Human Interests: Nation versus Class

[dogukan]

Since the French revolution the world, Europe mostly grasped a new concept, nationalism. With influences from J.J.Roussue's revolutionary term "general will" this idea became dominant in short time and rose fast from industrial revolution to second world war, changed it's way into an ideological struggle lately.(ideologies represents classes)
My problem is, as I have brought into arguements many times here as well, with this "national interests", "national will" concepts. This idea is also the CORE of the country I live in(since most of Turkish intellectuals of the time learned political philosophy through French).

*Think of our fellow forummites who when talking about history, refer to certain actions of historical figures/states as "us" "we" "you" "them"
They claim what they did is WHAT MAKES US, they are the reason we are here etc
*And then they IDENTIFY themselves with their nation and sometimes state, pick a representation in history and become them. E.G: When you talk to a Turk and say Ottomans committed a genocided, he takes that as insult as if your target was him. Well, sometimes your target IS HIM because you might also be one of these who analyze the world/history with "nationalist goggles"
ex: You killed Armenians ** ** * * ***** go back to mongolia ..... and so on
When arguing they still talk as if they are their state and we are our state

---
Now this WAS a step of humanity, I'd agree with that. At some point in history this sort of thinking had to rose and it took humanity further, it achieved something. Being equal citizens of a nation state.
But then, with the industrial revolution, something new was born. The working class, and during the these economical development years the way the world runs changed radically.
Things were always based on economy and traditions to a point, but when everyone was able to involve in global economical activity, this "base of everything is economy" idea made much much more sense.

Yes, I'm bringing in Marx. I am a Marxist, but what I want to say is, you do not have to be a Marxist revolutionary or a socialist to look at the world through Marx's goggles. That is, historical dialectic and class struggle. By basing everything on material, economics and values.


You do not have to be socialist to realize, as a bourguise, your interests lie with the bourguise class around the world(not talking about competition but the way SYSTEM works).
Ships move on sea not land. So even if two ships are enemies(national bourguise, competition, monopolies...etc) you need a capitalist system(the sea) for things to function.


I mean does that not make sense? Why should my interests be same (assuming I am a Turk, even though genetics are very disputed in today's world-I mean I am actually not) of a Gagauz Turk in Balkans, an Uighur in China, a Turkmen in Northern Iraq, a miner in southern regions of my country, a woodcutter in northern parts of my country and a really rich bourguise in the richest district of my city.
Sure we might have common goals, but these would never represent the bigger picture.
Last month we had a referandum which passed with 60% to 40%.
That means almost half of nation's will is not same with the other half. Does this nation not share the same goals? NO, they simply don't. Even though I will not say people voted "rationally" according to their interests(see class conciousness) they had very differing opinions.
There is no such thing as a "National will", it's just a delusion. It is something you believe in, if your state is succesful in imposing it to you. (see: Turkey)
For states that do not impose these: European ones, but still the idea finds a large base among masses

SO WHAT MATTERS THEN?

If you have any suggestion to replace this, share please. For now, I'll stick with Marx. Assuming both countries are in same situation, worker from X and Y country share a similar life, therefore similar goals. Their interests are similar, unless they are delusioned by their state. (such as the cancelling of massive worker strikes in early 1990s in Turkey in order to "not put our country in risk" = this is also one of the reasons why socialism and nationalism can not co-exist)
And both their lifes are based on their economical situation. Bourguise in both countries share same political goals, liberalism. A free market so that they can profit and live the life the way they want.
If a worker is okay with a free market, then he is either delusioned(be it nationalism, the American dream) or not aware of his interests. Try TO THINK SIMPLE HERE, if we go into details things would get confusing. Do not tell me a revolution would ruin economy of ex-country and hence the worker would lose the welfare he has etc.(DAMN YOU Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands) since that welfare comes from a surplus gained from some other part of the world. In other words, exploitation of other nations, imperialism.







Long story short:
Class goggles:A Worker in X country and Y country share similar goals
or
Nation goggles: All the people of X nation in X country and the world share the same goals

Discuss, agree, disagree?

[Salem1]

I just want to explain that the reason people view it with nationalistic goggles at all is because the nation is also a group, just like your class is, and just like anything else that separates you from someone at what people perceive as a significant enough level is. Everyone wants to belong to something that makes them feel good, something collectively greater than themselves, whatever they may choose this to be. People who don't want to belong to anything want to be significant by being unusual, but they wouldn't admit to it easily because that'd make them seem the same as everyone else in the way they want to belong to something too. Therefor it is easily explainable and not really an abstract construct so much as a leap in thought produced by humanity's natural grouping instincts.

