Until which point would countries be irrelevant?

[Luisrah]

I hear a lot of bad things about globalization, the EU (saying that it's final goal is to turn Europe into a Federation (sp?), and ending countries within it) etc...

But I also hear that when the world reaches communism, countries cease to exist, and they are no longer relevant.

I agree that the state ultimately fades away, and countries stop ''existing'', but where does it end?

Will they stop being Switzerland and Nigeria (or any other country)?
Will there be no borders?

Won't this mix cultures too much? Maybe even destryong cultures?
Won't this be a sort of globalization too?

All the world wearing suits when going to important places, eating with knife and fork, at a table, sleeping in a bed...
Wouldn't this happen if people could mix?

I'm not saying to stop them from it, but if that is what would happen in a communist world, then would there be any incentives for it not happening?

[Outinleftfield]

Sure cultures would mix but in a world of abundance it couldn't destroy cultures. Nobody would be coerced into abandoning their culture except aspects like treating women as property or stealing from workers. There would be a lot more cultural freedom. I think people everywhere would be more multicultural, more willing to try out things from other cultures so there would be a lot of mixing but nobody would be forced to submit to a "dominant culture". There wouldn't be one.

That's going for real communism. As we've seen with regimes like the USSR and China false communist countries often have the same problems even worse than capitalist countries do with discrimination and acculturation. Look at how China treats Tibet.

[bricolage]

Won't this be a sort of globalization too?

Yes it would be but that isn't a bad thing. Globalisation in itself is just interconnectedness, it just so happens that it has all happened in the form of neoliberal capitalist globalisation. We are presenting an alternative view of globalisation, grassroots globalisation from below.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I agree that the state ultimately fades away, and countries stop ''existing'', but where does it end?

Will they stop being Switzerland and Nigeria (or any other country)?
Will there be no borders?

Whilst these sort of names and even geogrpahical areas might be maintained as administrative units, Switerland and Nigeria will no longer exist as nation states. There will be no boarders, no nations.


Won't this mix cultures too much? Maybe even destryong cultures?

'Mix too much'? How can cultures 'mix too much'? What would be the issue with this?

On the topic of the destruction of culture, there was a relevant discussion by readers on the ICC's website in response to the chapter 'The nature of communism (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/classconc/1_communism/nature#comment-837)' in the ICC's pamphlet 'Communist Organisation and Class Consciousness (http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/classconc)'. I think it may answer some of your concerns. Here I reproduce portions of the dialouge:

Samyasa: What else do they need other than "shared humanity"? There is a vast difference between "administrative units" that function as part of a wider whole than autonomous entities that pursue their own own interests to the detriment of other similar units.


The ideological constructions of ethnic or religious identities are integral to the process of nation building precisely because they divide and demarcate both individuals and populations into the included and the excluded and while not being identitical with nationalism, they are clearly linked and are often used and manipulated to reinforce national identity. The conception of "muslim nations" and the USA's "one nation under God" would be examples.

The communist revolution, however, removes the economic basis for nation states and thus national identity. It replaces these with a new identity, that of the global proletariat. Although immediately post-revolution, there will still be other social classes (and therefore other class identities) as the movement towards communism continues these other will become economically obsolete and will be gradually assimilated into the new human community. Similarly, with religious ideologies.


[...]


DKT: You asked what features in nations benefit the working class. You mention iron as existing in a nation, but not as a characteristic of it. Of course, which many material resources are world-wide, or at least not likely to only be found in one nation. The features and characteristics which benefit the working class which are largely the product of individual nations are of a cultural nature, such as English Literature, Irish dancing, music essentially originating in specific nations, such as India and Brazil. Those are enjoyed by many workers living beyond those national frontiers or shores; the internet makes that much easier. That is not to say that literature or music or languages with originally national characteristics can't

have exponents in other countries who then go on to produce new work, but to 'abolish' nations only on economic grounds would deprive workers of much of the valuable products which we have produced. Maybe I haven't put this very well. It would take a long time to list all that each nation has contributed and still does to the world.


Samyasa: I don't follow your argument DKT. The Greek city-states haven't existed for a few thousand years or so, but we are still able to enjoy the Greek tragedies, philosophy, etc. These cultural forms are, of course, no longer produced but that's an inevitable result of history. There aren't any new 19th century English novels being produced any more either.


