Nationalism [Archive]

Guest1

15th February 2004, 10:03

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

Commie Club FAQ (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=22204)

Does that answer your question?

As for Nationalism, it is merely another way to create divisions amongst us to keep us from rising together, united against the forces of racism, dictatorship and wage-slavery.

monkeydust

15th February 2004, 21:15

Yes nationalism is wrong. In my opinion of course.

Firstly, I, personally would like to see national boundaries destroyed, this however is my personal feeling of what would be 'better', I'm not saying national boundaries are morally wrong.

However, I feel nationalism is, not necessarily in itself but due due to factors that it always, or a tleast nearly always entails.

The fundementally 'bad' thing, for me, that results from nationalism is conflict. When one asserts that they are proud to belong to one nation they almost always are 'proud' because they feel their nation to be superior to another. Hence it follows that they consider other nations to be 'worse'.

In a time when nations fitted comfortably within national boundaries this, partially resulted in war. British pride was not merely a justification for colonisation, it was also a cause in the first place. If one believed (as many did) that British people were superior, they often felt it their duty to subjugate others to their rule, this is merely one example.

Today, with different nations within one country, nationalism creates prejudice and racism. This, again can be seen in Britain, as was shown in 'The secret policeman' documentary.

There's still a huge number of Britian's proud to be 'British', to the extent that they discriminate against those who they consider not to be 'British', notably balcks and/or 'Paki's' as they are called.

In short, I believe that if people didn't have a strong tie to one nation there would be a great deal less conflict. As I believe conflict to be 'bad' I therefore consider nationalsm to be 'bad' also.

Osman Ghazi

15th February 2004, 22:05

Nationalism in a nutshell:

"A bunch of people who happened to be born in my country did this, this and this and that is why I'm better than you."

Actually, the French use Napoleon and he wasn't even born there.

monkeydust

15th February 2004, 22:48

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 11:05 PM

Actually, the French use Napoleon and he wasn't even born there.
Indeed, interestingly, neither was Hitler born in Germany or Stalin in Russia.

LSD

15th February 2004, 23:14

...or Stalin in Russia.

Depends how you define Russia....

at the time of his birth and throughout his lifetime Georgia was considered part of Russia

Fidel Castro

16th February 2004, 00:59

Nationalism is one hell of a powerful force. It would prove very difficult to put a stop to such a force. Even in socialist nations we can see nationalist pride taking place, e.g in Cuba they are very patriotic.

Autarky

16th February 2004, 04:30

I dn't see anything inherently wrong with nationalism. It just depends on how it's used.

monkeydust

16th February 2004, 16:29

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 16 2004, 12:14 AM

...or Stalin in Russia.

Depends how you define Russia....

at the time of his birth and throughout his lifetime Georgia was considered part of Russia
Very true, in a similar way you can argue that Hitler was born in Germany. Indeed Austria was always acknowledged to be a 'Germanic' country, even when Bismarck unified Germany with the Second Reich. Hitler was also born in Linz just on the border.

Anyway this isn't the point.

Could Autarky please elaborate upon his point?

timbaly

16th February 2004, 17:03

I think nationalism is one of the most irrational concepts ever conceived. Why should you feel that you and your country men are some how superior to all those who weren't lucky enough to be born within the imaginary lines drawn on the map? There's no reason to be proud of your nation just becasue you were born there you had no say in the matter.

monkeydust

16th February 2004, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:03 PM
I think nationalism is one of the most irrational concepts ever conceived. Why should you feel that you and your country men are some how superior to all those who weren't lucky enough to be born within the imaginary lines drawn on the map? There's no reason to be proud of your nation just becasue you were born there you had no say in the matter.
You've hit the nail on the head here Timbaly.

Nationalism is a fundementally irrational concept. Like nearly all irrational concepts it's primitive, to a degree instinctive, almost even territorial.

Whilst some have tried to give credibility by making nationalism seem like an intellectual ideology, they have ultimately failed, as the concept lies on a firm irrational basis. Why be proud to be British? Yes the nation accomplished great achievments but who now, was alive in the times of Britains greatness, next to no-one. I'm British, but not hugely proud t be so, I accept that Britains achievments are not mine, they are products other great thinkers, engineers etc.

Perhaps the greatest example of how nationalism creates problems is the First World War. I'm not denying that the causes for this event were complex, yet clearly a large factor was the determined nationalism of the main powers involved. Britain couldn't stand it's proud navy being threatened, France hated German occupation of their land, Germany wanted an Empire etc.

