[ingliz]

It immediately and clearly states the complete opposite of what you are claiming

No, it doesn't.





Your comprehension is so bad that the forum rules would have allowed me to put 9 more smilies under my reply.

As it is I will save your blushes and you can imagine them laughing away on the page.

[FiveofSwords]

No, it doesn't.





Your comprehension is so bad that the forum rules would have allowed me to put 9 more smilies under my reply.

As it is I will save your blushes and you can imagine them laughing away on the page.

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...

[Pants-of-dog]

How are any of these capitalist?

Because they (overtly or tacitly) support private ownership of the means of production, free markets, the free movement of capital, current lawn ownership paradigms, and (in the USA, Canada, and other settler colonial states) colonialism.

[Tainari88]

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 ... 506e4fd2b2

if 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 ... 506e4fd2b2

Some 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.

[Tainari88]

@ingliz This is another article explaining the National Socialists as Hypercapitalists by the Jacobin.

https://jacobin.com/2022/08/nazi-german ... liberalism

The Nazis Weren’t Socialists — They Were Hypercapitalists
AN INTERVIEW WITH
ISHAY LANDA
Right-wingers love to insist that members of Adolf Hitler’s party were socialists. But Nazism’s real economic policies upheld hypercapitalist principles rooted in social Darwinist ideas about the value of human life. They weren’t socialists at all.


Adolf Hitler inspects a formation of the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany, ca. 1927–45. (CORBIS / Getty Images)

Our new issue, on religion, is out next week. Subscribe to our print edition and don’t miss it.

Can Humanity Survive AI?
GARRISON LOVELY
Cori Bush: Why I’m Calling for a Cease-Fire in Gaza
CORI BUSH
“Our Own Brand of Socialism”: An Interview with Gabriel García Márquez
GABRIEL GARCÍA MÁRQUEZ
The Red and the Black
SETH ACKERMAN
INTERVIEW BY
NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
One of the most tiresome arguments leveled against socialism claims that Nazism was somehow “socialist,” and so something the Left needs to answer for. Adolf Hitler’s men marshaled the economy for war, put the state above the individual — and, as the killer argument, they even called themselves “National Socialists.”

Checkmate? Not quite. Even aside from the fact that other conservative and liberal parties actually voted for full powers to Hitler in 1933, his regime was characterized by massive interventions to help out private business. And the social Darwinism championed by the Nazis, counting the “unproductive” as mere wasteful expense, obeyed the logic of judging human life by the yardstick of profit.

In 2009, Israeli historian Ishay Landa published the book The Apprentice’s Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism, an extensive study of the economic and social interests the Nazis really pursued. In this interview with Jacobin, he explains what the term “socialism” meant to Hitler, how his political and economic views were connected — and why we can see the dangers of economic liberalism in Elon Musk today.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
In your book, you examine the economic policies and the ideology of the National Socialists in Germany. Were the Nazis policies actually socialist?

ISHAY LANDA
No, obviously they weren’t socialist. It’s true that the Nazis occasionally used the term affirmatively. Some people cynically latch onto that as evidence: “They were socialists because they called themselves socialists!” But they were strongly anti-socialist in any real sense of the term.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
Then why did they use the word “socialism” at all?

ISHAY LANDA
We have to understand the context in which they applied the term. In our own days, right-wing politicians no longer use the term. Why? Because socialism is no longer so popular. But back then, anti-communists faced the challenge of gaining access to socialist strongholds and convincing as many working-class voters as possible. So, they had to present their policies as agreeing with the interests of the working class. The trick was to benefit from the popularity of socialism, which was widely seen as the force of the future, but at the same time to distance themselves as much as possible from its substance.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
If the Nazis called themselves socialists only for strategic reasons, what did their economic policies actually look like?

ISHAY LANDA
They were strongly capitalist. The Nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition. It’s true that they intervened in the free market, but it was also a time of a systemic failure of capitalism on a global scale. Almost all states intervened in the market at the time, and they did so to save the capitalist system from itself. This has nothing to do with socialist sentiment: it was pro-capitalist. In a way, there’s a parallel there with the way big banks were bailed out by governments after the 2008 financial crisis broke out. That, of course, did not reflect socialist intentions in any way, either. It was merely an attempt to stabilize the system a little bit.

The Nazis placed great emphasis on private property and free competition.
NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
But don’t capitalists always want as much freedom as possible?

ISHAY LANDA
Not necessarily. State interventions at that time took place in agreement with industry. The capitalists even demanded it, because free-market policies are not always in the best interest of capitalists. They sometimes need the state to succor the free market. So, interventions were not simply imposed on the economy by the fascists — it was a consensual development reflecting requirements by many important sections of industry. The goal was essentially to steer the system in favor of big business.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
How is the political ideology of the Nazis related to this attempt to stabilize the system?

ISHAY LANDA
Hitler is often accused of subordinating economic interests to his political views, a claim that is partially true. But what exactly were his political views? If we think about Hitler’s most fanatical obsessions – for example, social Darwinism, eugenics, or even his antisemitism — at first blush it appears as though these can only be understood in isolation from economic considerations. However, if we look more closely at each of these elements, we see that they had an indispensable economic basis.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
For example?

