Not quite. Bourgeois nationalism is something that happens as feudalism transforms into capitalism. It's not so much about dividing people up, as about having a state in place that will enforce contracts, property rights, and other bourgeois rights and freedoms. Compared to feudal institutions, the bourgeois state actually centralized a lot of power, geographically and quantitatively. The shape and size of that state is more or less an accident of history, and bourgeois nationalism is the ideology of trying to create an attachment to that accidental state, now that feudal and religious bonds have frayed.
The splintering into hyper individualism is something new, typical of our so called late capitalism, and late enlightenment. It remains to be seen if it will do away with bourgeois nationalism - it's still pretty string in most of the world. As to the left deconstructing everything into individuals, the neoclassicals started that, don't blame us.
Wyatt Ward
You should read "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Friedrich Engels if you want to know more about this. Here's a quote from it.
There is no "comparison" between fascism and capitalism. Fascism is simply capitalism in decay. ⛏️rotsky, though I dislike him, has a good book on this.
You should read Marx. The term materialism in Marxist circles has a much different meaning than how it is commonly used.
Hah! I doubt that. In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. They were servants of finance capital, not enemies of it.
extended family >>>> nuclear family if this is what you mean by the 'marxist' stance on traditional family structure
also fascism, historically, has just proven to be the decay of liberal capitalism into state capitalism with a 'subversive other' propped up by said state to justify fucking the proles over it's still exploitation even if it's not da joos/niggers/foreigners/communist/degenerates etc and instead your "fellow countryman"
Cameron Davis
Historically fascists have stabbed both communists and the worker movement in the back the moment they could. Fascists always got rid of their left elements (s.trasser, left Falangists, the dude in Italy who led the fascist syndicates and wanted to expropriate the bourgs) and cracked down on unions and communists. Fascists are never to be trusted.
Nathan Taylor
In what sense? When fascists say this, what they really mean is that they reject philosophical materialism entirely; they believe strictly in idealism. Fascism and the far left are about as incompatible as it gets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism are good summaries of the difference. Fascism is not literally the same as capitalism, but the far left considers it to be an ideology formed to defend the capitalist mode of production in times of crisis, when the legitimacy of the ruling class becomes an unpopular view. These "shared beliefs" also have an entirely different meaning to the far left. Nazism is infamous for appropriating leftist rhetoric for its own ends. Its idea of what "materialism" and the "ruling class" are differ fundamentally from ours. Fascism is an ideology about violence and authority, not merely using it as a means to an end, and endorses the existence of a de jure ruling class as being rulers by virtue of strength and superiority.
Gavin Rivera
And fascism is squarely on the capitalist side of that coin. Even if fascists weren't also repugnant for other obvious reasons, they would still be enemies - it's just a gangster capitalist ideology.
Cameron Allen
Marxism views (bourgeois) nationalism as an ideology used to delude workers into believing they have common interests with the people who exploit them and to obfuscate class contradictions that exist within a nation state.
This is indeed a tendency that exists in a certain part of the western left. People obsessed with defining themselves as some ultra-unique identity (gender queer non-binary pansexual woman of color, and so on), race separatism by making "cultural appropriation" out to be something inherently racist, doing weird ass race/gender/sexuality based anlyses instead of class analysis and proclaiming white cis-hetero-patriarchy-whatever to be the enemy instead of capitalism. It's usually a moralistic and masturbatory excercise of out-"woke"-ing people and scolding people over the most insignificant things, rather than actual politics. This is what is (somewhat sloppily) called "idpol" on here. It has nothing to do with Marxism and pretty much everyone on this board despises it.
Most of the people engaging in this shit are incredibly privileged upper middle class and petty bourgeois college students, which are not usually reliable allies in anti-capitalist struggle, as they ultimately benefit from capitalist society. Idpol is also cynically used within left organizations to attack political opponents (for example going through a persons tweets to find something totally harmless to spin as racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia).
Some things to note: 1) Opposing this type of identity politics doesn't mean one believes racism to be irrelevant or non-existent, or that homosexuals don't deserve to be treated like people. 2) The best critiques of this type of identity politics comes from within the left. 3) the "SJW threat" is often opportunistically played up by right-wingers, despite them having very little power in the real world outside of a few spaces (some colleges, twitter and tumblr and that's pretty much it).
Thanks for the reply. While this is true, they had a flexible mentality in regards to economics. Sometimes the state needs to intervene, other times loosen controls. It wasn't a fixed thing for them. The free market is capable of generating enormous wealth, and that can be advantageous especially when the entirety of the world is sanctioning you.
Yes and no. They are pro-hierarchy yes, and they are indeed idealists. They value traditional European masculine qualities such as might(if used for right), chivalry, virtue, honor, duty, sacrifice and so on.( I think you get the gist) I think it's a little bit disingenuous to say that it's a movement of violence though, especially when you consider they were in open battle with the communists. Fascism is not about preserving an "economic mode" it's preserving culture and traditions. Mussolini wanted to revive a sort of Roman spirit. People like Evola saw the modern world as the erosion of the soul of not only the individual but of the collective identity of the nation as well. Fascism is a sort of compromise of modern and traditional values. We don't put much value on the notion of progress and view it as more of a degeneration, a "retreat forward" of sorts. At the end of the day, the Fascist ideal could be something along the lines of a Farmer with a large family, embracing whatever spirituality/religion that matches that of his people. The family grows enough food to be sustainable and they hold dear the aforementioned values I listed above. This is not really to different than Jefferson's Yeomen farmer ideal. It's a simple and virtuous citizen who is capable of defending his traditions and values. And yes, there is a healthy dose of Nationalism and pride for your country. The idea is not to hate your neighbors, but you simply realize that you have interests that might differ from theirs. Within this society, the noble Warrior is respected as the defender he is, while the merchant is his inverse. At the top of this ideal society, the priest/holy man guides the masses. Above the priest is whatever God/Gods your collective prays to. There is always someone above you from the house wife answering to her husband to the priest answering to God. We look at those below us with love and compassion. Compatriots are our extended family. We are not citizens of the world and are not one people. That being said we respect our neighbors. We are not just idealists, we are unwavering idealists. You have to understand that Fascism is an abstraction it's a sort of spirit that is cultivated.
It is hard to imagine how violence does not flow from this. This is not necessarily critical, or even negative (as it goes in radical politics, excuses will not be made for the terror), but it is very much a logical conclusion. Well, yeah, that was the core of my point. When we say fascism is capitalistic, we mean that in a de facto sense, because they do not care about economics and thus tend to maintain the status quo for practical reasons. Notably, Hitlerists purged the Nazis' left-wing faction because they considered private property to be vital to preserving tradition and hierarchy.
