Well for one thing a business should pay a man a wage high enough to support his family.
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." This is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx, and it is central to the concept of all forms of Statism. The wage for a job is rightly determined by the time and effort required to execute that job, compounded by the degree of that job's specialization, which is determined by the number of individuals available to do it competently. There is a reason that a mechanic specializing in GM cars is paid less than a doctor.
I also have my own economic policies favoring a market controlled by morality, not market forces, and I also am a protectionist.
Marxism does not support private property and I do; therefore I am not a Marxist. However I am against the liberal and capitalist views that emerged out of the Enlightenment which put the self-interest of the individaul over what is good for the nation.
That's where you have it wrong, and consequently what makes you a Marxist. Marxism recognizes the difference between property of a consumable nature and property of a real nature, that is property whose utilization allows for the creation of wealth. Marxism, in the abstract, permits the former but not the latter.
There can be, in practice, no limited form of private property. Either you own something or you do not. If you do, then no one should be able to take it from you except that you trade it, freely and without duress, for like value, in good or currency, or that it be taken from you in payment for the commission of a crime. The fact of the matter is that the practice of charity is a work of corporal mercy and therefore has no relation to virtue of justice. Indeed, justice is properly understood as the compact, between citizens and between citizen and State, that the rights of either shall be inviolate so long as the rights of the other are not infringed. Welfare, or any other term for the disbursement of material goods for payment has not been given, is not an work of justice, but one of mercy. Therein lay that essential distinction which makes such efforts outside the province of the civil state. The justice of the State, understood in the context of the Catholic religion is thus:
1.) The foundation of government is establishment of Christ the King as the center of law and order, through the public and irrevocable establishment of the Christian religion, specifically and exclusively the Roman Catholic Church, and cooperation with the same through the legislation of laws that are in absolute accord with divine and natural law.
2.) Pursuant to first point, that the State exercises its power in that it acts punitively against those that violate the compact of civil justice, and that the purpose of established order is to preserve the life and property of the citizens over which it holds civil power. Moreover, the exercise of civil jurisprudence, in proceeding from just law and extension unassailable moral authority, must be exercised dispassionately.
3.) To exercise, where necessary and always in accord with the precepts of just war, martial power for the safety and freedom of its citizens.
Now, no doubt you and others would argued that welfare, monetary assistance for the poor, et cetera, would fall under the purview of maintaining order, in that it prevents civil disturbance through alleviating class inequality. In fact, it does nothing but exacerbate those tensions. The redistribution of wealth in the form of welfare violates civil justice in two main ways:
1.) It legitimizes the right of one class of people to effectively ransom another class of people at gunpoint
2.) The undermines the entire basis of civil law and moral authority with regard to the government in that, by accepting that crime and other civil disturbance will be the inevitable outcome of not redistributing wealth, in is effectively paying its own citizens to not engage in criminal activity, thereby implicitly stating that its law is neither objective nor enforceable depending on one's state in life.
I am a nationalist therefore private property and business rights receed before what is good for the national interests.
Then you're a Marxist, whatever label you apply to yourself. The only difference is that the gunpoint theft that you encourage politically is done in the name of God instead of the State.