FiveofSwords wrote:Dude...lol...the preview states very clearly that most people believed that the power of industrialosm was so overwhelming that it would be victorious and bring people together and make nationalism obsolete. World War 2 proved them wrong. That seems to be the theme of the book..that is the opposite of what she was suggesting...
You continue with the laziness.
You can join for free. I did.
You then have access to the entire article and not only that you stick the Nationalist and Capitalist relationship as a topic and you get a lot of books and articles with expert authors on the theme.
A preview is a tiny portion of the work.
@ingliz is correct. You have a serious misinterpretation problem of a lot of written material.
You will deny it. I do not care how many times you avoid. Deal with the point.
Read the entire thing. I did.
Did you? No.
Then you have nothing to say.
PAGE 593 of the article is interesting. It explains a lot of what Pants here is trying to say to Sword cardplayer man.
This is another title for those who are interested in how capitalism and nationalist movements developed together.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4405248?se ... 506e4fd2b2if you want a Master Race country though, you got to make sure the Captains of industry ar eon your side and that they come along on the ride to conquering the world. Capitalism is part of National Socialism because without it you do not have access to what you need to build the infrastructure and get the goods and services and resources you need to become the world dominating power. Why invade other European countries if all that you need is contained neatly in Germany in WWII?
The thing is what is the binding factor? International workers of the world unite as one or Unite for Germany and the Master Race and the rest are to be subjugated. Accept you will not be mobile in a class structure. That is a reality whether the Nazis want it to be that way or not. Lol. The reason the Leftists were eliminated was because they did not agree with the premise of the Master Race nationalism of the Nazis. It was not about nationalism and Master race theories. It was about international class warfare or class struggle. A fundamental difference.
Should have been explained to that man Sword a long time ago. I do not see why it never was eh?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4405248?se ... 506e4fd2b2Some interesting analysis of Nationalist relationships to Capitalism by this author found in jstor.org. It is only 25 pages long. If you are a fast reader you get it done in about 20 minutes. That is how long it took me. So get with it lazy bones posters who do not know their own political philosophies relationship with capitalism and nationalists who are racists.
Chapter Title: Nationalism, Communication, Ideology
Book Title: Communication and Capitalism
Book Subtitle: A Critical Theory
Book Author(s): Christian Fuchs
Published by: University of Westminster Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv12fw7t5.14
Theweleit, Raymond Williams, and Ruth Wodak. The book Nationalism on the
Internet, my book Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in The Age of
Trump and Twitter,2
the e-book Nationalism 2.0. The Making of Brexit on Social
Media,3
and some of my essays4
present case studies of how nationalism and
other authoritarian ideologies are communicated over social media. The chapter
at hand presents the main aspects of the theoretical approach that I take for the
analysis of nationalism and the communication of nationalism.
10.1. Nationalism
What is Nationalism?
Nationalism is a particular ideology that tries to distract attention from capitalism,
the class conflict, and the societal causes of social problems. Ideology is not purely
based on economy and politics. A political-economic crisis does not necessarily
lead to false, ideological, or critical consciousness as mass phenomena. Other
factors such as struggles over ideology, class struggles, symbolic power, and the
personal, everyday, and psychological experiences and desires of individuals play
a role and interact with economic and political factors.5
Nationalism is not a natural feature of humanity and society. In English, the term ‘nationalism’ emerged in the 18th century and became commonly used during the 19th century.6
The emergence of nationalism as a
2 Christian Fuchs. 2018. Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the
Age of Trump and Twitter. London: Pluto Press. 3 Christian Fuchs. 2018. Nationalism 2.0. The Making of Brexit on Social
Media. London: Pluto Press. 4 Christian Fuchs. 2016. Racism, Nationalism and Right-Wing Extremism
Online: The Austrian Presidential Election 2016 on Facebook. Momentum
Quarterly – Zeitschrift für sozialen Fortschritt (Journal for Societal Progress)
5 (3): 172–196.
5 Christian Fuchs. 2016. Red Scare 2.0: User-Generated Ideology in the Age of Jeremy Corbyn and Social Media. Journal of Language and Politics 15 (4): 369–398.
Christian Fuchs. 2017. Fascism 2.0: Twitter Users’ Social Media Memories of
Hitler on his 127th Birthday. Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 6 (2):
228–263. Christian Fuchs. 2018. Racism, Nationalism and Right-Wing Extremism Online: The Austrian Presidential Election 2016 on Facebook. In Critical
Theory and Authoritarian Populism, ed. Jeremiah Morelock, 157–206. London:
University of Westminster Press. Christian Fuchs. 2018. ‘Dear Mr. Neo-Nazi,
Can You Please Give Me Your Informed Consent So That I Can Quote Your Fascist Tweet?’. Questions of Social Media Research Ethics in Online Ideology Critique. In The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism, ed. Graham Meikle,
385–394. Abingdon: Routledge. 6 Raymond Williams. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society.
New York: Oxford University Press. Revised edition. pp. 213–214.
This content downloaded from
189.197.18.1 on Sun, 14 Apr 2024 22:26:47 +00:00
All use subject to https
Nationalism, Communication, Ideology 237
phenomenon in society and as a common linguistic term coincided with
the creation of the nation-state in modern society. In modern society, the
nation takes on the form of the nation-state, the national economy, and
cultural institutions that are organised within the nation-state.7
National
spaces, such as the national economy, the nation-state, and national culture,
have a boundary that defines the inside and the outside of the nation. This
means that all nations define their membership. They include citizens and
exclude others.
