-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 12337)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 480 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Historian 12/05/07(Mon)03:17 No. 12337

File 133635346250.jpg - (151.70KB , 640x451 , nationalism.jpg )

What are you /hi/storians thoughts on this ~200 year old ideology, nationalism?

Most people that I've met that has an interests for history tend to be anti-nationalistic. Is anti-nationalism a by-product for having more knowledge of the world history?

Historian 12/05/07(Mon)05:08 No. 12338

I think anti-nationalism is largely the by-product of the immense cynicism and anti-patriotism spawned by the World Wars. It was such a huge shift in popular ideology that I'm surprised that it still exists on any sort of noticeable scale (though the fact that it goes hand-in-hand with the cult of personality probably explains any lingering presence).

Possibly I'm talking out of my arse; this isn't really my area of expertise. I'd be interested to see what the PolSci majors have to say.

Historian 12/05/07(Mon)11:40 No. 12340

I think that in the developed West (W-Europe and North America, not Balkans etc.), the aim of nationalism has mostly shifted. WWII was all about nationalism as nationalist supremacy and irredentism; our nation / culture is superior and should rule all the lands it claims (still an issue for the less developed parts of the world). Today, it's about creating an exclusionary identity. No more focus on gaining territory, or ruling others, but in excluding the "other" from the nation. Hence the immigration / isamophobia debates in nations like France, the Netherlands and the US. And in the case of the US, keep in mind that what is called nationalism in the rest of the world is there "patriotism". The US is one of the most ultra-nationalist nations around.

Nationalism isn't dead, it's just focusing on something else right now.

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)02:10 No. 12341


Polisci major here, you hit the nail on the head there Anon.

Personally I'd say nationalism can have its benefits, but when it gets to the point of "bahaha we're better than everyone else so stay out of our borders!!!" (which unfortunately is nearly always the case) it has ill effects.

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)03:39 No. 12342


As an actual scientist, the very notion of your field of study referring to itself as "political science" is every bit as offensive as "Scientology" and "Church Of Christ Scientist". It seeks to bolster its own legitimacy through usage of the word, but only devalues science. Restraining order please.

Nationalism is tribalism, and politics is religion by another name. Arguments from authority, celebrity worship... completely irrational, it's a junk yard for those whose only areas of expertise are "people skills" and baseless self-promotion. It's a high school popularity contest writ large, by and for the same awful people.

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)04:45 No. 12343


Ohohoho, someone's got their knickers in a twist.

Normally when asked what I study I tell people quite simply "politics" as I agree with you that there's hardly anything scientific about political "science." I only used the term bc >>12338 expressed his interest in seeing "what the PolSci majors have to say."

That being said, history and politics are my two passions; in fact, I find them to go hand in hand. Civilizations would not be able to thrive without law, and well-crafted law can be among the most beautiful of mankind's creations.

While the trade of politicians may be "a high school popularity contest," I'd argue that studying law for the sake of studying, for the sake of appreciating its inherent beauty and awesome power, is not a waste of resources; as a scientist, would you not agree that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a worthwhile pursuit?

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)04:54 No. 12344

personally I study history because political science is too often the breeding ground for retardation, and I'm opposed to culling of access to ideas, or people, and for the culling of credibility for certain ideas as they do indeed lack merit, and a person is not "for" anything that I personally necessarily decide

free agency, the concept of free will, liberty are all interactive with each other, and while technically in the face of scientific determinism it appears to be bunk, the fact of the matter is even in such a case, chaos theory provides an answer to why these things are useful

to think there's anything spectacularly inherently special about an individual nation is pretty stupid, however a certain amount of pride, akin to the pride of even existing is laudable and reasonable

but let's not start treating a certain nation or individual as god here

and there's no needing to have nickers in a twist to notice that what's called patriotism is in fact tribalism and it IS in fact akin to scientology and church of christ scientist, and christian science, and faith healing, and so on

this isn't to say there is no legitimate scientific approach to politics, but it is probably safe to say that what everyone knows of when they think of it, is bunk and shit or simplistic

of course, this may end up being equivalent to genetics and biology, in their eugenics phase during the 1920's, but even there it was pretty clear that the whole eugenics program was fairly illegitimate and based on very ignorant notions of natural selection and just how it might work