But yes, nationalism is outdated. We need to progress as humanity.

[dogukan]

I just want to explain that the reason people view it with nationalistic goggles at all is because the nation is also a group, just like your class is, and just like anything else that separates you from someone at what people perceive as a significant enough level is. Everyone wants to belong to something that makes them feel good, something collectively greater than themselves, whatever they may choose this to be. People who don't want to belong to anything want to be significant by being unusual, but they wouldn't admit to it easily because that'd make them seem the same as everyone else in the way they want to belong to something too. Therefor it is easily explainable and not really an abstract construct so much as a leap in thought produced by humanity's natural grouping instincts.

But yes, nationalism is outdated. We need to progress as humanity.

The reasons vary. I have nothing to say to that. But according to you, does that represent the truth?
Does everyone in Sweden believe immigrancy should be free? Is there a national will on that area?

Wouldn't a very poor man from Sweden(if that exists ) share the same goals with a very poor immigrant if they are not "delusioned" by bourguise class to "compete" and "finish off" each other?

[Salem1]

Does what represent the truth? all of what you wrote? yes, I agree with it - but I'm off to see a friend soon so I can't be bothered to make a complete review of whether it's true again. In particular I was sitting there hoping you'd make an example like the sea & boat example, and you did, which pleased me

National will doesn't exist except by coincidence of everyone liking it, just like any other consensus. National obedience on the other hand can, but it is imposed, in other words exactly what you said... I didn't disagree with you because I agree, was just offering my reflections . Obviously not everyone in Sweden believes so.

Well hmm, very poor man from Sweden... that's a stretch, but yeah let's say there was one (we do have very few bums but they're more in the spectrum of ''have jackshit'' than ''very poor'') yes he of course does. It's all about what grouping he perceives as more significant to him - the national belonging or the class belonging. One indirectly allows for that delusion to happen while the other doesn't. However there is an important flaw, both groups put you against other ones.

[CiviC]

The nations creates something remarkable : solidarity amongst all social classes, upper, middle and lower. Also the nation promotes equality, as the upper classes have to give up to privileges and give the sovereignity to the people constituted as a nation; the members of the nation are all equal citizens not subjects to the sovereign, the upper classes are responsible before the nation.

Political systems based on the rule of one class are totalitarian, no matter if the aristocracy is in power, or the proletarians or the bourgeosie. In such regimes the rule is acheived by exclusion of others. Such regimes may claim they represent the nation, but in fact they are hijacking the concept and use it as a propaganda tool. The concept of nation is based on the idea the people is sovereign, and when a handfull of people claim they represent the people and forbid the people to exert real sovereignity (like in the case of aristocratic/bourgeois oligarchies, comunist or fascist states) then the nation has the right to exert the right of self determination and revolt. Self determination is not always the same with secessionism, but many times the nation can be enslaved by its own (totalitarian) governement and it has the right to claim back its sovereignity over the state.

As for the solidarity between bourgeoisie from any country, it's not feasable, as bourgeoisie is a competitive class.
Solidarity between workers isn't feasable too, because they don't have anything in common. Class can't create the same bonds as language, culture, customs, origins. Belonging to a social class isn't something inherent to a person, you aren't born a worker and you don't want to keep this condition; any worker if he can will move up on the social scale.

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

The problem with nationalism is that it fails to address the competing class interests. The problem with socialism is that it fails to address the different national interests.

Obviously, what we need is something that combines the best of both worlds. Therefore, I think some sort of 'National Socialist' system would work really well, not sure if anyone has thought of it before but I don't see any problems...

[dogukan]

The nations creates something remarkable : solidarity amongst all social classes, upper, middle and lower. Also the nation promotes equality, as the upper classes have to give up to privileges and give the sovereignity to the people constituted as a nation; the members of the nation are all equal citizens not subjects to the sovereign, the upper classes are responsible before the nation.

Thats what I call an illusion. Whoever rules the state runs the state according to their interests. Therefore state is a tool of a class to dominate other classes. In a liberal state bourguise domniate, in a worker state proleteriat dominate, in a theological state clergy dominate, in a monarchy aristocracy dominate. Thats how things are. So current states represent a class....and in most of the world, they represent the bourguise the upper class.

Political systems based on the rule of one class are totalitarian, no matter if the aristocracy is in power, or the proletarians or the bourgeosie.

