Internationalism or Global Nation?

This is directed mainly to you comrade Kenzu, who I notice as suportive of the existance more of a single country worldwide, or in other words "no borders".

I probably may not understand exactly your position, but well, this is what I think:

There are those who think nationalities shouldn't exist and that there should be a single country, for example, something like a World Republic or something like that.

Well I personally favour the existance of boundaries, the existance of national delimitations and the existance of cultural diversity. In my view a beautiful and healthy world is a world in which there are many countries each with its culture, each with its territory but each acting in friendship, in brotherhood with each other.

In other words, a world where we have a Cuba, a USSR, France, Germany, China, Mexico, Brazil but there's no limitations for the citizens of each of those countries to visit the others or to live in them. Brazil exists as an entity and existst in whole friendship with Argentina, their citizens can come and go without problem, there's trade according to necesities, etc. but there's a well defined border where Brazil stops existing and starts Argentina. That's what I think is better.

Like all being brothers and sisters, all with our own essence, our own space, but working together for a same goal.

I agree. It's better to have a union, like the EU, where all the countries are allied, but not united in one, because it keeps the national culture of all nations. I wouldn't like the idea of all humans mixed together, united under one culture. That's the model of the capitalist globalisation.

Riddler wrote:

I agree. It's better to have a union, like the EU, where all the countries are allied, but not united in one, because it keeps the national culture of all nations. I wouldn't like the idea of all humans mixed together, united under one culture. That's the model of the capitalist globalisation.

yeah
but ther are alway's nationalist groups like in the us that think immegrants are doing harm to the econamy.
immegrants help econames get bigger.

but then how would we know the National-Socialist from the good socialist ?

but no serious, the problem with this idea is kinda the same with a communist state, not everyone wants the same, it will most likely create one big nation with a lot of intern problems

Ryom wrote:

but then how would we know the National-Socialist from the good socialist ?

A good socialist is internationalist.

Riddler wrote:

I agree. It's better to have a union, like the EU, where all the countries are allied, but not united in one, because it keeps the national culture of all nations. I wouldn't like the idea of all humans mixed together, united under one culture. That's the model of the capitalist globalisation.

Wonderfully said, all in a nutshell

Ryom wrote:

but then how would we know the National-Socialist from the good socialist ?

but no serious, the problem with this idea is kinda the same with a communist state, not everyone wants the same, it will most likely create one big nation with a lot of intern problems

Well, "National Socialists" are not real socialists

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Ryom wrote:

but then how would we know the National-Socialist from the good socialist ?

but no serious, the problem with this idea is kinda the same with a communist state, not everyone wants the same, it will most likely create one big nation with a lot of intern problems

Well, "National Socialists" are not real socialists

National Socialist arnt even real fascist.

Diogritor wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Well, "National Socialists" are not real socialists

National Socialist arnt even real fascist.

National Socialism is just an ambiguous name. You people seem to like to judge everything by the name or title, yet do not deeply analyse the object.