Why Were Nations Created Again?

[R_P_A_S]

I've heard some arguments before on here. some very good ones on the subject of borders and nations. And I would like to further discuss this issue.

My questions come from recently feeling a stronger brotherhood and bound with my fellow proletariat. a bond that I didn't feel before because of how 'different' i thought we were since we all came from different countries.

Latin America sadly is divided into nations and we all are very proud of where we come from. however this pride has led to ignorance. Ignorance that I have been guilty of.

Mexicans think they are better than Guatemalans, Hondurans feel superior than Nicaraguans and Costar Rica feels its the best of central American. South America has it's issue with this too.

We forget that this imaginary borders never existed and that we are all tied to the same chains and share the same oppressors. I see this very clearly now. and I feel more brotherhood not only towards my brothers and sisters in the Americas. but with some of you guys across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

So why were nations created? why were capitals and states there for?

thank you!

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Nations were created to divide us and make the powerful more powerful. Anarchists do not support naitons or nationhood of any kind.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:11 pm
Nations were created to divide us and make the powerful more powerful. Anarchists do not support naitons or nationhood of any kind.
But is that the honest reason nations were created or is that merely how it ended up? Usually these types of things begin with good intentions.

[Fawkes]

Nations' purpose is to divide the proletariat, thus making an international revolution that much more unlikely.


1000th post, WOOT WOOT!!!

[Aurora]

I think RPAS is refering to how nations came about,more than what they do.

im tired i'll respond tomorow

[AlwaysAnarchy]

All right. Agreed.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I thikn it began as a primal sort of thing. Ancient warlords could gather all those with the same language and culture and tie them to one bit of land, thus consolidating the warlord's power, making him a king. The division by intention came a little later.

[Delirium]

The state exists to maintain power, privilege, and capital in the hands of a ruling class.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Delirium [email protected] 22, 2007 07:41 am
The state exists to maintain power, privilege, and capital in the hands of a ruling class.
this is the kind of shit im looking for! right on homie. i like it

[The Grey Blur]

Nations were created by bourgeois revolutions, the overthrow of feudal production relations creating seperate "states" run by the capitalists. The French revolution is the archetypal example of this.

[Delirium]

The state, therefore has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which managed without it, which had no conception of the stat and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this cleavage.
-Engles

[KC]

Nation and state are not the same thing. Feudal societies had states, for example, but no nations.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 22, 2007 04:15 am
Nations were created by bourgeois revolutions, the overthrow of feudal production relations creating seperate "states" run by the capitalists. The French revolution is the archetypal example of this.
Basically right. Nationalism developed as an ideology in the 19th century and helped to break up a number of empires (Austria-Hungary, for example), while creating others (Germany, Italy to a much lesser extent) and was primarily pushed forward by the bourgeois or their equivalents within various nations.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:16 pm

The state, therefore has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which managed without it, which had no conception of the stat and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this cleavage.
-Engles

Can you or anyone else give some examples of societies that existed with out the state?

I get the feeling that many people. specially those the lack class consciousness deeply believe that there can't be a working community or society with out a ruling government. a state a capital "a leader"... what the fuck

I would love detail examples of societies that exist or existed with out a state.

[Janus]

Can you or anyone else give some examples of societies that existed with out the state?
Tribal/primitive societies.

[( R )evolution]

Nations began to form during the Napoleonic era. (Though I know some people will disagree with me) Napoleons expansion in Europe created a union between people who had a common bond (like language, identity, ethnicity etc.) and when Napoleon came in they united and this create a feeling of nationalism (this was not the only way nationalism came about but this is an example) and then you had further people pushing nationalism, like people in Germany with there native folk songs which tried to create a national cultural bond. But you must recgonize that in feudal times there was no nations but rather like manors, or states. It was not until bourgeois revolutions (example French Revolution) took away the power from nobles and placed every1 equal to the extent of there funds. So, nations came about because of nationalism and some other factors. But in modern capitalism the idea of the nation is being used to keep the power in the hands of the bourgeois also to divide the workers. Because if the workers stopped bickering of who has the better nation and united because they are all workers, the capitalist would be done.

[Enragé]

conflicts amongst the powerful would be my best bet.

[Morpheus]

Nations were originally the product of the interactions between gunpowder weapons and European state structures. Many civilizations have developed gunpowder weapons, but usually their development was stunted because their use was regarded as what we would call a war crime today. When they were introduced into late-medieval Europe many Europeans thought the same, but Europe was divided into numerous small warring states. Their constant fighting with each other created a major incentive to develop and use gunpowder weapons, while the lack of a central powerful authority (like the Emperor in China) made it impossible to force the states to stop using them.