Abolishing nations isn't going to destroy the cultural past of humanity and it won't destroy current cultural production either. On the contrary, it'll free culture from the constraints it currently labours under.


Music and literature and the like are not bound up with nation states the way DKT says--as cultures and ethnicities immigrate and mix with one another, they create new fusions of these cultural products which are every bit as enjoyable and valuable. How many "Italian" operas are based on the British Shakespeare's work, or on the Hebrew Bible? The Austrian Mozart was profoundly influenced by a German keyboardist/composer (Bach) who devoted much of his time to rewriting works by the Italian Vivaldi. In North America, we have Jazz, which is based on French military dance music, Cuban and Carribean rhythmic influence, a harmonic palette built from English/Irish scales and modes modified with West African blue-tones, which today predominantly features the Belgian/French saxophone. Whenever one tries to assign a 'national' identity to anything, one comes up with the fact that this identity is historically created, like the nation-state itself. Nations and national identity don't bequeath us anything--human collective creative power made everything which any 'national identity' holds so dear. And how much freer will be human collective creative power be when economic constraint is minimized through the common global human community!


Micah: I think it's worth pointing out that for William Morris, abolishing the nation wasn't mutually exclusive with preserving local traditions -- far from it! Consider this passage from News from Nowhere, his "Utopian" novel where a socialist wakes up 100 years in the future:


Said I: “How about your relations with foreign nations?”

“I will not affect not to know what you mean,” said he, “but I will tell you at once that the whole system of rival and contending nations which played so great a part in the ‘government’ of the world of civilisation has disappeared along with the inequality betwixt man and man in society.”

“Does not that make the world duller?” said I.

“Why?” said the old man.

“The obliteration of national variety,” said I.

“Nonsense,” he said, somewhat snappishly. “Cross the water and see. You will find plenty of variety: the landscape, the building, the diet, the amusements, all various. The men and women varying in looks as well as in habits of thought; the costume far more various than in the commercial period. How should it add to the variety or dispel the dulness, to coerce certain families or tribes, often heterogeneous and jarring with one another, into certain artificial and mechanical groups, and call them nations, and stimulate their patriotism—i.e., their foolish and envious prejudices?”

[Luisrah]

I was trying to say that, if the world would be all communist, then with no borders, no restrictions etc... the current cultures would mix and ''die''

I dare to say that there are billions of people who would like to travel around the world, and with that, you possibly wouldn't be in India when you're in India, you'd be in a place that is called India, but that is like the rest of the world.

Of course that new lifestyles, fashion, and cultures would appear, but this sort of globalisation could lead to a great decay in the current cultural differences (not the ones that make a difference in life conditions)
But you'd see chinese food all over the world, you'd see australian didgeridoos all over the world.
How is it ''culture'' if it isn't traditional in certain places only?

[Invincible Summer]

I hear a lot of bad things about globalization, the EU (saying that it's final goal is to turn Europe into a Federation (sp?), and ending countries within it) etc...

But I also hear that when the world reaches communism, countries cease to exist, and they are no longer relevant.

I agree that the state ultimately fades away, and countries stop ''existing'', but where does it end?

Will they stop being Switzerland and Nigeria (or any other country)?
Will there be no borders?

Like Niccolo said, the names will probably be kept for the sake of organization and administrative functions, but the actual nation-hood and borders will be gone.



Won't this mix cultures too much? Maybe even destryong cultures?
Won't this be a sort of globalization too?
How can cultures "mix too much?" What is the level at which mixing is considered "too much?" Why is this such a bad thing?

Besides, imperialism/colonialism is much better at destroying culture than eliminating borders and nation-hood.



All the world wearing suits when going to important places, eating with knife and fork, at a table, sleeping in a bed...
Wouldn't this happen if people could mix?
Well, white people "mixed" with Africans and Indians during colonialist conquests, and both those cultures predominantly eat with their hands still.

And I'm sure most people would like to sleep on a bed - it's more that they don't have/can't access one than it being against their culture to use one.

Why do you assume that once borders are broken, everyone will try to adopt N. American habits? Sort of Eurocentric...

