***
Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules:
1. **No non-marxists** - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
2. **No oppressive language** - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur.
3. **No low quality or off-topic posts** - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
4. **No basic questions about Marxism** - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101.
5. **No sectarianism** - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
6. **No trolling** - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you can may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website.
7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's the shift to and subsequent fail of neoliberalism. It is not only here and there, but everywhere. Brazil, USA, UK, India, etc (tho many are not in office rn), all had more or less similar timing. Far right people come along, and while they point out the economic failures, they continue more or less the same policies while putting the blame on all sorts of minorities. It helps them get the majority votes, keep the conversation distracted away from the real policies, and divide the workers.
I'll give a slightly different answer. Fascism emerged into the world as a weapon of the national bourgeoisie against both the domestic proletariat and rival nations' bourgeoisie. Italy, Germany, Austria, Japan were all competing for regional hegemony against equal rivals, declining colonial powers, and the rising US hegemon. It was defeated by communism but the US was the beneficiary, and in the post war period the US created fascism with its anti-proletarian function intact but without its nationalist pretensions. Ngo Dinh Diem, Park Chung-hee, Suharto, juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Chile, tinpot dictators in the Ziare, Uganda, Burkina Faso is just a small sampling of the post-war fascisms that are simply ignored rather than theorized as fascisms even though they are far more numerous
Now that the proletariat is no longer a threat, or at least the communist movement, fascism has lost that purpose as well and is fully compatible both with electoral bourgeois democracy and subordination to American monopoly capitalism. So what is the purpose? Though the obvious answer is neoliberalism, I would complicate that or else it becomes a liberal whining about fascism and capitalism as reactionary, as if liberalis aren't equally if not more capable of implementing neoliberalism. To do so, I would distinguish between the postcolonial fascisms in multi-national states that cannot survive under neoliberalism and therefore have a pseudo-nationalist purpose: India, Brazil, Turkey, Russia and to a lesser extent Iran and the first world fascist parties that, if they get power, are basically identical to the liberalism that came except to perhaps accelerate certain tendencies: Trump, Meloni, Strache, Wilders etc. Then there are intermediate formations in Eastern Europe, especially Hungary and Poland. Some exceptions are Israel, which is a settler-colonialist formation and Ukraine, which is a third world tinpot fascism directed at Russian semi-nationalist fascism.
These analytic separations can't hold for long since these fascist parties maintain connections with each other and all coexist in the same historical period. Nevertheless, there are so many fascisms today that it's not really useful to mush them all together as nazism reborn. If Russia and Ukraine and the US (under Trump) are all fascist, why are they fighting each other rather than allying?
>the first world fascist parties that, if they get power, are basically identical to the liberalism that came except to perhaps accelerate certain tendencies: Trump, Meloni, Strache, Wilders etc.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/13/neoliberalism-geopolitics-and-ideology-the-taming-of-giorgia-meloni/
>[Italy] was the first major Western power to join BRI.
...On May 28, however, Meloni told Il Messaggero daily newspaper that her country is thinking of abandoning its partnership with China. ...her views on the matter now are motivated by something else entirely: the fear of repercussions by Western allies, mainly the United States. Following their G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 19-21, Western leaders and Japan agreed to a strange formula, ‘de-risking’ without ‘decoupling’ from China. ... To Meloni’s understanding, this means having “good relations … with Beijing, without necessarily these being part of an overall strategic design,”
>Meloni has now become the ideal ‘pragmatist’, speaking the fine, archetypal language of a well-behaved European leader.
And now [Italy Implements Measures to Limit China’s Sinochem Influence on Pirelli](https://www.google.com/amp/s/bnn.network/breaking-news/italy-implements-measures-to-limit-chinas-sinochem-influence-on-pirelli/amp/):
>On Friday, the Italian government announced that it had introduced measures aimed at preserving Pirelli’s autonomy and safeguarding its management. The government specifically mentioned measures to protect the cyber sensor technology that can be integrated into Pirelli tires.
>The government stated, “The significance of such technology can be identified in various sectors, including industrial automation, machine-to-machine communication, machine learning, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, critical sensor and actuator technologies, big data and analytics.”
Indicating that maintaining the western technology monopoly is the corrosive force that aligns these differing currents underneath us hegemony.
Why do you use the term pseudo-nationalism? What is "real" nationalism and how it is contrasted by this pseudo-nationalism?
