Are there realistic alternatives to Nationalism? Are "Nations," bad things?

[Theodarzna]

Nationalism is a powerful force that is ill understood, primarily because most of the Intellectual class consider themselves "Internationalist," or "global." Nationalism gets a bad image primarily because the intellectual elite GENERALLY dislike the idea of the Nation as it is a difficult thing to capture in words and as many have noted while it has incredible abilities to captivate people and generate mass scale solidarity, it is intellectually unsupported by any real intellectual class and has the most anemic philosophical framework behind it. Most self ascribed Lefties, of whom most of the intellectual class belong to, do not like nationalism and have since Karl Marx and before been largely International or the sort to say "I'm a citizen of Earth!" or something to that effect, people whom believe they are at home anywhere. Of course this also overlaps with a fairly wealthy, privileged and powerful class of people whom can afford elite education as well.

Ernst Renan for example describes it as a means of creating Mass scale solidarity. This mass solidarity between people is beyond tribal lines and kinship clans, you have to create what is called the "Imagined Community," by Benedict Anderson that has some essential sense of self beyond its constituent members. While the left generally regards Nationalism with contempt on its surface, it should be noted that since the Russian Revolution of 1919, all Left wing revolutions, and all successful Marxist revolutions have been absolutely Nationalistic projects. After all it is the Peoples Republic of China, Not the International Workers Sector of East Asia. As of yet the Left has provided no alternative TO Nationalism which wouldn't be impossibly utopian, or achievable or that has failed to get off the ground. Even the EU is basically a faux-Internationalist but really just creating a new Nation and ideally a New Nationalist community. Part of this is education and the intellectual nature of our leadership. As a largely elite, technocratic ect group the fall in line and most don't believe in the Nation and are more Like Anderson, Bhabha, and other writers on Nationalism that see it as the foolishness of the Lower Orders of society. But again, there has emerged no successful attempt to construct any other form of Large Scale solidarity as the Nation. Even Soviet Communism failed to create such a thing and ultimately retreated to the "Nation," as a means of creating solidarity and using autonomous oblasts for cultural and indeed ethnic enclaves.

I would charge that nationalism and national identity are fairly important. States without nations prove very difficult to hold together or create some sort of comradely or engineer anything close to a functional Social Democracy in a society composed of millions of atomized individuals looking out for their own self interest or immediate kin group. Alternative forms of mass solidarity have been total busts IMHO and statistically so, and generally even the Anti-Nationalist left only has great success when it is forced to become nationalist to gain any revolutionary support or mass solidarity.

[truckboattruck]

pretending that genetics do not exist and that you don't have a people feels "noble" in our day and age.
however it does not make it so......

the word traitor comes to mind

[Xeones]

Nationalism isn't inherently bad. Even groups of apes will fight over territory. Everyone needs living space and resources. At it's core that is what nationalism is, a group of similar people protecting what is theirs.

It becomes bad when they want to take what belongs to others.

[AeneasBK]

I'd agree that a group identity is fairly important. But isn't the solution not to dismiss the ideas as "impossibly uptopian" and unachievable and instead go about seeing if, for example, we give more people that 'elite' education (although I'd probably question that, I mean, the whole of the 'left' can't have gone to elite educational establishments there simply isn't enough of them, but thats a different branch) they don't agree that as "international" citizens, everyone gets things a little easier.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong. But I would say that for an idea as massive as dropping national identity from humanity; it's going to take more than a few hundreds of years; so giving up now because early experiments aren't turning out 'utopian' seems a little defeatist.

With the globalisation of communication, we're seeing more cultural identity rising up over national identity, this might be a trend that continues, who knows.

[Underverse]

pretending that genetics do not exist and that you don't have a people feels "noble" in our day and age.
however it does not make it so......

the word traitor comes to mind

Humans share the vast majority of their DNA. We have a reason to value others. Of course, we should value those closest to us slightly more; but that's a far cry from the divisions that nations create, which are often poor approximations of relation anyway.

[Theodarzna]

pretending that genetics do not exist and that you don't have a people feels "noble" in our day and age.
however it does not make it so......

the word traitor comes to mind

I would not say a "Nation," is necessarily a lineage bloodline in a purely biological sense.

But lets go into that, the biggest charge against Nationalism is that is lead to the Nazi's, but even that is sort of a clever fiction in my view. Its a fiction created by the same intellectual class that actually authored the nazi eugenics policy. Granted its not the exact same people but the facts remain, the bad ideas of Nazism weren't the invention of the average German in the Beer Hall but the invention of Parliamentarians, University academics and Doctors.

- - - Updated - - -

Nationalism isn't inherently bad. Even groups of apes will fight over territory. Everyone needs living space and resources. At it's core that is what nationalism is, a group of similar people protecting what is theirs.

