[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Why does this book make /pol/ shiver in fear?
>>
And this "/pol/", is it in the room with you right now?
>>
>>18693117
yes, this board is full of fascist larpers
>>
>>18693112
Yes, we know Nationalism is a mostly invented identity brown from the Enlightenment, but let me ask you a question: do you lefties have any better idea on how to combat globalism? Regionalism and “communes” are simply not gonna cut it in the modern world.
It’s easy to criticize but how about some solutions huh
>>
>>18693129
international association of the working class and forceful abolition of globalist institutions
>>
>>18693112
>nooo stop following this 19th century ideology, follow my 19th century ideology instead
>>
Does it? Never heard of it desu. Is it just a we all human beans anti nationalism or muh communes kind?
>>
I have no issue with the affirmation of mythology.
>>
>>18693145
you're a basement dwelling loser. don't be under the wrong impression that anybody cares what ideology you follow
>>
>>18693141
How are you going to do that?
Last time you tried it was by having the USSR literally colonizing Eastern European satellites and using them as vassal states.
>>
Think were way past the point of return for muh REAL communities
>>
>>18693146
>According to Anderson, nations are socially constructed.[4] For Anderson, the idea of the "nation" is relatively new and is a product of various socio-material forces. He defined a nation as "an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign".[5] As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".[5] While members of the community probably will never know each of the other members face to face, they may have similar interests or identify as part of the same nation. Members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity: for example, the nationhood felt with other members of your nation when your "imagined community" participates in a larger event such as the Olympic Games.

>According to Anderson's theory of imagined communities, the main causes of nationalism are the increasing importance of mass vernacular literacy, the movement to abolish the ideas of rule by divine right and hereditary monarchy ("the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm ... nations dream of being free ... The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state", 1991, 7); and the emergence of printing press capitalism ("the convergence of capitalism and print technology... standardization of national calendars, clocks and language was embodied in books and the publication of daily newspapers")[2]—all phenomena occurring with the start of the Industrial Revolution.[2][3]

>"[T]he concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the allomorphism [incongruence, divide] between each faith's ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gauge and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state.[5]"

>"regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.[5]"
>>
>>18693173
>According to Anderson, previous Marxist and liberal thinkers did not fully appreciate nationalism's power, writing in his book that "Unlike most other isms, nationalism has never produced its own grand thinkers: no Hobbeses, Tocquevilles, Marxes or Webers."[2] Anderson begins his work by bringing up three paradoxes of nationalism that he would address in the work:

>Nationalism is a recent and modern creation despite nations being thought of by most people as old and timeless;

>Nationalism is universal in that every individual belongs to a nation, yet each nation is supposedly completely distinct from every other nation;

>Nationalism is an idea so influential that people will die for their nations, yet at the same time an idea difficult to define.[2]

>In Anderson's theory of nationalism, the phenomenon only came about as people began rejecting three key beliefs about their society:

>That certain languages such as Latin were superior to others in respect to access to universal truths;

>That divine right to rule was granted to the rulers of society, usually monarchs, and was a natural basis for organizing society;

>That the origins of the world and the origins of humankind were the same.[2]
>>
>>18693187
>Like other thinkers such as Marshall McLuhan in his The Gutenberg Galaxy, of particular importance to Anderson's theory on nationalism is his stress on the role of printed literature and its dissemination.[20] Thinkers like McLuhan, Elizabeth Eisenstein, and Anderson did not believe that nationalism came about because of a vaguely-defined "European" way of thinking, but because of the social, economic, and cultural practices associated with the rise of the printing press and the mass reproduction of printed material.[20]

>According to Anderson, "the revolutionary vernacularizing thrust of capitalism" was central to the creation of imagined communities, as the mass mechanical reproduction of printed works united people that would otherwise have found it difficult to imagine themselves as part of the same community, mainly because of extreme linguistic differences.[2] With the advent of the printing press, languages became more stable and certain dialects became "languages of power" (such as the Queen's English in the United Kingdom) that were inherently more prestigious than sub-regional vernacular dialects.[2] Print capitalism also meant a culture in which people were required to be socialized as part of a literate culture, in which the standardized language of their nation became both the language of printed material and education for the masses.[21]

>Multi-ethnic empires

>Anderson also studied how the 19th century European dynasties that represented retention of power over huge polyglot domains, underwent naturalization at the same time as they developed programs of official nationalism in a process that he called the "willed merger of nation and dynastic empire".[22] Anderson considered the empire as solely a pre-modern, "dynastic realm" and focused his attention on the official nationalism in multiethnic empires (e.g. the Russian Official Nationality), programs that he described as "reactionary, secondary modelling".[23] Whereas previously, the legitimacy of European dynasties had nothing to do with nationalness, Anderson argued that after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian empires in the aftermath of World War I, the nation-state superseded the empire as the norm in international affairs, as demonstrated by how delegates from the imperial powers in the post-war League of Nations were careful to present themselves as national delegates instead of imperial ones.[24][25]
>>
>>18693112
Somehow this line of thought never seems to end in anything but "..and THAT'S why we need/should allow more black and brown people in our country."
>>
I used to be a staunch nationalist and anti-tranny activist before I read this book. I am still against trannies but I'm not a nationalist precisely because national identity is no better than a made up gender identity
>>
>>18693168
I'm not going to do it. the development of capitalism is, and in the usual way: by reproducing a class of have-nots which gets pushed into further association and more generalized struggle up to a point at which there's no going back
>Last time you tried it was by having the USSR literally colonizing Eastern European satellites and using them as vassal states.
no, that was an imperialist project of the developing Russian capitalism. communism doesn't preach "peaceful coexistence" and reform like Stalinists did
>>
>>18693126
fascism is not the same as nationalism. there have been fascist states which were far from nationalism.
>>
File: Imaginal.jpg (147 KB, 1024x576)
147 KB
147 KB JPG
Imagination is the first step in creation of the novel and great, first to dream of something marvellous, then second to actualise it.
>>
It's funny that most lefties think that national identity is what reproduces and perpetuates capitalism when strong ethnocentricism/an unrepentant tribal identity seems to be the only thing capable of overcoming it within that particular group.

Spengler was right. Blood alone can overcome Capital.
>>
>>18693112
/pol/ doesn't read books
>>
If nations are imagined communities then what are REAL communities?
>>
National identity is cringe but the "I dont belong to any nation" people are even more cringe in a way. What do?
>>
>>18693161
>creates an entire book whining about nationalists
Sure
>>
>>18693240
Represent your and your community's self-interests, just don't make a show of it.

Even if you don't, other communities will certainly represent and back their own. Just keep that in mind.
>>
>>18693239
tranny discord servers
>>
>>18693129
Why should one fight globalism in the first place? It's a shame to lose some of our regional cultures to the shadow of globalism, but that'd come with technological progress regardless (and history would serve as a comforting example on to why some of it would live on, regardless).
Absolutely nothing else is worth maintaining. At least not in exchange of progress.
>>
>>18693239
>what are REAL communities?
The proletariat. You have a lot more in common with people from similar socio-economic backgrounds than you do with some rich guy who happens to be of the same "ethnicity" as you.
>>
>>18693233
in all fairness, capital and state are indistinguishable in post war american empire
>>
>>18693173
>nations are socially constructed
No shit, nations are formed from social relations. What kind of idiocy thinks this is something profound or disabling?
>the essence of X is relations between people
>X is constituted of relations between people
>therefore X is illegitimate - WRONG
>>
>>18693247
Sounds... Tribal
>>
>>18693259
>19th century economic essentialist reductionism
>the essence of the human is his job
Yawn
>>
Why are Marxist historians so scared of nations and nation-states? Even Hobsbawm is like this, and in his chapter about nationalism in Age of Empires he contradicts himself multiple times. Why can't people who define themselves as materialist not accept that the rise of nations is due to the organic rise in literacy and complexity of human relations, substituting a more universalist Christian and humanist view? They should be at the frontier of nationalism, but their ideological preconceptions cloud their reason.
>>
>>18693259
cringe
>>
>>18693233
Low IQ post. Capital helps to establish and perpetuate national identity, when capital is operating in scale that can fit in the national scale, benefits from protectionism or destruction of traditional feudal/clerical authorities and ways of life. Capital dissolves national identities, when its operating globally and benefits from free trade, cultural exchange or migration. Capital has already overcome blood.
>>
Damn, I guess we'll just have let all the Africans in then.
>>
>>18693239
Family and friends.
>>
>>18693240
Support your self interests. Supporting your community tends to fall in your self interest, but don't be a slave to your community. Don't simp, basically.
>>
>>18693258
Why should one want so extreme materialistic progress? There is more than just technology, you could say its cultural regress
>>
>>18693173
>>18693187
>>18693189
It feels like this is just the nature fallacy
>nations are relatively new therefore we should go back to being natural
>>
>>18693292
How is family defined?
>>
>>18693300
I did not see a single sentence which said it's bad that the imagined communities was spread. Seems like a study of the rise of 'nations' as the idea. Maybe I skimmed too loosely.
>>
>>18693259
>As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".[
How does an international community of the proletariat not fit this bill?
>>
So does the international community have one language they agree on for common interaction?
>>
Great book. Garbage thread as expected. Americans have the most imagined nation of all so half the comments are shrieking about "marxism."
>>
>>18693187
>Unlike most other isms, nationalism has never produced its own grand thinkers: no Hobbeses, Tocquevilles, Marxes or Webers."[2]
Does he address Herder or does he just pretend he didn't exist?
>>
>>18693297
It's partly because technological progress is irreversible and uncontrollable. Why should one attempt to contain it in the name for traditionalist values that really just stem off a fear from change?
>>18693331
English, duh? It was French before that, and Latin before.
>>
>>18693311
He doesn't say its bad(at least in these passages) but I feel like hes implying it especially because of how nationalism is a boogeyman to a lot of people. You could be right though and hes trying to give an overview of nations.
>>
>>18693341
Hell, even Fichte would do.
>>18693336
>book is written by a Marxist historian
>surprised people are talking about Marxism
Wew lad
>>
>>18693357
>there's material reasons why people do things
Is that marxism? Im going insane aaaaaaaa
>>
>>18693112
Teutonic Order, founded in 1190 only allowed people "of German blood" to advance above a certain rank in its structure, while this is not political nationalism, it certainly is a form of ethnocentrism. I guess that's not what the author argues against though, he instead fights against some kind of 18th century nation of citizens type of ideas.
>>
>>18693361
>"I just claimed Marxist historian #89018 is not politically a Marxist, that sure got him!"
Of course there are also material explanations for certain historical events, that doesn't change anything.
>>
>>18693374
The Teutonic Order was not a nation state. It was the product of a german jihad against baltic hippies.
>>
>>18693126
Fascism =/= nazism national socialism
>>
>>18693385
It was an imaginary community bro.
>>
>>18693377
If you don't think that newspapers and telgraphs and railroads and mapping contributed to nationalism then you've got some explaining to do about the eternal blood of the Thai people waiting millennia to manifest itself as a political force.
>>
>>18693390
If anything it was less imaginary than a modern state. Much of the military caste probably knew each other personally.
>>
>>18693393
Are capable of reading, I already said there are material explanations for the rise of nationalism, just as there are nationalist explanations for the development of the railway, newspapers and telegraph. It's all interconnected you doofus, you're attacking the wrong guy. This is also me: >>18693279
>>
>>18693423
So are you implying that Anderson doesn't consider literacy and complexity of scale to have contributed to nationalism? If anything that is his entire thesis!
>>
>>18693221
>there have been fascist states which were far from nationalism
such as?

>>18693244
the book isn't about larpers but about practical nationalism that had effects in the real world. your personal "ideology" and what kind of a nationalism you've adopted as a part of your identity is irrelevant to anyone but your twitter followers

>>18693389
nazis were fascists
>>
>>18693436
That's not the problem, the problem here is the idea that nations were "created", that they are "imaginary", while they are an organic being, fruit of tendencies inherent to humans. In a way, nationalism is even more materialist than classism.
>>
>>18693453
>irrelevant to anyone but your twitter followers
The projection is palpable.
>>
>>18693463
>they are an organic being, fruit of tendencies inherent to humans
There is nothing human that is not human. If that's what you're going to reduce this to in order to save an ideology I guess that's fine but it doesn't change the fact that nationalism emerges in the 19th century as a result of more elaborated factors than humans humaning.
>>
>>18693385
It was founded in Palestine, actually. I did however note this is not political nationalism, the point being that it's difficult to argue that nation is constructed, when you have explicit ethnocentrism shown in a statue of organisation founded in 1190.

This is something I've notice with a lot of the nation-denialism, they will point out to something like the ideological vision of an emperor, of what we could simply sum as Christian Empire, but they will bat off the fact that the reason why these emperors adopted these ideologies was mostly because they ruled over a country so diverse that a national ideology was impossible. Meanwhile in places like said statute of Teutonic Order, some literally works the presence of a nation as an existing form in broad consciousness becomes obvious. This is however ignored in favour of arguing against 18th and 19th century liberal nationalisms, as they're these kinds of constructs. The Teutonic Order didn't have imperial ambitions, it did want to keep its main benefactors German though. Thietmar didn't have imperial ambitions on his own, so he could sneer on slavs or italians all he wanted while proclaiming saxon(German, his own) supremacy, but Alexander the 2nd Romanov, or some Ottoman Sultan(of your choice) ruling over large swathes of land with many different nations and religions in it had to base his state ideology on an universalist principle of some kind, which usually took form of the Central Power as guarantee of maintenance of customs and freedoms of its subject.
>>
>National identity is a modern racist formula for the irrecusability of nationalism; a dogma which indeed has no proof, but some exhibits. They are supposed to illustrate original, pre-state, common characteristics, which make a number of persons into a people, even when they are not the people of one (and the same) state.

