Is nationalism rational?

[communist_kyle]

Is nationalism best understood as a rational phenomenon?

a socialist perspective?

[Vargha Poralli]

It depends mainly on the context IMO. While nationalism has lead to the first world war. It is the same thing that enabled Vietnamese to resist the American occupation which totally outgunned the former. At the same time it is also the major factor that is preventing India from turning in to a Yugoslavia.

In short IMO it is not either this or that type of Question.

[Hate Is Art]

Nationalism when you get right down to it is completly irrational, it grows from small minded xenophobia and racism. It appeals to a mob mentality to make vast, unimaginable horrors seem quite OK, because 'we all love our country'

It plays on the fact that 'others' are not just 'others' but are threatening our 'culture'. All nations are abstract, bizzare principals which are only of use to fascists and bigots. Nationalism is in no way a rational phenomona it is quite clearly irrational. Would you send your son to kill someone else's son? No. But for Queen and country, send all our sons.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:55 pm
Is nationalism best understood as a rational phenomenon?
The question isn't clear. Do you mean rational in the sense that it emerged logically from social conditions? Or are you asking whether nationalism as an ideology is rational?

I don't get it?

[black magick hustla]

nationalism as an ideology is completely irrational

the reasoning behind it is the same one of racial supremacy--pride for something that wasn't made out of a conscious choice. this is why the most extreme nationalists are generally racists and reactionary to the core.

nationalism acts as a political cult, because it is about praising a superior greatness than people themselves--that is, the concept of the nation. such a concept is extemely mystical, in the same way god and christ are mystical.

throughout history, the most extreme nationalist movements acted against the organized working class.

nationalism is the ideological staple of the modern nation-state, in the same way religion was the ideological staple of monarchies. communists should look upon the destruction of nationalism, not condone it.

[anti-theist]

I think its extremely irrational, unless I misunderstand the concept of nationalism.

Economically, it obviously has failed, according to history.

Socially, its just as bad. It basically is the notion that everyone in a certain country is better than everyone else.

[Hit The North]

It is certainly not irrational to believe yourself to belong to a particular community (which is what nationalism is). The community you choose is an ideological decision.


All nations are abstract, bizzare principals which are only of use to fascists and bigots.

If nationhood really is a mere illusion and only of use to the idiots you mention, it would be easy to defeat.

[Conghaileach]

I suppose I'm a nationalist in that I'm an Irish language activist, which is something that could be considered irrational from a utilitarian point of view. What use can my native language possibly have in an increasingly globalised world?

Some people would view it as an act of resistance against British rule, to speak Irish despite various attempts to "civilise" us natives down through the generations (it was also used by republican POWs as a tool so that they could communicate freely without the screws being able to understand what they were talking about). But more fundamentally than than, I think it comes down to a question of diversity.

In colonial situations, the colonised are coerced into aping the coloniser - in terms of language, modes of dress, conventions of morality, value systems, etc. In a more general sense today most of us living in the Western world find ourselves completely dominated by an Anglo-American cultural imperialism. What this is leading to is a cultural wasteland, which in my view must be opposed.

So does this make me a nationalist? Yes. Do it make me irrational? Perhaps. Am I a racist or jingoist or a national chauvinist? I'd like to think not. I'm Irish, that's it. I don't consider myself superior to or better than anyone else. I would hope to see many different cultures and languages, especially those under threat today, revive and flourish.

Evolutionary scientists will tell you that homogenous species, those with no diversity, are doomed to extinction. I feel the same will be in store for us if we do not create an alternative way of thinking to the current hegemony of Anglo-American capitalism.

[RedAnarchist]

As nationality is an accident of birth, I would say that nationalism is totally irrational, as is pride in any other "birth accident" feature.

[Severian]

Depends what's meant. Nationalism is usually associated with national myths and all kinds of nonrational stuff, but it does serve real interests and needs.

Nationalism is probably more rational, than, say, any political approach which pretends to represent pure reason while flatly rejecting anything "irrational".

[KC]

If nationhood really is a mere illusion and only of use to the idiots you mention, it would be easy to defeat.

Hardly. It exists insofar as race exists; while these both are viable issues that we deal with today, they are both merely ideas created around an illusion. Nations don't exist, nor does race, but these are problems that we must deal with because these things exist as ideas that influence people. The similar thing could be said about many issues that we deal with in society.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:05 pm
Evolutionary scientists will tell you that homogenous species, those with no diversity, are doomed to extinction. I feel the same will be in store for us if we do not create an alternative way of thinking to the current hegemony of Anglo-American capitalism.
Actually, widening the gene pool would be the most beneficial thing to happen to humanity. Genetic illnesses such as Tay Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia wouldn't be as prevalent. Of course, with 6.5 billion on this planet, I don't think the lack of diversity would be a cause to worry anyway.

