anti partition and thereby stopping the imposition of Irish Nationalism on the UK Unionist Loyalist community in the North.

But in Collins’ case, there already was a long-established United Kingdom, and there was no subsisting sovereign Irish nation (and I might be inclined to say no such nation ever existed before, but that’s not relevant to this point).

Collins differs from Hitler only in that Collins new nation was to be forged from a division of an existing nation, rather than Hitler’s expansion or unification.

Since you accept that Collins was a nationalist, but that he was clearly interfering with the status quo of the United Kingdom’s borders and territories, you have to accept my assertion that a nationalist is not necessarily a conservative.

As for Hitler no the Alliance with Stalin’s Socialist Soviet Union and as part of that joint invasion of Poland,is the smoking gun that seperates Nationalist,in the form of Michael Collins’ sovereign Irish Free State.From Socialist,in the form of both Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s Soviet Union IE both allied to each other being Socialist by name and both Socialist by nature.

Just look like two expansionist states to me.

While it’s the interaction between all types of Federalism whether so called Capitalist or Socialist which is the Gangsterism that fits your analogy.All containing the same aggressive sense of entitlement to trample all over the right of self determination of Sovereign Nation States.Whether it be the Austro Hungarian Empire v Serbia or Lincoln’s USA v CSA or the Franco/Norman/Plantagenet imposition of UK rule across all the previous Nation States of the British Isles.

There were no previous nation states of the British Isles (except maybe the Romans). This is imaginary history, that there were English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh nations and citizens before the UK - and that these were cruelly forced together. Those identities have crystallised mainly because of perceived ill-treatment of areas within the UK, not because they represent original constituent nations. There was never a political unit consisting of both lowland and highland Scots, for example.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly it’s rare if not unheard of for any Nationalist agenda to involve an unjustified attempt to take land to which they aren’t entitled to by historic precedent.Realistically in that case the Irish example was the perfect reference which busts your Nationalist gangster myth.IE Nationalism by definition means respect of the right of self determination and sovereignty of others.Hence the Irish civil war in which Michael Collins died in the fight over pro v anti partition and thereby stopping the imposition of Irish Nationalism on the UK Unionist Loyalist community in the North.

But in Collins’ case, there already was a long-established United Kingdom, and there was no subsisting sovereign Irish nation (and I might be inclined to say no such nation ever existed before, but that’s not relevant to this point).

Collins differs from Hitler only in that Collins new nation was to be forged from a division of an existing nation, rather than Hitler’s expansion or unification.

Since you accept that Collins was a nationalist, but that he was clearly interfering with the status quo of the United Kingdom’s borders and territories, you have to accept my assertion that a nationalist is not necessarily a conservative.

As for Hitler no the Alliance with Stalin’s Socialist Soviet Union and as part of that joint invasion of Poland,is the smoking gun that seperates Nationalist,in the form of Michael Collins’ sovereign Irish Free State.From Socialist,in the form of both Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s Soviet Union IE both allied to each other being Socialist by name and both Socialist by nature.

Just look like two expansionist states to me.

While it’s the interaction between all types of Federalism whether so called Capitalist or Socialist which is the Gangsterism that fits your analogy.All containing the same aggressive sense of entitlement to trample all over the right of self determination of Sovereign Nation States.Whether it be the Austro Hungarian Empire v Serbia or Lincoln’s USA v CSA or the Franco/Norman/Plantagenet imposition of UK rule across all the previous Nation States of the British Isles.

There were no previous nation states of the British Isles (except maybe the Romans). This is imaginary history, that there were English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh nations and citizens before the UK - and that these were cruelly forced together. Those identities have crystallised mainly because of perceived ill-treatment of areas within the UK, not because they represent original constituent nations. There was never a political unit consisting of both lowland and highland Scots, for example.

Firstly that’s a poor attempt,to whitewash out the inconvenient fact,that Hitler’s Third Reich,was as much a Socialist driven aggressive trampling,over the idea of the right to self determination of others and the Nation State,as Stalin’s Soviet Union was.As I said to the point of jointly doing so against Poland in a clear alliance.

As for the UK as opposed to England,Ireland,Scotland,Wales,you seem to be jumping to some wild assumptions and re writing of history if you’re trying to suggest that those countries never existed as Nation States by the standards of the day.Before the UK was created out of the typical Federalist aggression of the Franco/Norman invasion and the Plantagenet regime etc which followed it.

The relevant bit being that there’s no way that you can make any case that the Federal trans national system of government is superior to that of the seperate Nation State.Using violence to put down the legitimate right of self determination being the usual historic result whether it be ancient Rome,the Soviet Union,the Third Reich,the UK,the USA,or the former Yugoslavia.Socialism being crippled in that regard by an ideological predisposition towards that dictatorial trans national federal governmental system.

Which is why there’s no place for any anti EU leadership within the Labour Party.Based on the same lie that Nationalist means ■■■■ and only Socialism has the monopoly on what’s supposedly good for the working class.When every example of history and to date proves the opposite.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly that’s a poor attempt,to whitewash out the inconvenient fact,that Hitler’s Third Reich,was as much a Socialist driven aggressive trampling,over the idea of the right to self determination of others and the Nation State,as Stalin’s Soviet Union was.As I said to the point of jointly doing so against Poland in a clear alliance.