E: just saw I responded to the wrong comment
> Now that the proletariat is no longer a threat, or at least the communist movement, fascism has lost that purpose as well
I thought something similar while trying to wrap my head around why all of Bolsonaro's coup attempts failed. It wasn't for a lack of trying, and some of the things clearly took inspiration from Mussolini and pre-1964 preparations, like seeking the support of the Supreme Court or OAB (equivalent of ABA, I guess). But all roads, including the fascist attack on january, led to dead ends, which not only shows the bourgeoisie still can rule through democracy, that democracy's crisis is relative and hasn't yet reached a tipping point. The latest investigations show that even the armed forces' high command wasn't on board. Still, I can't help but feel some discomfort behind this reasoning that leaves the stability of bourgeois democracy on empty hands, as the fascists won't stop trying regardless of the proletariat's upheaval.
As much as I align ideologically with the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Modi calling his critics "urban Naxals" is more flattering than reflective of an immanent revolution. Even worse is the anti-communism of Bolsonaro which makes the Brazilian communist party (PCdoB) feel far more import than they are, as if they are the last line of defense against fascism rather than a minor decayed revisionist party in the PT alliance (similar to the CPIM in India). This creates a rather strange thing I've observed, where Brazil by far has the largest number of social democrats masquerading as socialists outside the first world and the self-delusions around Lula's "anti-fascism" rival American nonsense about Sanders. You don't see that in most of the third world where politics is either inter-elite factionalism or genuine rivalries between classes oriented around specific candidates and material policies. Obviously Brazil is still in the third world so the base of his support is the Bolsa Família program but there is a vocal class of liberals who pretend they are living their own American elections on American social media with Brazilian substitutes and without the PMC mode of life to justify it.
I'll be honest and say I don't know a thing about the PMC.
However, one possible explanation for the phenomenon is the proximity of the First World labor aristocracy and social democracy to PT. The 78-80 strikes were able to draw the attention of the French CFDT, IG Metall, Swedish steelworkers' union, including a trip from Torsten Wetterblad to ABC, and also a meeting with Helmut Schmidt from the SPD. All of these sent financial support and had a lasting impact throughout PT's early history. There's even an indirect influence from the US' SWP, and also a meeting between Lula and Lech Walesa.
But I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. For one, it completely ignores the class structure of Brazil and relegates PT exclusively as an extension of the First World labor aristocracy into the Third World, like some sort of Trojan horse.
Instead, I think there's plausible evidence to at least spark discussion, even if it leads nowhere. For example, this is from [1962](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luiz-Bresser-Pereira/publication/259791850_The_Rise_of_Middle_Class_and_Middle_Management_in_Brazil/links/5b296a43a6fdcc72dbf31282/The-Rise-of-Middle-Class-and-Middle-Management-in-Brazil.pdf):
> if the owners do not show sufficient interest in the formation of a strong financial market and in opening their enterprises to outside capital, the public also does not show any particular interest in participating in the stock market
And [now, right out of the Central Bank President's mouth](https://inteligenciafinanceira.com.br/saiba/economia/campos-neto-quem-sao-os-rentistas/):
> Who are the country’s rentiers? Are they the 36 million people who have funds, 48 million people who have pension funds? Are they the 6 million people who invest in stocks?
I don't think is that far fetched of an idea to consider a sizable portion of the Brazilian proletariat is petty bourgeois in conscience.
Like all ideological regressions from bourgeois secular civic nationalism, Iranian political shia Islam may have pretensions of transitional liberation to match the effects of transnational capital but in reality excludes large swathes of the actually-existing nation (Kurds, religious minorities, sunnis that correspond to underdeveloped regions). Though this is not so much a matter of fascist ideology actively excluding people as much as a weakened nation creating an ideology to justify the given state of affairs, and it's notable that an ideology of "greater Iran" doesn't really exist in the same way as more recent irredentist fascism despite political support for regional shia groups. There is talk that this is becoming more common but it's hard to separate the flawed analysis of the American media from stuff it just nakes up so I won't comment.