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)05:07 No. 12345

I've also seen what tribalism and the whole us vs them dynamic does when it's let off it's leash like a mad dog

let's not forget that the origin of nation states comes from the 30 years war, and the unification of germany comes from the prussian's militarism, and let's not forget tibet's issue because of chinese nationalism/race related drives towards dominating all sino types in the region as part of their own "manifest destiny" type of things

or the actual manifest destiny that led to mass genocide

it's a holier than thou attitude and I've never found that to be much of a help to aiding others and one's self at the same time, only helping one's self at the expense of others en mass and writ large, to use the same phrase as the other guy did

sure, blood is thicker than water, and your family can come first, but it's stupid to think that others will simply lay down and die for you and if you want to bully others in your ignorance you'll find they're willing to give you enough pain that you just can't carry on that way if you want to live even reasonably

there's a point, where, honestly, people just give up on supporting you for such self destructive and mass destructive purposes, and move on

this closed state bullshit is what donald kagan called hubris, it is arrogance (pride basically) but a certain kind, it is the kind that can only be backed up by violence

and civil societies, while they CAN partake in such activities, choose against it for their own good

but this doesn't mean they can't snap at you and be even a speed bump or obstacle that, if it even slows you down a bit, because of how fast you need to go, how aggressive you need to be, just to keep up that veneer of unity or worthiness or righteousness, stomping people and then moving on as quick as possible to distract people


since I'm sure that the whole greek elections thing is common news by now, that the neo nazi party got 7% of the popular vote roughly apparently

I'll tell you to look up some fiction

"the prophet of truth" - from halo: harvest

what america has been doing lately and the lack of support for it world wide now

the demise of britain's empire and collapse of conservatism because of margaret thatcher and other jackasses

adam smith's warning about the vile maxim of the owners of mankind, which says little about conspiratorial intent and is more just a mode of behaviour, which could easily be ignorant and still successful at it like a child manipulating their parents

the collapse of the soviet union

bush's being elected out

rabies describes the ignorant pompous attitudes well, and I'll point out that might does make right, but you can't have might unless you have support, and if fear's the only driver then you'll find it only works so far, and eventually, it's the rats that keep struggling, if only for the chance to know they existed, if only to give you a scar to remember them by if no one else will or can, or if only to have revenge to revoke one's own existence for impinging on theirs

then you'll start to see why nationalism isn't very good, because it's "my survival is the most important so I'll just consider myself and give myself "the right" to have special reasons and magical thinking"

even the most peaceful individuals won't stand for that, when push comes to shove, and you know what?

that's the way sociopaths behave, and they don't know it, and they get away with a fair bit, but they sure as hell get punished all the same

dawkins has a great bit where he describes something like naives, cheats, and grudgers

nationalism is the cheats version, grudgers are the anti-nationalists, and naives are the ones who have yet to learn about it

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)05:11 No. 12346

another, simpler way of putting it is

if you've got a little country screaming about how only a certain kind of person should exist, you'd better watch out because most of the world might have a lot of people that they're friends and family with that aren't on that list

and they couldn't give half a shit about a nationalist's "heaven on earth" without those people

and they won't stand by and watch others destroy the world as it is, that they might not love entirely, but they're not willing to see it go either, just because some little cunt bitch is a nihilist looking for meaning in life and looking in all the wrong places

all this dynamic is made possible because we're talking about interactions between humans, who can interbreed and interact on relatively the same level, and it's best you not forget that if you wanna do well

questions? :)

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)09:13 No. 12348

You made me do a brain. You seem learned, I've just stated reading a book called Larzousse Encyclopedia of Ancient and Medieval History. Is it worth the read? Also what do you think of the current socialist regimes in south America? Venezuela in particular.

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)12:04 No. 12349

Why do you hate punctuation?