[Luisrah]

And I'm sure most people would like to sleep on a bed - it's more that they don't have/can't access one than it being against their culture to use one.

Why do you assume that once borders are broken, everyone will try to adopt N. American habits? Sort of Eurocentric...

It's not that.

It was just an example since the North American habits are widely known and I suppose a lot of people admire them since they have lots of 'marketing' around the world.
Right where I live, people admire them, and their ways.

And the people sleeping on a bed would because some sleep in those things that japanese sleep (don't know the name), others sleep in nets if the climate allows it.

The point is that this sort of globalization could lead to having a dominant culture, or a creation of a one culture that is all over the world, because it's a mix of all of them.

[FSL]

The people saying "why is cultures mixing a bad thing?" certainly don't have in their mind eating bugs or dogs as it happens in other countries but instead having their culture accepted by everyone else in the world.

One needs to see that there are two kinds of globalization. For example, in a country/continent/world live people of many nationalities. Are children of all those nationalities learning their maternal language? Their people's history? Customs?

Instead of that what we often get is people from west demanding everyone embraces their culture/values. Happens with mexicans in the US who "must" speak english, with muslims in Europe who are obviously too "radical".

USA could be regarded by some as an example of where many cultures can coexist in peace. It isn't. Indian culture is mostly a tourist site, "black music" or "country" have been commercialized to death etc. This is the way cultures cease to exist and a capitalist globalization will give more markets to Hollywood, record companies, fast food chains among other things so everyone would end up looking like each other.

This shouldn't happen following a globalization initiated by the working class, instead popular elements of each culture would collide with those in another and create something new but also "pure" (the example that comes in mind is ska punk... sorry but that's what did came :)). So people should have a sense of identity and then expand/adjust it by interacting with others.

[Invincible Summer]

It's not that.

It was just an example since the North American habits are widely known and I suppose a lot of people admire them since they have lots of 'marketing' around the world.
Right where I live, people admire them, and their ways.

Fair enough.


And the people sleeping on a bed would because some sleep in those things that japanese sleep (don't know the name), others sleep in nets if the climate allows it.

I didn't know you were talking about beds specifically - I always consider "bed" to be more like a comfortable thing one rests on, not necessarily the Western box spring + mattress.

Not all Japanese people sleep in those coffin-bed things... and nets make sense in warm climates.


The point is that this sort of globalization could lead to having a dominant culture, or a creation of a one culture that is all over the world, because it's a mix of all of them.
I don't believe it would lead to a dominant culture. That sort of implies that there are cultures that are "stronger" and those that are "weaker."



The people saying "why is cultures mixing a bad thing?" certainly don't have in their mind eating bugs or dogs as it happens in other countries but instead having their culture accepted by everyone else in the world.
Oh I'm quite aware that people eat bugs and dogs in other parts of the world. And I'm fine with that. Why do you assume we're all cultural hegemonists?



This shouldn't happen following a globalization initiated by the working class, instead popular elements of each culture would collide with those in another and create something new but also "pure" (the example that comes in mind is ska punk... sorry but that's what did came :)). So people should have a sense of identity and then expand/adjust it by interacting with others.

So... you DO support cultural "mixing."

[Revy]

There will be a world socialist federation.

Nation-states will be rendered irrelevant immediately after revolution sweeps the world. There can be no compromise, the concept of the nation-state must be thoroughly abolished.

As for the former countries, well they will have the same status as states/provinces do in countries now.

[FSL]

So... you DO support cultural "mixing."



"white people "mixed" with Africans and Indians during colonialist conquests"

I was trying to distinguish the different kinds of mixing and point to the one we should pursuit.

[Luisrah]

I don't believe it would lead to a dominant culture. That sort of implies that there are cultures that are "stronger" and those that are "weaker."


Well, having a culture that is practiced by 1 billion people, for example, in contrast to cultures practiced by 20 million people would most probably make a difference when cultures mix.

Supposing that after a socialist revolution, all the cultures mixed, it is very possible that a new culture would result out of it, and some cultures could have more probabilities of having a mark on that culture than others.

But I guess that when a good and big socialist revolution comes, and the world turns around, even culture needs a good clean up and a new start maybe.