You know, a thought struck me.

Socialists are actually better at doing what nationalists TALK about doing than nationalists are, even though to a committed socialist the idea of nations is pretty repellent.

Because if you think about it, you can see something like "America" or "the United Kingdom" as one of two things:

a. just a patch of land where people happen to live
b. an intangible, spiritual thing that is more than the sum of its parts

Ask most socialists and I suspect they'll lean more towards "patch of land where people live" than "intangible spiritual entity." To most socialists, nations, borders and countries aren't as important as the happiness of the people that live in them.

But in seeing that abstract concepts like nationhood aren't as important as living, breathing people, socialists actually do a lot more to strengthen a nation than nationalists do, because they're addressing actual, physical concerns rather than a spiritual idea.

Nationalists talk a big game about "looking after our people" and "taking pride in our heritage" but it always boils down to pageantry. The IDEA of the common man is always more important than the actual common man, who nationalists expect to be able to succeed just by who he is.

A country where everyone has a right to food, shelter, healthcare, education and leisure regardless of whether they meet some arbitrary standard of patriotism or identity is much, much stronger than one that puts a premium on identity regardless of its actual value.

And there is more REASON to believe in something higher than yourself, more REASON to fight for it, to make sacrifices for it, when it is willing to make similar sacrifices for you.

No wonder the Nazis tried to appropriate the trappings of socialism: our shit actually WORKS.

A British nationalist judges their patriotism by how many human lives they'd be willing to sacrifice to save Nelson's Column.

A British socialist judges their compassion by how many Nelson's Columns they'd be willing to sacrifice to save a human life.