And we mostly live in what we call "bourguise democracies" because no matter what, the interests of the working class will never be priority for either to state or the bourguise to get stronger.
And how can a proleteriat state be totalitarian if there is no hierarchy of classses and rulers?
Can't there be democracy in proleteriat dictatorship?
Can't the workers in a factory sit down and vote for what will be done? Is it really that difficult?

In such regimes the rule is acheived by exclusion of others. Such regimes may claim they represent the nation, but in fact they are hijacking the concept and use it as a propaganda tool. The concept of nation is based on the idea the people is sovereign, and when a handfull of people claim they represent the people and forbid the people to exert real sovereignity (like in the case of aristocratic/bourgeois oligarchies, comunist or fascist states) then the nation has the right to exert the right of self determination and revolt. Self determination is not always the same with secessionism, but many times the nation can be enslaved by its own (totalitarian) governement and it has the right to claim back its sovereignity over the state.

Look you are missing the point. The question was simple: Which makes more sense, that I share the same goals with people from my blood or my lifestyle?

As for the solidarity between bourgeoisie from any country, it's not feasable, as bourgeoisie is a competitive class.

I know, but they need a liberal ground to exist. You have to grasp the concept here. It is not about being friend or hostile to people, I'm dividing people in to classes here. Two bourguise competitiors would be brothers if their workers were on the rise.
Because in the end, their interests lies in their class.

Solidarity between workers isn't feasable too, because they don't have anything in common. Class can't create the same bonds as language, culture, customs, origins. Belonging to a social class isn't something inherent to a person, you aren't born a worker and you don't want to keep this condition;

They don't have ANYTHING in common?
If I visit an office in İstanbul-Maslak, and then an office in New York-Wall Street, I'm pretty sure people there will be mostly blabbering and complaining about same things. Perhaps how their boss is an

any worker if he can will move up on the social scale.

and thats one of the illusions such as nationalism. Most dominant in the USA. You can move up, you are free...but the fact is, majority will not.

The problem with nationalism is that it fails to address the competing class interests. The problem with socialism is that it fails to address the different national interests.

You have a point here. But the thing is, I believe NATIONAL INTERESTS are an illusion. What can be a national interest unless you live by your culture?
The interests of my nation is to take over N.Iraqi oil fields. Because the state needs it, and tell the people that the lands were actually Turkish.
Nationalism is simply an illusion for states to herd people.
But I don't want my nation to have Iraq, I want the lands to belong to Kurds. What am I then? As a Turk, why is my NATIONAL INTEREST different?
Don't I, at the core as Turk, eventually need to feel to follow my nation's interests?

Don't think about it, the answer is no. National view of the world is simply BS.

Obviously, what we need is something that combines the best of both worlds. Therefore, I think some sort of 'National Socialist' system would work really well, not sure if anyone has thought of it before but I don't see any problems...

Well it depends on your philosophy and life goals in the end. What is life, how should we live it? Is life about bringing our nation forward, or is that what loser who feel like they have to belong to something to complete their lifes?
Why the hell should I care about my country getting stronger if the people in it are not happy?
Expelling of Greeks and Armenians from Anatolia and oppression on minorities is for the good of my nation. Its my nations interests. Should I follow that?
Genocide of the Jews were in interests of the nation of Germans right?(or was it for the German BOURGUISE interests? )

At this point, capitalism has evolved so much that dividing people in classes requires bazillions of them, and their interests are sometimes in common, other times in contrast.
National interests still exist, but not like in the previous centuries. It's no longer a single nation interest, but of a group of countries.
Both concepts are therefore outdated, ideologies lead to a dogmatic interpretation of reality that turns out be wrong and unneeded.

Do not feel the urge to make thing complex. What kind of people are active and influent in ruling classes today?
The world is still split between job givers and job takers. You either work for someone or you own your business and make people work for you.
Clergy, aristocracy have stepped down from world mostly.
Then there is military.

Thats pretty mcuh about it.

we shouldn't perceive the world with divisons and boundaries like class or race. As hard as it may sound, we should perceive the world wholly and more specificly other humans as just other humans...

My division is not for discrimination. It is to UNDERSTAND the world. I don't care if someone is a bourguise or a worker.
What I am saying is, where should I look to understand the conflicts in the world to SOLVE them. Thats the whole point.

Is looking from the national interests enough? Because it doesnt solve things, it just creates more problems. But when you look from class perspective, things are more understandable.

Humanity is an abstraction.

What is concrete then?

