Skip to content

Class solidarity versus national solidarity

One of the many things that characterize modern society is its social atomization. In one way or another, almost everyone recognizes this problem, even if they don’t really know what to do about it. A lot of people do have ideas – some good, some not so much – about how to reverse this state of affairs. The problem, however, is that many of these people do not understand where the atomization, the destruction of social cohesion comes from, and therefore do not know what it really takes to restore it.

Long-time readers are probably expecting me to refer to Demographic-Structural Theory (DST) as proposed by Peter Turchin and Jack Goldstone, so I certainly don’t want to disappoint anyone. Indeed, DST explains much about our loss of social cohesion when it posits that as prosperity and centralization bring a larger share of the population into the social elite, increased intra-elite competition will produce social pressures which lead to conflicts between factions. In our modern world, this struggle mainly manifests itself as too political party and economic rivalry, as opposed to the almost purely elite mobilization that used to define premodern intra-elite competition.

In fact, over the last few secular cycles that the West has experienced, our loss of social cohesion evolved with the rise and spread of liberalism. However, I believe that liberalism – from the classical liberalism that animated the American Revolution to the present year woke up progressivism – is one product of our demographic-structural declines rather than the cause. Liberalism (in all its forms) is, after all, a vehicle for the expression of this intra-elite competition and, in fact, represents the revolt and overthrow of traditional tradition. Brahmin/Kshatriya castes (warriors and aristocratic elites) for the future Vaisya merchant caste using the sudra the proletariat as a tool to achieve this. In other words, liberalism exists because one set of elites desired – and continues to desire and has almost completely succeeded – in replacing another set of elites through intra-elite competition and continues to perpetuate this endless cycle of revolutionaries to this day . This evil spirit of perpetual chaos fueled the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, and continues to this day as a revolt against the fabric of reality itself.

The rise of this liberalism as an expression of otherwise typical demographic and structural pressures is due to the peculiar place that individualism occupies in Western civilization. Now, a certain amount of post-axial individualism is great – it’s the reason the West broke free from the hive mind mentality that characterizes much of the East and the raw tribalism of places like Africa. However, individualism carries within itself the then of a pathology which can destroy social order and cohesion if left unchecked. And when you get to the point where people in your society extol their ability to kill their babies on demand and change their gender on a whim simply because they personally like to do it, you’ve reached a point where this pathology is ‘it’s rotting. the entire body politic from within.

Individualism, while capable of allowing much freer expression of thought in science, the arts, etc., also makes it much more difficult for Western cultures to maintain social cohesion and resist the kind of atomization social that causes societies to collapse. More communal societies like those of the Far East start with much higher reference levels asabiyyah than westerners. While they can also go through their own demographic-structural cycles, and even endure some pretty violent ones accompanied by a fair amount of gore, their cycles don’t see the kind of raw atomization we’ve been seeing. Their conflicts tend to be between large factions clustering around various claimants to the throne, not communities falling apart into fragments where even families don’t stick together.

These trends are reflected in the distinction we see between two different motivating forces that are posited as ways to regain lost social cohesion: class consciousness versus national consciousness. Class consciousness is most often associated with communism and socialism, but it is essentially the organizing force of all liberalism, even its original classical variant. Remember that the “classical” liberal thought of the 17th and 18th centuries originated as an ideological justification for freeing the emerging class of wealthy urban merchants in England, Holland, and northern Italy from the restraints imposed on them by both kings and social tradition as a whole. . Simply put, these merchants did not want to have to contribute their share to society as a whole, and representatives of their class created intellectual justifications to avoid this.

As a result, the merchant classes in Europe gradually shifted from thinking of themselves in “national” terms to thinking of themselves in “economic” terms. What was “good” was what was good they and their profit margins, not for the nation as a body. Now, the fruits of this way of thinking are seen in the modern capitalist mentality which considers ever-increasing corporate power to be “good”, making money is the only worthwhile value, and whose representatives generally they consider themselves “citizens of the world” with no national ties and who are perfectly happy to pack up and move to a different country every couple of years if that’s what the profit motive says. Note, however, that Communism and Socialism essentially maintain the same mindset, only directed at using factions of the state to exercise profit and power rather than “private” corporations. The same basic ideology of cosmopolitanism, economic thinking and class consciousness applies.