>Exhibit A: Common language

>immediately shows, however, the same simple procedure of reinterpretation, according to which these indications are chosen: commonalities, which developed due to an enforced state interest, are presented as pre-political peculiarities which the state would have to take into account. A national language is, in the end, not a product of the natural-primitive development of the originally spoken dialects, but an artifact of political domination; sometimes a "standard language," as a common language enforced within a dominion; sometimes an "officialese" established as an official and business means of communication without regard for the random locally adopted idioms.
>The question is, furthermore, which "identity" is supposed to be formed therewith. There is no common interest that would appear due to a common language among those who speak it. Whether they have the same or different views and objectives has nothing to do with their language -- it is indiscriminately available for expressing thoughts to anybody in command of it. That conversely all conflicts and differences become irrelevant by the commonality of the same language is a gross deception and plausible only to those who demand that next to "national identity" all other interests have to keep quiet.
>>
>>18693469
Sorry ethnonationalist-integralist with estado novo characteristics, you're living in a Sears catalog of consumer ideologies.
>>
>>18693279
The surface level answer is that marxian ontology presumes that everything is immanent to the dialectic of history. For Hegel the dialectic of history was Hegelian, whatever that actually means (no one can quite agree). For the Young Hegelians the dialectic of history was identified with various forms of utopian socialism, and for one Young Hegelian, Karl Marx, it was the dialectic of freedom's emergence through class struggle. Any static essence would completely ruin the mechanics of the dialectic : everything must necessarily be fluid and non-static because the dialectic itself can never be static, it can only proceed forward, and to do so it must necessarily re-form itself every time it takes a step and and corrects the internal contradictions arising from the conflict of its previous form and its antithesis. For the marxist, anything that slows down or completely halts The Dialectic is to be opposed, for if the dialectic does not proceed, the utopia waiting for the classless, stateless, communist society at the End of History will never come.

(I think Lukács writes about the artistic implications of this, that the reason why socialist realism must necessarily be the style to be followed is that every other form of art is just a distraction from people working through the internal contradictions of the step of the dialectic they're currently at, for art's ultimate purpose in marxism is to make the people aware of said dialectic and to help them progress through it without being distracted by reactionary currents and capitalist false consciousness.)
>>
>>18693494
>Exhibit B: Common culture

>has a similar snag. If works of art are regarded as national cultural properties, this can lie neither in the works of art themselves -- musical notes and rhymes carry, in the end, no national color; and not because they generally please -- judgments of taste are, as is well known, subjective, and do not depend on the origin of a work of art. The fact that art, which should otherwise always be an expression of the most individual of individuals, is nevertheless regarded as national property, owes itself again only to a state interest. With the appropriation of intellectual products, state power itself wants to participate in the intellectual world, and celebrate itself therein. Therefore it also ensures that the people know "its" poets and thinkers, at least by name. They are taught art history through national eyeglasses and memorize "great works" as a matter of national pride -- also and especially if they do not have artistic inclinations themselves, or have their entertainment needs otherwise covered.

>Exhibit C: Common history

>is even less a reason for patriotism. Whoever summons it as a unifying bond does not mean anyhow the past maneuvers of pre-state hunters and gatherers, but what can demonstrate the political achievements of the current state and its legal predecessors -- and their imposition was, as a rule, a history of smaller and larger massacres, which have their serene life and health in the political procedures of today's subjects. The present population should look back on this history not as a harmful blunder for them, but as the foundation of a common destiny. For this one can feel pride or shame -- however, in either case it is to be thought of as an unconditionally common thing that encompasses national rights and duties, completely independent of every individual interest.

>What is meant by it in each case is politically decided. Whether it is regulations and conditions relating to domestic affairs, or foreign policy claims on the resources of other nation-states: it is the concern of the people to understand the political ventures of its rule as national concerns, and to identify with them. Therefore it is always necessary to forget the small disparity between those on top and those below, ruler and subject, state and citizen. If that succeeds with the people, then the state can appoint itself as their higher authority. The required obedience then no longer appears as submission under its power, but as an expression of the will of the people. And the larger the national tasks, the more useful is the image of a popular will, which lives as second nature in the citizen, whether he particularly wants it or not -- exactly that "national identity" which puts his state in the right. Some commonalities that function as supporting evidence for this ideology are, in the end, always found.
>>
>>18693221
what fascist state wasn't a nation state? fascism only arose in the 20th century, in mainly in the two european countries that had been most altered by nationalist ideology
>>
>>18693485
True, it doesn't change anything nor does it have to.
>If that's what you're going to reduce this to in order to save an ideology
Nationalism is a tendency not an ideology per se, many have different views on what the best for the nation actually entails.
>nationalism emerges in the 19th century as a result of more elaborated factors than humans humaning
Those elaborate factors, which are the result of human humaning, combined with more human humaning caused the rise of nationalism, what's hard to understand about that? Ethnocentric and tribalistic behaviour influenced humanity since its inception, nationalism is just its later evolution.
>>
>>18693486
>it's difficult to argue that nation is constructed, when you have explicit ethnocentrism shown in a statue of organisation founded in 1190.
Ethnocentrism is an ingredient of nationalism but the Teutonic Order was not a nation-state. What's next, was the Kingdom of Jerusalem a nation state? How about the Knights of St. John, who relocated the Johnish nation from Rhodes to Malta?
>>
>>18693244
this is how I know you're a pseud. you think studying an interesting ideology and the assumptions of it is "whining". do you read?
>>
>>18693351
He explicitly says that he thinks it's bad.

>"regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings.[5]"
>>
>>18693205
>read one book
>instantly do a 180 on your opinion
Is this the biggest sign of a midwit?
>>
>>18693112
Have you read this book? It's a pretty dispassionate and neutral analysis of the subject.
>>
>>18693515
>Ethnocentric and tribalistic behaviour influenced humanity since its inception, nationalism is just its later evolution.
I don't necessarily disagree but a typical tribe is a few hunded people at most. The dunbar number. Obviously the development of media as an extension of sensation and communication enabled the development of these gigatribal structures, and this can be reliably argued for in the context of the 19th and 20th centuries when railroads and telegraphs and newspapers within a single linguistic space created a nervous system on top of the territory, which began to sense its boundaries and map them
>>
Nationalism is just a step that was based and redpilled, globalism could be but its shaping up to be cringe. Gonna happen either way though
>>
>>18693112
As if polbots can read
>>
>>18693531
It's an excellent book. If you've never thought about any of this stuff since you live in the capital of the world empire it can be pretty novel.
>>
>>18693522
The Knights of Saint John were actually divided into Nations, which each having a leader. They did not correspond to modern nations (Spain was divided, Occitania was a thing) but nonetheless were called "nations".
>>
>>18693129
>combat globalism
You know that nationalism is the globalism of regionalism, right?
The US is a globalist superstate, made up of individualist states, made up of counties, and so on, and burgers are forever sperging about burgerland, not about the glorious power and traditions of Wisconsin
But tards will tard
>>
>>18693522
Again, for the 3rd time, I note that this was not political nationalism. What matters is that what you're saying, at least unless you want to make it clear it's not what you mean, can be read as the modern enlightenment era vision of nation state equal the idea of nation, which is obviously untrue. The only way you can squeeze this idea as valid is to argue against strawman of nation as defined by the state of France and the government of the United States of America, which require from a member of a "nation" only a possession of citizenship, which yeah that's a recent, enlightenment era development, sure(although a sings of attempts of introducing it can be seen in Solon's reforms).
>>
>>18693553
I have to assume they were using it in the Latin sense, referring to peoples of common birth/origin rather than to statehood. And this would have reflected that theirs was not a nation-state if all its members could be sourced back to other communities.
>>
>>18693141
Why would I form associations based on class when Marxism dictates that I should be struggling to abolish class?
>>
>>18693494
>>18693503

Honestly this just seems like a bunch of bologna to me
National identity is built on culture or at least should be if you want it to last any decent amount of time
Culture is predominantly about values
The outward display of culture i.e. everything you can see or experience are a reflection of those values which is why different cultures produce different art etc...
Language is also a reflection of those values which is why every language has it's own unique words and phrases for which there is no original equivalent in other languages
The values that form the culture are built upon the common history i.e. the experiences and stories of common ancestors and of course common genes play a large part as well
>>
>>18693494
>National identity is a modern racist
Stopped reading there. I honestly can't even take this shit seriously anymore.
>>
>>18693539
>I don't necessarily disagree but a typical tribe is a few hunded people at most. The dunbar number.
Tribalism is not about the tribe specifically, it's about the conflict with the other tribe. Modern nationalism's "conflict" is with the entire world, which had been almost entirely discovered by then.
>the context of the 19th and 20th centuries when railroads and telegraphs and newspapers within a single linguistic space created a nervous system on top of the territory, which began to sense its boundaries and map them
This is a good thesis, but it doesn't apply universally. Italy started developing AFTER unification, after the Nationalist ideal had already developed. Italian nationalism, just like German one, has many antecedents in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but it was the French invasion, the existence of another nation on the continent, that caused its previously decentralized conception to centralize. Simply put the existence of nation states caused other nations and nation states. Nationalism also hardly inhabits a linguistically homogenous land, but even relative intellegibility is massive when compared to completely different languages.
>>
>>18693350
It is controllable. Ask the Cubans.
>>
>>18693112
I'm a poltard. Tell me why this book will make me shiver in fear. I'm not going to read it but if you give me the main points I'll take them into consideration
>>
>>18693112
>Another books by some loser who is pissing himself at the thought of his little empire balkanizing so he lies about the past and tries to discredit people reasserting themselves
They can write what they want but it won't save them.
>>
>>18693574
No I am not necessarily referring to civic nationalism. Have you read Anderson? He is largely focused on Indochina but with some broader implications. The colonial powers basically transposed their own native education and media systems into their colonies and inadvertantly exported nationalism as a form of political organization driven by mass communication and literacy which produces a homogenizing effect on language continuum, consumption of news, a national-image based on maps and symbols, etc. You mention France, in the 18th century the metropolitan dialect was effectively a minority register, surrounded by a variety of regional languages, some of which were not "French" at all, like Breton, Corsican, varieties of German and Catalan, and then the more "French" Provençal, Occitain, Normand, etc. dialects/languages (not invested in that particular debate). I think you are using nation in a more archaic sense, perhaps the very Latin sense of natal. But this shared birth could not be extended to the degree it has been in the last two centuries if not for the explosion of certain pseudo or hyper or supra-nervous communication technologies that link peoples otherwise spatially separate from one another and homogenize them.
>>
File: 1495832200792.jpg (17 KB, 400x400)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
>>18693187
But Weber was a nationalist
>>
>>18693187
>grand thinkers
>>
>>18693604
>Modern nationalism's "conflict" is with the entire world, which had been almost entirely discovered by then.
And how do you discover the world without amplifying your communication and control systems beyond the relatively crude medieval-Roman roads, galleys, and scribes? Some of what I answered here >>18693650 applies to your points as well. I think there are also major differences between say a napoleonic nationalism and the unification nationalisms, that the latter are responses to the former is obvious but the very process of unification injects a more cybernetic and media sensitive element to them, that there is a nation-state to be created, and this also changes (or creates) the nation too. There was no Italian state but Austrian and French provinces, a Papal state, "Sardinia-Piedmont," "Two Sicilies." And these were dividing an Italian nation, a nation not united since Odovacer? It doesn't add up in practice. The state and the nation coproduce each other, with the state being the more executive function.
>>
>>18693612
The starving peoples that still need to rely on imports from the outside world to even subsist?
>>
>>18693694
They could have new technology if the government wanted it but they force the people to have not have internet/new tech.
>>
>>18693712
All while the governing elites do have access to such technologies. But even Cuba isn't a good example, take a good look at the uprising that just happened- not just journalists or elites, but certain civilians were also recording and spreading the information.
Uncontrollable.
>>
>>18693357
>Hell, even Fichte would do
I just checked the appendix of the book. Fichte is nowhere to be found. Herder is mentioned, but I’m not sure if he gives a reason for him not to be considered a grand thinker of nationalism.
>>
>>18693129
leftists don't know what they're doing, but you cannot shake the faith they have that they're the only ones who know how to do it right.

https://rumble.com/vcn735-the-dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-pod-people.html
>>
>>18693734
Fichte's and Herder's "nationalism" is just >muh volk reactionary schwärmerei anyway.
>>
>>18693453
>nazis were fascists
no they weren't. they were nazis. fascists were italians and various offshoots elsewhere which used the word but are practically completely different. e.g. british fascism. which was pro -workingclass, anti-war / pacifist, anti-imperialist, anti importation of cheap labour as it was a goal of imperialism and a means to dismantle the workingclass. nazis and (italian) fascists are comparable but different. other fascists are basically never comparable to these two but certainly to eachother sometimes. there are no fascists today really.
>>
>>18693731
The Cubans aren't even extreme about it. If they wanted to they could be. They could do searches on homes on the daily and send you to jail for 40 years but they aren't that extreme.
>>
>>18693742
All nationalism is reactionary and there's nothing wrong with that
>>
>>18693571
not him and i totally agree but you'll find nationalists in the world are against their state and for this very localism. they are mutually supporting eachother. a mean, burgerland nationalism invariably includes being pro-gun which means they are by default against the mainstream and considered a threat by the state.

anyway, all of this is just ignorance and kneejerk support for the globalist status quo. the purpose of bringing this book up and other false equivalences and misdirection is not to reveal the nature of original nationalism (not necessarily anyone calling themselves a nationalist today), but to defend the status quo and conclude that it is the obvious and natural correct path, with nationalism in any form including local and regional supporting, has no basis or natural support.
>>
File: 1621362382538.png (1.45 MB, 1000x1477)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB PNG
>>18693187
>putting forth sociologists as grand thinkers
>>
>>18693571
As a Wisconsinite I take offense to this. We are proud of our state. I'm not LARPing to say I see myself more as a Wisconsinite than a burger at this point, especially under Biden.
>>
>>18693126
take meds
>>
>>18693792
>I see myself more as a Wisconsinite than a burger
Huge larp.
Even the word "Wisconsinite" is laughable and implies nothing.
>>
>>18693173
>According to Anderson, nations are socially constructed.
So are literally all forms of society. Should we abandon those too?
>For Anderson, the idea of the "nation" is relatively new and is a product of various socio-material forces.
New bad? Old good? really?
>As Anderson puts it, a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion"
This is also true for any large city. So far this guy seems to be advocating a Unabomber-esque return to nature.