Historian 12/05/08(Tue)19:03 No. 12350

He doesn't hate punctuation. He just hates periods.

He probably ate at the Y during red tide.

Historian 12/05/09(Wed)01:09 No. 12352

>>12343 here.

Apologies. Half a dozen of my close childhood friends were all poll-sci majors. None of them know the first fucking thing about any of topics they profess to be an expert on, and every time they get to talking it makes my skin crawl. I've asked them what it means to know something, what is knowledge, what is an informed decision worth vs... etc, and all I ever get is essentially "whatever popular opinion says". If I didn't hear the same shit out the mouths of every attorney and politician, I'd be more optimistic about where the US is heading, but..

I actually can imagine society without law, because law is essentially a few people deciding upon a rule of human behavior that's applied universally to the many, a construct built upon at least three seriously flawed premises with terrible track records of application. Society without law is exactly what we get when we amass 20 research scientists in a room. Their pursuit of knowledge trumps ill-fitting laws made by ignorant people for dubious and often nefarious purposes.

Much like religious zealots really only respect the severely nonsensical ancient laws of their gods, those who dedicate their lives to the scientific pursuit of knowledge must ignore arguments of authority and respect only the laws of nature. ...unless you're working on a US grant. Then you do what they say. ...otherwise, you go to a country that values your research. ...which is why we lost the particle physics game, the energy game, and are losing bio as well.

The US is strawberrying itself hard.

Historian 12/05/18(Fri)09:14 No. 12390

File 133732528039.jpg - (59.23KB , 505x859 , dohoho.jpg )


straight up yo. oh shit I fucked up

well, fine, here, has a yale lecture, I watched the whole damn thing, and another one I like is donald kagan's lecture series on ancient greece


and a picture I made out of straight up boredom, I don't know what kinda meme it is, but if you can see those two saying it, the third suddenly doesn't look so great does he now?

Historian 12/05/18(Fri)19:17 No. 12394

Sure, if you didn't know anything at all about who these people were, what they did, and what their intentions were.

I fully expect to hear that slogan again, most probably by a modern-day US conservative against welfare, immigrants, or healthcare. It is the bourgeoise place to toil and be taxed on their own labor, like the slaves they are. What did Romney just call it, the "dignity of having a job". Yea, being trapped in a system of indentured servitude is really dignified.

Historian 12/05/18(Fri)21:09 No. 12395

>Yea, being trapped in a system of indentured servitude is really dignified.

because being trapped in a system of indentured 'entitlement' servitude is MORE dignified.

Historian 12/05/18(Fri)21:24 No. 12397


Who said anything about being entitled to anything? As an antisocial asshole who puts in wayyy more than I get out of this country, I'll own the conceit of the self-reliant. ...assuming everyone else will be self reliant too. But don't be so quick to toss entitlement around. The do-nothing people at the top & bottom both feel entitled to each others slice of the pie. Both have their crappy reasons, but rarely ever address the fact that they're incomplete people, unable to provide themselves with their own food shelter & clothing for survival. This is the legacy of civilization. Hooray for specialization, allowing and now encouraging you to be an idiot.

Historian 12/05/19(Sat)07:18 No. 12405


you are absolutely correct, I am in fact one of those people who is on the bottom with a certain degree of just that

however I was raised in that kind of environment, and I'm even now only beginning to really learn what it's like to not have that

the USA has been consistently playing along the lines of nationalism since it's inception, and howard zinn and noam chomsky have argued and pointed out numerous things that would definitely explain why the USA does imperialist things from the getgo, like I said, manifest destiny

many loyalists came to my country of canada during/after the revolution, due to fleeing or being kicked out, we've had our own fair share of things

many draft dodgers came to this country as well

the war of 1812 is an example of british and united states imperialism clashing over canada

however the natives were the primary losers as they were the proxies by which both sides fought a lot by and after the war expansion westwards by both groups occurred, further harming the native populations

that was 200 years ago that war

you guys in the USA don't know much about what it's like to have different nations within the same country, in canada here we have quebec as a sort of nation, english canada as a sort of nation, and various aboriginal groups as nations

