The concept of "Nationalism" is that each "nation" of people should have their own political organization that advocates for them on their own behalf. A "nation" of people is a racial/ethnic amalgamation of people who can only be represented by a government that represents their population in literal physical form.
Nationalism is antithetical to Imperialism, because (within this framework) an Empire is merely the extension of a single nation of people exerting it's coercive power over other nations. This is why Progressives supported Nationalist movements as a mechanism to break up empires.
Within Leftism, Ethnicity and Race are only definable based on whether or not you are trying to break up a group, or solidify a group. Whites have ethnic groups, and the white race is a fraudulent concept. However, blacks are a racial and ethnic group that can't be broken into sub-parts as it is part of a racial diaspora.
You'll notice that though people on the right may call themselves "American Nationalists", the Left only accept this as "racist" because Race Nationalism is a redundant term. They do not accept the concept of Civic Nationalism anymore. The US, being a capitalist empire, has no American nation in it. It is a white nationalist empire colonizing other nations/races.
The concept of National Socialism is to take that racial/national bloc of people and socialize them into a single political block. A "Volksgemeinschaft". Using an economic framework borrowing from Fascism, the race is also the political party, which is also the state, which is also the economy.
This is an inappropriate definition for nation; but it is the one that the Left operates off of. There is no difference between a Racial Marxist and a National Socialist. Everyone on the left would have immediately noticed that you can't be a "Race Marxist" when Marx is focused explicitly on class; and a Racialist wouldn't have made sense in most European languages, when "Nationalist" is much more clear about who you represent. Western Leftists used the term interchangeably.
The "Nation" that the Germans were Socializing was the "Aryan Folk".
The "Nation" that the Americans are Socializing is "Black Folk".
In fact, "Black Folk" as a term, originates in America as a result of WEB DuBois interaction with the German Volkish movement in Germany (the predecessor movement to the National Socialist movement), and his desire to do exactly the same thing in the United States. Germania is the same as Wakanda. Aryanism is the same as Yakub-ism
Tbh I don't even understand half of what you're saying because it's unclear whether you are saying what you think the left believes or what you believe regarding these definitions.
The nation is the people. Without the people you don't have a nation.
Stoessinger defines a nation through (IIRC) 5 Characteristics: Geographic Base, common economic interdependence, common language, national character, and common religion. All of which are voluntarily associated.
Your intelligence and well read background is laudable. It would be more appreciated in a society of your peers and not one filled with the low iq flood we have now.
Yes, I'm a CivNat because I'm an American Liberal Revolutionary.
As I said in my other comment. A nation is defined (to me) by Stoessinger's 5 characteristics.
An Empire is not necessarily built off the rule of a single nation, nor the domination and subjugation of other nations. Almost every empire is multi-ethnic or multi-national; but it doesn't necessitate the domination of nations. An empire is a political unit that dominates other political units within or around it. Those political units do not always denote separate nations, as an empire may be held by part of a nation, while not controlled by another part. Empires can even be run by a simple ruling class aristocracy; or even a single cult.
Semantics. A political body of a nation is a people. Regardless I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with civnats. Your logic is why our nation is defunct because you think you can replace us with random strangers and it'll maintain the social cohesion. It makes no sense.
You can't assimilate a wolf into a pride of lions. You can't assimilate even more than that. And eventually when all the lions are gone and the wolves call themselves lions it still doesn't make them so.
So nation = race?
Within the Progressive framework: yes.
The concept of "Nationalism" is that each "nation" of people should have their own political organization that advocates for them on their own behalf. A "nation" of people is a racial/ethnic amalgamation of people who can only be represented by a government that represents their population in literal physical form.
Nationalism is antithetical to Imperialism, because (within this framework) an Empire is merely the extension of a single nation of people exerting it's coercive power over other nations. This is why Progressives supported Nationalist movements as a mechanism to break up empires.
Within Leftism, Ethnicity and Race are only definable based on whether or not you are trying to break up a group, or solidify a group. Whites have ethnic groups, and the white race is a fraudulent concept. However, blacks are a racial and ethnic group that can't be broken into sub-parts as it is part of a racial diaspora.
You'll notice that though people on the right may call themselves "American Nationalists", the Left only accept this as "racist" because Race Nationalism is a redundant term. They do not accept the concept of Civic Nationalism anymore. The US, being a capitalist empire, has no American nation in it. It is a white nationalist empire colonizing other nations/races.
The concept of National Socialism is to take that racial/national bloc of people and socialize them into a single political block. A "Volksgemeinschaft". Using an economic framework borrowing from Fascism, the race is also the political party, which is also the state, which is also the economy.
This is an inappropriate definition for nation; but it is the one that the Left operates off of. There is no difference between a Racial Marxist and a National Socialist. Everyone on the left would have immediately noticed that you can't be a "Race Marxist" when Marx is focused explicitly on class; and a Racialist wouldn't have made sense in most European languages, when "Nationalist" is much more clear about who you represent. Western Leftists used the term interchangeably.
The "Nation" that the Germans were Socializing was the "Aryan Folk".
The "Nation" that the Americans are Socializing is "Black Folk".
In fact, "Black Folk" as a term, originates in America as a result of WEB DuBois interaction with the German Volkish movement in Germany (the predecessor movement to the National Socialist movement), and his desire to do exactly the same thing in the United States. Germania is the same as Wakanda. Aryanism is the same as Yakub-ism
Tbh I don't even understand half of what you're saying because it's unclear whether you are saying what you think the left believes or what you believe regarding these definitions.
The nation is the people. Without the people you don't have a nation.
It's what the Left believes.
I believe in Nations as defined by John G. Stoessinger
Stoessinger defines a nation through (IIRC) 5 Characteristics: Geographic Base, common economic interdependence, common language, national character, and common religion. All of which are voluntarily associated.
National character?
Your intelligence and well read background is laudable. It would be more appreciated in a society of your peers and not one filled with the low iq flood we have now.
SKYRIM IS FOR THE NORDS!
Skyrim is for the Kahjit.
At least, that's how I see it.
So you're a civnat? Isn't an empire just a nation that rules other nations? What's a nation to you?
Yes, I'm a CivNat because I'm an American Liberal Revolutionary.
As I said in my other comment. A nation is defined (to me) by Stoessinger's 5 characteristics.
An Empire is not necessarily built off the rule of a single nation, nor the domination and subjugation of other nations. Almost every empire is multi-ethnic or multi-national; but it doesn't necessitate the domination of nations. An empire is a political unit that dominates other political units within or around it. Those political units do not always denote separate nations, as an empire may be held by part of a nation, while not controlled by another part. Empires can even be run by a simple ruling class aristocracy; or even a single cult.
Semantics. A political body of a nation is a people. Regardless I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with civnats. Your logic is why our nation is defunct because you think you can replace us with random strangers and it'll maintain the social cohesion. It makes no sense.
You can't assimilate a wolf into a pride of lions. You can't assimilate even more than that. And eventually when all the lions are gone and the wolves call themselves lions it still doesn't make them so.