cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/post/1363168
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
608 points (95.0% liked)
YUROP
733 readers
10 users here now
Welcome to YUROP
The Ultimate Eurozone of Culture, Chaos, and Continental Excellence
A glorious gathering place to celebrate (and lovingly roast) the lands, peoples, quirks, and contradictions of Her Most Magnificent Europa. From the fjords to the Med, the steppes to the Atlantic spray, this is a shrine to everything that makes Europe gloriously weird, wonderfully diverse, and occasionally passive-aggressive in 24 languages.
Here we toast:
πͺπΊ The progressive Union of Peace (and paperwork)
π§ The freest of health care
π· The finest of foods
π³οΈβπ The liberalest of liberties
π The proud non-members and honorary cousins
πΆ And the eternal dance of unity, confusion, and cultural banter.
Post memes, news, satire, linguistic wars, train maps, cursed food photos, Eurovision fever, propaganda and whatever makes you scream βonly in YUROP.β
Leave your stereotypes at the border control and enjoy the ride.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alright, thanks for the answer. As you would certainly know, socialism grew out of liberalism. Trying to connect it back to ancient traditional societies (non-Western or Jewish or Christian) has always seemed like a stretch to me. I'll paraphrase that as "we wouldn't unquestioningly support every non-Western nation, and would only have to deal with it for a while anyway".
What about the second question, though. What makes a nation in the first place?
Socialism didn't necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isn't something uniquely European, but generally human.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Much has been written on nations in the Marxist canon, and many bend these general observations. Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
Are you thinking of the way hunter-gatherer societies run? Or maybe you're including gift economies as well? Feudalism obviously is right out, and that's like 90% of economics in any agriculturalist society, although the exact hierarchy can be anything.
Marx, at least, wouldn't have known that. It was the Victorian era of social sciences where the world was put on a spectrum of primitive vs. advanced. Marx just had everyone going through his version of the stages equally.
Sure, I guess that's pretty standard. I won't pick at it more.
Interesting. I do love my linguistics.
I'm not referring to the idea of "primitive vs. advanced," but the understanding of socialism as a higher developed mode of production than capitalism. It doesn't exist because some European thought of it, but because the mode of production had developed to a point where it could be observed as a natural trend. Eastern Marxism is entirely compatible with this idea, and while Marx's ideas and writings are core to them, Eastern Marxists did not abandon their entire history.
As for linguistics and Marxism, here's a brief page with further reading if you like.