Table 10.1 provides an overview, for certain years, of the number of nationstates in which more than one million individuals lived. The building of new
nations took off in the 19th century, which shows that the nation-state is a
modern invention. The nation-state stands in the context of capitalism, imperialism, modernity, and imperialist warfare. Eric Hobsbawm speaks of the
period between 1789 and 1848 as the Age of Revolution.8
The French Revolution was the decisive political event during that time. Hobsbawm argues that
politics at that time did not embrace nationalism and the idea of building
nation-states based on the principles of ‘ethnicity, common language, religion, territory, and common historical memories’.9
In the Age of Revolution,
nations were understood as national economies. Hobsbawm argues that the
modern nation-state emerged together with imperialism during the Age of
Empire that started around 1875.
7 Data sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by
_population_in_1700, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
_by_population_in_1800, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
_by_population_in_1900, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
_by_population_in_1939, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
_by_population_in_1989 (accessed on 5 February 2019). 8 Eric J. Hobsbawm. 1992. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme,
Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition.
Chapter 1. 9 Ibid., p. 20.
Table 10.1: The number of nation-states and empires with more than one
million inhabitants.7
Year Number
1700 24
1800 26
1900 87
1939 56
1989 130
This content downloaded from
189.197.18.1 on Sun, 14 Apr 2024 22:26:47 +00:00
All use subject to https
238 Communication and Capitalism
Nationalism foregrounds that there are differences of culture, language, or ‘race’
in society. ‘The basis of “nationalism” of all kinds was the same: the readiness of
people to identify themselves emotionally with “their” “nation” and to be politically mobilized as Czechs, Germans, Italians or whatever, a readiness which
could be politically exploited’.10 Hobsbawm says that in the 19th and 20th centuries, the rising influence of theories of social Darwinism and race advanced
racism and anti-Semitism.
Theories of nationalism differ according to whether they see nationalism
and the nation as necessary features of society and nature or as historical
features of certain forms of society that are class societies and dominative
societies. The first type of theories of nationalism are fetishist theories. The
second type of theories are critical theories of nationalism. For fetishist theories, the nation and nationalism are natural aspects of society. For critical
theories, the nation and nationalism are constructed, fabricated, illusionary, ideological, or invented. In nationalist ideology, a national group is
fetishised. It is categorically distinguished from outsiders, enemies, immigrants, refugees, etc. who are seen as not belonging to the nation. Nationalism presents such outsiders of the nation negatively (for example as aliens,
criminals, intruders, parasites, etc.) in order to deflect attention from class
conflicts and inequalities.
‘Nation’ is not a simple word. Its meaning is not always clear. On the one
hand, the nation is often understood as the territorial nation-state. But on
the other hand, the notion of the nation also often refers to national identity.
Nationalism is an ideology that operates on the level of national identity and
defines who should be considered as belonging to the nation and who should
be excluded. National identity is always defined and defended against outsiders. Essentialist approaches imply that war is unavoidable because the friend/
enemy logic of the nation in the last instance leads to warfare. Such essentialist
theories see humans as inherently negative, warmongering beings. Essentialising nationalism means a fetishism of militarism, destruction, and warfare. The
idea of the defence of the nation has created arms races that threaten life on
Earth with nuclear extinction.
Repression is a means for the reproduction of class societies. Slave-holding
societies are characterised by slave-masters’ private ownership of slaves, the
means of production and the products the slaves create. Slave-holding societies’
class structure is defended with physical violence and the right of the slavemaster to kill the slave. Physical violence also exists in various forms in capitalism. But structural and ideological repression play more important roles in
capitalism. Ideological repression fetishises and naturalises class structures. It
10 Eric J. Hobsbawm. 1989. The Age of Empire 1875–1914. New York: Vintage
Books. p. 143.
This content downloaded from
189.197.18.1 on Sun, 14 Apr 2024 22:26:47 +00:00
All use subject to https
Nationalism, Communication, Ideology 239
tries to persuade workers and others that their exploitation and domination is
acceptable, natural, necessary, etc. Nationalism often tries to construct feelings
of togetherness and a common national cause between the capitalist class and
subordinated classes. Nationalism thereby diverts attention from class structures. Modern class societies require nationalist ideology to justify exploitation
and domination.
The enemies that nationalism constructs are defined as inner enemies and/
or outer enemies of the nation. Examples of inner enemies are immigrants,
minorities, refugees, or socialists. Other nations and international groups are
typically defined as outer enemies of the nation. As a consequence, nationalism legitimates not just the nation-state’s class structure, but also the nation’s
wars and imperialism. Militarism, law and order politics, war and imperialism are often justified by the argument that they defend ‘national security’ or
the ‘national interest’. Another line of justification is that a certain nation is
superior to other groups that are presented as being ‘backwards’, ‘barbarian’,
‘primitive’, ‘uncivilised’, ‘underdeveloped’, etc. Nationalism has an immanent
potential to advance militarism and warfare.
Karl Marx on Nationalism
Marx not only spoke of commodity fetishism in the economy, but was also a
critic of political fetishism. Nationalism is one of the political and ideological
fetishisms of modern society. Marx analysed how ideology diverts attention
from class structures. In 1870, he provided an analysis of how nationalism distracts the working class from struggling against the capitalist class by spreading hatred against migrant workers and the colonies. He gave in this context
particular attention to Ireland. His analysis of nationalism and xenophobia still
holds true in contemporary capitalism:
Ireland is the BULWARK of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of this country is not simply one of the main sources of their
material wealth; it is their greatest moral power. […] And most important of all! All industrial and commercial centres in England now have
So folks that is the reason why nationalists and national socialists have to be an integral part of capitalism. Because they have to destroy class struggle. Internationally. So do the international capitalists. They divide working people via main fetish identities centered around race and nationality. Not by their position in the socioeconomic structure that is the same economic structure in many nations. Some set up to be imperial and others to be subjugated and extraction economies. You can control both with nationalistic fetishes. Which the socialists do.