there's lots of friction but we don't bomb the shit out of everyone all the time because our governmental approach is to provide a UN style framework for our own, and I suspect the provincial system allows for greater swathes of land to have similar laws and the fewer numbers of players in terms of governments that have to talk allows for some higher degree of homogenization of the laws without allowing domination by ottawa, which is our version of washington

even as many of us complain about stephen harper, he's done nothing NEAR what US congress has done that people hate, and in fact, much of what we don't like, is that we think he's relying on the USA to do the dirty work the way the USA was using turkish prisons to say it doesn't torture, or guantanamo bay

to argue that it's not illegal so it's okay, which many government supporters do when it does torture and indefinite detention and other tyrannical things, is to say "diplomatic immunity" like the bad guy from lethal weapon 2

Historian 12/05/19(Sat)07:25 No. 12406

so, I'll say this

indentured "entitlement" servitude does not mean to say "I have a right to a decent life"

it means "I have the right to decide for others what a decent life is"

if one compares the two, corporate CEO's/government officials compared to even let's say.... welfare queens and hipsters?

one can see that it's easily preferable to have many hipsters for the same or lower cost than CEO's

has nobody ever heard the term power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

bias and selfishness are far too costly to ignore for positions of great power

I guess what I'm saying is that those "entitled poor" are more numerous but far less dangerous than entitled elites

I include intellectual elites, I include political elites, I include business elites, religious elites, social elites

in a large way, everyone is selfish given the chance, in many ways

to guard against the greatest abuses is the primary excuse for government, and I will point out ye olde smedley butler quote

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

sp1000!!R1Awt3ZmOx 13/05/21(Tue)04:13 No. 13754

File 136910240145.jpg - (53.13KB , 610x415 , 1367356892686.jpg )

anti nationalism is a product of the way
we are starting to less see our self's in the west as a unified country. we act like this is just a random assortment of people around us that we share no ties to. In the east most of the hyper educated still have this cultural identity so you see them as very proud in there country and are very pro Chinese/south Korean/Indian
Not hurr durr usa is number one nationalism but a sense of belonging and conman ties that is often the base of staunch nationalism

Historian 13/05/22(Wed)18:19 No. 13759

Modern ideas of nationalism is inaccurate to what it original was intended to be in national socialism. It was not about creating a world of one ethnic group, but it was about letting each race have their own territory because we believe that when you have multiple races in one area they will naturally segregate themselves and this will cause violence within the country. It was also a movement away from what we traditionally hold as left and right economics, and a shift to a society where you can help the poor man help himself. You do not take from the rich and give to the poor, but you enable the poor to work hard and better their society as a whole. It was about forming a personally identity on the collective identity instead of forming a collective identity based upon the personal identity. It's not about hatred of other groups of countries, but proud in your own and a wanting to set an example for the people around you.
Hitler himself got to power by wanting to fix the German people and enable them to help themselves. So when he did this and he finds out that people in Poland are killing innocent ethnic Germans he had to stop it. There's more out there then mainstream historians will often mention, but I believe it is important to understand why they did the things they did. Sure they did some bad things but every country has. I just wish we could have seen how national socialism would fare long-term.

Historian 13/05/22(Wed)22:49 No. 13761


We did see how national socialism fared. It died during birth, same as Marxist communism.

Historian 13/05/24(Fri)01:17 No. 13763


speaking of the harper government's economic action plan.... and an ideology of helping the poor help themselves by hating on liberals/socialists


24. This poster dates to the 29 March 1936 referendum. The text reads: “No German must freeze. 11.5 million cubic meters of coal have been provided by the Winter Relief. That is 4 times the volume of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. That is *one* of the Führer’s accomplishments. Give him your vote!”

-Courtesy of Dr. Robert D. Brooks.


63. This poster was also issued shortly after the Anschluß with Austria. The caption: “One People, One Reich, One Führer.”

Historian 13/06/06(Thu)09:28 No. 13794

Not really. Nationalism is a healthy and natural trait for nations to have.