Nations are much more empirically viable. Back when Marx made the ''class'' system he imposed an universal system on a sum of particular universes.

The class system only applies to a certain period of Western Capitalism. Other cultures have totally different class systems, or don't even have one in the ''Marxist'' sense so we should better stick to cultural/ethnic/national variables not classicist ones.

Most of the world today is in the same manner. Traditional rules are way of past mostly.

And then I repeat my question. Forget about Marxism says...
Tell me WHERE MY INTERESTS LIE?
Turks all over the world or in my country, or people who live like me/who have the similar troubles I have?
Pick one and explain why.

[Basil II the B.S]

Do not feel the urge to make thing complex. What kind of people are active and influent in ruling classes today?
The world is still split between job givers and job takers. You either work for someone or you own your business and make people work for you.
Clergy, aristocracy have stepped down from world mostly.
Then there is military.

Thats pretty mcuh about it.

Well, even those ''classes'' are really oversimplified. Let's take job givers as an example. Other than profit, it's still hard to define a common interest with all the types of job givers. And even profit isn't really that common interest, since it may come at the expenses of other job givers. Let's not forget that ultimately, they're all competitors.

[CiviC]

Thats what I call an illusion. Whoever rules the state runs the state according to their interests. Therefore state is a tool of a class to dominate other classes. In a liberal state bourguise domniate, in a worker state proleteriat dominate, in a theological state clergy dominate, in a monarchy aristocracy dominate. Thats how things are. So current states represent a class....and in most of the world, they represent the bourguise the upper class.
And we mostly live in what we call "bourguise democracies" because no matter what, the interests of the working class will never be priority for either to state or the bourguise to get stronger.
And how can a proleteriat state be totalitarian if there is no hierarchy of classses and rulers?
Can't there be democracy in proleteriat dictatorship?
Can't the workers in a factory sit down and vote for what will be done? Is it really that difficult?

My God, I was raised as a child in a state that was teaching such crap in classes, nobody beleived it, not the children, not the teachers, not the parents, not even the rulers, it was just a tool of propaganda and submission. Important was to not contradict this Marxist-Leninist crap in public.

Also, Marxism is outdated, as the bourgeoisie and proletariate are outdated classes. It's like me, being a Liberal, claiming I oppose the absolutism and aristocracy - there isn't such thing anymore (thanks to Liberalism).

[Basil II the B.S]

At this point, capitalism has evolved so much that dividing people in classes requires bazillions of them, and their interests are sometimes in common, other times in contrast.
National interests still exist, but not like in the previous centuries. It's no longer a single nation interest, but of a group of countries.
Both concepts are therefore outdated, ideologies lead to a dogmatic interpretation of reality that turns out be wrong and unneeded.

[Armenum]

we shouldn't perceive the world with divisons and boundaries like class or race. As hard as it may sound, we should perceive the world wholly and more specificly other humans as just other humans...

[Plant]

There is no reason why a person cannot percieve an identity to both, or don't percieve an identity to either of them.

[wilpuri]

Humanity is an abstraction.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Nations are much more empirically viable. Back when Marx made the ''class'' system he imposed an universal system on a sum of particular universes.

The class system only applies to a certain period of Western Capitalism. Other cultures have totally different class systems, or don't even have one in the ''Marxist'' sense so we should better stick to cultural/ethnic/national variables not classicist ones.

[Inhuman One]

well race and class exist, there are many types of people.

The problem comes when they mix too much. Mass Immigration is a huge issue. Just like how you can like some people that are very different than you and be friends with them, you may not want them as neighbours.

Regarding class I do not mean classes based on how much money someone makes, but more about intelligence and beliefs. Intelligence can be a rather strong barrier between people which some handle better then others. Most people get along just fine regardless of intelligence, but when it comes to friends there rarely are big differences there.

There are also plenty of narrow minded and ignorant people around who are not open to new things at all, and judge everyone before speaking with them and being too stubborn to change their opinion later on.

[Poach]

I take a national view. I do not have the same goals as the Chinese middle class. Hell, I don't have the same goals as the British middle class. Assigning everyone arbitrarily into a class and assuming that everyone in that class shares the same outlook and goals is absurd: we have similarities and some things will effect the class as a whole, but such links are not strong enough to make me feel that my class should be what I am defined as.

A nation, on the other hand, has stronger links. What happens to the British generally happens to me. When Britain has to go through something, I generally have to as well.

[dogukan]

I take a national view. I do not have the same goals as the Chinese middle class. Hell, I don't have the same goals as the British middle class. Assigning everyone arbitrarily into a class and assuming that everyone in that class shares the same outlook and goals is absurd: we have similarities and some things will effect the class as a whole, but such links are not strong enough to make me feel that my class should be what I am defined as.

A nation, on the other hand, has stronger links. What happens to the British generally happens to me. When Britain has to go through something, I generally have to as well.

Well give me a solid example then. I'm not saying you are same with the people from your class. When you look at the BIG picture your goals would be same.
Come on, unless you are ideologized, you'd as a worker would be okay with having no one getting more money. So your boss going away is not a bad thing. Why should I be sad if all the people in the world was my class if I'm a worker?

Since too much simplification causes confusion think in the borders of EU.
See The Ugly's example. You as a van driver, have more in common with a van driver from France/Czech Repulic OR a holding owner in Britain?
Who could you hang with? Can you afford the places the rich guy goes to in that case? Or would you prefer going to a local bar trying to pick up chicks and watching the game while driking beer like that other can driver? I don't think the rich guy will go there wtih his limo.

My God, I was raised as a child in a state that was teaching such crap in classes, nobody beleived it, not the children, not the teachers, not the parents, not even the rulers, it was just a tool of propaganda and submission. Important was to not contradict this Marxist-Leninist crap in public.

Also, Marxism is outdated, as the bourgeoisie and proletariate are outdated classes. It's like me, being a Liberal, claiming I oppose the absolutism and aristocracy - there isn't such thing anymore (thanks to Liberalism).

Your state was not communist. And I don't know what they taught you.
Bourguise and proleteriate are not outdated. There are still people in the world who pays his workers and people who are paid. And then there unemployed people.
A proleteriat is not a muscular worker with a hammer in his hand.

Nation. You can't really speak of monolithic classes with clear borders and intentions anymore.

What makes my goals common with the lumberjack in Trabzon then except for wishing country has better employement oppurtunities?
If class is stupid then why does nation makes sense?
Almost all my life goals are conflicting with interests of my nation. Why is that then?

Also, I forgot, Marxism/Comunism has as main idea the antagonism among social classes, the final goal is to eliminate the classes perceived as enemy of proletarians, mainly the "bourgeoisie". Unfortunately the "bourgoeisie" means not only rich peope but also intelectuals (inteligentia as the Russians would call it). So the aim of Comunism is to eliminate intelligence, thinking and knowledge in society, that's the end of civilisation.

First of all this is not an arguement of communism vs liberalism...especially in the historical context, beacuse many countries you call socialist are not socialist for me. It was just their name.
It does not mean intellectuals, don't make things up.

Fact is, a worker in America or Germany had a standard of living many more times higher then a worker in USSR or any other Comunist satelite state, Comunism is totally BS invented by a bunch of thugs to manipulate masses.

Whatever

Nation. Why should I feel solidarity with a Pakistani poor person if I am also poor? Why should I feel solidarity with an American billionaire if I also a billionaire? Lack or tons of money does not equal common interests.

This isn't about being poor pr rich. This is about class. Of course you will not be in the same situation in Greece as a poor person compared to one in Vietnam.
But your interests lie in the interests of your class, unless you are as I call it, delusioned by things such as national will.
That Pakistani, if a worker, wants to make more money, live in better conditions, look after his family and would be okay if there was no person who was ordering him what to do to make money.
Same situation applies to a worker in Greece.


ITS ABOUT THE PERSPECTIVE. You guys so incapable of simplifiying things and zooming out d'oh

Language, cutlure, religion, customs, history, land is what makes people feel solidarity with other people and the feeling they are the same.

I can give you thousands of examples how this is wrong starting with myself.But hey you are a nationalist. So you are ideologized sort of. It is natural you think this way.

Mythos is right, how a German worker would feel solidarity with a Chinese one, they have absolutely nothing in common, even work conditions and pay are totally different.

It's not like they are going to hang together damn it. Why can you guys understand this. If both are workers, their interests will lie in the goals of WORKERS. If payment for workers increase, both will be happy. But the WHOLE nation will not be happy. What will the people who pay think, in both countries? Happy because the people in their country will earn more now that they are profitting less?

Also this division of people in classes, expecially proletarians and bourgeois is flawed and outdated. The vast majority of people in the West are now middle class, not proletarians, they live more like the bourgeois then as poor workers.

What the hell is a middle class?
Whats it's FUNCTION?
Proleteriat produce value...Bourguise provide area to produce value and hire prolteriat. WHAT THE IS A MIDDLE CLASS? Whats their function?