The problem with using this as a means of fostering or restoring social cohesion is that self-interest is a terrible way of trying to get people to work together when they’re not in some sort of borderline situation where have work together to survive. In another way, homo economicus he will go for number one, even if it means the rest of the world collapses around him. Often the mercantile class will have matching interests, but these will conflict with everyone else’s, resulting in conflict, not unity. When you have a situation like we have in the modern West, where as many foreign economic mercenaries as they can fill in and thereby add the destabilizing effects of ethnic diversity to the mix, all you’re doing is exacerbating the already harmful effects of our demographic-structural recession.

Affection for class solidarity and economic thinking is a great way to differentiate the true right from the kind of fake mainstream and “soft right” conservatism we find in the Anglosphere (especially). How do you identify left-wing, liberal, managerial and economic technocratic thinking? Just ask them how they feel about the white working class in their own nation versus the hordes of (not so) “entrepreneurial” immigrants flooding their country.

Work shock

One of the best StoneToss comics

If they think Jose or Vikram are “better for America” ​​than their WWC neighbor down the street, you’re dealing with someone who has their priorities straight. This is especially the case when they mistakenly think they are smart enough to make some sarcastic comment about “living in a trailer” or whatever. It is that attitude that gives rise to all the idiocy of the “propositional nation” that believes that citizenship and belonging come from a simple paper or passing some basic civics test. Managerial technocrats and the like value “diversity” because they value cheap labor that lowers their bottom line.

Now, the opposite of all this – and something that would really help increase social cohesion – is the redevelopment of national conscience. Understanding what this means, however, requires that we understand what a “nation” actually is. A nation is one ethnos, a biblical term which refers to groups of people who are united by a language, culture, customs, traditions, etc. common Also, although not a specific definition of this ancient Greek term, ethnicities will also have a common heritage and genetic legacy that follows with Steve Sailer’s description of races (not the same as ethnicities, of course ) as partially endogeneous extended families.

The thing about national solidarity is that it is based on this older, more traditional, biblical organizing principle that God himself essentially applied to humanity. National consciousness in the sense of loving one’s own people and wanting first what is best for them is truly conservative. As such, nations are organic bodies that engender unity from top to bottom. Every station in life, from prince to pauper, should function as a part of this organic whole. While class consciousness and economic thinking divide a nation horizontally, holistic national consciousness unites a nation vertically. While class thinking is fundamentally atomizing and hyper-individualistic due to its materialistic nature, national thinking is cohesive and community-building, built on a spiritual sense of kinship readily recognized by traditional thinkers.

A good example of the distinction being drawn can be found in the differences between medieval guilds and modern trade unions. Guilds unite people who were engaged in a common area of ​​economic activity. This unit was top-down, from the proprietor or business owner to the lowest apprentice, the lowest serving the superior and the superior protecting and watching over the inferior. To the extent that guilds came into conflict with other parties, they were treated as whole units by other whole units. Modern unions, emerging within the modernist industrial milieu, fragment these areas of common economic concern. They confronted the different economic actors, weakening the group in the end.

In short, nationalism well understood it is a social stabilizing element that can help mitigate (though obviously not eliminate) the effects of our current secular crisis. This, of course, goes against the goals and wishes of The Powers That Be who want maximum social atomization, as this makes it impossible for opponents to work together effectively. The rhetoric of class (even disguised as a “mild defense of the middle class”) of the right continues to be perpetuated by the Regime because it destroys any holistic unity that may remain among heritage Americans. The left needs a permanent revolution and the current collapse phase of our secular cycle allows them to ride that wave. But if we are to see a real restoration of social cohesion, Americans and other Westerners will have to move away from a class-conscious mentality and return to a more traditional and rational understanding of national consciousness. Social cohesion requires that Americans of heritage begin to love their own people again.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *