So If you don't really care about equality and muh working class but you hate capitalism for the cosmopolitarianism...

how?

A bootlicking dumbass.

Read Marx.

this is not really an answer m8

It is. You'll know it when you have done as I said.

The eternal bookfag strikes again.

just say how it is inconsistent then faggot.
i don't even consider myself a marxist to begin with.

Because you're imagining 'folkish' nation-states or nation-sized 'peoples' as something antagonistic to capitalism, when the centralised national powers we know and love were only really constituted as secure hegemonic entities with the advent of a particular early stage of mercantile capitalist development. Now capitalism has entered a stage in which deterritorializing movements are undermining the basis of old capitalist nation-states, you've thrown your toys out of the pram and are trying to hold onto some fictional pre-capitalist national unity in the guise of an edgy anti-capitalism. You blame capitalism for destroying the autonomy of nation states, when it was capitalism that created nation states by destroying the autonomy of smaller folkmotes and regional localities in the first place. That's why it's inconsistent.

but im not really for nation-states thought.

nazbols ladies and gentlemen

What's the alternative to
then?

Pretty good explanation of your position, however it rests on the genetic fallacy that anything conceived by 19th century bourgeois liberalism is necessarily and inextricably tied into it, which would make Marxism itself self-refuting. There is further depth there that a vulgar materialist analysis based on the historical development of the European nation-states that Marx examined that you conveniently completely ignore. I don't think Marx ever said "deterritorializing" either, chuckled at that one.

similar local cultures form a federation but with no hegemonic culture

Unironically Google Bookchin my man, check the catalog there's a top tier book thread should still be alive I hope.

I wasn't trying to give the orthodox Marxist explanation; I was saying that on the face of it it's inconsistent to be anti-capitalist because it globalises when, you'd think, you'd simultaneously have to be pro-capitalist because it makes nations exist. The ordo-marxist position on this contradiction is pretty straightforward: capitalism was once progressive (in destroying old feudal ties and ossified pre-capitalist relationships), now it's reactionary (in posing the limit of capital accumulation and production-for-profit on productive forces with a much wider potential). How do you solve the inconsistency of defending something constituted arbitrarily to fulfill the needs of capital when capitalism is (very successfully) tearing it to pieces?

will look him upp but i"m not really a fan of anarchism. i stil believe in some kind of centralized state. not as centralized as Stalins USSR but stil.

He's nowhere near a retarded anarkiddie, and (rightfully) distanced himself completely from the term anarchism later in his career. He's not the final answer and I disagree with some of it but it's a huge step in the right direction in an ocean of stale shit.

In what world are ancient Empires and modern nation-states the same thing? The state and legal apparatuses are completely different. Ancient Empires arose sporadically while capitalist nation-states have become practically diplomatic requirements.

What I'd consider reality, broadly.

aijhss.cgrd.org/images/vol2no2/4.pdf

industrialization and the flowering of liberal democracy, and thereafter became the blueprint for global political organization, was more a consequence of European hegemony than it was the development of a new kind of state.

Who was it who was just talking about a 'genetic fallacy'? The question of where we can first discern the formal outline of the nation state is of very little interest when you, apparently, want to sketch out a formal outline in which nationalism is the universal form, in which ~everyone~ has a national identity or can form 'cultural' federations as a model political unit (which will always raise the question of where the edge is).

It's clearly not equivalent (as in genetic fallacy), as you were the one arguing they were solely artificial and structural elaborations brought about by the development of industrial capitalism in the 19th centruy Europe and are thus contingent upon it, making anti-captialism and any form of nationalism mutually exclusive. I simply showed this was a dramatic oversimplification, and might be arguing instead for something like a continuity of the form that is not directly explained by strict material analysis in the classical Marxist sense, upon which you implictly relied despite invoking Deleuze in addition or whatever. You can talk about there being no edge but I could say the same for distinct languages of the same family, and many other relevant phenomena, and so this, too, is not an argument.

But language families don't need an edge, areas of political sovereignty do, unless you're proposing some novel formation where people don't know what state they're living under.