Historian 13/06/06(Thu)09:53 No. 13795

I'm struggling to think of an example in which nationalism is healthy and doesn't spin out of control into destruction.

Historian 13/06/07(Fri)01:42 No. 13796

Not sure. I feel like, in my case, at least, I am a nationalist whilst not being one at the same time. I want democracy and freedom of expression to be spread to all nations out of my sympathy for others and my desire to see them happy, but at the same time, I like Western countries more than others specifically because they already conform to those qualities.

Historian 13/06/07(Fri)10:12 No. 13799

your position is known as "neo-conservatism"
you are also what's called a north american/european exceptionalist

many of the democratic behaviours one espouses as existing only in "the west" have been in practice since sumeria and even before that in the middle east

furthermore, in as far as a "nation" decides to be democratic, it does so through a rigorous opposition to the government (because that's the powers that be, who like their power to remain at a level commonly known as "lots")

and furthermore, a lack of introspection combined with an investigation of the internal situation of other societies leads people to totally miss these important things - giving the illusion that we are somehow by default, more free than middle easterners or chinese

while a rigorous investigation will turn up that we are more free than they are, the reason is predominantly that in our case, civil dissidents made lots of progress in scaring the government from it's excesses

today, many of the displays are far more symbolic, peaceful protests and so on, and way less in the form of angry mobs with sticks taking over territory like it was some kind of legit army (sharpened sticks being spears) and that's important

so the dissidents of one nation, or group inspire the dissidents of another, and then cruelty to people you know gets you angry at the regime in power, and then you go out and display this, and any injury to you inspires others, etc etc etc

Historian 13/06/07(Fri)10:20 No. 13800

Youtube  these two clips demonstrate what I'm talking about quite well


and it works whether you say "praise the lord" or "allahu ackbah" or even "ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH"

it's a pretty universal theme, really

Historian 13/07/29(Mon)10:44 No. 13857

The Greeks were nationalists, weren't they?

Historian 13/07/30(Tue)07:59 No. 13862

I've been listening to audio on thucydides' accounts of the peleponnesian war(s) and I'd say yes - and I feel comfortable pasting wikipedia's entry on it because it's about right from what I got between what donald kagan, and thucydides say about it all


They were named after a series of speeches that failed to effectively warn the Greeks of the danger of Philip of Macedon (Philip's son was Alexander the Great, one of the greatest conquerors of all time.[citation needed])


Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally a limited and formalized form of conflict, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating vast swathes of countryside, and destroying whole cities, the Peloponnesian War marked the dramatic end to the fifth century BC and the golden age of Greece.[3]


For a short period of time, Athens was ruled by the 'Thirty Tyrants' and democracy was suspended. This was a reactionary regime set up by Sparta. The oligarchs were overthrown and a democracy was restored by Thrasybulus in 403 BC.

Although the power of Athens was broken, it made something of a recovery as a result of the Corinthian War and continued to play an active role in Greek politics. Sparta was later humbled by Thebes at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, but it was all brought to an end a few decades later when Philip II of Macedon conquered all of Greece.

Historian 13/08/20(Tue)09:20 No. 13877

Nationalism is what we call tribalism today.

Tribalism has been around since before hominids were hominids.

No. Some+racist+korean 13/08/28(Wed)21:29 No. 13896

Nationalism only works in countries united in morale. Germany in the 1930s. FUCK YEAH Nationalism worked! America in the 1930s. Meh, it worked to satisfaction, but not exceedingly, like in Germany.

I can't come up with any good counter-examples, so you'll have to take my word:
Nationalism is for Napoleonic dictators who want to wage massive wars. Otherwise, it's a bad idea, mmmkay.

Most educated living people think that other living people have property rights. Nationalism is generally disdained, but knowledge of historical countries who found success through nationalism may change that (in a few cases.) Have you ever met a hobo who's nationalistic?

Historian 13/08/29(Thu)15:32 No. 13900

isn't nationalism the only remedy for political corruption?

