Results 1 to 17 of 17
In a stateless world, would nations continue to exist?
With the recent World Cup, I took a break from my usual ranting about how corrupt FIFA are to think about something - would people in a fully functioning Communist society continue the concept of territory being divided nations or countries? Would they become obsolete when the conception of the state withers away? Or remain as ways for people to conveniently organise themselves on a massive scale?
I only ask because I was wondering if/how global sport tournaments and the like would exist in a Communist world.
People probably only would keep the concept as in a geopgraphical sense. I feel being in New York would just give someone a general idea of the area they're in. The bourgeois conception would cease to exist, but people would still name geographical locations, and those names may even change.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Yeah, they are geographically useful. But what about flags and representation etc? TBH, geographical location would be the only real thing that separated people in Communism, would the idea of "national pride" or friendly competition between countries in sport remain a thing. I don't doubt that people will continue to play football, cricket, baseball or whatever because games are fun, but would they still be a medium of formal competition between territories?
Flags and representations would disappear with all of the other patriotic and nationalistic trash that get's produced as a commodity for people to consume. People would cease identifying as a nation of people slavishly beckoning to the authority of the bourgeois state and all of it's constructed idols like flags and national symbols. Any and all sense of nationalism would have to cease because they're a menace to liberty. Friendly competition as in sports may still exist, but there would exist no pride in a nation. Why would you have pride in a nation, in something that doesn't care about you, but that tends to those at the top? Why would you be proud of something founded on the slavery of one group of people and the genocide of another in the case of The United States of America? There would exist no patriotism to stray people away from what's going on, nothing to blind them from there own interests. Sports however may still be done in a sense like this, where groups of people compete for the fun of the game and the enjoyment of others to watch.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Yeah, we need a one world nation, it would lead to a more advanced mankind, to more progress and to more fun, to less boredom. That way people would have the option to live some years in USA, then move to Africa, then to Argentina and then to Europe. I think that there wouldn't be any need of passports and visas in the futuristic advanced communist-anarchist stage
In a world without gravity would weight matter?
DOES a bear shit in the woods?
No. Communism requires an end to nations.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
It would likely remain in the concept of ethnic groups, geographical location, and language. Ethnicity is something people can readily not care about, and obviously we can't change geographical location and language is something rather difficult to forcibly alter (see the Meme vs Forced Meme dichotomy). But so long as there is a higher ideal than differences in ethnicity, location, and language, you can ensure that at most, the rivalry of nations becomes little more than friendly ribbing and teasing.
When our guard is down
I think we’ll both agree That
Violence breeds violence
But in the end it has to be this way
-Metal Gear Rising
Isn't discussion of this sort of thing reactionary? We have no way of knowing and it's not important. We are viewing things from the viewpoint of capitalist society, thus the closest we could get to understanding the negation of this society is negating common principles that underpin the way our system works... and then simply giving a rough picture of what may come about. Of course, we then run the risk of professing a hidden utopianism by saying that "society will look like this blah blah".
"Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs."
- Guy Debord (Panegyric)
"Guided by the Marxist leader-dogmas of misbehaviourism and hysterical materialism, inevitably the masses will embrace, not only Groucho Marxism, but also each other."
- Bob Black (Theses on Groucho Marxism)
"I think that the task of philosophy is not to provide answers, but to show how the way we perceive a problem can be itself part of a problem."
- Slavoj Žižek ("Year of Distraction" lecture)
Hi Trotskistmarx. No one here wants or argues for a one world encompassing state. A one world nation sounds like something I would've advocated for in my white nationalist days which was a very brief and pathetic period for me. A lack of nations, a lack of statism and classism would benefit humankind. The whole world should lack borders so people can live and move about freely without some state or states having a say in the affairs of people's lives.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
Discussion of ideas helps to stimulate thought and understanding. We could get twenty conflicting responses and not know which one is right - that isn't professing utopianism, I never said that I wanted a conclusive answer - I wanted to know the thoughts of others. but still find value in debate itself. Not everything has to be tailored specifically towards achieving revolution - we can still discuss things for the sake of sharing and conversation can't we?
Last edited by Red Star Rising; 24th July 2014 at 14:30.
The term "one world nation" sounds a bit fascist doesn't it? But yeah, national borders would probably become much more arbitrary.
You're quite correct! As long as we don't expend too much time on the matter.
"Quotations are useful in periods of ignorance or obscurantist beliefs."
- Guy Debord (Panegyric)
"Guided by the Marxist leader-dogmas of misbehaviourism and hysterical materialism, inevitably the masses will embrace, not only Groucho Marxism, but also each other."
- Bob Black (Theses on Groucho Marxism)
"I think that the task of philosophy is not to provide answers, but to show how the way we perceive a problem can be itself part of a problem."
- Slavoj Žižek ("Year of Distraction" lecture)
Dear Sinister: I don't need you to tell me what sounds like fascist or not what is fascism and what is not fascism, what is right and what is wrong, because I didn't join revleft.com so that other revleft.com members can judge my own comments and arguments. I joined revleft.com to read the ideas and opinions of the revleft.com members and compare them with my own comments, so that I can choose which one is better, the opinions of the other members or my own opinion
.
Where did I say anything about fascism, and where did I tell what's right and what's wrong? I gave you my opinion on what you said, and I've stated me opinion. I know I mentioned white nationalism as in when I was young, but that was referring to who I was in the past.
Last edited by Sinister Intents; 24th July 2014 at 21:59.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
National identity wouldn't exist because it's just a way for the ruling class to create yet more artificial divides in the human race and a distraction for the masses - or, as I like to call it, prolefeed. But there would be political borders (although people would be able to cross them freely), and a decentralised communist society would need all of its different syndicates to unite on increasingly large scales with other syndicates located nearby.
I think they will continue to exist in the sense of different languages and some other parts of the cultural sphere.
I would personally like to see local dialects thrive, traditional music instruments and musical forms to be preserved, and even folk clothing to return. Some people in North America are somewhat alien to the concept, but in Europe until the modern age every people had it's own clothing style with each region having it's version of the folklore costume. I think some Latinos have this too. I love to see Arabs, Indians, Japanese etc. in their traditional clothing, just seems cool; also concerning music I love Chinese traditional music, a lot of soothing tunes. And of course there are various cuisines, interesting stuff to explore and try.
Concerning language it's interesting how nationalism is ironic because the nation-states have been the main enemy of various languages (and other parts of cultures). For example, when France started to form as a nation after the French Revolution, less then half of it's population spoke French as their first language, there were many Gallo-Romance languages, and after couple of centuries of simple existence of the nation-state with it's centralist nature a bunch of them disappeared and those that are left have miniscule number of speakers.
To quote a couple of lines from Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism:
"Equality does not imply the leveling of individual differences, nor that individuals should be made physically, morally, or mentally identical. Diversity in capacities and powers – those differences between races, nations, sexes, ages, and persons – far from being a social evil, constitutes, on the contrary, the abundance of humanity."
"It is impossible to determine a concrete, universal, and obligatory norm for the internal development and political organization of every nation. The life of each nation is subordinated to a plethora of different historical, geographical, and economic conditions, making it impossible to establish a model of organization equally valid for all. Any such attempt would be absolutely impractical. It would smother the richness and spontaneity of life which flourishes only in infinite diversity and, what is more, contradict the most fundamental principles of freedom."
pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will
previously known as impossible
