It's more centrist than anything

I'd even argue it dosent even fit into the left-right spectrum

It's on its own

-leaves-

<:HyperLmao:459545665517780993>

That emoji is problematic

@Deleted User 👌 <:OOF:459550070942203924>

<:thanosdaddy:459545656479055873>

Lol he liked that Jews are responsible for slavery.

Uhmmm

Who wants to debate with me

I'm An Alien

@Deleted User debate him k thx

<:GWqlabsThonkery:398950779769061376>

Nationalism is supporting your nation above others.

Your nation being people with a shared culture, heritage, language, etc.

^^^^^^

"Kim Jong Hitler"

Where do you noggers come up with these fucken usernames

lmfao

lol

Nationalism has not existed since the beginning of civilization since Anon brought it up.

Nationalism destroyed the Ottoman Empire and resulted in the largely mythical ethnic identity of Romanians and Ukrainians being invented in the 19th century by the literary elite.

The 100 Years War resulted in the national identity of France and England being materialized.

But prior to the 19th century nationalism was basically nonexistent and most identities were communal.

ex. Spain being divided between Castilians, Leonese, Galicians, Catalans, etc.

And Italy having multiple communal identities.

Also when Gentile speaks of socialism he means the mobilization of society. The difference between Marxian socialism and fascist "socialism" (which is wholly appropriated) is that fascism sees the social aspect on the national level and Marxian socialism is exclueionary and reserved for the proletariat. The bourgeoisie the fascist speaks about is liberal interests and decadent foreign powers.

Stop saying fascism is socialism and then offering no further context.

@Doctor Anon

It's low IQ.

"No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle."

What you do is offer a pathetic sleight of hand with the appropriation of the term socialism by fascists to mean completely different from the mainstream definition of socialism which is Marxian.

Nationalism has existed since the nation state

Nationalism didn't become a school of thought in the 20th century

It has been around forever

How long has the nation state existed? Since the 19th century, with few exceptions.

That is a Cultural Marxist view constructed to delegitimize the nation state

Nation state has been around since the agricultural revolution

Except it hasn't.

Name one.

Egypt

LMAO

China

Terrible example, because it's false.

China???????

Those are not nation states.

Persia

wtffff

these are all nation states

Stop, let me address how you're wrong one at a time.

they have an authority and border

Egypt's identity was religious and shifted through time, the nation was embodied by the dynasty.

no

Persia really has no national identity.

Yes. You are simply blatantly wrong.

those are or where nations

Persia was routinely conquered by foreign entities.

routinely

no

There was no national identity to speak of.

Yes, routinely.

Muh nations came around in 1850

no thats not a thing

Jalayirids, Mongols, Gokturks, Oghuzi Turks, Scythians.

Persia has repeatedly been conquered.

look at european empires

they had nationalism for as long as they where around

look at mercantilism

Mercantilism was based on the acquirement of resources.

Has nothing to do with nationalism.

How about we start by you defining what a nation state is because it clearly is not what an actual nation state is if you think Persia and Egypt and China were nation states.

France was not even a nation before the French Revolution. It was numerous languages and *communal* cultures. People did not speak "French" outside of the Ile-de-France.

Same thing in China.

Mandarin, the word itself, refers to the court language of the Qing dynasty. People did not speak Mandarin. There were various local languages. Same as France.

There was no national identity to speak of.

You are simply historically incorrect on this.

The word Mandarin literally comes from the Portuguese word for minister.

Egypt did not really have a collective identity until the Muslim conquests, and thereafter it had a religious identity just like European states did until the erosion of that form of identity by the Westphalian system and the secularization of Europe by liberalism in the 18th and 19th centuries, giving birth to actual ethnolinguistic identities.

Which was fostered by increased communication and standardization of language.

To further my point Egypt was not even ruled by Egyptians during the Mamluk period. The Mamluks were first Turks under the Bahris and then Circassians under the Burjis, who controlled the Ayyubid caliph as a figurehead to maintain order.

Notice something there? The caliph is a religious figure.

Religious identity more than anything was the defining characteristic of national character and therefore the precursor of the nation state, which in most cases only arose in the 19th century.

Think about this

How did mercantilism call for wealth do be kept?

The cosmopolitan nature of countries like Egypt and China and France disallowed an ethnolinguistic identity to form.

By classes

by people

or by a __nation__

I gtg

You mean countries competed for wealth as they have been forever? This is not a convincing argument for the existence of the nation state.

You are retroactively defining the country as a nation where it doesn't exist.

Again, you're just wrong.

Would love to continue this later.

@Da_Fish You physically cannot win an argument against Zexy, she will not allow it wether your stance is correct or incorrect,

Submit to her dominance

<@&452955176354054172> : DDDD

*I’m not the one who asked my boyfriend to get socialists allowed as staff so I could me staff, now am I?*