I mean other than taking corrupt politicians out back and shooting them, but the government is so corrupt that'd never pass.

Historian 13/09/05(Thu)01:44 No. 13909

Nationalism/tribalism rises and falls with civilizations, not because of any specific reasons but rather a culmination of them (WW2 and international TV and Internet I think are big modern ones)

It will rise again and I dare say it is on the rise quickly in Europe what with all the Muslims.

Historian 13/10/05(Sat)03:51 No. 13950

Nationalism is a whipping-boy for the media and the Leftist-Socialists of academia. In its modern incarnation, nationalism was a direct result of the end of feudalism. Does anyone want to go back to being a serf?

The world gave Socialism a thorough try and two of its leaders...not even including Hitler...killed 100 million of their own followers. As for the Euro-socialist fad, no it's not as bloody-handed as German National Socialism or Soviet Socialism, but only because it has NOT replaced nationalism. If you think that Nationalism is dead in Europe, go to Paris and call one of the natives a German, and then just hope that French universal health care is all that it is cracked up to be.

Seriously, what are the alternatives to Nationalism? Socialism? Feudalism? An Iranian (or Israeli) style theocracy? Or do we do it the American and Japanese way and just have rule by fiat from the major corporations?

I know its flaws, but given the options, I don't see a choice that comes close to being as good as simple old Nationalism.

Historian 13/10/06(Sun)22:41 No. 13951

I seem to recall russia being pretty brutal to the ukrainians and other absorbed states

I also seem to recall germany doing the same, I distinctly recall china had a tendency to hate on tibet

and I recall also that it's funny thing that coincidentally their closest aligned people were along national lines, slavs, sino, germano

Historian 13/10/08(Tue)04:24 No. 13960

Isn't nationalism just elevating the idea of patriotism and nation to the dame tier of god?

or I guess just this taken from wikipedia:
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with his or her nation

So what I am saying is nationalism is something that could exist along side:
Socialism, Feudalism, Theocracy.

So maybe you are looking for National Socialism = NAZI ? They were a socialist economy. You just had to be a pure Aryan to receive the benefits of the society.

Or some form of Fascism(which is very poorly defined in general)?

Historian 13/10/08(Tue)20:58 No. 13962

There is an old saying that goes that goes History is always written by the winners.

Historian 13/10/09(Wed)04:36 No. 13963

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

the co-operative management aspect rules out any form of dictatorship or totalitarianism or any anti-social stuff

since socialism cannot be anti-social by definition, therefore anything you call socialist that is anti-social is not in fact socialist

fascism is pretty well established already

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ was a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, the first fascist movements emerged in Italy around World War I, combining elements of left-wing politics with more typically right-wing positions, in opposition to communism, socialism, liberal democracy and, in some cases, traditional right-wing conservatism. Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left–right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate.[3][4]

Fascists sought to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promoted the mass mobilization of the national community,[5][6] and were characterized by having a vanguard party that initiated a revolutionary political movement aiming to reorganize the nation along principles according to fascist ideology.[7] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism.

hence why howard zinn? or noam chomsky? point out the ridiculousness of trying to label the USSR as socialist

it's like calling korea the democratic people's republic of korea or DPRK or whatever

Historian 13/10/09(Wed)07:16 No. 13965

Isn't it a little anti-social to hand the power of the market(even just the choice of who gets what size piece o pie) over to one entity... the state.

It's just a economic system. These terms seem to become very loaded with connotations. Even from the definitions provided you could see how a Totalitarian state could make use of a socialist economy.

When you take the wikipedia definition of Nationalism this statement seems to make no sense: radical authoritarian nationalism

It seems like polsci's are just slapping the word nationalism onto things maybe because the politicians that created them slapped that word onto it to convince their nation. Cause how could some on born of a nation hate the idea of nationalism.


Historian 13/10/09(Wed)22:12 No. 13966

So it was the 'Union of Soviet (?) Republics'? Accept it, my friend; socialism, and yes, that does include German 'National Socialism' is the bloodiest belief system to ever plague planet Earth. To point at the Nazis, or Stalin, or Mao, and say 'oh, but they weren't REAL socialists!'...that is simply refusing to accept the cold, hard, murderous reality.