Yes but an alliance of two otherwise mutually hostile regimes came about because it served the perceived national interest of both for the time being. Neither of them were against their own national right of self-determination, and in fact pursuit of that goal was partly the reason that both were trampling over the rest of Europe.

This is why I think the gangster analogy to nationalism is a very good one in this context, because it picks at an intuition that the only gangster who has a right of self-determination is the gangster with the power of self-determination, and a powerless gangster simply has no rights.

Anyway, I don’t have much else to say on this. At the very least, you seem to accept that Hitler and Stalin had an alliance that was entered and maintained by consent on both sides.

If the EU has any similarity to them, it is as an alliance of nations (who otherwise might be fighting each other) that is entered and maintained purely by consent - Britain is not between the jaws of an alliance between France and Germany, Britain is the main architect of the EU alliance who came freely to the table. And as the referendum shows, Britain is essentially still free to leave the table - no German or French jackboots threaten to touch British soil purely on account of the having of the referendum or the implementation of its verdict.

A vote for leave will not unleash the potential of Britain, because there is no pent-up potential left in an isolated Britain (save the potential to race other European nations to the bottom). In fact, the analogy that comes to mind more readily is when Ken Morley left Coronation Street and hasn’t done reputable work (or earned serious money) since.

As for the UK as opposed to England,Ireland,Scotland,Wales,you seem to be jumping to some wild assumptions and re writing of history if you’re trying to suggest that those countries never existed as Nation States by the standards of the day.

Because they didn’t. It’s not that they were proto-nation-states, they just didn’t ever exist as coherent political entities - they were basically undeveloped territories governed by clans and local leaders (who might occasionally have formed temporary alliances in the common interest, but nothing approaching a permanent state, even less a nation).

England was taking the initiative in political unification so an entity called England did once exist, but not in the form of a nation state, but as a kingdom - the populace of that era would not have identified as “English” (I mean realistically we’re talking about before people could read and write, before schools existed, before Britain had a navy or an empire! There was just no means, or reason, for people to hold a common national identity).

Perhaps a modern equivalent might be to observe that there were no nations like South Africa, or Iraq, that preceded European invasion - what existed immediately before were not nations or anything resembling them, and those nations in their current form were cast wholly by the British.

That’s why I say the last entity to exist in Britain before the UK, perhaps fitting the description of a “nation” (at least in parts of its territories), was probably the Romans (and their influence never encompassed the Scottish Highlands, for example - that area has never been a member of a nation other than the UK).

Before the UK was created out of the typical Federalist aggression of the Franco/Norman invasion and the Plantagenet regime etc which followed it.

But whatever political entities they were aggressing against, they weren’t aggressing against nations, that’s the point. The Normans themselves weren’t really a nation. And for the ordinary peasantry, the changes in the identity of political elites (resulting from Norman conquest, for example) didn’t make much of a difference or concern them (unlike in the way that clearly ordinary people would have been concerned to be ruled by Hitler or Stalin).

The relevant bit being that there’s no way that you can make any case that the Federal trans national system of government is superior to that of the seperate Nation State.Using violence to put down the legitimate right of self determination being the usual historic result whether it be ancient Rome,the Soviet Union,the Third Reich,the UK,the USA,or the former Yugoslavia.Socialism being crippled in that regard by an ideological predisposition towards that dictatorial trans national federal governmental system.

Which is why there’s no place for any anti EU leadership within the Labour Party.Based on the same lie that Nationalist means ■■■■ and only Socialism has the monopoly on what’s supposedly good for the working class.When every example of history and to date proves the opposite.

LIke I say, I can see there’s a strong anarchist influence in your thinking, but it’s not class war anarchism, but the everyday naïve form that is basically just “down with government”, or at least down with whatever you don’t happen to agree with that day. Beyond that, your influences are defunct ideologies like nationalism. It’s a bit like the modern day Stalinists - they don’t seem to have recognised it’s defects (or that it failed to do anything but get Russia to where it already is, which is further on than it was, but still behind Europe). Nationalists are the same - they don’t seem to recognise that nationalism is exactly what has got Europe to where we are now (which includes membership of the EU, to stop the horrors and excesses of nationalism).

To undo the EU is just to make Europe’s peoples run the gauntlet of fascism again, because the EU is the institution that is supposed to put the brakes on national governments when their policies (both internal and external) create a tendency back towards fascism. We’re seeing it’s not working fully, but that’s because both the EU and national democracies are themselves creaking under sustained attack from capitalist elites to prevent political control of the economy at a national level (so people are suffering poverty whilst democratic politicians say they can do nothing about the markets), and also prevent the political globalisation which will control them even more effectively.

[mazzer]

Can you two boys not carry this on using PM don’t think anyone else is either interested or able to make head nor tail of it

[tooz]

My head hurts !!