It becomes bad when they want to take what belongs to others.

That would be in essence the problem of Autarky, or the tendency to want to be entirely self-sufficient. But not being willing to sacrifice for that goal, I.E you want total self sufficiency but you say still want goods not native to your area.... thus war for conquest becomes the logical solution.

[truckboattruck]

Humans share the vast majority of their DNA. We have a reason to value others. Of course, we should value those closest to us slightly more; but that's a far cry from the divisions that nations create, which are often poor approximations of relation anyway.

and we also share 98% with chimps.....90% with dogs....
you think .5% isnt enough to create differences in intelligence, social behavior and physical ability?
stop lying to youself

[Damajin]

Nations aren't bad things and Nationalism is responsible for the entire cultural history of just about everywhere and everybody. The problem with the modern world is that the fruits of Nationalism and cultural heritage are seen as commodities separate and distinct from the people who created and sustained them.

The rootless Postmodernists are more than welcome to live in whatever sterile artifice they like but the sane and sensible part of humanity has always gravitated to and naturally supported Nationalism which is just a larger expression of local Tribalism. There really is no point to consider any other way of boundaries, borders, enshrined values and heritage, and the like.

[Xeones]

That would be in essence the problem of Autarky, or the tendency to want to be entirely self-sufficient. But not being willing to sacrifice for that goal, I.E you want total self sufficiency but you say still want goods not native to your area.... thus war for conquest becomes the logical solution.

Not in the 21st century.

[Shadowferal]

Big difference between "nationalism" and "patriotism."

[Underverse]

I'd agree that a group identity is fairly important. But isn't the solution not to dismiss the ideas as "impossibly uptopian" and unachievable and instead go about seeing if, for example, we give more people that 'elite' education (although I'd probably question that, I mean, the whole of the 'left' can't have gone to elite educational establishments there simply isn't enough of them, but thats a different branch) they don't agree that as "international" citizens, everyone gets things a little easier.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong. But I would say that for an idea as massive as dropping national identity from humanity; it's going to take more than a few hundreds of years; so giving up now because early experiments aren't turning out 'utopian' seems a little defeatist.

With the globalisation of communication, we're seeing more cultural identity rising up over national identity, this might be a trend that continues, who knows.

I don't know how important group identity is. It's the cause of racism and discrimination in general, after all, not to mention most of human suffering. The benefits are sparingly few when you consider that they can be achieved through other means.

I tend towards cooperation instead of competition.

[TrumpIsPresident]

When cultural's clash there is strife.
forced multiculturalism

This has been true throughout human history.
unless you were never taught this

The only thing ...THE ONLY THING ...that has ever held back that tide has been free commerce.
which some people hate

When nations can trade with each other they are less inclined to fight with each other.
unless anti-market laws prevent it

But that leaves the 3rd world nations out of luck.
which is somehow "unfair"

Sometimes those nations become aggressive.
certain people give them money/arms

Often the peoples of those 3rd world nations are thrust upon other societies as total dependents.
privilege is responsible

Provoking an "us v. them" scenario; National Identity v. Outsiders.
which of course is only ever about race

Ending with strife.
that fuels the fires for all parties involved

Solution: Everybody go to their own corner and lets all peacefully trade with each other.
No, because then I lose power.

[Grimfrost]

When cultural's clash there is strife.
forced multiculturalism

This has been true throughout human history.
unless you were never taught this

The only thing ...THE ONLY THING ...that has ever held back that tide has been free commerce.
which some people hate

When nations can trade with each other they are less inclined to fight with each other.
unless anti-market laws prevent it

But that leaves the 3rd world nations out of luck.
which is somehow "unfair"

Sometimes those nations become aggressive.
certain people give them money/arms

Often the peoples of those 3rd world nations are thrust upon other societies as total dependents.
privilege is responsible

Provoking an "us v. them" scenario; National Identity v. Outsiders.
which of course is only ever about race

Ending with strife.
that fuels the fires for all parties involved

Solution: Everybody go to their own corner and lets all peacefully trade with each other.
No, because then I lose power.

This, this, this, a thousand times this!

[Theodarzna]

Not in the 21st century.

I would say being self-sufficient is an admirable thing but all good things come in moderation. Okay, cut off all trade, sure, fine, but then going to war for conquest to then seize those properties is just a dick move.

[Underverse]

and we also share 98% with chimps.....90% with dogs....
you think .5% isnt enough to create differences is intelligence, social behavior and physical ability?
stop lying to youself

I never made this argument, so it's hard to say I'm lying to myself.

We still value the less intelligent members of society. We value the socially inept. Why? Because human life has intrinsic value, as well as objective and potential value.

