Message from @Filthy Frank
Discord ID: 522543409118969861
>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
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