Nothing he said applies to nationalism in particular.
>>
>>18693209
>collapse of capitalism is inevitable!
lmao Marxists and their prophecies. It's a fucking religion with you.
>>
>>18693141
>establish a globalist institution and abolish globalist institutions
Genius.
>>
>>18693650
>You mention France, in the 18th century the metropolitan dialect was effectively a minority register, surrounded by a variety of regional languages, some of which were not "French" at all, like Breton, Corsican, varieties of German and Catalan, and then the more "French" Provençal, Occitain, Normand, etc. dialects/languages (not invested in that particular debate).
This is putting the language in front of identity rather than looking at it from the perspective of identity itself. Now again, France is particular case, because ever since the revolutionary times they've adopted this sort of liberal nationalism, but it is important to note that even in medieval period, despite the fragmentation etc. the French national identity did exist. Joan d'Arc didn't rally people to fight for Lorraine, but for France(and she wasn't the only one who used this method), the Arabs didn't consider "Farangs" to be distinct enough between themselves to ever warrant the differentiation and neither did for instance Machiavelli when talking about the French. The French regionalism argument is a kind of mystification that was kind of deliberately setup, where the multilayered nature of national identity was purposefully obscured and instead we're playing something like "Occitian" was treated as monolithic category, instead of an organic one(that is one that has some super-identity, in this case French above it, and by itself is composed of some smaller identity groupings, such as familial or sub-regional). The only reason you even ever hear about it outside of France is because this approach of deconstructing nations was deemed a convenient ideology of modern globalism(far more effective than appealing to "unity of mankind" and other, earlier approaches) and it just so happened to be developed and promoted in France, initially for French uses.

>But this shared birth could not be extended to the degree it has been in the last two centuries if not for the explosion of certain pseudo or hyper or supra-nervous communication technologies that link peoples otherwise spatially separate from one another and homogenize them.
There's literally no connection between these things. The principal reason for existence of races, ethnicities etc. is that they were in a state of partial separation for some time, the fact that you can easily trace genealogy of European nations back to the Medieval period, when the last historical mass-migrations occurred is however good enough indicator that they in fact have existed back then. Improvement of communications doesn't however link peoples that were separate, but rather improves pre-existing links, so in this sense all Europeans are becoming more like generalised Europeans at the expense of the uniqueness of their national identity while all Italians are becoming generalised Italians, again at expense of their regional identity, but all these categories remain, just with smaller degree of differentiation.
>>
>>18693827
Identifying with someone who is your same ethnicity, speaks your language, and has your same ancestors is "socially constructed" and should be abandoned but identifying with a Guatemalan on the other side of the world because neither of you are rich is natural somehow.
>>
>>18693126
Dial 8
>>
>>18693889
We all have the "same ancestors" - read about pedigree collapse.
>>
>>18693881
The hundred years war ends the middle ages so I'm not surprised you get appeals to France when fighting England. The Arabs called all the crusaders Franks not because of the eternalism of the French nation but because the invaders were largely Latin Catholics and among them prominently from France. Machiavelli is writing in the 1500s.... In any case the France of 1900 and the France of 1400 share many things but one of these is a feudal empire named after a Germanic tribe and the other is a modern state which inherited it and imposes language and culture standards through mass media and compulsory education.
>>
>>18693939
Return to monke
>>
>>18693881
>all Europeans are becoming more like generalised Europeans at the expense of the uniqueness of their national identity while all Italians are becoming generalised Italians, again at expense of their regional identity,
I don't see how this disagrees with my point. You are deleting technology from the explanation, so what is it then? Geist? God? Primordial bloodline?
>>
>>18693939
>orange and yellow are just different shades
>therefore color doesn't exist
>>
>>18693977
Bad analogy - color doesn't actually exist, and the degree of differentiation is predicated on optical constancy (cone/rod sensitivity, rhodopsin, etc). Pedigree collapse is something you should take the time to understand, I'm not actually arguing against the thread. Just pointing out a positional inaccuracy.
>>
>>18693583
Marxism doesn't dictate anything, it describes social facts. and _you_ shouldn't do anything. you're a middle class child/manchild in your mom's basement, it's irrelevant what you do.
if we rephrase the question properly:
>why do proletarians associate?
the answer is: because they share a common interest against capitalists and throughout their struggle they learn that they gain more power to assert it as they clump together.

>>18693597
90% of the world's population didn't partake in any national culture just 300 years ago and they spoke a local language that was specific to a small grouping of villages. unified and generalized national language and culture were promoted by the bourgeoisie which used them as a tool to undermine the aristocracy, to rally the masses around bourgeois causes and to create unified areas for the development of capitalism.

>>18693602
it's true though. nationalism is the basis of modern racism, because it segregates people into groups with different characteristics, into "us" and "them" and constantly reinforces those distinctions.

>>18693745
>nazis and (italian) fascists are comparable but different.
sure, they were comparable in so far as they were both fascist

>>18693872
you can't abolish a global power without counterposing another global power against it. to think otherwise is to be like an anarchists who thinks he's personally fighting capitalism by eating from the trash and dressing funny
>>
>>18693453
retard
>>18694198
I'm arguing from an ethno-tribal position
>it describes social facts
very badly
>why do proletarians associate?
they don't, mostly
>90% of the world's population didn't partake in any national culture just 300 years ago
while I agree for the most part with this whole comment, you fail to see pan-hellenic movements (e.g.) in ancient greece.
>nationalism is the basis of modern racism
no, that would be social darwinism. One could argue Marx was rascist (to some extent) and he was in no way a nationalist; quite the contrary: an internationalist
>they were both fascist
fascism argues for civic nationalism (with SPQR characteristics); nat-soc argues for ethno-centrism. This is not to mention their economy, culture, technology, etc differences
>>
>>18693301
Your ma and your pa and your brother and your son
>>
>>18693301
Subjectively. But at the very least you should know their names and be able to randomly appear in their house without the incident being investigated by police.
>>
>>18693495
When you say Sears catalog it implies that its supposed to be safe and boring but the word ethnonationalist makes (You) and any other person on the street shit their pants and cry. I'm not any of those things you said by the way. Please take your meds.
>>
>>18694198
>because they share a common interest against capitalists
This is nonsense. Degree of similarity in inequity isn't a precondition for homogeneity in outlook or a motive force. Read up on Britain's labor movements prior to 1848, the Chartists were not Luddites (misnomer) or even anti-industry (nor were Marx's precursors/contemporaries like Saint-Simon, Owen or Engels).
>unified and generalized national language and culture were promoted by the bourgeoisie which used them as a tool to undermine the aristocracy
This is partially true, but remember that it's only true in some places - the peasantry often preferred King and Church to their landlords, their deference to the nobility is well documented (I can give you a list if you like).
>because it segregates people into groups with different characteristics, into "us" and "them"
Any deviation from self/non-self is a property of discrimination. I see what you're trying to argue, and agree, but this is not accurate. Self-segregation is homophily, not a national imposition.
>>
File: 1619758483382.jpg (120 KB, 820x603)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>18694198

>300 years ago people all spoke local languages unique to their small village
>but then nations segregated people by making them all live together in the same big village and talk to each other
>>
>>18694312
To add to your first point, we only need to look at the Second International.
>>
>>18693526
He is right in that Nationalism is a vehicule for delusion. In the optic that the ultimate good is for each individual to be empowered enough to be able to make correct decisions based on correct observations, he is correct that Nationalism is "bad". In the optic that the necessary good is what works right now the best and possibly allow for future improvement later, Nationalism is a useful fiction.
However it does make people forget that the true physical fulcrum of a culture is located at the city-and-surrounding-region level. Most meek minded leftists like butters think neighborhoods are enough, but they aren't.
>>
>>18694262
>One could argue Marx was rascist (to some extent)
Thats an interesting point that hes probably not racist, but he might be a little bit racist. Not as racist as a KKK member of course. You know, a peerson who spouts racial slurs about someone just because he is 1/8th black. Ferdinand Lassalle can attest to this fact.
>>
File: 1612031671764.jpg (54 KB, 680x680)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>18694309
Cope and sneed. Your politics are impotent. You only exist to stress test the system. Amazon sells your entire ideology with free shipping.
>>
>>18694405
What politics arent in the current state? You implying one cant buy almost every leftist work on amazon?
>>
>>18694395
>It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like.
He's quite the race realist in the letter. Most moderns (including Benedict Anderson) would consider this to be racist.
>>18694405
not that guy, but
>Amazon sells your entire ideology with free shipping.
Codreanu is banned from Amazon while Marx and his clique get sold by the millions
>>
>>18693187
>Nationalism is a recent and modern creation despite nations being thought of by most people as old and timeless;

How is this a paradox?

>Nationalism is universal in that every individual belongs to a nation, yet each nation is supposedly completely distinct from every other nation;

How is this a paradox?

>Nationalism is an idea so influential that people will die for their nations, yet at the same time an idea difficult to define

How is this a paradox?

Does the term "paradox" have a meaning I am not aware of? There is no intrinsic contradiction in those statements
>>
File: 1623246287657.jpg (7 KB, 275x183)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
I don't care what this egghead says, I'm still gonna be racist.
>>
>>18693173
>According to Anderson, nations are socially constructed.

How is a group of people with common ancestry socially constructed?
>>
>>18694573
>>18694586

Is this really the main opposition to nationalist thought? It cannot be, right, it's embarassingly easy to dismantle. It takes just a few questions.
>>
>>18693494
>>18693503

>none of the exhibits contain race

Wow, isn't it convenient that he left out the most objective trait that defines a nation? It's almost as if the guy is either an idiot or in bad faith
>>
>>18694573
It's not a paradox. It's not even unreasonable or hard to accept. Just about any nationalist can be persuaded to agree to all of those things while still being a nationalist. Say French national identity really is socially constructed (by the way, no shit it is: it's a social group so it's socially constructed), particular, and hard to define. That's perfectly consistent with being a rabid French nationalist.
This jabbering about all of the above being a "paradox" or contradiction is literally just a veiled invitation by commies to attack and delegitimize nationalism because since it allegedly could have all been different, it must become so according to their program.
Anderson's argument is just pointing out the obvious which is unobjectionable to everyone, and trying to make it an excuse for cultural struggle.
>>
>>18694595
I think its an Emperors New Clothes type of deal. If you dare criticize how retarded it is then you will be outed as a Nationalist or Fascist so everyone just accepts that the book is a good criticism of Nationalism.
>>
>>18694620
>it's a social group so it's socially constructed

Why? A social construct is an idea that is created and accepted by society, a nation is a group of people united by common ancestry, language, culture, history, etc.

How is a nation a social construct?
>>
>>18694581
Don't call yourself racist: it's a Trostkyst term and you'll look bad.
Instead say you're a genophiliac or an ethno-centrist.
>>
>>18694629
I mean, you can argue that the divide between nations is a social construct, but it seems like a continuum fallacy. There are clearly distinguishable different nations
>>
File: 1625639997674.png (504 KB, 680x484)
504 KB
504 KB PNG
>>18693126
>>
>>18694629
"Socially constructed" is probably the vaguest and least defined word Anderson and his ilk uses. In the most general and charitable sense of it, a nation is socially constructed because it is something that has meaning and existence only through its social origins and processes. The ancestry, language, culture, and history that compose a nation are then socially constructed. Or if you take it only a negative sense, where things are socially constructed if they are not natural or pre-social, then it applies here too. I don't think a social construction is necessarily an idea, or something that people all consciously recognize and agree to. But social construction is a terrible term that means basically nothing beyond polemical purposes so I shouldn't have used it. A good book that looks into all this and shows that the concept really only serves the rhetorical purposes of "unmasking" is The Social Construction of What? by Ian Hacking.
>>
>>18694198
Why are Marxists always so dumb?
You all repeat the same exact shit. It's like you're in a cult.
>>
>>18694452
I'm implying your debates about poopoopeepeeism vs peepeepoopooism are hermeneutic to you and your e-friends, and that to the system you are part of Customer Segment 247, which has been flagged as sympathetic to Anti-Government Faction 7. See the Non-Asset Policies and Procedures index for more on how to manage them.
>>18694496
I know I've seen the algo spit out For my Legionnaire's Disease before. Are you sure it's totally removed and not just whatever wrongbook publisher selling it was?
>>
>>18694262
>I'm arguing from an ethno-tribal position
yes, I figured you were a larper
>they don't, mostly
they do, constantly
>you fail to see pan-hellenic movements (e.g.) in ancient greece
I don't fail to see anything in ancient Greece because I agree that there was nationalism there as well as in Rome. I was talking strictly about modern nationalism and about the situation directly prior to its ascent.
>no, that would be social darwinism
social darwinism was just a convenient post-hoc justification. nobody would've cared about it if it weren't for nationalism.
>One could argue Marx was rascist (to some extent) and he was in no way a nationalist
he wasn't, his entire life was spent contributing to a total fight against that power which sustains racism. if you think this is negated by some off-hand remarks he made then you have stooped to the level of woketards who pretend the essence of racism is repeating racial stereotypes and saying bad words, which they do because they want to absolve bourgeois ideology from the charge of being irreparably racist even at its most woke
>fascism argues for civic nationalism (with SPQR characteristics); nat-soc argues for ethno-centrism
I agree that nazism was different in how it explicitly put racism at the forefront, but that doesn't make it not fascist. fascism can be based on different forms of nationalism. it doesn't matter as long as it fulfills the fascist function: suppressing independent proletarian movement by promoting class collaboration under a manufactured shared interest.

>>18694312
>This is nonsense.
>*proceeds to write some irrelevant nonsense in return*

>This is partially true, but remember that it's only true in some places - the peasantry often preferred King and Church to their landlords
the bourgeoisie aligned with the monarchy to undermine privileged local nobility, and peasants would go along with that because those local nobles were often their landlords. this is consistent with what I said. I don't see the disagreement.
>Self-segregation is homophily, not a national imposition.
"self-segregation" is an empty abstraction that can refer to vastly different things under different historical circumstances. current national identities people hold (and which are the basis for modern racism) were imposed and are consciously sustained because they're conductive to the conservation of bourgeois rule in each state

>>18694586
I hate to break it to you, but all living humans have a common ancestor

>>18694607
nationalist mainstream tends to distance itself from overt racism in order to paint "good" patriotism as fundamentally different from nazism and stuff. the text was targeted at the popular ideology, not at /pol/ basement dwellers obsessed with black dick.