The development of gunpowder weapons had a dramatic effect on many aspects of European evolution, including the development of nations. Early gunpowder weapons weren't anymore effective than longbows, but they were easier to use and required less training. This meant, with sufficient funds, states could raise a large army relatively quickly. Since gunpowder armies were larger than previous armies, states need a new means to control and administer their soldiers - large scale bureaucracy. The spread of bureaucracy undermined feudal concepts and encouraged new forms of group identity to emerge - resulting in concepts such as nationalism, citizenship and republicanism. Once created, various groups used nationalism for different purposes - including both empire building and rebelling against empires. Many non-European societies utilized nationalism as a way to justify their own fight for independance. In Latin American, pro-independance Latin American elites cultivated nationalism as a way to kick Spain & Portugal out without simultaniously provoking an uprising of the lower classes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:06 am
Latin America sadly is divided into nations and we all are very proud of where we come from. however this pride has led to ignorance. Ignorance that I have been guilty of.

Mexicans think they are better than Guatemalans, Hondurans feel superior than Nicaraguans and Costar Rica feels its the best of central American. South America has it's issue with this too.

We forget that this imaginary borders never existed and that we are all tied to the same chains and share the same oppressors. I see this very clearly now. and I feel more brotherhood not only towards my brothers and sisters in the Americas. but with some of you guys across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

So why were nations created? why were capitals and states there for?

thank you!
I can understand the differentiation between Turks, Iranians, and Arabs, but Latin America??? Aside from Brasil and a couple of French-speaking countries, you're right! :angry:

Even the separate indigenous cultures of the Latin American countries identify with themselves more than they do with their home country. It is only the non-indigenous "majority" that identify with artificial country-constructs.



Now, even if nation-states exist today, what about economic blocs like the EU (or specifically, the Western European sub-bloc) as a counter to the extreme Yugoslav experience?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+May 23, 2007 02:59 pm--> (R_P_A_S @ May 23, 2007 02:59 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 07:16 pm

The state, therefore has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which managed without it, which had no conception of the stat and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this cleavage.
-Engles

Can you or anyone else give some examples of societies that existed with out the state?

I get the feeling that many people. specially those the lack class consciousness deeply believe that there can't be a working community or society with out a ruling government. a state a capital "a leader"... what the fuck

I would love detail examples of societies that exist or existed with out a state. [/b]
As of right now don't the Zapatistas live in a society outside that of the state?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+May 24, 2007 08:25 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ May 24, 2007 08:25 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 07:16 pm

The state, therefore has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which managed without it, which had no conception of the stat and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this cleavage.
-Engles

Can you or anyone else give some examples of societies that existed with out the state?

I get the feeling that many people. specially those the lack class consciousness deeply believe that there can't be a working community or society with out a ruling government. a state a capital "a leader"... what the fuck

I would love detail examples of societies that exist or existed with out a state.
As of right now don't the Zapatistas live in a society outside that of the state? [/b]
if that was true.. then why are they still fighting?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by R_P_A_S+May 24, 2007 12:27 am--> (R_P_A_S @ May 24, 2007 12:27 am)
Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 24, 2007 08:25 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:59 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 07:16 pm

The state, therefore has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies which managed without it, which had no conception of the stat and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this cleavage.
-Engles

Can you or anyone else give some examples of societies that existed with out the state?

I get the feeling that many people. specially those the lack class consciousness deeply believe that there can't be a working community or society with out a ruling government. a state a capital "a leader"... what the fuck

I would love detail examples of societies that exist or existed with out a state.
As of right now don't the Zapatistas live in a society outside that of the state?
if that was true.. then why are they still fighting? [/b]
I am not really sure if it is true in the first place as I am not fully knowledgeable on the situation. I have many books on my backlist. But living outside of the state or without a state does not mean you will be free of other state's imperialism.

[Comeback Kid]

Originally posted by ( R )[email protected] 24, 2007 12:12 am
Nations began to form during the Napoleonic era. (Though I know some people will disagree with me) Napoleons expansion in Europe created a union between people who had a common bond (like language, identity, ethnicity etc.) and when Napoleon came in they united and this create a feeling of nationalism (this was not the only way nationalism came about but this is an example) and then you had further people pushing nationalism, like people in Germany with there native folk songs which tried to create a national cultural bond. But you must recgonize that in feudal times there was no nations but rather like manors, or states. It was not until bourgeois revolutions (example French Revolution) took away the power from nobles and placed every1 equal to the extent of there funds. So, nations came about because of nationalism and some other factors. But in modern capitalism the idea of the nation is being used to keep the power in the hands of the bourgeois also to divide the workers. Because if the workers stopped bickering of who has the better nation and united because they are all workers, the capitalist would be done.
spot on, straight out of a history textbook.

[Janus]

then why are they still fighting?
They're no longer in a state of conflict but when they originally emerged, they were forced to defend themselves against the state.