If, in this case the powers worked together, rather than against each other, the conflict may nt have happened in the first place. The First World War was to a large degree, an irrational war.

monkeydust

16th February 2004, 17:33

Another point.

I think that we have sufficient technology to abolish national boundaries altogether. National boundaries, the way they are now aren't an old concept, humanity lived a long time without them before.

They served a purpose in the times that they were created, clear cultural groups, of the same ethnicity, language and religion were grouped within clear cut boundaries, identifying that group or nation.

Now with the development of multiculturalist societies, do national boundaries servea practical purpose?

Hegemonicretribution

16th February 2004, 23:39

Nationalism is presumptitive...arrogant and bordering on racist due to its dependance on a belief of superiority, at least in many previous cases. However there is merit in the context of toda's society. That is that nationalism could be used responsibly as a tool in saving a nation in a recession, or aintaining a higher sustainable rate of growth. Of course this is open to horrible political corruption, but is there nontheless.

Autarky

17th February 2004, 07:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:29 PM

Could Autarky please elaborate upon his point?
I essentially agree with you that nationalism is a primitive and instinctive urge or concept, stemming from both a biological and culutral point. Nationalism has been the driving force of numerous historical events. Not all good, not all bad.

shintso

17th February 2004, 07:26

As long as racism excists there is a need for nationalism.
i dont think nationalism is wrong since it keeps people, to whom prejudice ideas are an everyday basis, together.
if nationalism is used in order to upress a certain minority, then its wrong, but if it is used to endurce patriotism and a "love thy naighbor" kind of attitiude, then its a blessing.

face it, we're all different, the world isnt ready for the good and wholesom ideals of communism (marxism that is), and if we as a counrty, not as a socity, but as a country find a way to bridge over the financial and racial gaps, and i believe that the fact that we are all under the same nation it measns that we're equal.

in hebrew there are two meanings for nationalism, with only one letter seperating them. the first means nationalism in a militant manner, nationalism as a motive for war. the other is almost equivilant to patriotism, and i dont see any thing wrong with that

monkeydust

17th February 2004, 20:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 08:11 AM
Nationalism has been the driving force of numerous historical events. Not all good, not all bad.
Of course not all of the events it has caused are bad, nor good.

What good has it done? I accept that it has done some 'good' in a way. For example, much technological and industrial progress in the 19th century was partially a result of proud nationalistic workforces, as seen in Germany and Britain. So we can see how pride for ones country can help one to work hard in competing with other nations.

What 'bad' has it done? A lot. I stand by my example of WW1, I feel that a major cause of the war was nationalism.

Furthermore, I feel that today nationalism, even in small amounts can be dangerous, no longer do we live in a world where nations are clearly held within exclusive geographical boundaries. Feeling nationalistic creates huge divisions within countries, not in my opinion a good thing.

So to clarify your point, the combined frequency and significance of the 'bad' nationalism has caused, greatly outweighs the 'good'.

On this basis I would argue that it's more likely, (especially today) for nationalims to have a negative effect on society as a whole.

So in general, I consider irrational nationalism to be 'bad'.

Would you, on a rational basis disagree?

Osman Ghazi

17th February 2004, 20:21

Nationalism is to feel that you are superior to others because you are a member of a specific nation.

Patriotism is wholly different. It means feeling pride in the accomplishments of your country.

That is the way I see it anyway. So to me patriotism is, if not good or logical, at least not bad.

monkeydust

17th February 2004, 20:52

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 17 2004, 09:21 PM
Nationalism is to feel that you are superior to others because you are a member of a specific nation.

Patriotism is wholly different. It means feeling pride in the accomplishments of your country.

That is the way I see it anyway. So to me patriotism is, if not good or logical, at least not bad.
To Osman Ghazi

Very true, but don't beleive that patriotism and nationalism are two completely seperate concepts, they usually in fact go together.

Pride in one's country tends to be a relative thing. In the 19th Century you would be proud to be a flourishing, steam (coal) powered industrial nation. Today, such a state would seem 'primitive' in comparison. You wouldn't be so 'proud' of it.

So we can see how one tends to feel 'proud' of their country, largely not for the intrinsic value of its achievments, but because of the fact that it has achieved more than another. Conversely, this would imply that other nations are in fact 'lesser' and often leads to a belief that one country's better than another and a feeling that it's right to express this.

In short, Patriotism very often leads to nationalism, and there is only a very thin line between the two.

