I will debate anyone here on nationalism and why it's misguided eventhough the motive is correct and should be extended to the common philosophy of sophistry and jingoism

oh someone responded

thought this was a dead server

okay

Nationalism is bourgeousie and is quasi-post-enlightenment and modernist and is not in congruence with patriotism and since history nationalism has not existed because a society has always consisted of a fatherland, ethnos, nation, sophia and community

a nation-state is consisted of wealth and a fabrication of nation

gonna go take a piss right quick, hope you respond

Sorry, Fatherland, Ethnos, Nation, Sophia, Rex and Community

Okay my move, incel

>The only reason the "nation-state" didn't exist before the post-enlightenment was that society hadn't modernized at a level to allow a civic identity to even develop beyond the regional level.

First you're going to need to define modernisation and by what you mean.

And yes I would agree that society wasn't able to reach the level to allow "civic" (define this) identity to develop beyond small regional lines, but I don't think this is an argument against what i'm saying moreso of an explanation of something which is true and natural

btw let me finish

>The national identity was always tied into the monarch or religion.

Yes. I agree

>The latter of which was infinitely more important than national identity before the 19th century, even between countries like England and France that already had a proto-national identity

Yes, there was always an importance, a huge one in fact, however this was at a time when these nation-states who were led also by religion began realising how much an adverse effect religion had on their control which slowly began creating the idea of "secularism" much like how you secularise the yolk of an egg, the center, the same occurred with religion and nation-states

^ yup

>And it's silly to suggest that nationalism didn't exist before that.

Before when fam?

>For example Rome, that did have a civic identity (although it didn't extend much outside of Italy) or Greek city-states which had their own localized identities and considered themselves as diverse as early modern Europe.

You're using the idea of civic identities, which i hope you'll define later, and yes Rome did have a huge identity and it's influence reached the maximum it could (which for it's time was immense eventhough for now it's pretty weak) this isn't an aspect of nationalism though

@εïз irma εïз you really should've let me asnwer everything at once

now i have to keep scrolling up for your responses

and piece them together with my response

what shared identity though?

you're pretending an identity is nearly always religious or ethnic

when it isn'0t the case in history

even before the 1500s

for every single case

and one thing, i do realise nationalism is an incrementation of identity and how it always evolves

i'm not saying we should go back in time

i'm saying we should evolve

okay gucci

>Most countries did not have a real identity before the 1500's and even afterwards.

Yes, this is my point for the most part.

>Most people knew their lives in association with their lord. There was no connection to governmental authority or any connection to the identity of the country as a whole, and this was made possible by the fact that nobody spoke the same way you did. Ex., France.

This, is also my point, there was no identity because there was never an idea of melding nation with state, people lived their lives by their lord and whatever feudalistic societal hamlet they were apart of. However in these small connection of hamlets where a stabilised culture could occur, these differences were created, even if they were small. However even by saying this, i'm not saying we should close ourselves of, i'm only saying we should take a pluralistic approach and at the same continue the inevitable process which is internationalism, but not in a process that still damages the person and ethnos and is ultimately not even driven by culture or truth.

>Modern French is based entirely off of the Parisian dialect spoken in the Ile-de-France, it's not how most people spoke.

Yup.

>And it's the same in Germany and Spain and Italy.

Nearly always use Italy and France as examples since they're the easiest to use, and Spain for reference to now since Spain was never truly able to extinguish regionalism at the extent that other nations did since Spain has nearly always had a separate path from other European countries

@εïз irma εïз ❤

>Knows hidalgos ;)

Btw don't you think alternatives could've atleast been taken to a unitary state? And no, my claim is still it's bourgeoisie (and this isn't even by marxist observation since the marxist argument against nationalism is pretty bad) not so much that it's natural, what i'm saying is the process of globalisation would occur sooner or later and capitalism merely accelerated this (nationalism does not come from capitalism) and through this rapid expansion, nationalism was used when if nature were to have taken it's course we would either see a more pluralistic society or a more integrated society (obviously not now) but that would not have violently destroyed so much from such a hurry. What i'm saying is that Nationalism was the choice taken by the bourgeoisie, and yes, I am still of the belief that nationalism is a bourgeoisie creation, but with globalism, nationalism has become less and less of a wanted structure and people (such as fascists and even before then) have mistaken their love for culture and protection of their ethnos with nationalism and have confused the two, I wouldn't necessarily call it stockholm syndrome, just more of a feeling a hole that needs to be filled but was taken from the structure they ironically believe to be their opium.

I'll say this though, Nationalism **does not** come from Capitalism, I'd argue it comes from Mercantilism since this is when nationalism would've ACTUALLY been needed and wanted, however you may have a different opinion so i don't know.

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

only slightly @Deleted User

i don't think i agree fully

and i find him kind of contradictory

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.

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.

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

>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

kind of based ^

never heard of nationism

i've heard of it now 😄

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

nah

i'll just dm it to you

fuck i copy pasted the debate

....

i had the thot copied...

ffs....

@Nikitis Race is whatever you want it to be

race is irrelevant nearly always

^ anti european

yeah i don't believe it

? was it?

what do you mean by anarchic?

OHHH

you're talking about that era

okay ye

isn't the wild west the reason libertarianism is so romanticised in america?

@Bird Wizard if it was a tribe they mostly likely had a concept of state fam

@Filthy Frank northern europe in the 1400s

😎

not state like we think of it, but it was probably an organised community

^

@Bird Wizard I said it was probably an organised society and they did have institutions, a council of elders is an institution, and infrastructure is dependent on the society they live in, the infrastructure the community created would've been shelter and whatever else

northern europe had city states?

i genuinely don't know

@Gas the Zoomers we all have to reach a consensus on the terms we use in order to have a correct dialectic

northern europe is still pretty much seen as the backwaters here in europe, and following an EXTREMELY unsustainable system that is social democracy will break them extremely rapidly @Gas the Zoomers

I hate social democracy more than any other system

it's such a cancerous snake of an ideology

^

swiss are mountain jews

also swiss master race doesn't even rly exist, switzerland is a shithole

Italian swiss ❤ best swiss

no it isn't?

^ they gud

i don't think switzerland is a confederation either

oh it is

did not know that

@Bird Wizard you're right

@Filthy Frank yeah

@Nikitis wtf am i looking at?

Iberian master race

that is it

only master race is Iberian master race, everything else is irrelevant

hi

i can't post shit?

okay bybe

i have such a fucking urge to spam...

but i won't....

❤ MedPrideWorldWide

yo también!!! ❤

it isn't spic language if a spaniard is speaking it tho