>Authentic >national >culture Oh you mean 19th-century

What was once a fabrication was over time transformed into reality. The reality that lives in people's minds. By manipulating culture, you're forming it.

>>9524239
The bourgeois does not and has never existed. Class distinctions are arbitrary and non-empirical.

how do leftist reconcile this with "individualism emerged in 17th and 18th century"

>>9524239
Oh look, baby's first steps into the analysis of nationalism. You must feel pretty smart after reading the required sophomore material?

>>9524266
>non-empirical
>arbitrary
off yourself

>>9525174
It's pretty easy to empirically verify that there are people who own the means of production and those who don't.

Also it's bourgeoisie.

Anglos should be gassed.

>>9525209
>It's pretty easy to empirically verify that there are people who own the means of production and those who don't.
>mfw I consider factors such as stocks, shared ownership, management and the fact that in the digital age every kid with a smartphone has the means of production to create and monetize their own app, website, youtube channel or instagram career by using their smartphone.

>>9525181
i don't see the contradiction, why would it need to be reconciled?

>>9525237
>being an instawhore is the same as owning a multinational corporation

>>9525915
not in value, but that is irrelevant in a discussion about the essence of the means of production. Similar to how a small business-owner is still part of the bourgeoisie, despite the fact that he's insignificant compared to large companies.

File: ef9de6df28d136f27e2950fec629852a[1].jpg (1MB, 2506x3532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2506x3532px

>internationalist "culture"

Authentic nationalist culture transcends global capitalism, faggot.

>>9526408
With this logic a peasant owning a shovel is as good as a feudal lord.

As usual Anglos are uncapable of understanding trivially easy notions.

>>9526436
that's some nice vagueness you got there

>>9526521
nice reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If the peasant with a shovel can produce goods / services that are marketable enough for him to sustain his business, and not be reliant on the capital/means of production of another capitalist - Then yes he can be considered part of the bourgeoisie.

And to further dispute your flawed logic, a peasant cannot be the same as a feudal lord because the lord owns the land of the peasant. But if the peasant owns his own land, the size difference in the segments of land are irrelevant.

>>9526572
>nice reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

I'm pointint out that you're doing so by equating fucking smartphones to the actual means of production.

>If the peasant with a shovel can produce goods / services that are marketable enough for him to sustain his business, and not be reliant on the capital/means of production of another capitalist - Then yes he can be considered part of the bourgeoisie.

Maybe, but this is not the definition of mean of production, nor this is what ANY Marxist refers to when discussing this concept. In this case the mean of production is not the Iphone, rather it's the app store first, and the app itself second. People who code apps are just like the manifacturer who manifactures the shovel, people using the app are the peasants themselves-

>And to further dispute your flawed logic, a peasant cannot be the same as a feudal lord because the lord owns the land of the peasant. But if the peasant owns his own land, the size difference in the segments of land are irrelevant.

Yeah, because kids on Instagram own Instagram, right?

Just admit it, it was a stupid comparison.

>>9526436
I like how it looks like the Mcdonalds logo