LSD

17th February 2004, 21:03

Patriotism is wholly different. It means feeling pride in the accomplishments of your country.

Yes, but what exactly are those accomplishments and what exactly is the country?

After all, most of these "accomplishments" only matter when compared against something. This "something" has to be another state. Thereby, in actuallity, patriotism is as much about superiority as it is about "accomplishing".

My state is better than your state, we've "accomplished" this, this, and this...

Sounds like "feeling superior" to me.

Furthemore, the "country" tends to be a rather nebulous entity.

Sure, it can be deliniated on a map, but the question remains, what exactly are you proud of?

The borders? The geography?

No.

You're proud of the people, theoretically, you're proud of your people and what they've done better than some other people.

YOU are better because YOUR PEOPLE are better...

Nationalism.

Different name, same damn thing.

Osman Ghazi

17th February 2004, 21:51

Very true, very true.

Patriotism leads to nationalism but they are not the same.
In order to feel pride, you don't have to feel superiority.

But then again maybe I'm just trying to dig myself out of a hole here. :D

Rasta Sapian

18th February 2004, 02:47

yes, i agee, patriotism is the way that we feel about our country, you must love your country to be patriotic, however nationalism is a word usually used in terms of defining the majority of a nations people, which usually in turn, mobilizes them against ethnicity, this may have something to do with neiboring countries or internanal cultural and political upheaval. Either way I find that the word nationalism has great potential to be used by dictators or even facists, while patriotism can only stand for good values! :)

peace yall

Guest1

18th February 2004, 02:52

Patriotism is just as harmful as nationalism, in fact, it can be even more harmful.

Just look at the nationalism of the us, nobody calls it for what it is. That makes it socially acceptable.

It is another form of control.

I for one, and am an international patriot.

Autarky

18th February 2004, 04:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:12 PM

Would you, on a rational basis disagree?
Other examples of "good" nationalism include the freedom of former imperial colonies nations. Eg, India, China, etc.

It depends how nationalism is utilised. As you said, the hyper nationalism of the 19-20th century led to war. It may have caused bad things to happen and even if these "bad" things outway the "good" it doesn't mean that all nationalism is inherently evil.

I have to admit, I am a patriot. It simply feels right, I get a kick when my country achieves something. Nationalism may be primitive and territorial but it's here to stay.

Comrade Zeke

18th February 2004, 05:02

LSD

18th February 2004, 06:40

I feel Nationlism is good only if the country that there being Nastiololistic and Patriotic for is a good country that desserved to be praised or needs Nationlsim to keep it together. Example:America, America should not be bragging about how great it is for it has done some bad stuff......it should not be pround. Now a country like England although it has done bad stuff It can take more credit and the Brits can call themselfs Brits and be Nationalitic.

What??

British nationalism is responsible for some of the greatest crimes in history.

Don't forget that Britain invented biological war and the concentration camp!

European nationalism is singally responsible for most of the horror of the bast 5 centuries, British definitely included.

Anthor Example of why you need Nationlism: In the care of the former Federal People's republic of Yugoslaiva Nationlism is the only thing besides Tito that kept that country together. But Nationlsim as seen in Yugoslavia can teer nations apart lol. So In my views Nationlism is good and bad. One should be pround of ones contry unless that counrty is messed up like America and Russia and China and some others.

I'm very confused here.

You shouldn't be proud of a "messed up" country, but you also shouldn't be proud of a country with a violent past.

um....doesn't that mean pretty much every country on earth?!?!

You seem to like Yugoslavian nationalism, but Yugoslavia in the 40s was indeed "messed up" and had a "violent past"

Other examples of "good" nationalism include the freedom of former imperial colonies nations. Eg, India, China, etc.

Yes but the problem with that sort of freedom is that once it has been achieved, the nationalistic country tends to end up in a bad place. Look at what's happening today in India and China.

monkeydust

18th February 2004, 16:13

To Rasta Sapian

yes, i agee, patriotism is the way that we feel about our country, you must love your country to be patriotic, however nationalism is a word usually used in terms of defining the majority of a nations people, which usually in turn, mobilizes them against ethnicity, this may have something to do with neiboring countries or internanal cultural and political upheaval. Either way I find that the word nationalism has great potential to be used by dictators or even facists, while patriotism can only stand for good values

You seem to make a great distinction here. Essentially

"Nationalism is bad"

"Patriotism is good"

I take issue with this, patriotism and nationalism are very similar in their implications. If one is a patriot, whether they know it or not they are a nationalist.

