This thread is permanently archived
(How) can globalization and nationalism both be a result of capitalism?
| I'd say it's not that easy. The "far-right" is an umbrella term for many diverse, sometimes conflicting, currents - and yes: also including partially social-revolutionary and capitalism-critical ones. On the other hand there are also capitalists that proclaim left-liberal ethics. Two things they have in common is, that they don't share a fundamental opposition/criticism on capitalism, while at the same time they fundamentally antagonize those who have.
| Example: The german nazi-ideology distinguished between "good", "honest", "productive", "german" capitalists and "evil", "(socially) liberal" and "jewish" capitalists.
At this point we come to your next, interesting question, which correctly identified a paradox in capitalist policy. I will explain why it isn't really a paradox: The idea of a nation was originally created by the rising bourgeois class, that emancipated from the old, feudal regents (monarchs, nobles, clerics).
| The old feudal geopolitical entities were different from todays modern nations. The source of power of the feudal regents was land property, which was quite a big thing in this at this point still agricultural dominated world. But thanks to many revolutionary technological advances, a new power source and class came up. Thanks to global sea-trade, book printing, mechanization, manufacturing and finally industrialization there were many new possibilities to gain power.
| This lead to revolts against the old regents which ended up in replacing feudal empires by constitutional nations (most prominent: american and french revolution). Private property (of production means) was the new big thing. But monarchs, nobles and clerics did loose their privileged status and became usual citizens (or beeing being murdered) everywhere in the world. The new nations were threatened by the feudal empires that were still intact in the rest of the world.
| >>624905
*correction:
>[.. .] monarchs, nobles and clerics DIDN'T loose their privileged status [..] in the rest of the world.
| This historical background is why capitalists were from the beginning for both: free global trade (globalization) and nationalism (defence against the old orders)
But things go further: While some regions just stayed back in development (e.g. russia, most parts of todays "third world") other feudal elites managed to keep their status quo by adopting early capitalism through reforms and through opression as well (e.g. united kingdom, germany, japan). So they became nations as well.
| And there the competition started. A global competition about conquering and exploiting the underdeveloped parts of the world. There we have again nationalism and globalization at the same time, pushed massively by the capitalist class.
And finally we come to the last important phenomenom that explains this two-tracked path of nationalism and globalization: The crisis cycle of capitalism.
| Looking back in history, you'll see that during good conjuncture, socially liberation and globalization are progressing. But as soon the conjuncture is going bad, nationalism, autocracy and war start becoming popular. There was a similar phenomenon in feudalism: Economical crisis made religious fundamentalism, oppression and war became popular.
So the ruling classes need nationalism/religious fundamentalism from time to time in order to keep their status quo during crisis periods.
| >>624864
And finally your last question.
My problems with "moderatism" are the following:
- What's moderate and not is a pretty relative. There are people on the left and right borders that consider themselves as moderate. In the end it's only a question of political power to decide who's moderate and not.
And yes, there was and is an inbewteen for nationalism and inter/antinationalism. There is always the possibility of a compromise. But how long does it last and resist to crisis?
| In my opinion all approaches to tame, regulate or reform capitalism failed so far on the long term. And they only happened out of the fear before more radical approaches like communism/socialism. And there is a clear tendency that the centre leans to the right as soon a crisis comes. There are some rare exceptions like the "new deal" in USA. I'd really love if this exceptions were the norm, but I just don't believe in it.
| Well, I think I'll have enough for this week. You're free to discuss my opinion without me or flood this thread with nazi shitpost again (in this case I would recommend just closing it).
Commie g/u/rl out.
This thread is permanently archived
| There were interesting question in another threat i'd like to discuss.
> Are the far-right just fascists or are they also capitalists? And what do you think is their relation to each other?
> Why would capitalists allow nationalist ideals to fester if they are for globalization?
> Why do you not believe in moderatism? Is there no center in the political spectrum? Is there no inbetween for nationalism and inter/antinationalism?