Social Units - Protecting "Your Own Kind"

Back in the early recession days Gordon Brown was one of those famous for saying "British Jobs for British Workers". Of course in his EU speeches he highlighted the exact opposite, but who expects politicians not to be hypocrites? I have thought about this a great deal and - after initially ridiculing Mr.Brown for his ludicrous economic policy - I decided I owe him somewhat of an apology. His economic policy is still lunacy, and his views are still tragically wrong and morally unacceptable. All socialism is guilty of both economic and moral idiocy. But there is something in this argument of localism and nationalism. From a logical point of view it is indefensible, and therefore I have to go against my better nature to argue this point, and yet I feel there are some things which can be achieved through focused voluntary cooperation on a small scale. Think of your community as an extended family. Think of your people as an extension of that. Now, with each of these steps the closeness and sense of belonging fades considerably. In fact, even within the family some people don't feel entirely at home. This is perfectly natural - the smallest building block of society is individuals, not families.
Certainly, you will say, consciously supporting localist initiatives and businesses is within the scope of a sort of 'local socialism' or 'protectionism'. I have two objections to this:
1) Socialism and protectionism are not evil things if they are participated in voluntarily. I have never ever said that voluntary socialism or communism like the kibbutz is wrong. People can join whatever form of society is right for them. I only oppose people thrusting their ideology on others. So, in essence, voluntary socialism is not really socialism. It is just indiscriminate support for your fellow man no matter the circumstances you or he/she is in. It is the sharing of wealth as if wealth was a public good. In a voluntary setting this is 100% legitimate. Many religious communities such as the Amish, some Christian Anarchists, and the aforementioned kibbutz, live this way.
2) At the smallest level we all live in what you might call a 'socialist' community. This is because the smallest social unit is the family (the isolated individual cannot be a social unit). In the family children do not produce for themselves. They consume 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. That is, a little girl is not productive at all, but her parents let her consume the resources she needs to survive and grow. One might call this a capitalist relationship - the parent do get something in return, a good feeling of fulfilling responsibility and the joy of parenthood as well as potential security for old age. However, I would argue that even if it is an exchange, it is surely an unconscious one in 99% of circumstances. Especially in the primitive ages, man did not think to have children in order to enjoy them or gain goods from them. Having children is, like living in a socialist system, instinctual. This is why it is so difficult to fight socialism, it is somewhat natural and instinctive.