ISHAY LANDA
Social Darwinism is actually a form of hypercapitalism. It takes from capitalism the focus on competition as a struggle of all against all. And the Nazis argued: “Well, that’s just the way nature is.” This was not a break with capitalism, but an intensification of economic views. Capitalism, in the Nazis’ view, is simply a part of nature. So, it is not just a matter of political domination, but of naturalizing economic contradictions. Hitler then said that it is above all “the Jew” who is trying to play a little trick on nature in order to make the struggle for survival superfluous. The will to tamper with the economy made Jews insidious, from the Nazi point of view.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
But isn’t this very positive view of free competition and the struggle of all against all precisely the hallmark of economic liberalism?

ISHAY LANDA
Hitler didn’t invent all of this, of course; it was part of the conservative and indeed economically liberal mainstream. One could hear very similar statements about the need for ruthless competition in the liberal economic discourse of the time. That someone like Hitler could become the “leader” of a major industrial nation was, after all, the culmination of certain widely held views about economics and about the due limits of popular, political agency. Hitler’s policies met the wishes of many industrialists — which made him so attractive to large sections of the bourgeoisie and the educated classes. The National Socialists were seen as liberating the economy from unnecessary burdens of political and humanistic sensitivity.

NILS SCHNIEDERJANN
Through eugenics, for example?

ISHAY LANDA
Exactly. The murder of....

Oh the Nazi too lazy to read says....but we are not capitalist lovers. Yes you are.

[Deutschmania]

You notice how instead of getting some evidence his crutch is a one liner that says nothing...


Prescott Bush got rich with the Nazis. Bush family descendants became presidents of the USA. Republican party has Nazi ties historically speaking. Yet he says or claims that the US government is trying to wipe out the White Race. Where can he back this up?

Prescott Bush grandfather to Dubya Nazi capitalist banking profits. The regime is not capitalist...no screams the Nazi that is too lazy to do some research.

Let him come up with a rebuttal. He won't. A total incompetent.

Prescott Bush's links to Thyssen and his financing of the Third Reich.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/ ... ndworldwar

Yes , even before the rise of Trump , and his MAGA movement , there have been literal National Socialists , from back in the day , who had inserted themselves into the Republican party .

https://www.jta.org/archive/ex-nazis-among-leadership-ranks-of-republican-outreach-groups

Now , as to what socialism meant to Hitler , in the context of so called National Socialism , I shall like to quote first from Hitler: The Memoir of a Nazi Insider Who Turned Against the Führer , by Ernst Hanfstaengl . This is what he had to say on the subject .

Where he (Hitler) had me , and in the course of time millions of others, completely confused was that he didn't give vital words the same meaning as we did. When I (Hanfstaengl) talked of National-Socialism I meant it in the old Friedrich Nauman sense , a fusion of all that was best in the traditional and socialist elements of the community. Hitler was not thinking along the lines of a patriotic confederation of this sort at all ... When he talked of National-Socialism what he really meant military-socialism , Socialism within a framework of military discipline, or in civilian terms , police-Socialism .

And from Hitler himself , these quotes.

“‘When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home.’

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

‘Bolshevism’, the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany continued, ‘is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst’…

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home, the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’

‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…

‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’

‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’

‘Mussolini’, I interjected, ‘said the same to me’. Hitler beamed.

‘The slums’, he added, ‘are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised… If we wish to save Germany, we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work.’

‘Where will you find the room to work?’

‘We must retain our colonies and expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world domination with England. Now we must stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake.'” https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-nazi-form-of-socialism-1932/

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever had understood our great national anthem ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles’, to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes the German, people and land, land and people – that man is a Socialist”. https://mycountryeurope.com/history/on-this-day-1933-hitler-chancellor/

[Tainari88]

@Deutschmania they believed in private property and they also believed in invading other groups that were European and white too, their land. They believed in war with other European groups. England they were willing to share power with. But England became he enemy and they bombed England. The white brotherhood went down the toilet.

But here is the Nazi claiming that the generic White Race in the Americas and not in Europe, are the natural ones who must make the USA a white nation? What kind of BULLSHIT is that?

Another interesting bit of information. There were violent plots within the Nazi party to assassinate Hitler. Why? Because some of the SS and others were not happy with the Fuhrer.

But the Sword man claims that the great white race pulls from their altruistic sentiments and sense of solidarity and the pure German vetted race deemed pure enough for the upper crust of the military national socialist league there.....? Shit, they plotted to kill Hitler himself. Where is the BROTHERHOOD?

Get out the kleenex.

[Pants-of-dog]

….
I don't know who in their right mind would be actively "pro-colonialism", besides a greedy business person, or someone extremely racist. Unfortunately the world doesn't work so simply, and geopolitics in a world of limited resources makes countries fight over them for their own security. Societies have always and will always compete against each other until they no longer have to.

Many people support colonialism.

Take, for example, Canada. Canada is a settler colonialist state. Therefore, anyone who wants to keep Canada as it is also supports colonialism. They may not realize it or even think about it, but it is still support for colonialism.

It is not necessary to make an active choice to support colonialism. Supporting colonialism can be done by merely going along with the status quo.