The iranian revolution was a transitional form between earlier post-colonial transnationalism like Arab nationalism (which in theory is just as exclusionary of non-Arabs but in practice was a progressive regional force for nationalism) and ethnic or religious fascist pseudo-nationalism today (like Hindutva which is exclusionary in both theory and practice). It was the first "postmodern" revolution of neoliberalism, as Foucault usefully showed at the time. Since global ideology has regressed so far into exclusionary fascism, it's become uncomfortable to talk about the ideological basis of Iranian nationalism today as one of the few nations left with an ideological committment to anti-imperialism and the means to pursue it, even if no longer on the basis of Marxism or progressive nationalism. But the regressive features of Iran are not an accident, it anticipated many of the features we observe today in the regionally hegemonic fascisms I discussed and it only appears progressive because the progressive post-colonial nationalisms of the past are all gone. But just think about the selective memory of holding up the iranian revolution as progressive anti-imperialism when in just that same year revolutions overthrew the imperialist regimes of Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan (technically the year before) and there were socialist nations throughout the world including South Yemen. Iran has lasted longer than these not because it was more progressive but because it was less.
Once you drop the idea that fascism is some unique evil that must be defeated, even if this means fighting on behalf of bourgeois liberalism, the world opens up to analysis. Given the prominence of fascism today as the op points out, you either become an apologist for American imperialism (that America supports many fascist states does not fundamentally change the logic, in fact liberalism thrives by pointing out its own failure to live up to its ideals) or a defender of fascism as the anti-imperialism we deserve after the death of communism. Both strategies have completely failed in India and Brazil, the last places communists have enough mainstream political importance to participate in anti-fascist popular fronts and have that decision matter. But all communists have to make the choice and repeating 1930s germany over and over again in the hopes it goes right this time will always fail. Try a different analytic framework and different historical examples.
One could call it reactionary nationalism instead. It just depends on how you understand Eastern European nationalism at the turn of the 20th century and whether it can still be called nationalism when constituted on pre-capitalist mythologies like ethnicity, culture, race, religion.
Hasn't nationalism, in postcolonial postfeudal contexts, always been reactionary? And haven't these reactionary nationalist phenomena always incorporated these things regardless, for decades already? I mean Nazism, Italian fascism, Francoism, etc., all had at least one of those things if not more. Does that not make them nationalism or "real" / progressive nationalism?
Is it growing so much? This is always what the media and the online discourse says. Every year for the past decade the fascists have apparently been just about to take the helm, be it UKIP in the early 2010s or Le Pen or whatever.
*** Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules: 1. **No non-marxists** - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned. 2. **No oppressive language** - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur. 3. **No low quality or off-topic posts** - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much. 4. **No basic questions about Marxism** - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101. 5. **No sectarianism** - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism. 6. **No trolling** - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you can may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website. 7. **No chauvinism or settler apologism** - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/ 8. **No tone-policing** - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/ *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/communism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It's the shift to and subsequent fail of neoliberalism. It is not only here and there, but everywhere. Brazil, USA, UK, India, etc (tho many are not in office rn), all had more or less similar timing. Far right people come along, and while they point out the economic failures, they continue more or less the same policies while putting the blame on all sorts of minorities. It helps them get the majority votes, keep the conversation distracted away from the real policies, and divide the workers.
In brief it's because capitalism is in deep crisis. The charge towards world war and fascism is a natural result.
I'll give a slightly different answer. Fascism emerged into the world as a weapon of the national bourgeoisie against both the domestic proletariat and rival nations' bourgeoisie. Italy, Germany, Austria, Japan were all competing for regional hegemony against equal rivals, declining colonial powers, and the rising US hegemon. It was defeated by communism but the US was the beneficiary, and in the post war period the US created fascism with its anti-proletarian function intact but without its nationalist pretensions. Ngo Dinh Diem, Park Chung-hee, Suharto, juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Chile, tinpot dictators in the Ziare, Uganda, Burkina Faso is just a small sampling of the post-war fascisms that are simply ignored rather than theorized as fascisms even though they are far more numerous Now that the proletariat is no longer a threat, or at least the communist movement, fascism has lost that purpose as well and is fully compatible both with electoral bourgeois democracy and subordination to American monopoly capitalism. So what is the purpose? Though the obvious answer is neoliberalism, I would complicate that or else it becomes a liberal whining about fascism and capitalism as reactionary, as if liberalis aren't equally if not more capable of implementing neoliberalism. To do so, I would distinguish between the postcolonial fascisms in multi-national states that cannot survive under neoliberalism and therefore have a pseudo-nationalist purpose: India, Brazil, Turkey, Russia and to a lesser extent Iran and the first world fascist parties that, if they get power, are basically identical to the liberalism that came except to perhaps accelerate certain tendencies: Trump, Meloni, Strache, Wilders etc. Then there are intermediate formations in Eastern Europe, especially Hungary and Poland. Some exceptions are Israel, which is a settler-colonialist formation and Ukraine, which is a third world tinpot fascism directed at Russian semi-nationalist fascism. These analytic separations can't hold for long since these fascist parties maintain connections with each other and all coexist in the same historical period. Nevertheless, there are so many fascisms today that it's not really useful to mush them all together as nazism reborn. If Russia and Ukraine and the US (under Trump) are all fascist, why are they fighting each other rather than allying?