>>18694681
we repeat the exact same shit for the same reason all physics professors repeat that F=ma
>>
>>18694637
Just because something is real doesn’t mean it isn’t socially constructed. We could split French speakers between six occupation authorities in 1520 and teterritorialise French identities to the point at which only regional dialect speakers exist: Yugoslavia is a mostly failed social construct.

My enormous cock is real. The rigid 8” member of flesh only becomes socially transformed into an enormous cock when I fuck your mum. Speaking French is also a social construct ffs. “Social construct” = “historical phenomena within human society.” It doesn’t mean made up by one wankers idealism.
>>
>>18694637
>there are clearly distinguishable nations
B e l g i u m00x0a
>>
>>18694705
>we repeat the exact same shit for the same reason all physics professors repeat that F=ma
Nah because they're repeating a law of nature and you're repeating ideology and talking points from centuries' old genocidal retards.
>>
>>18694666
I don't think the negative use of the term "societally constructed" is about that particular thing being bad because it's constructed by a society, but about implying it as an unnatural, inorganic thing, or in the marxist's mind, the construct being a capitalistic intervention (diversion) at play.
>>
>>18694336
>He is right in that Nationalism is a vehicule for delusion.
It's true to some extent but when it comes to political and economic systems, the appropriate choice is always going to be "what would be least bad" not "what would be good."
The problem with marxists is that they're adept at identifying flaws in prevailing systems, and then proceed to offer solutions that are even worse.
>>18694705
>I hate to break it to you, but all living humans have a common ancestor
Humans and bananas also have a common ancestor. What's your point? At some point meaningful divergences emerge.
>we repeat the exact same shit for the same reason all physics professors repeat that F=ma
More like for the same reason Muslims repeat Allahu Akbar before detonating the vest.
>>
>>18694637
I mean, when it comes down to it, it’s rather difficult to come up with a any sort of category that isn’t to some extent socially constructed.
>>
>>18694496
>He's quite the race realist in the letter. Most moderns (including Benedict Anderson) would consider this to be racist.
Marxists are totally disingenouus and play fast and loose with their labels.
You could tell a Marxist this was written by Hitler and watch them amp themselves up on a self-righteous tirade only to pull the rug out from under them and reveal it was actually written by Marx and watch them spin in circles trying to defend it.
>>
>>18694742
>Humans and bananas also have a common ancestor. What's your point?
Don’t get in the way of our love.
>>
>>18694705
>Comparing physics to politics
Holy delusions of grandeur.
>>
File: 1622141126834.jpg (46 KB, 1019x1494)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
Some forms of nationalism are assertions of ontological difference (Auseinandersetzung), while liberal humanist values often suppress difference and otherness (Durcheinandersetzung). The whole social constructivist approach (from a liberal position) thinks that anything (in principle) goes anywhere, anyhow with anywho - which is false, and serves to homogenise Being and control it with a "social physics".

>[As] conceptual groupings. “The German” or “the French” or “the Chinese” describes no essential quality, no pure ideality free from contamination. And yet, the phenomenological datum remains that we understand something with these “signs,” even if this something is on the move in the différance of language. Iterability (if we expand on Derrida) does involve this moment of identity, as well as alteration, and in this he may come closer to Heidegger than we at first supposed. As I have argued, Heidegger understands the Volk, as he does the Self, not as a substance or an essence, but rather as something whose Being is at issue, as something that exists only insofar as it engages in a polemos concerning its own meaning. But this process cannot even begin without iterability’s self-identifying moment of recognition, for otherwise there would be no grouping to bring into question.

>To exercise a claim, to obligate us to them, different cultures, different languages, different values must exist, and, furthermore, must be asserted in some way so that they command our attention, and so lay claim to our responsibility to them. Even a “miscegenated polymorphism” implies a multiplicity of forms, and, as such, these forms must be distinct—aus-einander-gesetzt, to use the language of Heidegger’s polemos—even if they then miscegenate and so transform themselves in the play of différance. Caputo’s “miscegenated polymorphism” is in fact a contradiction: complete miscegenation would obliterate the multiplicity of forms. A degeneration into homogeneity, what Heidegger calls a Durcheinandersetzung, in contrast to Auseinandersetzung, is the death of multiplicity and difference. At best, it is liberal universalism covered over by the veneer of difference, demanding all the benefits of the liberal state’s protections without offering its institutions a principled defense
>>
>>18694705
>I hate to break it to you, but all living humans have a common ancestor

I don't think it's to be interpreted literally. As in, people in nations are more closely related to each other. I am fairly sure this is how the concept of "common ancestry" is usually meant in general when talking about nations.


>nationalist mainstream tends to distance itself from overt racism

I missed the part in which acknowledging the existence of a certain cluster of phenotipic traits is somehow racist. I don't doubt that there are people who think it, though.

>the text was targeted at the popular ideology

So it was targeted at the incomplete and flawed idea of something? Makes more sense, I guess.
>>
>>18694718
>Just because something is real doesn’t mean it isn’t socially constructed

If something is objectively real and not created by society, how is it a social construct? Are different types of stars a social construct?
>>
I wonder if at some point in the future the online commies and the online ethnonationalists will somehow come together to create nat soc 2.0.
Both are completely disaffected with the status quo and both claim they want what is best for the people but refuse to work together.
>>
>>18694731
Nigeria and Iceland
>>
>>18694838
Different customer segments. Fed different infotainment circuits. If either gets too large it will be split up.
>>
the idea of a "global proletariat" is an absolutely meaningless community. it's way too broad, would need a managerial CLASS of people to oversee it, and would ultimately fall prey to the same exact issues of corruption and predation that affect any other social order.
you took the supposed meaninglessness of national identity and fucking amplified it times 100000
>>
>>18693112
Why everyone sucks this guy off for saying a bunch of shit literally everyone knows I will never understand. I don't think this book has ever made anyone "shiver in fear," though it probably has made a lot of people yawn.
>>
>>18694838
as delusional as that redneck + hood nigga teaming up meme
>>
>>18694705
I question your historical literacy if you don't see that the point I'm making here >>18694312 is one of preferential attachment. For instance, why did the Polish revolutionaries in Galicia fail to incite the Ukrainian peasantry? Why did the landed European peasantry fail to act in 1848? There's a reason, do you know why? Anyway, the response to the point of proletarian association which you dismissed was cogent. Have a rethink about it.
>>
>>18694838
Too much of a difference in values, it's not the 1920s anymore
>>
>>18694732
they're repeating facts about nature and we're repeating facts about history

>>18694734
>but about implying it as an unnatural, inorganic thing, or in the marxist's mind, the construct being a capitalistic intervention (diversion) at play.
for a Marxist the ideological bases of capitalism are about as natural as possible, because Marxists see capitalism as a result of lawful material development and not as an effect of some magical intervention from without
>but when it comes to political and economic systems, the appropriate choice is always going to be "what would be least bad" not "what would be good."
there's no "choice" of "politicial and economic systems". political compass memes are not the real world. communist society will be established because the development of the productive forces will leave no other option, just like it was with capitalism. it was never and will never be a matter of some magic agency evaluating competing "systems" and "choosing" one of them to implement.
>Humans and bananas also have a common ancestor. What's your point?
well then clearly we're objectively all part of the one Human-Banana nation

>>18694760
>You could tell a Marxist this was written by Hitler and watch them amp themselves up on a self-righteous tirade
if someone goes on a self-righteous tirade when they see the word nigger, then you can be sure you're talking to a leftist, not a Marxist

>>18694767
yes, politics have a real basis too. things there happen for a reason, not randomly.

>>18694805
>As in, people in nations are more closely related to each other.
that's not true though, you can find shitload of counterexamples
>I missed the part in which acknowledging the existence of a certain cluster of phenotipic traits is somehow racist. I don't doubt that there are people who think it, though.
literally nobody cares. go read a school textbook. this is not how national identity is justified when the citizens of a modern state are brainwashed into nationalism, so it's irrelevant in a text addressing the ideology of national identity
>So it was targeted at the incomplete and flawed idea of something?
it was targeted at the idea that has practical effects, which can't be said about the ideas of some losers with niche blogs who ramble about genotypes or whatever.
>>
File: 1585321940228.jpg (521 KB, 1071x1068)
521 KB
521 KB JPG
While I have not read the book, and probably will now, all I can maintain is that the rise of globalism and materialistic progress will cause an inversion in terms of cultural regression and the ushering in of neofeudalism. You can look anywhere, especially the US and China, and see that this is already happening.
Give it a few decades and the globalism and progress you all tout so much as inevitable and the destiny of man will have a cybernetic boot on your neck and a disgusting mockery of locusts in your mouth. Where once there was the ability of someone to acquire their own capital, and therefor property, and therefor gaining a degree of independence, everything you aim for will render 80% or so of the population into cogs within a grand machine.
Don't you get it? That by this point it isn't the impotent, scary chud luddite racysts trying to hold you back, it's you, a group of useful idiots, marching against another group of mostly useful idiots towards the potentially irreversible death of the human soul.
Almost everyone has bought into the culture war, race baiting coolaid because the GDP and DNC realized post Occupy Wallstreet that if they didn't lock their populistic elements in a basement, chained to the radiator, they'd all be hanging from lampposts in three years time.
I can barely stand this shit anymore, and will probably leave the internet at some point because of how much you gormless, begging for the collar, sheep-of-sheep mongoloids keep on perpetuating, at the very basic level, the rise of horrors beyond the ken of any man who lived prior to us.
There's no reasoning with you people, you won't see anything that you don't want to see, and will instead yowl about anecdotes, an inbred set of logic, and total unwillingness to consider you may be wrong on some points.
We will never see Fascism rise in America sadly, so all that's left is practical planning in the event of the best case of US having a breakup of new nations along regional blocs following unforseen, irreconcilable economic downturn, and the worst active case that everything just becomes a wave of Climate Collapse Refugees overwhelming an already anemic, dying machine.
>>
>>18694889
>that's not true though, you can find shitload of counterexamples

Counterexamples to what?

>literally nobody cares

A lot of people in the USA, especially on the elft, seems to care about race. I care. This statement seems more like wishful thinking

>this is not how national identity is justified when the citizens of a modern state are brainwashed into nationalism, so it's irrelevant in a text addressing the ideology of national identity
>a reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism
>when the citizens of a modern state are brainwashed into nationalism
>origins and spread of nationalism

Uh, are you feeling fine?

>it was targeted at the idea that has practical effects, which can't be said about the ideas of some losers with niche blogs who ramble about genotypes or whatever.

Woah, some serious emotional arguments against the identity politics of the left wingers from the anglosphere
>>
>>18694938
>elft

left*
>>
>>18694889

>let's write a book about the origins and spread of nationalism
>let's omit the core component of a nation, the most obvious and most objective element, race, because modern watered down nationalist ideologies do not care about it

Truly the work a masterful scholar
>>
>>18694734
You're right. Marxists assert that everything social is socially constructed, including classes. I meant "negative" definition to mean it's defined as a negation of something else, and I think that really is what that meaning is when socially constructed means what is not natural. But this definition does have an inherently rhetorical slant too, because Marxists don't generally think there is really anything natural so when they negate the natural and say something is "socially constructed" what they're doing is either Hegelian sophistry or they're trying to delegitimize and "unmask" their opponent who probably does not think the very same thing is actually "natural" either.
>>
File: iq1.jpg (129 KB, 1198x798)
129 KB
129 KB JPG
>>18694705
>yes, I figured you were a larper
starts off well; kys cosmopolitan
>they do, constantly
They don't; to get a movement like the 1917 revolution in Russia you have to
1. Have support from the Geman Empire
2. Be apart of the inteligenstia (not proletarian)
3. Get funds from international bankers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg)
> I was talking strictly about modern nationalism and about the situation directly prior to its ascent.
Sure, but "Nationalism" exists prior to its Westphalian conception; as demonstrated by the «pan-hellenic» example
>social darwinism was just a convenient post-hoc justification
social darwinism (S.D.), itself, has nothing to do with nationalism. Of course, one can be a social darwinist AND a Nationalist, but it is not a pre-requisite. To be a Nationalist implies a certain level of egalitarianism (like that Hitler quote "A german street-swiper is better than a foreign aristocrat"), which S.D.'s reject.
>his entire life was spent contributing to a total fight against that power which sustains racism.
ok, now you're just trolling. He thought only germans, poles and magyars were capable of progress. Not to mention Hegel's conception of the other races, which Marx got inpired to.
>suppressing independent proletarian movement by promoting class collaboration under a manufactured shared interest.
>independent proletarian movement
where can I find this "independency" of the working class? And in what way does fascism surpress *it*?
>>
>>18694958
Why isn't each race its own nation if that's the most important factor of nationalism?
>>
According to Marxists nationalism, like racism, was invented purely to subdivide the emergent working class and pit them against each other mainly to inhibit the formation of a truly global proletarian movement. Obviously the failure of Marxist states were because they didn't conquer the whole world. Now of course they claim bourgeois antiracism and globalism is clearly also a porkie trick but for slightly more mysterious reasons. It's fucking unfalsifiable.
>>
>>18695018
Nationalism typically has a specific cultural bent, save for some forms like the American, Japanese, British Empire, and Nationalist Socialist ones. Fascist Italy, Rome, the Falangists, France, hell most medieval/Enlightenment era nations, had little considerations of race and more of cultural/national origin
>>
>>18695074
Thanks for proving the evil marxist historians correct.
>>
>>18695085
Even when they're correct, they're still wrong
>>
>>18695018
It doesn't really follow that they should be.
>>
>>18695121
As in, nations already have a certain set of phenotypes, their race.

Broad racial classifications(European, Asian, African) include multiple nations and their phenotypes
>>
>>18695128
So it doesn't really follow that we should see a mega European nation, despite the wet dreams of some people at the European Parliament
>>
File: 1625964475653.jpg (175 KB, 1360x868)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
>>18693112
Thanks for making an argument based on emotional projection so that I know you and the book you're promoting have nothing valuable or true to say

please keep doing that, it's really convenient
>>
>>18695074
>had little considerations of race
Medieval euros did not care much for it exactly but ever since euros have been fighting nafris and arabs they have considered themselves separate from them at least categorically.

