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

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

I guess I'm done.

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 ❤

And Spain didn't follow the same route as Germany, France, or Italy because the country was dominated by agrarian hidalgos and all of the things that allowed romanticism to take root in those other countries were never Spanish.

The agrarian country didn't have a need for trains and literacy rates were too low to take advantage of any unified language.

Your claim was that nationalism was bourgeois but it's natural and this is evident.

>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.

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