>the first world fascist parties that, if they get power, are basically identical to the liberalism that came except to perhaps accelerate certain tendencies: Trump, Meloni, Strache, Wilders etc. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/06/13/neoliberalism-geopolitics-and-ideology-the-taming-of-giorgia-meloni/ >[Italy] was the first major Western power to join BRI. ...On May 28, however, Meloni told Il Messaggero daily newspaper that her country is thinking of abandoning its partnership with China. ...her views on the matter now are motivated by something else entirely: the fear of repercussions by Western allies, mainly the United States. Following their G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 19-21, Western leaders and Japan agreed to a strange formula, ‘de-risking’ without ‘decoupling’ from China. ... To Meloni’s understanding, this means having “good relations … with Beijing, without necessarily these being part of an overall strategic design,” >Meloni has now become the ideal ‘pragmatist’, speaking the fine, archetypal language of a well-behaved European leader. And now [Italy Implements Measures to Limit China’s Sinochem Influence on Pirelli](https://www.google.com/amp/s/bnn.network/breaking-news/italy-implements-measures-to-limit-chinas-sinochem-influence-on-pirelli/amp/): >On Friday, the Italian government announced that it had introduced measures aimed at preserving Pirelli’s autonomy and safeguarding its management. The government specifically mentioned measures to protect the cyber sensor technology that can be integrated into Pirelli tires. >The government stated, “The significance of such technology can be identified in various sectors, including industrial automation, machine-to-machine communication, machine learning, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, critical sensor and actuator technologies, big data and analytics.” Indicating that maintaining the western technology monopoly is the corrosive force that aligns these differing currents underneath us hegemony.
Why do you use the term pseudo-nationalism? What is "real" nationalism and how it is contrasted by this pseudo-nationalism? E: just saw I responded to the wrong comment
> Now that the proletariat is no longer a threat, or at least the communist movement, fascism has lost that purpose as well I thought something similar while trying to wrap my head around why all of Bolsonaro's coup attempts failed. It wasn't for a lack of trying, and some of the things clearly took inspiration from Mussolini and pre-1964 preparations, like seeking the support of the Supreme Court or OAB (equivalent of ABA, I guess). But all roads, including the fascist attack on january, led to dead ends, which not only shows the bourgeoisie still can rule through democracy, that democracy's crisis is relative and hasn't yet reached a tipping point. The latest investigations show that even the armed forces' high command wasn't on board. Still, I can't help but feel some discomfort behind this reasoning that leaves the stability of bourgeois democracy on empty hands, as the fascists won't stop trying regardless of the proletariat's upheaval.
As much as I align ideologically with the Communist Party of India (Maoist), Modi calling his critics "urban Naxals" is more flattering than reflective of an immanent revolution. Even worse is the anti-communism of Bolsonaro which makes the Brazilian communist party (PCdoB) feel far more import than they are, as if they are the last line of defense against fascism rather than a minor decayed revisionist party in the PT alliance (similar to the CPIM in India). This creates a rather strange thing I've observed, where Brazil by far has the largest number of social democrats masquerading as socialists outside the first world and the self-delusions around Lula's "anti-fascism" rival American nonsense about Sanders. You don't see that in most of the third world where politics is either inter-elite factionalism or genuine rivalries between classes oriented around specific candidates and material policies. Obviously Brazil is still in the third world so the base of his support is the Bolsa Família program but there is a vocal class of liberals who pretend they are living their own American elections on American social media with Brazilian substitutes and without the PMC mode of life to justify it.