As for the numbers you cite, the human genome is simply massive. Relatively small differences can contribute large changes in phenotypes. But what's important here isn't the quantity of divergence; it's the positions of divergence - one of the reasons the oft-cited 'races don't exist' argument is incorrect. People can differ by a fair amount; what matters more are conserved regions.

[Pengekaer]

Even the EU is basically a faux-Internationalist but really just creating a new Nation and ideally a New Nationalist community. Part of this is education and the intellectual nature of our leadership. As a largely elite, technocratic ect group the fall in line and most don't believe in the Nation and are more Like Anderson, Bhabha, and other writers on Nationalism that see it as the foolishness of the Lower Orders of society.

I disagree that the EU is a new nationalist community. They are, IMO, not trying to create a European Superstate with "Europeanism" attached to it. I believed this once, but considering how they have opened the doors to the third world wide open, I no longer support this theory. I guess it all goes back to Charles du Gaulle's idea of Eurabia which isn't a nation in any way, not even a large one, but more sort of an empire. But whereas most empires are created by conquering armies, the EU is something of an anomaly I admit. There are no armies, just treaties the people don't vote for (and when they do vote no, the treaties get renegotiated and boom). The europeans don't rebel because their standards of living are still decent - they got too much to loose and too little reason to care: for the moment. This sort of paper-tyranny has nothing to do with creating a european Supernation: it is a feeble, crippled attempt at best. The EU will seen realize that they have to establish armies to keep control: or dismantle the EU. Paperwork will not keep it "together" for much longer, we're already seeing it break apart.

I myself did not consider myself nationalist 10 years ago, but that has changed. I have seen the place I live change for the worse due to uncontrolled immigration. I want it to stop, and I want my nation to - yes - wall itself in and check who enters. This is a fair demand from a concerned citizen the way I see it. What the hell do I pay tax for if not for a minimum of security? In my dreamworld with strict border-enforcement, people with legitimate business can ofc enter, no problem. I know strict border control, with allowed passage for legitimate visitors, is not a cause for problems or concern because it worked very well into the 90'es where I live. Enforcement of national borders is a tested and tried technique of keeping peace, stability and control - most of the world use it still - only Europe somehow refuses to.

[Shadowferal]

I think some are still confusing patriotism for nationalism.
It's not a crime to love your country and culture.

[Pwellzor]

Nations are good. States are good. States that separate nations are bad. See Africa. Breaking up nations of individuals with like customs and putting them in artificial states is how we cause war and hate. This is less so in nations that had the chance to become first world before breaking up but incredibly apparent in 3rd world countries state-ized by first world countries. (See tsutis)

[Garnier Fructis]

pretending that genetics do not exist and that you don't have a people feels "noble" in our day and age.
however it does not make it so......

the word traitor comes to mind

So what about all the people who are mixed? What 'people' do they belong to, to whom do they owe this allegiance?

My country of birth denied me citizenship at birth because one of my parents was a foreigner. I bet that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Genetics exist. But I didn't choose my genetics, so why should I be excluded or included based on that?

[Theodarzna]

When cultural's clash there is strife.
forced multiculturalism

This has been true throughout human history.
unless you were never taught this

The only thing ...THE ONLY THING ...that has ever held back that tide has been free commerce.
which some people hate

When nations can trade with each other they are less inclined to fight with each other.
unless anti-market laws prevent it

But that leaves the 3rd world nations out of luck.
which is somehow "unfair"

Sometimes those nations become aggressive.
certain people give them money/arms

Often the peoples of those 3rd world nations are thrust upon other societies as total dependents.
privilege is responsible

Provoking an "us v. them" scenario; National Identity v. Outsiders.
which of course is only ever about race

Ending with strife.
that fuels the fires for all parties involved

Solution: Everybody go to their own corner and lets all peacefully trade with each other.
No, because then I lose power.

First, the us v. them scenario may be inevitable. National identity is a strictly limited space. I.E. a nation has boundaries, be they physical, cultural ect, and are as defined by what they are as what they are not. The very existence of Yourself requires a boundary which separates you from not-you and on some level this Large Scale Solidarity organism works the same way, it has an internal life, and a boundary for which things not within are fundamentally Not It. I think an Us v. Them is somewhat of the trade off for having large scale solidarity, because even on the individual level we do a me v. not-me.

Second, Trade is not a panacea IMHO. Trade and Global Capitalism are a problem because they by nature require a hegemon that dominates other nations to police the world and maximize profits, capital mobility and ensure everyone "knows their role." I.E. the Third world does its job, the second its, and the first its. The problem of commerce is Hegemony of one overwhelmingly powerful State/Nation as the World Power. Such as the United States today, OR the British Empire in previous bygone eras.