These sound like evil things to most of 'the first world' where we are taught these things are wrong. you could say that they are politically incorrect even, but not in europe. in europe these things are considered, and, for us on the democratic side of the tracks, we would march and so forth to stop these movements. So, what is nationalism? nationalism is where the state appoints and governs the businesses that are in the country. this requires a lot more effort from state departments, but, leads to less corruption in the businesses and make sure everyone is represented. imagine having to steal from taxes that float your own job? at the same time, in cahoots they could do far more wrong. Socialism is about the same things as nationalism nearly, and the two go hand in hand. socialism is where the state takes control of the businesses from a financial perspective, reaping rewards and paying people what they want to. this means that the state is in control of projects personally, where there used to be one owner calling the shots over one business, now there is one owner calling for a lot of companies. the advantages to this is that there will be an equal amount of demand for each company, and one of the drawbacks will be that no one company will excel. it has long been an opinion of mine if only one party has wealth, then there will be nobody to trade with. Communism is about totally sharing. this is where the state collects everything and shares it out between the whole country. it has never been tried in a rich country, but those countries it has been tried in in fact do provide for all, like in north korea and some south american states. there is terrible lack of resources by the state, but that is not the fault of the president, it is because 'everybody shuns then,' as they look for the highest quality goods to buy and trade with, or the cheapest. to fix a communist country quickly in terms of wealth, the obvious answer is to allow commission for sales, i would think?
