No I totally disagree that it's bourgeois. It was a byproduct of naturally occurring material conditions which are in principle the same as the regionalism in Spain for example.

I don't think there are really any examples you can make to point to it being naturally occurring, also I do understand what you mean by naturally occurring eventhough I don't think it's the right term, it occurred because this was at a time when Feudalism was going through a transitionary phase to capitalism, through this transition many European countries were Mercantilist right? Mercantilism is essentially just nationalist economics, the idea is that wealth must be stored and that identification of a strengthening economy is not through growth but pure material accumulation no?

Wait, what do you mean by material conditions? @εïз irma εïз

do you by any chance @aymem subscribe to the ideas of Dugin, if i may quickly ask?

Dude... This is pointless

Why

only slightly @Deleted User

alright, was just curious

i don't think i agree fully

and i find him kind of contradictory

You would

The material conditions being what allowed romanticism to take root.

okay, yeah won't change my comment then.

btw I take it you mean romanticism by pretty much a culture being created in the nation-state right?

I don't really see why mercantilism is any more nationalist than any other foreign policy that's expansionist and aggressive, it just coopts New World and Asian markets for national gain.

Yeah.

Greetings my ni🅱 🅱as

Guys

Syndicalist gang

Isn't syndicalism fairly cloe to Brazillian Integralism

close

>I don't really see why mercantilism is any more nationalist than any other foreign policy that's expansionist and aggressive, it just coopts New World and Asian markets for national gain.

I'd say it's essentially the philosophy behind it, it's focused less on growth, and more on storage, it wants to store as much wealth as possible, it wants an accumulation of wealth and material because this is what it defines as a strong economy, it's more nationalistic since it's based on accumulation of wealth of it's nation-state, no? And I think it's different to other systems because, like now, the view is more on growth, the view is more on produce and store the least amount as possible, it looks like a 180, and it kind of even is tbh since the fact of the matter is that it's focus is on "selling" nationalism outgrew it's use after Wealth of Nations, that's my point.

It's not any more nationalistic than anything else that wants to further national strength.

So i'ts not a departure from pre-mercantilist foreign policies.

It's the same principle.

we're talking about the economic system though, my point now is on why i think nation-states is a bourgoiesie creation.

Nationism is the answer to the franchise problem the right wing has in America.

>pre-mercantilist foreign policy

there was no foreign policy pre-mercantilism, it was feudalistic, you may have had merchants, but there was no foreign policy, I don't even think they would've been able to grasp of an idea of foreign policy

Soreliansim sorta is. @Gas the Zoomers
Syndicalism itself is (for a lack of a better term) Left Wing Socialism but replace the Government with Worker Unions and Syndicates

kind of based ^

Contrasted with nationalism – nationism pertains to practical concerns, while nationalism pertains to questions of identity.

never heard of nationism

You've heard of it now

i've heard of it now 😄

Since an ethnostate is out of the question for America

Nationism is the answer

/thread

I was going to post a fat black woman shaving her pussy taking a shit on here but i kind of like the server so i won't

Do it

DEW IT

nah

i'll just dm it to you

Then I'll post it on here

fuck i copy pasted the debate

....

Lmao

i had the thot copied...

ffs....

Lmao

I just had a bunch of people gang up on for saying Nation states didn't work, then pointed out the sucess of apartheid south africa

you know the rest

evil nazi blah blah

Oof, real cluster fuck

Lmao

they ganged up on me because I was saying Ethnostates DID work rather

I also argued that in a sense America started out as a Ethnostate and thrived

they REE'd at that really hard

wouldn't the proper term for America be Racial-State or something along those lines?

Kinda

yep it wasn't an ethnostate tho

Sorel is so fucking based.

I mean I dunno, It started out as a European string of Colonys that openly had on the books laws that only white europeans could immigrate

What most people here don't understand is, America is never going to be a white ethnostate anymore and it hasn't been that ever since the abolishment of slavery.

Ebin

white european is not an ethnicity

What do you suggest

were kinda splitting hairs though

we're not

It's not but Europe does share a common history

white european (caucasian) is a race

What's the difference between a race and ethnicity

Europeans are drom the caucuses

that has many ethnicities within it but still not an ethnicity

Indo-European makes more sense

There is the American white ethnicity

@Nikitis Race is whatever you want it to be

Point is America started a s a racialist white state

The exact terms not the important part

race is irrelevant nearly always

pan european state

or rather anglo in the beginning

^ anti european

sure anglo state

I have seen many LARPers say that America was a racialist white state with no evidence or substance to this claim.

yeah i don't believe it

it wasn't, it was very anarchic at the start

? was it?

There were laws on the books that non whites couldn't immigarte

I don't know when these laws got put on the books exactly

what do you mean by anarchic?

The long-term plan was for blacks to become eventual citizens by being born into American citizenship (freedom of womb), they had to make the necessary concessions to the southern planters. With this in mind, how can you reconcile the 1790 Naturalization law?

There won't be a white ethno/racial state. That's the point. Unless the country splits its land with the other races.

It's just bad history and it's dumb. As cool as it would be it's FAKE news.

as in anarchy was prevalent

it wasn't called "the wild west" for no reason

The founding fathers were racist for sure but not pro-slavery and wanted to extend citizenship to all Americans living in America at that time eventually.

OHHH

The first statute in the United States to codify naturalization law. Alternately known as the Nationality Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person." @εïз irma εïз

you're talking about that era