Historian 13/10/11(Fri)09:06 No. 13969

weird people o_o do you have any actual history and culture or are you like that person that tries to defend pedophilia in /sci/ ?

Historian 13/10/11(Fri)10:16 No. 13971

File 138147940560.jpg - (138.53KB , 400x300 , GlennBeckRetardism.jpg )

>'National Socialism'
The actual word you should be using is Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. That's the party's actual name, and it doesn't fit your keyword filter. Germans weren't too keen on using English back then... well, okay, even less than they are now.

You really should learn what actual socialism is, and what the Nazi party was, instead of just depending on Glenn Beck as a single source.

Historian 13/10/11(Fri)15:03 No. 13972

Actual socialism is just a economic system. The rest of the system can be model in any way.How fucking retarded are kids these days that they cant differentiate between a economic system and a political system. You can have a totalitarian state that practices socialism, you can have democratic republic practice socialism, you can have parliamentary monarch practice socialism. How fucking dense are you that you can not differentiate the two subjects? Your response to people not liking past incarnations of socialism could be: "well that was a totalitarian system it mattered little in that case what the economic system was, I would like a democratic society that practiced socialism myself". It's that simple. TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS FUCKING CHRIST PEOPLE.

Historian 13/10/12(Sat)03:34 No. 13974

you clearly haven't been listening to chris hedges enough if you think economics and politics are separate in regards to governments

just like democracy is always in effect even under stalinism, and what people are describing is a desire when they talk about political democracy...

control of the economy is always within the government's grasp to a larger extent than any other thing with the exception of banana republics and oligarchies (which are a crossing line between the same power structures ruling both economics/politics as separate fields)

socialism is not an economics term it is a socio-political-economic term and refers to democratic operations of the state alongside laws that protect people from too much predation (some independent capitalist behaviour is fine, lots even) but there is a limit to what can be allowed before an entity self destructs like a junkie looking to inject more oil into their veins

since nobody here wants to go back to shitting on leaves and having a 2 mile radius territory, being less of a junkie and more of a responsible user of oil is in their best interests

Historian 13/10/12(Sat)07:28 No. 13975

This is exactly why i am saying you people are brainwashed. Look at the truth you people any time you say that you give them more power...

Historian 13/10/12(Sat)14:03 No. 13976

Yes, petty little protests crushed under the heels of the powerful are such a benefit to society. DOWN WITH THE 1% EAT THE RICH!

Historian 13/10/12(Sat)15:57 No. 13977

of course oil is involved.....

socio-political-economic... oh i see it covers all spectrum's cause you have a boner for it.

Historian 13/10/13(Sun)16:09 No. 13979


how did women get the right to vote?
same general concept

Historian 13/10/13(Sun)16:12 No. 13980

I've got the biggest war-on right now

I love all the tanks and guns and planes, so I'm biased against socialism because it's poor and makes stupid looking things

but capitalism and nationalism give me what I need as a war stuff junkie

still, I'm gonna have to say no to nationalism and yes to socialism because I'm not a complete retard

and I will just have to accept that one day, funkers350 will run out of content that I haven't seen yet

Historian 13/10/13(Sun)17:45 No. 13981

You do realize economic freedom is part of freedom right? Like you can get your nice house if you work hard enough, you can be a a moral bastard if you want as well and it is very unfortunate that it happens. But I want the ability to have a fuckton of riffles and over the top expensive car and 3 to 4 acres of land for me to do what ever I want with, with out having to pay a massive protection fee to a company that decides the law of the land and who and what my money to support. People need to be educated on morals, and ethics. Taught simple do unto others and you wish those do unto you. A massive control mechanism is not a advancement in humanity, humanity naturally caring for each other is an advancement, it is false if it is forced and shaky and amoral in its self. Laws are no way to teach society how to be decent humans considering that would be contradictory to the idea of all humans having freewill.