Even St. Augustine, a nafri, speaks of "us africans" in one of his works when referring to other latin fathers active in Africa in his time.

As for nationalism, even Rome fought wars over not wanting to give other italian tribes roman citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9387_BC)

Clearly they did not refuse to grant citizenship because of sharp cultural differences, but because they wanted to preserve the advantage the Latins had over other culturally simialr italian tribes, ergo, they were acting nationalistic, in other words, the interest of their nation, which they considered separate from that of other italian polities.
>>
>>18695145
>the interest of their nation
*They were acting in the interest of their nation
>>
>>18695018
To be brief, there are three frameworks of nationalism.
Civic nationalism (America today, God help us), which is that the demographics of a population and culture do not matter, only the apparatuses of government
Cultural nationalism/Assimilationism (Rome, somewhat America in the past), that the race of a population does not matter but the integration into a preexisting culture does
And Ethnonationalism, which I shouldn't need to explain at this point
Really, I'm of the mind that America is best with immigration being heavily curbed, if not stopped outright, until the middle class can recover and even then allowing in a trickle of skilled labor.
>>
>>18695145
>Medieval euros did not care much for it exactly
this is a little anachronistic
Medieval euros did not have large-scale contact with non-whites. Obviously they're not going to be racially conscious in an era when they're largely segregated from other races.
>>
>>18695145
My apologies, I meant to cite Rome during it's height as an expansionist empire as an example of an empire which held little considerations of race and more towards the drive of assimilation.
As for medieval nations, I was meaning that, their constant conflict with the Arabs aside, they would have been more favorable/disfavorable of a given person for culture, especially, say, and Englishman looking at a Frenchman, than what I imagine would have just been outright confusion if they met a Zulu
>>
>>18695091
I don't disagree. But I beg to differ.
>>
>>18695178
>Medieval euros did not have large-scale contact with non-whites
>what is the reconquista
>what are the crusades
>what are the byzantine-arab wars
>what are the mongol invasions for eastern euros/mongol yoke for russians
>>
>>18694938
>Counterexamples to what?
to people within one nation being more related to each other than people within different nations
>A lot of people in the USA, especially on the elft, seems to care about race.
this is the worst example you could've picket. people in the US don't define their national identity on the basis of race at all.
>I care.
you're an irrelevant basement dweller. how many times do I have to repeat?
>Uh, are you feeling fine?
yes, but you seem to be a bit lost. I'm talking about the brief text about national identity, not about OP's book.
>Woah, some serious emotional arguments against the identity politics of the left wingers from the anglosphere
no, leftists do have a great practical effect when they distract from class struggle and drag the workers into anti-racist movements led by the middle class and by woke corporations

>>18694958
I'm not even talking about the book

>>18694979
>to get a movement like the 1917 revolution in Russia you have to
you have to have proletarian masses that are revolting against the capitalists. people from other classes will join them and help lead the movement (this was already stated in the Manifesto), but there's no proletarian movement without the proletariat moving
>Sure, but "Nationalism" exists prior to its Westphalian conception; as demonstrated by the «pan-hellenic» example
yes, there was an ancient nationalism
>social darwinism (S.D.), itself, has nothing to do with nationalism
it does, it was only really historically relevant as a justification for the latter
>To be a Nationalist implies a certain level of egalitarianism, which S.D.'s reject.
I wouldn't expect all those ideologies to be completely consistent. they only need to be consistent enough.
>He thought only germans, poles and magyars were capable of progress.
that's surely why he promoted the proletarian movement in all the other countries that weren't Germany, Poland and Hungary
>where can I find this "independency" of the working class
in those of its organizations (trade unions, parties) that fight for purely proletarian demands
>And in what way does fascism surpress *it*?
it depends on the case. in Italy, for example, it suppressed it by attacking it and its organs using its militias and then nationalizing trade unions

>>18695036
>According to Marxists nationalism, like racism, was invented purely to subdivide the emergent working class and pit them against each other mainly to inhibit the formation of a truly global proletarian movement.
no, that's not what Marxism says. nationalism had a positive usefulness to the bourgeoisie when it was revolutionary and when the proletariat barely even existed, see e.g. here >>18694198
>>
>>18695160
I got the answer I wanted out of the other guy that there were factors more important than race, such as, oh, you know, culture, being itself a historical or material cause.
>>
>>18695205
Those are all wars. Racial animus is superfluous in that context.
>>
>>18695209
>I'm not even talking about the book

Oh, so it's not a quote from the book? Where is it from? The anon who posted it should have mentioned it

>to people within one nation being more related to each other than people within different nations

I assume it can happen between nations who are close to each other. Like maybe some Northern Italians and Austrians. Try within Japan and between Japan and Sweden.

Kek, I see a general rule of proximity in ancestry among nations, don't you?
>>
File: 417658-takatsuki_yayoi.png (854 KB, 640x640)
854 KB
854 KB PNG
>>18695287
Japan is a really funny case because the modern Japanese are descended from proto-Koreans (Yayoi people) who replaced a bunch of proto-Tibeto-Mongoloids (Joumon people) starting in 300 or so, such that the Japanese (Yamato people) are 90% Yayoi. The most Joumon populations are the Ainu who live at the northern fringes of the Japanese arcipelago.
>>
>>18695287
>Where is it from?
http://ruthlesscriticism.com/identity.htm
>I assume it can happen between nations who are close to each other.
okay then
>I see a general rule of proximity in ancestry among nations
yes, but that's a side-effect of the fact that nations were created to serve as support for states, which are territorial entities. it's an effect, not a cause.
>>
>>18695209
>people from other classes will join them and help lead the movement
then it's not proletarian, but bourgeois. How truly different are you from the fascists you so critique
>it does
again, social darwinism *itself* is not nationalistic. You have to understand that S.D. is a sort of aristocraric movement which prioritizes genetics over capital.
S.D. is not bourgeois like Nationalism is. It isn't "consistent" at all
>that's surely why he promoted the proletarian movement in all the other countries
sure, I'll concede on this; but Marx's entire life wasn't «spent contributing to a total fight against that power which sustains "racism"» (as I've said before, trostkyist jargon).
>trade unions, parties
lol, trade unions show the independency of the working class
>fight for purely proletarian demands
ahhh, yes: like mass imigration!
>nationalizing trade unions
That's what happened in the Soviet Union
>A strong factory committee movement had sprung up, from workers occupying workplaces or forcing their bosses into compliance with demands as the government would no longer protect them. However, as the Bolsheviks seized and consolidated power, this movement was ended by the nationalization of industries.
Is this the suppressing of a genuine working class movement?
>>
>>18695398
Social Darwinism is extremely bourgeois. It says you are rich and successful because of your breeding, and that the now teeming urban poor population should be discouraged from reproducing to preserve the quality of the society. Of course, less poor people in an industrialized democracy means less votes for the labor movements
>>
>>18695363
>nations were created to serve as support for states

That doesn't make any sense, it seems a very, very bizzarre idea. I mean, maybe if you said "nationalism", instead of "nations" it could make more sense.

But no, nations were not "created" by human beings to support the state. How do you even imagine it?
>>
>>18695454
I mean, there was a German nation way before a German state and an Irish nation way before an Irish state
>>
>>18695420
No, it says you are better and successful because of your breeding. Not as much as material wealth but genes. One of the reasons why they were pacifists was to prevent good blood from getting spilled.
But, of course, they dispised the rabble (from an aristocratic pov)
>>
>>18695507
The material success is a consequence of the genes. This is what you'd want to believe as a replacement aristocracy.
>>
>>18695363
>nations were created to serve as support for states
and every word now goes into the garbage
>>
>>18695577
>The material success is a consequence of the genes.
No, since wealth can arrive through usury.
>replacement aristocracy
sorry, elaborate?
>>
>>18695643
>No, since wealth can arrive through usury.
Usury requires long time horizon and high in-group preference. It's still genetic. It just doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what genetic success looks like.
>>
>>18695643
Social darwinism is peak nouveau riche. The old aristocracy didn't need "science" to justify their position. So what about usury? If anything making money through usury is another reason to believe in social darwinism. You're the apex predator everyone gives you their energy.
>>
>>18694742
>It's true to some extent but
Which is exactly what I said. However political theorists and writers have the advantage of being able to discuss these things theoretically.
>>18694742
>The problem with marxists is that they're adept at identifying flaws in prevailing systems, and then proceed to offer solutions
Hilarious, considering I'm a Marxist and think the only way to protect my community is by establishing something akin to an ethno-state.
Admittedly I keep being told I'm a really poor Marxist.
>>
>>18694198
I tried to say nothing but this
>it's true though. nationalism is the basis of modern racism because it segregates people into groups with different characteristics, into "us" and "them" and constantly reinforces those distinctions.
If this were true, intranational racism, such as the one in the U.S would not exist, and international racism between countries like France and Germany would.
>>
>>18694742
>humans and bananas have a common ancestor

Good to see some people actually read Gravity’s Rainbow this summer.
>>
>>18694198
>nationalism is the basis of modern racism
B.S.When I was growing up, in the 90s, the prevailing opinion on what made a French-Canadian was someone who spoke French and spent the winters here.
It's only since we figured out even learning French was too much to ask that we've reverted to a more ethnic-cultural idea of nationalism.
>>
>>18693112
>this very specific definition of nationalism dates from the 19th century
>therefore, nations are fake
>but my idea of class is totally real
VGH... the power of M*rxoid historiography...
>>
>>18693279
Because seeing nationalism as anything but false consciousness is anathema to them, and its persistence in favor of class consciousness something that Marxism cant really explain.
>>
>>18695398
>then it's not proletarian, but bourgeois
no, it's proletarian. the fragments of other classes in the movement are numerically small compared to the proletarian masses, and, most importantly, the program of the movement is proletarian and explicitly direct towards the abolition of bourgeois society
>social darwinism *itself* is not nationalistic
sure, but it's irrelevant without nationalism
>You have to understand that S.D. is a sort of aristocraric movement which prioritizes genetics over capital.
there's no aristocracy anymore and it's not coming back. I care about the real world, not about the fantasy world of your stupid larp.
>but Marx's entire life wasn't «spent contributing to a total fight against that power which sustains "racism"»
yes it was, he was a lifelong dedicated communist
>lol, trade unions show the independency of the working class
if they're independent unions, then yes, they do. if they're regime unions or captured by opportunists who pander to the middle classes, then no, they don't.
>ahhh, yes: like mass imigration!
no, not like mass immigration
>That's what happened in the Soviet Union
yes
>Is this the suppressing of a genuine working class movement?
no, it's generalizing it by unifying it beyond individual workplaces. there's difference between the direction of unions by a communist (proletarian) party and the direction of unions by a fascist (bourgeois) party

>>18695454
>But no, nations were not "created" by human beings to support the state. How do you even imagine it?
if you're genuinely looking for examples, you can check out "The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800"
>>18695477
>there was a German nation way before a German state
no, there wasn't. the idea of it was present in a small part of German elites like a century earlier, but that's about it.
you're just repeating typical nationalist propaganda to me, which projects nations 1000 years into the past post-hoc. I know it can be shocking to learn that it's bollocks.

>>18695948
>If this were true, intranational racism, such as the one in the U.S would not exist
why? intranational racism in the US is exactly like that: "blacks and latinos aren't real Americans".
>and international racism between countries like France and Germany would.
you're clueless
>The Germans, one French intellectual declared, were a “dreadful, dreadful race.” That they are an inferior race, he continued, could not be doubted because they “have a peculiar, powerful odor which we cannot escape from, living as we are on the front lines.” Not surprisingly, it turns out the German race even had “special lice: the famous big lice of the Iron Cross.” The particular odor of Germans was also invoked as the reason why the population of Alsace-Lorraine always resisted “Germanic assimilation.” The psychologist Edgar Bérillon claimed in 1917 that it had to do with “racial odor.”
>>
File: 71Dzg-wq3nL.jpg (160 KB, 880x1360)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
Globalism is unavoidable and has been steadily thrusting forward throughout all of history as it is a by-product of technological innovation. The problem is not with globalism but with universalism. The idea that the entire world must take part in the West's techno-scientific development is not only harmful to the West, but unsustainable for the world. Ripping Afro-Asian peoples out of their traditional societies and throwing them into factories to chase some unattainable "progress" will lead to our own demise as a peoples and the destruction of the world's natural environment. Economic globalization can still exist without trying to uplift the masses of the Third World to "developed" status.
>>
>>18693112
The trouble I had with the book is that Anderson
1. Attempts to attribute intellectual transformations to material transformations and "discoveries" without providing any explanation for how and why this would have come about. His claim that faith in Christianity weakened as a result of encountering people on new continents that did not believe in it does not make sense.
2. Does not account for the idea of popular sovereignty, an idea without which the rise of nationalism as it exists now does not make any sense. Why in God's name should an entity called the "Mexican people" have any say in who governs over them? Why should the territory in which they live be coterminous with the territory of a single state? He does not explain these things.
In any case, if you had actually read the book carefully, you would have noticed that Anderson is a strong supporter of nationalism. He notes in the preface and afterword that he was motivated to write the book in part by his support for the breakup of the United Kingdom into its constituent countries. He was likely not a friend of white nationalism, but his work does nothing to disprove it.
>>
>>18696064
>supports dissolution of UK
>not an ethno-nationalist
I feel like these two positions would be hard to reconcile. If you're opposed to an artificial civic nationalist imperial entity and you're opposed to blood and soil nation-statism then what on Earth are you in favor of within a nationalist context?
>>
>>18693112
>taking a book by Bendydick Andhersnatch seriously
>>
>>18696097
It's more that theyre pro-ethnonationalism for certain ethnicities and against others. It's not uncommon for people to support african nationalism or chinese nationalism because of "self-determination" or whatever, but then sperg out about how irrational european nationalism is.
The criticism of nationalism in left-wing circles is almost always hypocritical and dependent on what nation we're talking about. The only ones to consistently reject it are leftcoms, but theyre politically irrelevant.
>>
>>18696027
>the idea of it was present in a small part of German elites like a century earlier, but that's about it.