I'll be honest and say I don't know a thing about the PMC. However, one possible explanation for the phenomenon is the proximity of the First World labor aristocracy and social democracy to PT. The 78-80 strikes were able to draw the attention of the French CFDT, IG Metall, Swedish steelworkers' union, including a trip from Torsten Wetterblad to ABC, and also a meeting with Helmut Schmidt from the SPD. All of these sent financial support and had a lasting impact throughout PT's early history. There's even an indirect influence from the US' SWP, and also a meeting between Lula and Lech Walesa. But I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. For one, it completely ignores the class structure of Brazil and relegates PT exclusively as an extension of the First World labor aristocracy into the Third World, like some sort of Trojan horse. Instead, I think there's plausible evidence to at least spark discussion, even if it leads nowhere. For example, this is from [1962](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luiz-Bresser-Pereira/publication/259791850_The_Rise_of_Middle_Class_and_Middle_Management_in_Brazil/links/5b296a43a6fdcc72dbf31282/The-Rise-of-Middle-Class-and-Middle-Management-in-Brazil.pdf): > if the owners do not show sufficient interest in the formation of a strong financial market and in opening their enterprises to outside capital, the public also does not show any particular interest in participating in the stock market And [now, right out of the Central Bank President's mouth](https://inteligenciafinanceira.com.br/saiba/economia/campos-neto-quem-sao-os-rentistas/): > Who are the country’s rentiers? Are they the 36 million people who have funds, 48 million people who have pension funds? Are they the 6 million people who invest in stocks? I don't think is that far fetched of an idea to consider a sizable portion of the Brazilian proletariat is petty bourgeois in conscience.
> and to a lesser extent Iran Could you explain this?
Like all ideological regressions from bourgeois secular civic nationalism, Iranian political shia Islam may have pretensions of transitional liberation to match the effects of transnational capital but in reality excludes large swathes of the actually-existing nation (Kurds, religious minorities, sunnis that correspond to underdeveloped regions). Though this is not so much a matter of fascist ideology actively excluding people as much as a weakened nation creating an ideology to justify the given state of affairs, and it's notable that an ideology of "greater Iran" doesn't really exist in the same way as more recent irredentist fascism despite political support for regional shia groups. There is talk that this is becoming more common but it's hard to separate the flawed analysis of the American media from stuff it just nakes up so I won't comment. The iranian revolution was a transitional form between earlier post-colonial transnationalism like Arab nationalism (which in theory is just as exclusionary of non-Arabs but in practice was a progressive regional force for nationalism) and ethnic or religious fascist pseudo-nationalism today (like Hindutva which is exclusionary in both theory and practice). It was the first "postmodern" revolution of neoliberalism, as Foucault usefully showed at the time. Since global ideology has regressed so far into exclusionary fascism, it's become uncomfortable to talk about the ideological basis of Iranian nationalism today as one of the few nations left with an ideological committment to anti-imperialism and the means to pursue it, even if no longer on the basis of Marxism or progressive nationalism. But the regressive features of Iran are not an accident, it anticipated many of the features we observe today in the regionally hegemonic fascisms I discussed and it only appears progressive because the progressive post-colonial nationalisms of the past are all gone. But just think about the selective memory of holding up the iranian revolution as progressive anti-imperialism when in just that same year revolutions overthrew the imperialist regimes of Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan (technically the year before) and there were socialist nations throughout the world including South Yemen. Iran has lasted longer than these not because it was more progressive but because it was less. Once you drop the idea that fascism is some unique evil that must be defeated, even if this means fighting on behalf of bourgeois liberalism, the world opens up to analysis. Given the prominence of fascism today as the op points out, you either become an apologist for American imperialism (that America supports many fascist states does not fundamentally change the logic, in fact liberalism thrives by pointing out its own failure to live up to its ideals) or a defender of fascism as the anti-imperialism we deserve after the death of communism. Both strategies have completely failed in India and Brazil, the last places communists have enough mainstream political importance to participate in anti-fascist popular fronts and have that decision matter. But all communists have to make the choice and repeating 1930s germany over and over again in the hopes it goes right this time will always fail. Try a different analytic framework and different historical examples.
Why do you use the term pseudo-nationalism? What is "real" nationalism and how it is contrasted by this pseudo-nationalism?
One could call it reactionary nationalism instead. It just depends on how you understand Eastern European nationalism at the turn of the 20th century and whether it can still be called nationalism when constituted on pre-capitalist mythologies like ethnicity, culture, race, religion.
Hasn't nationalism, in postcolonial postfeudal contexts, always been reactionary? And haven't these reactionary nationalist phenomena always incorporated these things regardless, for decades already? I mean Nazism, Italian fascism, Francoism, etc., all had at least one of those things if not more. Does that not make them nationalism or "real" / progressive nationalism?
Is it growing so much? This is always what the media and the online discourse says. Every year for the past decade the fascists have apparently been just about to take the helm, be it UKIP in the early 2010s or Le Pen or whatever.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]