But this is the thing, what explains it that you 'might' be arguing for? And how do you explain the continuity of the form (which isn't that 'continuous' when you consider the number of state-formations that have ruled Egypt across the millennia) without any regard for the modern ubiquity of the form? Pointing out one very ancient example is hardly a confirmation of universality, or of nations as something that aren't 'solely artificial' (are you proposing they're 'natural'?). Why nations if not the thing that made them universal in the modern era?

Firstly, you appear to be equivocating between nations and nation-states, the two are related but definitely distinct concepts. I favor some kind of libertarian confederalism where national boundaries are determined by the people, though I'm unsure of my exact position, I'm just sick of the smug dogmatism that chokes the academic left like a weed, and my only intention here was to refute your basic argument of obvious mutual exclusivity. I have no further reason to elaborate or provide further counterarguments, I may do so in another thread.

No kidding?

As in, I feel as though you have conceded this point, which was the sole question of the thread, and it's now moving the goalposts to suggest that I now need to provide a complete positive vision to your satisfaction. All I had to do was show your vision to be incomplete.

Wasn't this the question of the thread? As in, not using one example of a very ancient 'nation-state' to draw equivalence with the ubiquity of nation-states in the modern era; but trying to find out what one very confused nazbol thinks about politics.

The interesting question was mutual exclusivity, not yet another -ism label and adolescents screeching "reactionary" as if they have a clue about anything. It's funny that you call me confused, while you seem quite lost yourself, relying on a dated mode of materialist analysis, yet are suggesting Ancient Egypt nation-state did not emerge out of material conditions. Nowhere did I suggest that the modern nation-state was not closely linked to the underlying material conditions of capitalism, all I said is it is not solely explained by or reducible to this. I could give other examples but you seem to be evading this obvious point, so I can safely determine you are not exactly arguing in the best of faith. I'd like to continue the discussion another time but I have to go to bed

As in you are the one now suggesting this starkly modern nation-state somehow emerged spontaneously, and haven't given an explanation in Marxist terms, in an effort to save your argument.

The rich liberal yuppies are actually ficking over poor minorities by moving into their neighborhoods with gentrification. The poor whites and working class will always be the poor non whites best ally,not the rich white liberals. Porky just jas made poor whites blame non whites but it is very easy to cure racism.

The thing is, that isn't an interesting question. You could learn that just by reading an old-ass book. Why people on the internet invent strange kinds of novel libertarian-federalist anticapitalist nationalism under a half-nazi, half-communist flag, however, is an interesting question.

who said the federations would be libertarian?

...

...

Looky v

oh i thought you talked about the nazbol earlier

You still haven't demonstrated that you understand even the difference between a nation and a nation-state and are falling back on your "old ass book", which I agreed was old: now hopelessly dated and inadequate on its own in the current era. Your only recourse is to now suggest I am an oddity, worthy only of psychoanalytic dissection, when in reality, your understanding is simply defective, as I have shown. Why you must act like you have some kind of authority or standing as though you aren't a contrarian yourself in 2017 is pretty remarkable, and shows the density of the "scholars" who still cling to the mantle of anti-capitalist thought well past their expiry date.

...

it's not the same nazbol

I know it's wishful thinking but I assumed there was only one, very active, Nazbol on here.

You've suggested that the idea that nation-states are ubiquitous due to a particular stage of capitalist development is 'dated', but except by counterposing some vague mystical structuralism which assumes that the nation is a transhistorical constant because the Egyptians had one, I don't think you've demonstrated anything.

I've demonstrated your naive economism is pretty much useless. But keep insisting that I've made a claim the current formal nation-state and all its accouterments is mystical and transhistorical. It's pretty embarrassing that you slip in such terms while having such an impoverished perspective. From your ignorance springs arrogance, and it's telling. That's why I see no reason to divulge further, as you haven't even got past the strawman you've slapped together.

they really did pick a shitty design for the flag tho, it reminds me too much to that scene from the simpsons, and from what I know they sympathise more with Mussolini than Hitler so I don't get why they didn't just stick some fasces into the hammer and sickle, maybe they didn't do it because it would encourage people to call them fascists derisively