The majority of people I know who assert the claim "I'm proud to be British" are very nationalistic, also tending to claim "I bloody hate the French" or "I bloddy hate Paki's" and still many claim (to Germans) "We won the war". Such comments illustrate profound nationalist sentiment and go hand in hand with "British pride".

Also, don't forget that nationalism doesn't always a belief that one ethnic group is better than another.

Modern nationalism in fact often doesn't encompass ethnicity. For example, American nationalism does not due to the fact that America is a nation a vastly differing ethnic and cultural groups, often who share a national bond seperate to any particular race.

In this case, Americans are often proud of their Western ideology and the 'American way' of things. They're proud of their 'liberty' and 'bill of rights', they're also proud of their capitalism, a shame.

Autarky

It depends how nationalism is utilised. As you said, the hyper nationalism of the 19-20th century led to war. It may have caused bad things to happen and even if these "bad" things outway the "good" it doesn't mean that all nationalism is inherently evil.

Perhaps not, but I maintain that due to the 'fact' that nationalsim is more likely to result in 'bad' than 'good' it is a 'bad' thing to believe in.

Moreover I would argue that nationalism has served its purpose, no longer do we need these great national ties to prosper, we need I feel to look beyond this, instead believing in 'common humanity', as Che y Marijuana put it 'international patriotism'

This can be seen today in Europe to a degree. Now that continental countries, notably Germany and France have abandoned their petty rivalries they are able to benefit eachother to a much greater degree, there's far less tension and hatred prevalent in Europe these days.

I personally feel that nationalism is a lingering menace from early 20th century and previosuly. It needs to be done away with.

Dirty Commie

18th February 2004, 19:28

The problem with nationalism is that it exists in it's present form as a way to unite people of a certain country to feel better than those people in other countries which iyself is hypocratic, as nearly everyone in the industrialized worl has ancestors who immigrated from somewhere. The last 500 years of war everywhere and genocide of the Amerindian population have made it almost impossible to have a sense of pride in your national heritage. Here in amerika, anyone saying they are proud to be american is denying the fact that the Amerindian's were here centuries before Europeans, In Europe, Most of the borders are either due to geographical convienance, or to post war agreements, not due to where one ethnic group lives in comparison to another.

monkeydust

18th February 2004, 20:31

Originally posted by Dirty [email protected] 18 2004, 08:28 PM
The problem with nationalism is that it exists in it's present form as a way to unite people of a certain country to feel better than those people in other countries which iyself is hypocratic, as nearly everyone in the industrialized worl has ancestors who immigrated from somewhere. The last 500 years of war everywhere and genocide of the Amerindian population have made it almost impossible to have a sense of pride in your national heritage. Here in amerika, anyone saying they are proud to be american is denying the fact that the Amerindian's were here centuries before Europeans, In Europe, Most of the borders are either due to geographical convienance, or to post war agreements, not due to where one ethnic group lives in comparison to another.
Excellent point. I firmly agree. This is why I have been saying nationalism is so outdated, and dangerous.

Most nationalism quite obviously revolves around pride in a nation .

Traditionally nations and countries coincided quite nicely, with exceptions (e.g. the Jews).

Today, we can see several nations within single countries.

In England we have, Pakistani's, Kosovans, Indians, as well as your traditional white Britis.
Nationalsim in Britian, as advocated by the growing BNP, doesn't only involve agressive foreign policy, it involves agressive internal policy also. Today, British nationalism presents conflicts within Britain itself, many "traditional" Brits are greatly opposed to "immigrants". It's a worrying concern....

Solace

18th February 2004, 22:18

Most nationalism quite obviously revolves around pride in a nation .

I noticed to "most" in there, but I just want to point something out.

From the French Revolution to the fall of the 2rd Reich, the French had a particular conception of their nationalism.

For example, Germans nationalism rely on the "blood" on their origins. French define the nation by their Constitution, by the "desire to live together" as Renan would put it.

So, nationalism can also be based around the present rather than the past.

Comment: I suggest you to read What is a nation from Ernest Renan. Very interresting and thoughtful.

Autarky

19th February 2004, 04:03

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2004, 07:40 AM

Yes but the problem with that sort of freedom is that once it has been achieved, the nationalistic country tends to end up in a bad place. Look at what's happening today in India and China.
Are you saying it was preferable for these countries to remain colonies?

