Tfw being an Alt-Rightist is a mental disorder

...

Gee, how did you know?

Black nationalism is a far right ideology.

Nation states predate capitalism m80.

Someone hasn't been reading his Hobsbawm

Why does Holla Forums hate Jim again? He always called out liberals not communists.

Holy shit you men are all autistic

Go away, baity troll.

Don't know who he is, but he apparently thinks engaging in conversation with a Nazi Frog is a good use of his time, and I will extrapolate from that that he has bad politics.

...

Enlighten me tankie.

Nothing wrong with that. To much focus on not being insane only distracts from propaganda of the deed. But granted, so does ones mother.

The constitution of nation-states occurs with the bourgeois revolutions.

The NATION-state is a creation of the French Revolution, same as most 19th and so on ideologies.

Before that the state wasn't the nation. It was the piecies of land the king and his barons had. Once the King wasn't "The chosen of God" the bourgies created the "nation-state".

You know.. Like in our cyberpunk dystopia, coprorations replace nations.

keimena11.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hobsbawm_nations_and_nationalism_since_1780.pdf

A nation state is a centralized political organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force that derives its legitimacy from a shared sense of national/ethnic/civic identity from its citizens. This description fits a number of pre 1789 states including some Ancient Greek post-Roman Italian city states, the early Roman republic. I've heard Ancient China also be described as a nation state but I don't know enough about it to say. Hell even pre-revolutionary France started to look like a nation state under Louis XIV.

And when does the realization of the universal citizen become historical fact?

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

Proto-nationalism isn't nationalism.

How is nationalism under the Roman Republic different than 19th century nationalism?

...

See

By which of course I mean how is it conceptually different? Romans clearly had a common identity as Romans, complete with national myths, a professed character of their nation, and a sense of shared Roman-ness through cultural, linguistic, geographical and political unity.

Sounds like nationalism to me.

See

If you have an argument that challenges what I'm saying then just tell me what it is m8.

Rome was a multicultural empire, and much of the modern conception of it which may give it the appearance of a nation-state is a result of modern national mythology from Romance countries (what Hobsbawm calls their invented traditions).

"Roman-ness" was a political muh privilege, not an identity.

Don't read it for the purposes of an internet argument, read it if you care about understanding nationalism…

Lad your answer begins from the very first page.

But the short of it is you're confusing historically contiguous forms with abstract ideals under the broad premise that your personal most well endowed deified absolute, force.

under the broad premise of your*

Which is why I specified the Roman Republic. I meant in its early days, as in before they became a multicultural empire. And within that Empire the ethnic Romans still maintained a sense of shared ethnic identity did they not?

But even without Rome, there are other examples like Athens, Venice, Florence, etc.

I suppose it also depends on whether you put more emphasis on the nation part or the state part of nation state. Even the Roman Empire from a political/organizational perspective looked far more like a modern state than what had existed between it and 1789.

there probably would have been less of a shared cultural identity from one region to another. Travel was much slower then than even in the 1800's, and there was no way to communicate. People in all different towns and cities would probably have all considered themselves to be a good standard roman, while being wildly different. almost like human societies in the Warhammer 40k Imperium, now that I think about it. With great variation in terms of culture, tradition, outlook on life and how they compose themselves.

Nationalism was around way before that, friendorino. Ancient China has anti-miscegenation laws

But is it more important that people actually share a certain set of characteristics, or that they just imagine that they do? Isn't that who whole basis of the "imagined community" model? A working class black person from New York and a well off white professional from Texas will have totally different day to day lives, political views, and outlook on life, but are they both not American?

Yes, I imagine to a certain extent the disagreement is based on definitions. Hobsbawm identifies nationalism and nation-states as symbiotic, and I would agree with him on that. Prior to the late 18th century the elements to foment that (education, communication etc.) simply weren't there.

Holy shit what's wrong with you people? Sure we all may disagree with each other about things but you're seriously cheering for the death of another white man because he disagrees with you politically? Holy fuck, you people will be the first to hang on the day of the rope

But if nations are born out of symbolic or imagined relationships then surely that would make them easier to develop not less? I think it has less to do with communication and more to do with political organization. If people are organized into a single centralized political unit with people that they share cultural and ethnic traits with they are more likely to form a sense of a larger community. I would argue that this is because being united by a modern (or Roman) style state puts them in a position where they have common concerns and stake in the conduct and structure of that state, which in turn builds a sense of civic unity.

By contrast a feudal system divides groups of people that may otherwise form a national unit into smaller groups based on the allocation of land to nobles, landlords, serfs, etc. thus separating them from each other politically.

Also as far as communication and technology go, what specifically makes the 18th century the period in which this occurred? A little digging seems to mention the printing press a lot, but that was already hundreds of years old by the time the French Revolution broke out.

quit posting and read the book retard

...

We should refrain from cheering on the death of a colossal retard that deserves it because he's white?

white is right, flam-a-slam

...

Jesus christ stop posting.

There's a difference between spouting opinions as fact and saying "this is my interpretation, what do other people think". I was doing the latter. If you have criticisms then I'd love to hear them.

So if he was black then it would be okay for us to cheer for his death?
Also is>>835014 true?

...

Obviously you haven't been following his Twitter.

moralfags leave

I wish for the deaths of all reactionaries and fascists.

...

ayy

...