Nationalism usually is completely irrational, simply because it forces one's loyalty to the state, not ones' class. In Third World countries, places that are currently getting exploited by the current hyperpower, nationalism can initially be a progressive thing. However, the danger is that once the power is ushered out of the country, the nationalist fervor continues. This can, history has proved, lead to wars, genocides, totalitarian regimes, etc. Nationalism isn't a force that should be at the forefront of any revolutionary struggle. But at crucial times it can be a united force.

In the case of nationalism, you're definately playing with fire.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It's all about dividing us when we shouldn't be hung up on such trivial things. It's hard to rationalize in my mind.

[Chocobo]

Anyone even pretending to say nationalism is rational is just completly foolish. Nationalism is based on private propety and ignorance. Where boundaries and restriction make a certain people and place great. Its idiotic, foolish, and a complete waste of time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:37 pm
nationalism as an ideology is completely irrational
Why is it?


the reasoning behind it is the same one of racial supremacy--pride for something that wasn't made out of a conscious choice

That's not nationalism


nationalism acts as a political cult, because it is about praising a superior greatness than people themselves

Why is that irrational?


such a concept is extemely mystical, in the same way god and christ are mystical.

I don't agree. There are specific economic, social and cultural reasons why some people regard their country to be 'better' than another - or the greatest as you put it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:41 am
Anyone even pretending to say nationalism is rational is just completly foolish.
Nationalism is a rational conclusion of a capitalist society.


Nationalism is based on private propety and ignorance.

Why is private property and ignorance irrational? I think we have to be very careful in making sweeping statements like this. Instead of a gut emotional reaction against a repugnant set of ideas, one must apply reason in understanding.

Simply branding something irrational because you don't agree with it is pointless. Nationalism isn't just some half-baked threat thrown together by idiots. Nationalism is not void of reason and in fact makes allot of logical sense to allot of people.

Be careful in dismissing things.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 23, 2007 04:36 am
Nations don't exist
Yes they do...

[seraphim]

Nationalism is clearly in oposition too, and in detrement all leftist ldeals.

[ComradeR]

What has nationalism brought us? War, genocide/ethnic cleansing, totalitarianism, Nazism/Fascistism, torture, mass murder etc.
Now ask yourself, does any of that sound rational to you?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:16 pm
What has nationalism brought us? War, genocide/ethnic cleansing, totalitarianism, Nazism/Fascistism, torture, mass murder etc.
Now ask yourself, does any of that sound rational to you?
What do you mean by rational?

To call those things irrational would be to say they were void of reason and they weren't/arne't. To dismiss these things as irrational, especially without understanding what this means, is very dangerous.

Those who lead the Nazi and fascist movements are not irrational people.

[KC]

I don't agree. There are specific economic, social and cultural reasons why some people regard their country to be 'better' than another - or the greatest as you put it.

There is a massive difference between the concept of nation and country.


Yes they do...

No they don't. Countries exist. States exist. Governments exist. Cultures exist. Nations do not. Perhaps you could offer more of an argument than disagreement. Why do you assert what you do? Once you do this then we can have an insightful discussion, but until you do that we have nothing.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is, by your defintion, a nation?

[KC]

I think it would be better if you supplied yours.

[RGacky3]

Nationalism is completely irrational, (Nationalism I'm equating with Patriotism equating the Nation with the State/Government), Nations are basically artificial entities with each one being ruled by a government with no right to exist, its just areas controlled by different governments, and I don't think being proud of being ruled over by a certain state is rational at all and its dangerous.

However Culture and community is different, being proud of your heritige and culture, feeling attached to your community is different, theres no State involved, its just you being attached to your surroundings and you background, and I think its healthy, for example I live in California, and I have Mexican Heratige, and I think its wonderful to see people living in the US but speaking spanish and holding on to their roots, but that has nothing to do with the Mexican government and the Mexican state. But I also like seeing people from other cultures keep their language and culture.

[black magick hustla]

That's not nationalism


it is part of it, and a very big part of it.


Why is that irrational?

because it is completely unmaterialist. it places some metaphysical concept over our heads. it is completely mystical and irrational.