You see you DO NOT KNOW socialism. Thats the problem, you are so brainwashed into todays world OR misinformed in your formet "socialist" countries, you don't even get what I am saying. I might be wrong or right, but the issue is simple.
There are people WHO PAY, and people WHO ARE PAID.
Then there are mini-classes(that existed back in Marx's days as well) like bureucracy, military, clergy....etc
But the majority of the world, SINCE INDUSTRIALIZATION and BIRTH OF bourguise which NOT ONLY TRADE but also control means of PRODUCTION, the world is pretty much the same.
In CHina there are people who own businesses, and people who work there. This is the same in Turkey, in Romania, in America, in England, Japan, in India.
The Prime minister of my country OWN BUSINESSES therefore he is a bourguise.
A man WHO IS POOR and makes less money but owns a business is a BOURGUISE. A man WHO IS RICH and WORKS IN A BIG HOLDING and gets paid 10 000 dollars a month IS A PROLETER.



note: CAPS is not because I am angry

Eh? There has never been a time when citizens, members, clans men, kin folk, or any other grouping were equal members.

The closest would have been hunter gatherers and even they have chiefs.

Not equal in the economical sense, but in political.
Liberte, EGALITE, fraternite
Liberalism was also a demand for equality when it was born. It is a reaction to aristocracy.
Like Marx says, ideologies represents classes and every class CONFLICT wit each other.


Aristocracy
+ bringin that down, you get liberalism
Bourguise
+
Worker

=the equation takes us to todays world
Bourguise
+ bringing that down, you get socialism
Worker

Classes always conflict....the class above hurts the one below.
Socialism is the last step, because workers (again in today's world) is the last step. Technically there is no other class below.

But what happened in, say, USSR?
A bureucratic and militarist class was formed over worker classes again.
Bourguise and aristocracy was replaced by bureucracy and miltiary. THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM.

[CiviC]

Deleted as triple post, Goshh I don't know how that happened.

[CiviC]

Deleted as triple post

[CiviC]

Since too much simplification causes confusion think in the borders of EU.
See The Ugly's example. You as a van driver, have more in common with a van driver from France/Czech Repulic OR a holding owner in Britain?
Who could you hang with? Can you afford the places the rich guy goes to in that case? Or would you prefer going to a local bar trying to pick up chicks and watching the game while driking beer like that other can driver? I don't think the rich guy will go there wtih his limo.

See, this is where you missed something. A worker from Finland and one from Spain, or one from Romania and one from Bulgaria, going to a pub. How can they hang out together if they speak different languages and have different cultures. They can be polite one to another, but it's not like when they would meet another countryman speaking the same language and sharing the same culture. Also today barriers between employers and employees aren't that great. I bet if a Romanian worker and and a Romanian boss would meet in Spain they would hang out and tell stories about their country; the greatest fallacy of Comunists is that they see classes as closed castes.

Romanian nationalism had its excesses, but ask a Turk in Romania if they would prefered to be under Romanian or Bulgarian rule. We treated our historical enemy with respect in regards to the Turkish minority, the King of Romania even built a new mosque, named Carol I Mosque. In my home city Romanians and Turks live in complete harmony and intermarriages aren't uncommon. I never felt threatened by Islam or cultural differences with the Turkish minority, and we make jokes about historical battles between Romanians and Ottomans. I observed there is a much enemity between Turks and Tatars then with Romanians.

Your state was not communist.

God forbid I experience "true" Comunism. But I don't worry, "true" Comunism is like a Fata Morgana, but I admit a usefull tool to lure masses.

I can give you thousands of examples how this is wrong starting with myself.But hey you are a nationalist. So you are ideologized sort of. It is natural you think this way.

You are also ideologised with your leftism, but also very unrealistic, thinking in some utopias that failed so badly. I'm also a liberal, and I admit alos that the state has the duty to give a social protection for those in need. You live in a state that didn't experience a true open society, wealthare state, etc. Please don't generalise the Turkish model on other countries. Why do you think EU is reluctunt to Turkey's admission? Of course some lind nationalists would say "They hate us because we are Muslims" but the truth is because the model of nation-state in Turkey is flawed comparing with European actual standards.

What the hell is a middle class?
Whats it's FUNCTION?
Proleteriat produce value...Bourguise provide area to produce value and hire prolteriat. WHAT THE IS A MIDDLE CLASS? Whats their function?

You live in a very primitive country if you don't understand that ...