What theory is closest to my ideals?

Well, given that your starting point for understanding society is 'people' and 'nation' and you oppose 'foreign' goods...

...and these concepts that you are using are 'nationalist' concepts, then the answer to your question is:

The theory which is closest to your ideals is nationalism.

You're mistaken to call yourself either of these, because 'Communism' requires you to use a theory based on 'class' and 'exploitation within nations', rather than 'nationality'.

If you live in the US, blame 'American and foreign bosses' and support 'foreign and American workers'. Then you'll be on your way to being a Commie!

But wouldn't it be more correct to say being a communist would mean finding fault with capital, money, commodity production, and the state? Of course, communists also oppose bosses, but so do those in favor of "democratic" "self-managed" capitalism. Either way, the OP hopefully gets your point.

Of course you're correct, Ogion, but I prefer to start from where a questioner is, and RP talks about 'nation', 'people' and foreign', not the concepts that you rightly mention.

Once we've sorted out RP's misapprehensions about 'nations', we can go through your list.

In fact, I'll hand the 'explanatory baton' on this thread to you, now, comrade!

Well, you asked the question, RP, about 'what theory' is closest to your 'ideals', so it seems reasonable to point out that while you focus on 'nation' (as opposed to 'class'), then the theory to which you are closest is 'nationalism'.

You also mention 'bosses' and 'exploitation', but they seem tagged on as an afterthought.

Your central organising concept, at the moment, is 'nation'.

You need to question this. For example, you said "the eventual goal is for all nations to work together as one". We Communists disagree. Our goal is to undermine and destroy 'nations' and the national ideal now, as part of the process of revolution, not as a vague future, post-revolutionary goal.

Nations can't be 'self-reliant': only Nazis seek to realise the impossible dream of autarchy.

You're not a Nazi, so why be influenced by ideas which are sympathetic to them?

No, I wasn't suggesting that you are a Nazi. I'm merely pointing out that ideas of 'national self-reliance' are also part and parcel of Nazi ideas, to help you orientate yourself to unfamiliar ideas.

So, you agree,

but,

If we're all 'working as one', clearly there'll be no need for personal firearms once we've destroyed bourgeois government, and instituted collective democratic control by communes, eh?

Any firearms that are required, for any purpose, whether collective defence or personal target practice, will require the sanction of one's comrades.

And they will be held communally, not privately, under collective control. Issues of personal safety will be dealt with by the community.

We're Communists, not individualists.

So, no nations, no private guns.

Anything else?

Oh, you're right. Well, maybe I should still start from where the questioner is rather than go into capital, money, and commodity production. I'll go a bit into the state, since RP addressed this.

RP, it sounds like your current ideals are very close to modern social democracy, as I’m afraid none of the ones you have listed are close to the ideas of communism. In fact, for communists, it is problematic to speak of communist "ideals" by Marx's definition, since communists do not hold communism as an "ideal" but as social relations to be replaced by the existing ones. "Ideals" play a very different role from, say, "ideas," and we base our ideas on a continually self-changing engagement with the real conditions that exist, whether that is through theory or through practice. "Ideals" tend to have an eternal and abstract character about them. As communists see with the state under capitalism, "freedom" is held to be the highest ideal, but as to what kind of "freedom" we have is extremely vague, if not meaningless. The state really seems to have an abstract freedom based in ideals, and not a concrete kind based in material reality.

So let's go to some of the things you list regarding the state: "civil liberties," "firearms for self-defense" granted by the state, "nationalization," and "decentralization."

When we speak of civil liberties, we tend to speak of certain liberties the working class has fought for under capitalism, under "civil society." To have the freedom to strike or criticize the state, for instance, are liberties communists would certainly defend as long as capitalism exists, as they lead to an improvement in the material conditions of the working class and a greater level of consciousness. However, communists think to use "civil liberties" as a starting point means using "the state" as a starting point, and communists base themselves on a theory which points to the abolition of the state. Freedom still remains "ideal" if it does not presuppose the abolition of the state and "civil society," those social relations independent of the state which are "the free realm of commerce" and which the state exists to maintain. In a communist society, neither would exist, and "civil liberties" would, if you like, transform to "human liberties."

And "firearms for self-defense" granted by the government, "nationalization," and "decentralization"? All would become superfluous without the state. As to whether communists defend those things right now on our way to the abolition of the state, I cannot entirely answer you, since those are more questions of parliamentary reform that communists tend to not concern themselves with. Communists concern themselves with revolution, and revolution not in order to realize "ideals," but to abolish the existing conditions and build communism.

For more that addresses "the state" from a communist perspective, I would highly recommend this article which can be found on libcom: http://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state.