Historian 13/10/15(Tue)10:03 No. 13985

I just want the freedom to deny you freedom

that or I want 100% freedom through capitalist means
that or have all the land (fair and square) all the guns (fair and square) all the money (fair and square) and all the people believing me and not you (fair and square)

and I want everyone in the government to believe me (fair and square)

Historian 13/10/15(Tue)10:07 No. 13986

as a neo-liberal and neo-conservative, I also just want the freedom to dictate what morality is and what ethics are worthwhile having (fair and square)

and if I can't have this then I'd rather have a society where me and a few hundred can do this to millions using a bunch of nasty indirect measures because of our money

it's probably better in a way for people like me because then you never know who to hit and if you hit one another will take their place easily making removal of our cancerous power structures almost impossible without an educated group of people and thus I could go around misinforming people and saying that it was ethical of me to behave like that

I am so happy with freedom, that I think I'll work with the local ostensibly uncorrupt government to fund and develop systems for spying on the population in the name of protecting them against communists and terrorists and socialists and get my own modern day praetorian phalax in front of my building anytime people come as a group to say they don't like what I'm doing!

Historian 13/10/17(Thu)12:34 No. 13987


Patriot Act

Marthial law

National Defense Authorization Act.

Aviation and Transportation Security Act

PDD 51


Historian 13/10/18(Fri)03:54 No. 13989

It's the only thing that is fair and true to human nature is a true freemarket system, It plays to the reality of the human soul people are naturally needy, greedy and competitive. The reason allot of people even try is because of the need to work(including myself). You cant demand a utopia such as yours and say it's fair to those who worked very hard to get where they are.

Also through observation it seems when the government is left in control of money it is pissed away and very little of it gets back to actually helping the citizens and world at large. When ever a new service is provided with a government service remember, the politicians buddy's get the contract at a ridiculous inflated price and fuck everyone around them in the ass.

A system you yourself say is flawed as it is rotten to the core(my opinion as well). You wanna give them more control? Are you mad? You enjoy suffering and nepotism?

The reason so much money is squandered and lost from our people and economy is from the policies they enact, services which they fund, wars they start. They are the ones fucking up money. They are the evil.

I long for a day of US isolationism, in which the governments only function is to deal with interstate conflicts and provide a modest defense program(not the blown to shit proportion we have now). Any laws out side of the constitution left to the state. That's my dream at least.

Historian 13/10/18(Fri)04:27 No. 13990


don't question our national objectives like some sort of SOCIALIST.

Historian 13/10/18(Fri)06:46 No. 13993

Patriot Act

Martial law

National Defense Authorization Act.

Aviation and Transportation Security Act

PDD 51



Agenda 21

UN Global Compact

don't question our global objectives like some sort of NATIONALIST.

Historian 13/10/21(Mon)11:05 No. 13998

how dare the league of nations defy the NDSAP/NAZIs

Historian 13/10/28(Mon)15:54 No. 14002

I find it ironic that the most notorious nationalist in history was an immigrant

Historian 13/10/28(Mon)20:06 No. 14003


Don't forget Joe Stalin, who is remembered as the ultimate Russian nationalist (not to mention a brutal tyrant who killed many times more people than Hitler). His real name was Josef Djugashvilli, and he wasn't Russian...he was Georgian.

Historian 13/10/30(Wed)00:54 No. 14010

But was Stalin 'really' a nationalist?

Historian 13/10/30(Wed)21:43 No. 14012

I think so.

When Josef Stalin shut down the Comintern, the 'Communist International', he ceased actively trying to export the "glorious worker's revolution" to the rest of the world. His subsequent actions as General Secretary of the CPSU were always concerned with furthering the best interests of the Soviet Union, and, thereby, his own self. Stalin viewed the Soviet Union in EXACTLY the same way the Czars had viewed the Russian Empire. Stalin proved himself not only to be a nationalist, but the epitome of a particularly brutal, bloodthirsty form of nationalism.

Just ask the Czechs and the Hungarians.


Delete post []
Report post