Dominator culture knows all political affiliations

The title was nearly that it knows no political affiliation, but all affiliations is probably more accurate.

Over years of reading, I eventually came to understand that nationalism and communism were natural enemies. 

I suppose it started with World War II and the Nazis and the Soviets being against each other. In that context it would seem that the Soviets were the good guys, but that's not how it played out after the war.

Of course, just expecting there to be "good guys" is overly simplistic.

I might not have thought much about it, except that when I was reading a lot of South African history (after seeing Invictus), that kept coming up. The enemies of the South Africans, especially after Apartheid, were always the Communists. Then -- after seeing A United Kingdom and reading more about Botswana -- it came up again.

Also, looking at photos from the Civil Rights era, yes, you did see Confederate flags, but you saw Nazi flags too, waved by our homegrown racists. With that happening not long after WWII, it was disconcerting.

One point of that is the rise of the Nazis here isn't anything shocking; they have been building all along and the people who intend to be good people were not committed enough to anti-racism to stop it. We'll get back to that.

For now -- and this does relate to where "good guys" is overly simplistic -- how do you end up with such similar behavior on sides that are opposed, but clearly not opposite?

When we talk about political theory, even though there are things about it that are very real, the "theory" part is that things are not generally carried out perfectly. There are goals and ideals that don't get fully met. Sometimes that is part of the problem, and sometimes the theory part is so problematic that you have to be grateful for any failures.

I remember back in high school when people were talking about communism saying that it never has been carried out perfectly; that's why a lot of people preferred to use socialism instead. I am not sure those discussions were very valuable. It did allow some people to dismiss communism as an impossible ideal, where they were more pragmatic in their disdain.

Regardless, to the extent that communism is focused on the people controlling the means of production, and where nationalism is more about putting one's nation over other nations, those appear to be very different goals. Communism seems to be looking inward at welfare of the group and nationalism seems to be looking outward at their superiority over other groups.

It did not always work out like that. The German policy of "autarky" for self-sufficiency would seem like a reasonable policy for a communist state, even if invading other countries to get the resources seemed less appropriate.

Then, a lot of people under Soviet rule starved as grain was raised for shipment and sale to other places, rather than feeding the people who raised it. (That doesn't even get into what went on with the Cuban sugar harvest under Castro's early rule.)

A lot of the Communist failures were based on a desire to compete with other nations and show that they were superior. That almost sounds nationalistic.

One potential stumbling block is that both systems had enemies built in.

For nationalists, it was other countries, but for communists, it was the owner class. The philosophy included rising up against the oppressors. That was how you bring on the good times, but the good times never came.

Does it have to be this way? What if it started with something smaller?

More on that next time.