I personally feel that nationalism is a lingering menace from early 20th century and previously. It needs to be done away with.

Well, good luck with that :rolleyes:

The Unmoved Mover

19th February 2004, 16:29

Nationalism is wrong in my opinion for many reasons. In my own mind, I have nothing against the people of America. I love my fellow countrymen, but I hate the government. Nationalism is an ugly thing because its implying that your country is better than the rest of the world. And why? America has the most money, thats true. It may be the funnest place for some, thats true. If you mean we are the most powerful nation on earth, that is a fact. But when you start to love the flag and the country itself, ask yourself why. Maybe it has worked for you....but does it work for everybody? Is everything you hear about why we're so good true? This is a round world last time I checked......and I suppose if somebody wants to be blindly patriotic and turn their back to the negative things this country has done to the rest of the world and to its own people, then thats their choice. But.......nationalism is bullshit. Its a product sell......and the product is bullshit.

Iepilei

19th February 2004, 16:42

Any nationalistic nation will never be able to unite under a international workers cause. Where you are born geographically shouldn't matter. What should matter are cultural backgrounds and how you came to be who you are now. Culture doesn't extend merely within one border. We should embrace the abilities we all share as a human collective, and forget the people our grandfathers killed in the name of imperialism.

I, as well, am an international patriot. Damn proud of it, too!

Comrade Zeke

22nd February 2004, 02:22

Well sometimes we have to forget the past..I mean we should learn about it but sometimes we must foget...in the case of America, America was the best country on Earth to live in up intill Andrew Jackson. I don't like America and I am not Patrotic twored it even though I live here i feel bad but the only good things America has done is write war stories, bring Democracy to other nations and sometimes help other nations with Humaitarian aid. I Live in Hawaii and i think of myself as Hawaiin not by blood but by state. I am proud to live in Hawaii because Hawaii has a great histroy and culture that was stamped out 100 years ago by American Imperalism. I think Americans are the best people on earth because they beilive in freedom...but then again as Simon Bolivar would say: "The Untied States is desited to plague the Conitnets of North and South America with hunger and death all in the name freedom." Going back to the United Kingdom....Although I think the British empire was the most stuck up arrgont,awful Imperlist country earth has ever seen you got to admit it did some good stuff in it's career and it could boast about its Military victories and helping people out in trade and spreading Nationlsim for one's country. Britain is the father of America and I don't like England very much but we must respect for they have culture and can boast that their empire is the only one that survives to this day. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BRITISH empire I hate it because it ensalved Mother Ireland...and I love Ireland but we must respect it. So do not dwell in the past I beilive that Nationlism should survive..be proud of the country,state county or home at least, you live in.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

22nd February 2004, 03:35

The way I see it, nations are a screwed up concept to begin with. They might be necessary until the time of global revolution, which I don't see in the forseeable future, but that doesn't mean that I have to like them. Love of a country inevitably leads to the hate of another. One should be loyal to the party, not the nation.

Don't Change Your Name

22nd February 2004, 06:12

Nationalism is an irrational crap. The basic idea is that the nation should be honored and be over the individual. Nationalism has proven to be a powerful tool to get the masses and control them, because the nation is interpreted as the government, so the government is the nation. This means that "we should be friends with China" (an example) is used by people to refer the political stance their government has towards another country. This is a dangerous thing. Government, state and nation aren't the same thing!

In such an individualist world like this, most people will see their nation as what keeps the individuals united as a society, which is another dangerous thing.

I don't think nationalism and patriotism are completely useless, because they can be used to show how foreign forces are exploiting a certain nation. This anti-imperialist nationalism is not a bad thing if it's not taken to extremes. Historically people has been divided in different nations which took the current shape, and sometimes they represent a certain group of people. But nowadays nations have many different cultures inside so the population has more diversity. Every person should have the right of a nation to live in, where they can live with the society and have their own customs, but nations should be slowly destroyed in importance, and by replaced with things like "the Mexican people", instead of frontiers.

Comrade Zeke

22nd February 2004, 07:26

TO MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr we shouldn't be so narrow minded as just to beilive that the Communist party will take over the world..I am sorry to say that it probely wont in our lifetimes. But we can look back at history and study all about but the Earth needs Nationlism to keep its diffrent cultures. There is nothing wrong with countires, I am not an ancarcist and I do not think there will be one big Commue. Nationlsim although it starts war and hate it is still a good thing one of those virtues to have pride for the place you live. :D