That's not how you use Goffart and Kulikowski, especially not centuries later than the times they specialize in (and may I remind you that the only reason their school is so dominant in academia because it receives massive financial and institutional support by big capital and the European Science Foundation?)
>>
>>18696117
Sure any left wing criticism of nationalism inevitably ends up being some kind of Third World revenge-fantasy schlock, but the post says he was himself a strong supporter of nationalism? I wouldn't call a white man who's exclusively in support of Third World revanchism to be a supporter of nationalism, I'd more call him an ethno-masochist.
>>
Bro you barely have anything in common with people in your own country but idk youll prob relate to some honduran because you bang nails into wood
>>
>>18693502
Good post, thanks anon. Do you have any idea where Lukács writes about this?
>>
>>18696135
The two arent mutually exclusive. In fact, his selective support for nationalism is driven by his masochism. Without the masochism, he'd either reject all forms of nationalism, or he would become a nationalist for his own people.
>>
>>18696135
How is Scotland the Third World?
Also, you must understand that what these people dispute is not nationalism itself, but the definition of the nation. Their ideas of "white culture" and "Western thought" as something exclusive to Europeans and their descendants itself points toward a kind of white nationalism.
>>
>>18696117
>>18696135
>>18696149
>>18696150
Also, let's be clear here: nationalism is a principle of sovereign legitimation and no more. It does not point to any specific worldview or any specific set of policies, other than those that result in the gathering of the nation within a single set of borders.
Concerning the impulse toward the elision of all borders, you should read Leo Strauss. He alludes to this idea and its origins in Natural Right and History. If you read a version of On Tyranny that contains the Strauss-Kojeve Correspondence, you will see these ideas advocated for in their purest form by Kojeve.
>>
>>18696184
These people would then have no problem with German nationalism, English nationalism or Swedish nationalism, yet they do, because their motivations are not based on some scientific conception of the nation, but just pure ressentiment.
>>
>>18696150
Sure but it seems a bit wrong to describe him as a nationalist if it simply refers to some kind of Third Worldism "Camp of Saints but it's a good thing" type of beliefs. Like yeah sure I guess that's technically nationalism but it's hardly descriptive of what those beliefs entail in a Western context.

>>18696184
>How is Scotland the Third World?
Huh? I'm more referring to the types of (white) people who are strong supporters of anti-colonialis/Third Worldism and ree about the evils of white nationalism with one face then swoon over African and Asian nationalist movements with another face. The easiest descriptor of this sort of belief is ethno-masochism. They're not against nationalism, only against nationalism for their own people or people like them. But they whole-heartedly support nationalism in the places that are sending people to the West.
>>
>>18696149
Not him but IIRC it's in the "Theory of the Novel" or whatever it was called.
>>
>>18696226
Oh wait, I don't think it was that one. I can't remember. Sorry.
>>
>>18696238
Thanks anyways, if you remember please make a post.
>>
>>18696027
>if you're genuinely looking for examples, you can check out "The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800"

Or you can tell me directly
>no, there wasn't.
>there was no population with a similar phenotype that spoke german and had similar culture

But...there was. Are you feeling fine?
>>
>>18696471
I'm not him, but I think there are a number of issues that need to be clarified here.
1. There was a population that spoke a group of dialects that bear clear and unmistakable resemblance to modern Standard High German. The question is, did this population regard itself as a single, undivided unity called a nation? How did they see themselves?
2. We can find definite similarities in "culture" among this population. But how did they view the matter themselves?
3. Even if this group of people regarded themselves as a unity, did they regard themselves as possessing the right to control over a state of any kind, i.e. did they regard sovereignty as residing within themselves?
4. And even if they did regard sovereignty as residing within themselves, did they regard the only legitimate expression of this sovereignty to be the creation of a single state in which every single one of them could live together?
I think the answer to the last two questions is no. The last two questions point to what we now call nationalism. The first two are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for nationalism.
>>
>>18696027
>"The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800"
Les Colonnes Infernales did nothing wrong.
>>
>>18696514
There's something that needs to be addressed here.

A nation does not require self awareness to be a nation. As in, we can share culture, history and close ancestry and live in a bliss without caring too much about it. We are still a nation. It doesn't matter if the Gauls saw themselves as a nation or not, even if they didn't care(they probably did but humor me) or didn't even have a word for the concept, if they meet the requirements for being a nation, then they were a nation.

Nationalism =/ nation
>>
>>18696738
The other anon has a very bizzarre view of what nations are. He seems to think a small elite created the concept of nation and nationalism and in turn this created the nation. This is insanity.

Nations existed way before modern nationalism. They did.
>>
>>18696738
I am not sure about this idea of applying ideas to polities that would not have understood them.
>>
>>18696772
Well, that IS the Liberal conception of the nation. The fact that it's obviously wrong is besides the point, it's an existing viewpoint and certain political factions need to hold to it in order to justify their political goals.
>>
>>18696776
If you follow a definition of nation that requires self awareness of the nation and an identification with it then it's on you

I wouldn't say it's a requirement, though maybe some authors think so
>>
>>18694821
>Are different types of stars a social construct?
Yes. Read Kant until you understand phenomenon and the inapproachability of the noumenal. Typologies are language games mate. Jesus. IT IS IN KANT PEOPLE.
>>
>>18696780
>If you follow a definition of nation that requires self awareness of the nation and an identification with it then it's on you
The comparative participatory efficiency of the French Republic versus English monarchy over Britain in 1792-1815 demonstrates the participatory nation is the heart of the concept of the nation at all.
>>
I used to believe that nationalism was a modern ideology until I started reading the greeks. A collection of people that have the same sense of identity and culture - I don't know what to call that if not a national identity.
>>
>>18696055
>No we should be the only ones not playing in the mud! NOOOO competition is unfair.
Sorry but asians like their improved quality of life and are gonna take over.
>>
>>18696865
Our sun and a red supergiant are same...?
>>
>>18698061
Obviously not. You’re using different words.
>>
>>18695713
>>18695767
While I find your comments and perspective interesting I say «aristocratic» due to people like Arthur Gobineau, who atributed to himself the title "count" because he just LOVED the aristocracy; and Karl Pearson, a "FRS" and "FRSE", and his father was King's Counsel of the Inner Temple.
>long time horizon
you can do usury in weeks or months
>high in-group preference
jews did usury to gentiles and NEVER to their own group.
>>18696027
>no, it's proletarian.
THE REVOLUTIONS OF THE 19th AND 20th CENTURY WERE BOURGEOIS. THEY FOLLOWED ALL OF THE PRECEPTS SET OUT BY LIBERALISM. A MARXIST IS A HUMANIST - ONE OF THE PUREST FORMS OF LIBERALISM. YOU DO NOT FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSE THE STRUCTURE OF CAPITAL *IF* YOU ARE A COMMUNIST. (which I've realized, you're a poor one [not in the material sense])
>sure, but it's irrelevant without nationalism
I'll say it for the last time; S.D.'s care about «GENOS», not «NATION» as the primary force. See people like Cesare Lombroso and Herbert Spencer (this last one "remained throughout his life an ardent opponent of imperialism")
>if they're regime unions
like the bolshevik?
>not like mass immigration
that's what the Labor party, and PS, BE and PCP (these last being Portuguese) propose. Or is this a case of "no true communism"?
>>That's what happened in the Soviet Union
>yes
then how can you critique the nationilization of trade unions in Italy while agreeing with this, lol
>there's difference between the direction of unions by a communist (proletarian) party and the direction of unions by a fascist (bourgeois) party
ah,
>my trade unions good; fascist ones bad
>because it is, OK?!
>>
>>18698294
>you can do usury in weeks or months
No you can't, not in an economically meaningful way, for that you need a large amount of accumulated capital, which takes time and planning, and you need the ability to sustain losses.
>jews did usury to gentiles and NEVER to their own group.
That's my point.
>>
>>18698321
sustain through* losses
>>
Everyone, before this thread dies, come to the white fragility thread that is currently up
>>
>>18698321
>which takes time and planning, and you need the ability to sustain losses.
This does not mean that only genetically fit people can practice usury.
>That's my point.
Then we agree on this
>>
>>18696738
>As in, we can share culture, history and close ancestry and live in a bliss without caring too much about it.
during the Renaissance a Polish university student shared more culture with an Italian university student than each of them shared with random peasants in their respective countries. same for churchmen and so on
two peasants from different countries could have a more similar history than each of them had with two landlords from those respective countries, because e.g. the grandparents of the peasants both fought revolts against their landlords.
with ancestry you need to chose an arbitrary cut-off, because it's all a continuum since the first humans.
in other words, official versions of culture, history and ancestry require engineering and gerrymandering. they have to be consciously imposed and taught to "the people". you need to teach them the official language over their local one, you need to teach them that what some dude 1000 km away 500 years ago did is "their" history while what another dude 100 km away did 50 years ago isn't. all of this must be a product of political force and is a contingent result of a political situation at a given time.

>>18698294
>THE REVOLUTIONS OF THE 19th AND 20th CENTURY WERE BOURGEOIS.
which ones? I don't disagree that most of them was bourgeois
>I'll say it for the last time; S.D.'s care about
I don't care about your larp dude
>like the bolshevik?
like the bolshevik after the Stalinist counter-revolution, sure
>that's what the Labor party, and PS, BE and PCP (these last being Portuguese) propose
those parties represent the left wing of capital. how in the fuck are they supposed to be communist? do they demand the dictatorship of the proletariat like communists or do they demand gay marriage and some worker legislation like all the other libs?
>my trade unions good; fascist ones bad
>because it is, OK?!
because fascists carry out of the bourgeois program of conservation of capitalism, which is opposed to the interests of the proletarian movement. they take over unions not to unify and thus strengthen the struggle against capital but to contain it.
>>
>>18698294
>A MARXIST IS A HUMANIST
Only the least bourgeois of the bourgeois marxists.

Only proletarian marxists are capable of ahumanism. Because of their class interest.

Comparing Marxist Humanists to anti-humanist Marxists, the Marxist Humanists serve the proletariat better as external actors.

I mean we're not going into the bourgeois structure of marxism as an intellectual practice, versus the historical practice of revolutionary workers without reference to Marxism here.

BECAUSE YOU'RE A NAZI FUCKTARD WHO NEEDS TO BE GUTTED WITH A SACATRIPE THE MEXICAN SHEEP GUTTING KNIFE AND FOR OTHER WARM ANIMALS I'VE GOT THAT HARDCORE FEELING AND THAT RAVING HEALING AND I THINK I AM GOING TO LET IT GO

<<AGONISED SCREAMS OF ROBOT COP BEING MURDERED BY A WORKER>>
>>
>>18698430
>which ones?
all; no exception
>I don't care about your larp dude
whatever
>>how in the fuck are they supposed to be communist
You are telling ME that the Portuguese Communist Party and Bloco de Esquerda (trostkyist, but you get the gist) AREN'T communist? fucking hell....
>fascists carry out of the bourgeois program of conservation of capitalism
I'll leave this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfHGLcRz-P8
>inb4 utube
It was fun talking to you, but I have to drop out
>>18698478
tl;dr
>YOU'RE A NAZI
I'm not, I can safely dismiss you
>>
>>18698552
>Some guy calls me an nazi with an immanent threat to kill me
>I assert I am not a nazi
>He has not yet killed me
Way to not transvalue transvalued values cunt.
>>
meds, now
>>
>>18698630
>>18698586
>>
>>18698478
Why are commies filled with these impotent murder fantasies?
>>
>>18698552
>all; no exception
the October revolution was communist
>You are telling ME that the Portuguese Communist Party and Bloco de Esquerda (trostkyist, but you get the gist) AREN'T communist?
yes, they're social democrats with a socialist aesthetic. read their program.
from their statute:
>assume a defesa dos Direitos Humanos em todo o mundo, sem exceções
Marx and Engels:
>we with many others have stressed the opposition of communism to law, both political and private, as also in its most general form as the rights of man
>It was shown that the recognition of the rights of man by the modern state has no other meaning than the recognition of slavery by the state of antiquity had. In other words, just as the ancient state had slavery as its natural basis, the modern state has as its natural basis civil society and the man of civil society, i.e., the independent man linked with other men ‘ only by the ties of private interest and unconscious natural necessity, the slave of labour for gain and of his own as well as other men’s selfish need. The modern state has recognised this its natural basis as such in the universal rights of man.
this is just one example. if you want to show me the fragments that evidence their communism, I'm all ears. do they call for the dictatorship of the proletariat? do they even call for the struggle of the proletariat against other classes? do they renounce interclassist struggles and affirm the independent interests of the proletariat?

>I'll leave this here
I'm not going to watch a youtube video you idiot zoomer
>It was fun talking to you, but I have to drop out
of course you have. your entire understanding of the world is based on watching a a bunch of youtube videos, and you haven't even assimilated it enough to put it into your own words and make arguments, so you have to resort to linking videos by some faggot e-celeb. the absolute state of /lit/
>>
>>18693571
This is true especially in the 18th century where it pretty much had the same function and effects as globalism have today such as ereasing local cultures, languages etc in favor of another larger identity
>>
>>18698689
Fuck it, why not another comment
>October revolution was communist
"communism is when the state sends capital to the economy"
PCP:
>Artº 2º
>The PCP is theoretically based on Marxism-Leninism: a materialist and dialectical conception of the world, a scientific instrument for analyzing reality and a guide for action that is constantly enriched and renewed, responding to new phenomena, situations, processes and trends in development. In connection with practice and with the incessant progress of knowledge, this conception of the world is necessarily creative and, therefore, contrary to dogmatization as well as the opportunistic revision of its fundamental principles and concepts.
Artº 3º
>It guides its members and its activity in the spirit of proletarian internationalism, cooperation between communist parties and between revolutionary and progressive forces, solidarity with workers in other countries and with peoples in the struggle against exploitation and oppression political, social and national, against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism, racism, xenophobia and fascism - for freedom, democracy, social progress, national independence, peace and socialism.
^(I don't know how cucked you can get)
>I'm not going to watch a youtube video
genetic fallacy
>your entire understanding of the world is based on watching a a bunch of youtube videos
+ an ad hominem!
The marxist intellectual never seizes to amaze me.
>>
i literally can't stop thinking about poles they are verywhree
>>
>>18693259

This is perhaps where the working class leftist fetishisation of the other comes from. The fact they think they have common ground with a Somali goatherd because they’re both ‘exploited’ by managers and landowners.