I don't agree. There are specific economic, social and cultural reasons why some people regard their country to be 'better' than another - or the greatest as you put it.

i disagree. patriots of all stripes would argue that a member of a certain nation-state needs to be loyal to that state over all the other states. this is not because of "specific economic reasons", this is because of ideological reasons.

as a marxist, i do realize that ideology is product of material conditions, however.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 23, 2007 09:59 am
I think it would be better if you supplied yours.
I can give you the standard Marxist definition: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Without the common territory/geographical area, it's a nationality or national minority.

From a 1913 article by Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm#s1) which he was assigned to write expressing the Bolshevik Party's line on the question.

Anyway, in order to combat nationalism, or its mystical and otherwise reactionary aspects, its necessary to deal with the reality of nations. And not ignore them.

[KC]

I can give you the standard Marxist definition: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Okay, let's work with this. First, if a necessary requirement of a nation is that it is formed on the basis of a common language, then what of countries where this isn't so? The United States, for example, has about 11% of the population speaking Spanish. This clearly isn't a "common language".

Granted, we can agree that Americans all live in the territory known as the USA. So one of the necessary requirements of a nation is people living in the same country.

Now on to economic life. What does this mean? Can we consider the United States a nation when there is such a vast difference between citizens on their economic lives? For example, the top 2% own half of the country's wealth, while we have 12% of the population living below the poverty line. If by economic life, you mean the economic life of individuals, then this obviously isn't true.

However, if by economic life you mean that the group of people live in a location with a common economic system then this gives us a different answer. In this sense the economic system is dictated by the government and its policies. Government is merely an institution of state, sort of the "brain" of the state.

As for psychological make-up, this is obviously untrue in the United States, proven by the very issue which we as Marxists recognize: that of class struggle.

And as for a "common culture," you would be hard-pressed to find one in the United States, as different groups of people in the country each have a different "common culture".

Basically, your definition states that a nation is composed of a country, a state and a common culture, and also possibly a common economic life, depending on how you define that. But as we can see, there is no such thing as a "common culture" or a "common economic life" or a "common psychological make-up". There is, of course, country and state. However, the whole point I'm trying to make is that the concept of nation is an empty concept, as country and state are concepts of their own and independent of one another. Country as a geographic location or territory certainly exists, and a state certainly exists, but nation as a "fusion" of the two and the inclusion of an idea of "common culture" and "common psychological make-up" certainly does not.


Anyway, in order to combat nationalism, or its mystical and otherwise reactionary aspects, its necessary to deal with the reality of nations. And not ignore them.

Well, I'd agree with you, to an extent. In order for us to combat nationalism, we must recognize the concept of nation for what it is: an artificially created concept grounded in the distortion of what really exists. Of course, the idea of nation certainly exists, but it only exists as an idea. The nation as a real institution or as a "materialization" of the concept itself does not exist in reality.

Once we get past that we can understand that what really exists is country and state; or, a geographical territory on the map and a set of institutions used to administer the happenings within that territory. This makes it possible for us to get to the krux of the matter: the state.

All the statistics in this post, by the way, are from the CIA World Factbook.

[Question everything]

I say nationalism can very often be mis-guided, but I also believe in God which many people here would also find irrational, I think both are acceptable, as long as they have no effect on political decisions...

[Severian]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 25, 2007 12:14 pm

I can give you the standard Marxist definition: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Okay, let's work with this. First, if a necessary requirement of a nation is that it is formed on the basis of a common language, then what of countries where this isn't so? The United States, for example, has about 11% of the population speaking Spanish. This clearly isn't a "common language".
Right; the U.S. isn't a nation. It's a multinational state. Within this state live a number of oppressed nationalities, including Black people, Chicanos, etc. Many states in the world are even more multinational - e.g. Russia and Iran. The USSR had no majority nationality.

It's a common assumption that nation and state are the same thing. I'm surprised to see you making this assumption, since you just said nations don't exist and obviously states (like the U.S. and other countries) do.

What Marxists call nationality, the bourgeois press often calls ethnicity. It's kinda tomato-tomahto, except "ethnicity" literally involved blood or genetic descent, which is often not present.

Some states are nation-states - their borders roughly correspond to the territory of a nation. A common feature of classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions was trying to create a united and idependent state corresponding to the nation in formation: France was one of the more successful examples.

'Course, there is no such thing as a totally pure nation-state - human society's so messy there's few "pure" examples of any social formation can be found. France, for example, includes Corsica, Basques and Bretons, included a lot of colonies at one time, and now includes a growing number of African and Middle Eastern immigrants and their children.