It assumes poor people all over the world give a shit about your dusty, Jewish economic theory.
>>
>>18698985
>theoretically based on Marxism-Leninism
i.e. the ideology of the anti-communist Stalinist counter-revolution. proves my point.
>the spirit of proletarian internationalism, cooperation between communist parties and between revolutionary and progressive forces, solidarity with workers in other countries and with peoples in the struggle against exploitation and oppression political, social and national, against imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism
typical empty leftoid sloganeering which mixes vaguely proletarian demands with interclassist bourgeois ones in order to make any independent proletarian movement disappear within the vortex of various middle class struggles. what about their actual political program? what political demands they have that are "in the spirit of proletarian internationalism"?

>for freedom
communists don't call for abstract "freedom". Marx:
>What this reveals, on the other side, is the foolishness of those socialists (namely the French, who want to depict socialism as the realization of the ideals of bourgeois society articulated by the French revolution) who demonstrate ... that history has so far failed in every attempt to implement [freedom and equality] their true manner, but that they have now, like Proudhon, discovered e.g. the real Jacob, and intent now to supply the genuine history of these relations in place of the fake. The proper reply to them is: that exchange value or, more precisely, the money system is in fact the system of equality and freedom, and that the disturbances which they encounter in the further development of the system are disturbances inherent in it, are merely the realization of equality and freedom, which prove to be inequality and unfreedom.

>democracy
Marx:
>Political democracy is Christian since in it man, not merely one man but everyman, ranks as sovereign, as the highest being, but it is man in his uncivilized, unsocial form, man in his fortuitous existence, man just as he is, man as he has been corrupted by the whole organization of our society, who has lost himself, been alienated, and handed over to the rule of inhuman conditions and elements — in short, man who is not yet a real species-being. That which is a creation of fantasy, a dream, a postulate of Christianity, i.e., the sovereignty of man — but man as an alien being different from the real man — becomes, in democracy, tangible reality, present existence, and secular principle.

>social progress
Marx, in his criticism of Absolute Critical Criticism:
>Far from suspecting that the category “Progress” is completely empty and abstract, Absolute Criticism is so profound as to recognise “Progress” as being absolute....

>national independence
epic internationalism
>peace
so they don't call for the dictatorship of the proletariat and the revolutionary overthrow of the present society. they call for... peace!
>socialism
Bernie Sanders calls for "socialism"

>genetic fallacy
reddit moment
>>
>>18696865
We clearly have very different definitions of the term "social construct".

Or maybe you are not sane, I don't know
>>
>>18696905
How exactly?
>>
>>18698430
>with ancestry you need to chose an arbitrary cut-off, because it's all a continuum since the first humans.

Quite literally a continuum fallacy. I feel embarassed for you.

>during the Renaissance a Polish university student shared more culture with an Italian university student than each of them shared with random peasants in their respective countries. same for churchmen and so on

They most likely didn't. Kek.

>oh we studied similar texts in Latin
>this means there is no native Polish/Italian cultures around us

My god

>in other words, official versions of culture, history and ancestry require engineering and gerrymandering

It doesn't matter. There are different types of cultures and different phenotypes/genotypes, the fact that grey areas between those types can exist does not invalidate the existences of these types. What you are using is a continuum fallacy. Imagine arguing there are no different colors, because they are on a spectrum and therefore the exact border between different colors is "arbitrary". It's a fallacy that is born out of vagueness and obtuse minds.
>>
>>18699368
>Imagine arguing there are no different colors

Or that all colors are the same
>>
>>18699163
>the ideology of the anti-communist Stalinist counter-revolution
oh, for fuck's sake. "Anyone who opposes Stalin is not a communist" <-- this you?
>typical empty leftoid sloganeering
lol that's all lefties
>communists don't call for abstract "freedom"
of course they do. One of communist's goals is to end alienation and self-alienation; these two make men trapped and "enslaved".
Not to mention the end of Capital Vol.3 "The kingdom of freedom only starts..."

Marx is in favor of direct democracy. How else will the proletariat own and decide what to do with the means of production?
I don't get how your «progress» quote contradicts me
>epic internationalism
they are internationalists. this was used in the context of international capital
>>reddit moment
>can't adress it
>calls me reddit
-_-


Listen, We've gotten really off topic. This is extremely boring; I'm going to read.
>>
>>18699398
what are you gonna read, anon
>>
>>18693273
Sounds... humane
>>
>>18699409
Going to finish Oresteia; getting back to it now.
>>
>>18699368
>Imagine arguing there are no different colors
I'm not arguing there are no nations though

>>18699398
>"Anyone who opposes Stalin is not a communist" <-- this you?
no, this not me
>lol that's all lefties
yep
>of course they do. One of communist's goals is to end alienation and self-alienation; these two make men trapped and "enslaved".
abstract freedom _is_ alienation. that's why Marx says that "the money system is the system of equality and freedom"
>Not to mention the end of Capital Vol.3 "The kingdom of freedom only starts..."
this refers to the concrete freedom of society that is able to rationally plan its own activity following the abolition of capitalism. it isn't an abstract principle that communists set for society as a "goal", but a description of a communist society. without a clear affirmation of the necessity of proletarian dictatorship that will deprive enemy classes of their freedom, the latter word becomes a counter-revolutionary slogan: see e.g. Lenin's "Deception of the People with Slogans of Freedom and Equality" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jun/23.htm
>Marx is in favor of direct democracy
sure, just ignore the quotes from Marx himself and describe your youtube version to me.
>How else will the proletariat own and decide what to do with the means of production?
you never took part in a group decision made without voting? and that's not even the point, because people in a communist society may even use democracy as a _decision procedure_ in certain circumstances. but bourgeois politicians, such as that pseudo-communist party of yours, rise democracy to the level of _principle_. and this is simply an expression of bourgeois principles of equality before the law and popular sovereignty, an affirmation of the principles of bourgeois society against communism.
>they are internationalists.
maybe, just like the International Monetary Fund. they aren't proletarian internationalists.
>I'm going to read
finally. I hope it's not youtube subtitles
>>
>>18699628
>I'm not arguing there are no nations though

You argued that they are imposed because the border between them is "arbitrary"(spoiler: it isn't, it's just vague). Would you make the same argument for colors? After all the exact border between colors is also vague and people have to agree on the exact cut-off. It's evident that colors or nations are not imposed, they are acknowledged together with their broad borders
>>
>>18699662
if colors were constantly evolving just like populations, cultures, languages and political configurations, and then that evolution was frozen at an arbitrary point in time, and color distinctions made for all time based on the resulting momentary configuration, then yes, I would say the same about colors. there's still some real arbitrariness with colors (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction_in_language), but not nearly as much as with nations, because the human optic apparatus has remained static throughout history
>>
>>18699738
>and then that evolution was frozen at an arbitrary point in time, and color distinctions made for all time based on the resulting momentary configuration

Nobody froze the evolution of anything. Nations are simply recognized. Explain to me how distinguishing between the German nation and the Japanese nation implies in any way "freezing" the classification in a certain point in time. At what point in time? Kek
>>
>>18693173
Why is this controversial, any medievalist could tell you this. I guess this might make some /pol/ types seethe, but I see plenty on there who outright reject everything after the Enlightenment so more than a handful would fully agree with this.
>>
>>18694586
>How is a group of people with common ancestry socially constructed?
By expanding beyond kith and kin clan tribal politics to getting *everyone* of your new nation in one nation.
This led to plenty of areas between Germany and Everyone else exploding into autism as an example when they were calm feudal territories centuries beforehand.

Now plenty of Communists and Liberals will reject that even bonds of kin existed within tribes, and that is the point you can dismiss them as retarded Amerimutts.
>>
>>18694838
Racial conflict isn't ancillary to the debate, it is the debate
>>
>>18694705
>I hate to break it to you, but all living humans have a common ancestor
See, retarded Amerimutt
>>
>>18699839
>By expanding beyond kith and kin clan tribal politics to getting *everyone* of your new nation in one nation.

It seems to me the group closely related in phenotype/genotype is there before any attempt at political or cultural unification. The borders of this group between other groups can be grey, no doubt about it, but still, it's there.
>>
>>18693173
>X is caused by one thing
Into the trash it goes.

>He defined a nation as "an imagined political community"
This guy is definitely Jewish, I don't even need to look at early life.

He clearly doesn't know his metamythology.
>>
>>18699935
Bro, please stop posting those schizo faces. It's a poor reflection on you as a person.
>>
>>18697968
Asians have been chronically unable to meaningfully exert influence on anything outside of Asia for their entire history. They can hardly administer themselves beyond classic unwieldy Oriental despotism. The fate of our species depends on a future where Asians and Africans are forced to stop spewing plastic into our oceans and smog into our skies. Sooner or later the West will contend with this, whether under some kind of pseudo-fascist populism or under Green extremism.
>>
File: 1569835822002.png (517 KB, 1000x1413)
517 KB
517 KB PNG
>>18700482
Are you a bad enough dude to save the earth?
>>
>>18699790
>Nobody froze the evolution of anything.
yes they did. for example, the Tuscan language was frozen by print and imposed as the standard "Italian" language over all the other local languages.
>Explain to me how distinguishing between the German nation and the Japanese nation implies in any way "freezing" the classification in a certain point in time. At what point in time?
mostly in the 19th century. the fact that Austria has been set in stone as its own nation is purely a product of politics of the modern period. and just as easily it could've been for example two distinct nations instead of a single Germany, if the political situation happened to be a bit different in that particular century
Japan is a bit different, because it's an island country, but it still only constituted itself as a nation in the 18th century, by copying Western patterns:
>The concept of Japanese culture was constructed as Japan emerged as a modem nation state in the late nineteenth century, while exercising colonial power over other parts of Asia.... To construct Japanese people (Nihonjin) as distinct from other peoples, the notion of "national character" was borrowed from Western countries.... Around the time of the Sino-Japanese War, the Nihonjin discourse began to flourish in a tide of ethno-nationalism fueled by the victory over China.... The Japanese national character was not merely invented and spread as a discourse; its constitutive personality traits were inculated in pupils in the newly established state education system.... Liu (2001) points out that the national character was created as something that people in Japanese colonies and territories lacked and hence had to learn from Nihonjin....
>[T]here were two theoretical approaches to explaining Japanese superiority. One was to depict the Japanese as ethnically homogeneous and pure, descended from a single blood line, and the other was to emphasize multi-ethnic mixed origins.... the popularity of one approach over the other shifted according to the changing political circumstances. During the interwar period, theories of diverse origins dominated, since they could justify the goals of imperial expansion. The Yamato minzoku (Japanese ethnic nation) was imagined to have come into being through an intermingling of diverse populations in Asia, and the emperor was seen as having led this assimilation in a harmonious way....
>Among invented traditions in modern Japan, kokugo (national language) was particularly important for nation building and colonization. It was invented as an ideology to develop national consciousness among a populace which was yet to be unified as a nation.... Kokugo hardly spread as a spoken language in Japan until the start of radio broadcasting in 1925, and even after this, it was not easily disseminated despite the exercise of harsh punishment for the use of a dialect in school.
and so on and so on...
>>
>>18700957
>for example, the Tuscan language was frozen by print and imposed as the standard "Italian" language over all the other local languages.

How is this freezing anything? Freezing would have implied an idea of the Italian nation with all the different dialects not with one of them made official. Congratulations for disproving your own point.

>the fact that Austria has been set in stone as its own nation is purely a product of politics of the modern period

...and? Kek, you keep writing things that either make little sense or are really not relevant to what we are talking about. Where is the "freezing"?

Do I need to remind you what your argument is? You are arguing that nations are "imposed", because there is an arbitrary idea of nation frozen in time that is applied to a group that has already changed and to groups that existed before. Is this correct?

So you claim the idea of the German nation is the one from 19th century and that is being applied to...what? To the group of people living in Germany right now and to all the ones who lived before?

It doesn't even matter if it's true or not because it's nonsensical, those groups there were there before and the ones who are right here now were/are nations regardless of the idea of nation that you consider arbitrary and how this supposedly arbitrary idea of nation is applied. You cannot impose the status of "nation" on them. They are nations.
>>
>>18693259
Yes a white American barista has so much more in common with a Sudanese bricklayer than another white American with more money than him.
>>
>>18693389
based

>>18693453
You have never read a nazi/fascist source they're incompatible ideologies. It's why Hitler looked down on Mussolini. They only tolerated the Japanese because they admired their chose people ideology.

>>18693745
based

>>18694198
repeating yourself that you think they're fascist doesn't make you sound sane when challenged.

>>18694681
based

>>18694705
You really drank the kool-aid huh if you think your failed ideology is comparable to any hard science

>>18694767
gigabased

>>18694889
You're a dunning kreuger effect. You're not as smart even remotely to the degree you think you are. You've intellectually maybe only moved a few inches since you've been 16 probably.

>>18694958
They never care about the quality of their sources as long as it confirms their biases

Not clicking through all of this thread just take your meds schizo. Wasting peoples time online isn't praxis you will never have a revolution you wanted and if you do, you will be worked to death.
>>
>>18693129
>combat globalism
What is the fear of globalism? What would change? If you want to see globalist culture in action - look at the Internet. Everyone makes their own little clicks, every domain has its own culture, and people still manage to have discourse in every one of them.

Like the Internet, all globalism asks is you keep the pipes working. Keep up the trade of things and ideas, keep up the conversation. It's not going to stop regions from forming their own cultures nor the constant rise of counter-cultures anymore than the Internet does.

What are you fighting against, really?
>>
Bump, I want to keep this thread and the white fragility thread alive
>>
>>18693239
>If nations are imagined communities then what are REAL communities?

The people who elected Joseph Biden.
>>
>>18700614
kek I've never seen that one but it's good
>>
>>18701750
>How is this freezing anything?
in creating an all-"Italian" language for the rest of the duration of capitalism, imposed on all the inhabitants of the region, based on a particular local language at a particular point in history
>Freezing would have implied an idea of the Italian nation with all the different dialects
but that's basically what happened. all the other languages have been degraded to the status of dialects and integrated into the cultural heritage of the manufactured nation of Italy
>...and?
and this is yet another illustration of my point that nations are historical creations contingent on the political conditions at the time they were created

the point is that an essential idea has been established in the 19th century and the current Germany sees itself as sharing it as a common essence with the 19th century Germany, and also projects it further into the past. when some cultural elements get retired over time, the old ones are stamped as specifically German historical heritage. such an element at an earlier time might've been just a particularity of a small region, which only became retroactively claimed as German centuries later. it could've been just as easily claimed as Austrian, had the political roll of the dice been slightly different in the 19th century. on that basis it can't be reasonably claimed that the people sharing this particular cultural element have been German nationals and not Austrian nationals at the time they lived. it can only be said that a German or an Austrian nationality was created later and then claimed their cultural element as its own national property in its conscious nation-building effort, because the power creating the nation happened to rule over their territory in 1871.

there's then a fabricated, immutable idea of "Germanness" that ties those changing cultural etc. determinations together into a single national history. yet, this is a political contingency. we could've had e.g. two German nations, with the set of historical cultural expressions that are now considered expressions of a single German culture being instead split into two sets of, let's say, unmistakably Austro-Bavarian national culture and unmistakably Prussian national culture. this act of sorting cultural expressions, languages and so on into discrete national identities was a contingent political act. there's no nationality in the genes. many different genetically related groups could've been made into a single nation or they could've been able to create their own nations, depending on fortuitous factors. and the groups themselves weren't set in stone either: they themselves would split, join, mix throughout history, and capturing them at different times would've produced different nations with different characteristics. yet those nations always would've been in the end projected back in time, as if they were there for as long as it's humanly possible for national ideologists to stretch the narrative
>>
>>18701870
>Everyone makes their own little clicks, every domain has its own culture, and people still manage to have discourse in every one of them.
>It's not going to stop regions from forming their own cultures nor the constant rise of counter-cultures anymore than the Internet does.
It actually does. People visit LESS unique domains than they did in the days of the late 90s/early 2000s Internet, traffic is increasingly centralized and concentrated in only a few social media sites like YT, Twitter and TikTok.
This makes the unique cultures of blogs and BBS forums merge into a bland potpourri where the mods have complete control over what content is posted or taken down. This is what’s causing the internet to become so boring, it’s all a bland, sterilized and corporate friendly platforms designed to generate ad revenue.
The same is happening to cultures in the real world. You got Germany and you’ll see people wearing the same clothes, the same buildings and the same attitudes and politics that you would see in France.
That’s what globohomo stands for, global homogenization.
>>
>>18698478
Nurse, I'm gonna need the strongest anti-psicotic medication available on the country for this one
>>
>>18693173
>Anderson, the idea of the "nation" is relatively new and is a product of various socio-material forces. He defined a nation as "an imagined political community – and imagined as both
Is france not the land of Franks? Pretty obvious that even if the name was a social evolution the land as a whole was pretty homogeneous culture and people.
>>
>>18702999
>You got Germany and you’ll see people wearing the same clothes, the same buildings and the same attitudes and politics that you would see in France.
Which has been the case for centuries. It's almost always been the case if you dropped a random camera into either country you wouldn't be able to tell which you were in.

Granted, I'll give you that applies to almost the entire world at this point, but that's going to happen, naturally, just by the fact that near anyone can be near anywhere in the world in less than 48 hours, everyone's connected at the speed of light, and everyone needs to make more and more money, as all economies, top to bottom, have to expand to survive.

There's no fighting that - it's been going on since the East India Trading company. At the same time, there's more unique communities on the Internet than there's ever been, and the same remains true in the world, with even individual neighborhoods forming their own microcultures, despite every one of them having a McDonald's.

Much as most of the world's population is in Asia, there's going to be converging regions, and culture will, more and more, spread across borders, but much as you see boba tea and sushi suddenly available in every town in the US, the mix continues in its artificial selection, while communities continue to form and evolve within the grander system. There will always be a grand "main stream" as there's always been a natural pull towards that, but it will continue to give birth to conflicts and unique variants that will either swim on their own and affect the collective in turn, or be swallowed up by a lack of interest.
>>
>>18703660
>everyone needs to make more and more money, as all economies, top to bottom, have to expand to survive.
The ideology of the cancer cell, growth at all costs.
>At the same time, there's more unique communities on the Internet than there's ever been, and the same remains true in the world, with even individual neighborhoods forming their own microcultures, despite every one of them having a McDonald's.
Are you kidding me? Can you name even a single subculture active today, either online or IRL?
Most have been pegged into the fandom mold, so you have bronies, furries and potterfags all making fan art, writing fanfics, having twitter accounts and leftie politics.
Neighborhoods are getting gentrified and replaced with identical corporate friendly architecture.
>Much as most of the world's population is in Asia, there's going to be converging regions, and culture will, more and more, spread across borders, but much as you see boba tea and sushi suddenly available in every town in the US, the mix continues in its artificial selection, while communities continue to form and evolve within the grander system. There will always be a grand "main stream" as there's always been a natural pull towards that, but it will continue to give birth to conflicts and unique variants that will either swim on their own and affect the collective in turn, or be swallowed up by a lack of interest.
You’re confusing cultural exchange with cultural assimilation. All countries have been exchanging culture since forever, the difference with globalization is that this is done in an inorganic way and there is definitely ONE set of values, ONE language, ONE lifestyle, etc that’s being promoted and that’s being a “global citizen” and liberal democracy.
>>
>>18703469
>Is America not the land of Americans? Pretty obvious that even if the name was a social evolution the land as a whole was pretty homogeneous culture and people.
>>
>>18703857
>Are you kidding me? Can you name even a single subculture active today, either online or IRL?
Where do you think you are.

>The ideology of the cancer cell, growth at all costs.
Less an ideology and more an inevitability. No one's developed a more effective model, so everyone uses it.

>ONE set of values, ONE language, ONE lifestyle
By popular demand. There's a certain baseline to allow the trade to continue, which 90% of the world adheres to, but that's about it. Everyone is selling themselves, and some are more effective at it than others. French and German culture are everywhere now, and everyone's culture is similarly competing in France and Germany. The most effective things take hold and spread. Which yes, as it always has been - only its accelerated with transportation and communication technology, and will only accelerate further.
>>
>>18702265
>in creating an all-"Italian" language for the rest of the duration of capitalism

Are you trolling? This statement is nonsense

>but that's basically what happened. all the other languages have been degraded to the status of dialects and integrated into the cultural heritage of the manufactured nation of Italy

You claimed imposing a new language was a freezing of that situation

>>18700957

>Nobody froze the evolution of anything.
>yes they did. for example, the Tuscan language was frozen by print and imposed as the standard "Italian" language over all the other local languages.

I stand by what I wrote, a freezing would have been a conservation of the same dialects with no official italian language. There was no freezing. You defeated your own argument by pointing the Italian example out.

>the current Germany sees itself as sharing it as a common essence with the 19th century Germany, and also projects it further into the past.

Because it objectively does share it, it's a continuation of that nation.

> it could've been just as easily claimed as Austrian

If the cultural difference is there, which is the real distinguishing trait between Austrian and German nations, then no, it couldn't

>on that basis it can't be reasonably claimed that the people sharing this particular cultural element have been German nationals and not Austrian nationals at the time they lived

Uh, says who?

>it can only be said that a German or an Austrian nationality was created later

Who created millions of people with a certain phenotype, language and culture? Also retroactively? Did they go back in time and impregnate a ton of Indo-European women to create it?


> we could've had e.g. two German nations, with the set of historical cultural expressions that are now considered expressions of a single German culture

Pointing out that two nations might arise from one doesn't particularly help or harm your point. It just doesn't seem relevant

>there's no nationality in the genes

A core component of nationality is phenotype, so yes, there is, partially, kek. You can argue it's not always sufficient(Austrians and Germans would probably be a good example of this) but if you claim there's no nationality associated to genes you give the impression that you don't know what a nation is.

Overall you give the impression that you don't fully grasp the stuff we are debating. The way you express it also gives it out. It's overly complex, confused and you occasionally contradict yourself.
>>
>>18704148
>everyone of a given nationality shares in a phenotype because some old anthropologist sketched a few peasants
>>
>>18694198
>it's true though
Racism is a meaningless buzzword use for emotional appeal.
Anyone who brings it up in a discussion is someone who isn't worth listening to.
>>
>>18704172
If you can't see a similarity in phenotypes within nations you might be mentally challenged.
>>
>>18704221
Do you have any idea how scrambled things have become in the last hundred years? That's without even considering the range of appearances the larger nations had to start with, or their pre-industrial demographics. There's a reason those anthropologists liked peasants. What city or nation's capital hasn't had inflows of people from every corner of said country, from the neighboring countries, and so forth? Some of those textbook phenotypes are probably getting hard to find outside of a few exemplars.
>>
>>18704316
fucking kill yourself already
>>
File: 1625672239301.png (4 KB, 305x122)
4 KB
4 KB PNG
>>18704402
Cope
>>
>>18695209
>you have to have proletarian masses that are revolting against the capitalists.
His point was that the October revolution wasn't an organic movement by the proletariat. The only reason you got it was because Germany at the time wanted to subvert a major WW1 power.
This isn't a case of "other classes joining the proletariat", it was purposeful subversion made by The Centre, using The Periphery, AGAINST The Subsidiary. It was never in favor of the so-called "working class".
>>
>>18699812
>yfw medieval popular mass-adoption of last-names like ”Welsh”, ”Croat”, ”Lombard” etc
>>
>>18704316
>t. visitor from 2121
>>
>>18704148
>This statement is nonsense
no it's not. the Italian language was created at one point based on a certain local language, and it will begin disappearing as such once capitalism is abolished and nation states lose their raison d'être. which part do you have problems understanding?
>You claimed imposing a new language was a freezing of that situation
yes, as long as the Italian nation state exists, the other languages of Italy will remain in the status of subordinate dialects and the Italian language will remain an official one.
>a freezing would have been a conservation of the same dialects with no official italian language
no, the situation that became "frozen" is the status quo I described above.
>Because it objectively does share it
no, the nation didn't objectively exist in the past and I already explained why. I'm not going to repeat myself, especially since I want to keep my reply within one post
>If the cultural difference is there, which is the real distinguishing trait between Austrian and German nations
but which traits are distinguishing has been decided at the time the nations were being constituted politically, when different groups of people were partitioned between different nation states, some of their traits consciously assumed as national traits (while other traits could've been repressed for political reasons -- the creation of a national culture is an act of engineering)
>Uh, says who?
says the fact that they were only segregated into different nations retroactively centuries later. I also already explained this
>Who created millions of people with a certain phenotype, language and culture?
there have been many more phenotypes, languages and cultures than there are nations. the act of establishing national languages and cultures was largely an effect of conscious effort and cherrypicking, and then imposing the resulting creation through the education system, and later through the media, onto various groups with different cultures and languages, which has led to a partial or complete extinction of those.
which phenotypes got grouped into a nation, which languages got enforced as national languages, which elements got integrated into the national culture and which discarded -- all of that was a result of a contingent political situation in a given historical period
>Pointing out that two nations might arise from one doesn't particularly help or harm your point.
not from one nation but from zero. wait, do you think Indo-Europeans were a nation?
>It just doesn't seem relevant
it's extremely relevant: it shows how illegitimate the projection of nations into pre-national history is.
>A core component of nationality is phenotype, so yes, there is
first, I already explained how the grouping of phenotypes is arbitrary
second, nobody believes this besides a few edgy /pol/tards and the like, so I won't even waste any more time talking about it

if you want a chance at another reply, then don't ignore the answers this time.
>>
>>18704188
>Racism is a meaningless buzzword use for emotional appeal.
it might be emotional to people who get triggered by such things, but that's about it. the text I pasted wasn't aimed at such people but only at those who can think about such matters coldly and rationally, without unnecessary emotional outbursts. if this isn't you, then I can't help you much. sucks to suck

>>18704729
the communists couldn't have taken control over the major Russian cities without the proletarian movement that has existed since before 1905. if you believe otherwise, you live in a fantasy world
>>
>>18694920
Good post
>>
>>18705064
Past proletarian movements matter little. There wasn't some emerging "class conciouseness" around that time that had any influence or significance. The "communists" (you are in no position to use this word, there were too many brands of socialism at the beggining of the 20th century) took power due to funds from bankers and the german secret service.
Seethe about it. Most people are lumpens and don't give a shit about your materialistic dogmas.
>>
>>18705268
in the real world, as opposed from the conspiracy fantasy land you live in, you can't just take power without the support of a wide social class. the communists were able to take power because the urban proletariat in key cities had been engaged in a wide struggle and for that reason was even more advanced and bold than the bolshevik leadership.
those past movements matter in so far as they give valuable lessons to the current and future movements.
the workers don't need to give shit about any "dogmas". they only need to struggle against their employers, which will naturally push them to connect and gradually grow their partial daily struggles into a universal class struggle against capital. the development of consciousness will follow that process, rather than being a prerequisite for it.
>>
>>18705370
>in the real world, as opposed from the conspiracy fantasy land you live in
didn't read more, in fact I don't have to.
You're going to describe how those movements were truly relevant to the past, present and future emancipation of the working class. Or how "it was actually something the proles fought for": no, bucko. You just eluded yourself.
This (1917 revolution) was created to speed up the end of a geopolitical conflict. Not because workers really give a shit about being exploited, or because other classes wanted to help the meek. Again, The Centre, used The Periphery, against The Subsidiary.
>>
>>18705424
Forgot to add: "It was not this case: The Subsidiary and The Periphery combining forces against The Centre"
For more on this, read de Jouvenel
>>
>>18705424
you can't "create" a revolution out of nothing with a magical spell you tard



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.