Is it possible to get rid of nationalism?

[Kyriakos]

^[niceenglishaccent]The trouble with Scotland, is that it's full of Scots! [/niceenglishaccent]





Back on topic: I am of the view that democracy can only have meaning if the state is reasonably small in regards to its population. Even a few million streches it, already, let alone the monstrous 500 million people in the current eu. From antiquity this view on the dependence of democracy not being heavily corrupted, on the state having a reasonable number of citizens, was quite widespread (eg Aristotle mentions it many times in his critique of the Athenian polis).

 

[timtofly]

it's weird seeing so many of you argue that nationalism is part of "human nature" when according to most historians is an entirely modern concept that would have seemed silly to those who came before it.

More than likely because there were not enough people to coral into large groups. I think that my group against the rest was there under the surface from the get go of organized land grabbers.

 

[Tahuti]

it's weird seeing so many of you argue that nationalism is part of "human nature" when according to most historians is an entirely modern concept that would have seemed silly to those who came before it.

Nationalism is indeed a modern concept. However, the human aspects that lead to nationalism are as old mankind itself. We are tribalistic creatures: We are not completely individualistic like Libertarians say, but unlike what Marxists like to claim, we are only social to the extent we perceive it's necessary as opposed to social in every possible way. We tend to form groups and then fight against other groups due to differing opinions we take out of self-interest. Nationalism is simply an application of tribalism on a massive scale.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not before
(1) The sovereign moves down to a very local level (city states) which gives you community racism instead of nation racism
(2) The sovereign moves up to a world-encompassing level. Only that will give sufficient incentive to think of people not in terms of rivaling big groups. They now act as one after all.
(3) The sovereign checks out. Because we have some sort of direct global democracy. For the same reason given above.

But as long as big gulps of people engulfed in total anonymity act as different entities, entities constituting sovereigns, some form of nationalism is just too rewarding for each entity IMO.

 

[Hygro]

Nationalism is tribalism on a massive scale, but in so, breaks the very conditions of tribalism. Arguably anything we have done (X) is "human nature", but I'd be very hesitant to make sweep assertions of "therefore Y isn't human nature".

 

[Tahuti]

Nationalism is tribalism on a massive scale, but in so, breaks the very conditions of tribalism. Arguably anything we have done (X) is "human nature", but I'd be very hesitant to make sweep assertions of "therefore Y isn't human nature".

While humans have a tendency to be tribalistic, this does not mean humans cannot be not-tribalistic at all.

 

[Hygro]

While humans have a tendency to be tribalistic, this does not mean humans cannot be not-tribalistic at all.

What I guess I'm trying to get at here is that yes, humans are very capable of being nationalists and we can append any evolutionary meaning we want. But humans are very capable of being totally non-nationalistic, and probably very capable within that set of being many of the things folks in this thread say humans can't do, because of one thing humans have done (be nationalist).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If we allow ourselves to include micro-state-style-nationalism like in the ancient city states of Greece, I believe we arrive at something truly consistent: That if people identify with the state - i.e. they feel sorta represented by it - there has always been nationalism.
It's a bit of a fraud to paint nationalism as talked about by historians like something genuinely new. It is the old story retold on a bigger scale. City state nationalism makes just as much sense as national nationalism or even tribal nationalism. You act as one and can hence depend on each other.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. But if it's possible to subsume one's interests in a tribal group; and it's possible for a tribe to subsume its interests in a national group; then, logically, it must be possible for nations to subsume their interests in global humanity.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I certainly don't see why it shouldn't be possible, however:
If you are a tribe, you need to work together not only to be better than other tribes, but to eat etc. Nations seems pretty much entirely devoted to the former though. Their sole reason to exists is out of competition with other nations. Their sole definition is basically "not one of them". This gets made prettier by all kind of ideas, but that is the heart of the matter.
So I don't think we can expect nationalism to just turn into humanism

 

[Borachio]

I thought nations also existed, in large part, to trade with each other.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is certainly something nations do, I don't see though why trade would necessitate nations. When I say "devoted" I mean with regards to why they exist.

 

[Borachio]

I agree: trade is not predicated on nationhood.

But I'm not sure "Their sole reason to exists is out of competition with other nations" is correct. Didn't nations simply develop from aggregations of tribes between certain natural geographical boundaries?

Or maybe you're right, and they only arose because of perceived threats from neighbouring nations. But then, you see, how did those neighbouring nations arise?

edit: maybe it's a function of the speed of communication?

 

[timtofly]

There are subsets within nations like the Amish, or gang activity, that seem to defy most benefits of nationhood.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But I'm not sure "Their sole reason to exists is out of competition with other nations" is correct. Didn't nations simply develop from aggregations of tribes between certain natural geographical boundaries?

Misses the step of tribe-transcending states. Point being?

Or maybe you're right, and they only arose because of perceived threats from neighbouring nations. But then, you see, how did those neighbouring nations arise?

As said, the state comes before the nation.*
So we already had a system of competing masses of people in place. States. By the very nature of them being constituted as states, these masses of people were already positioned against each other, jut not yet feeling a sort of belonging among themselves. But what else would have been the point to feel to belong to each other if there wasn't a common destiny? And there was, one. The competition with other states/nations.

*The fact of non-nation-states seems to contradict this, but not actually. Once the idea is out there that you need to belong, you will find somewhere to belong. I.e. without the first state-nations non-state-nations could have never existed.

 

[Tahuti]

If we allow ourselves to include micro-state-style-nationalism like in the ancient city states of Greece, I believe we arrive at something truly consistent: That if people identify with the state - i.e. they feel sorta represented by it - there has always been nationalism.
It's a bit of a fraud to paint nationalism as talked about by historians like something genuinely new. It is the old story retold on a bigger scale. City state nationalism makes just as much sense as national nationalism or even tribal nationalism. You act as one and can hence depend on each other.

Well, nationalism is largely coterminous with democracy and implies some form of democratic decision-making or at the very least the people's interests on the level of the nation. Nationalism was largely non-existent in medieval realms where the state was essentially a mansion with a land estate. (in fact, in French, état both means state and estate, as in a form of private property)

The state did not exist for the "nation" but for the glory of the state itself which was congruent with - and property of - its de-jure ruler. In some ways, a democratic world-government would be human nationalist, and the term would be applicable to many self-declared "anti-nationalists" as well.

As said, the state comes before the nation.

Not 100% true. While nations never come into existence by some magical primordial process like some ultranationalists would like you to believe, nations start with political ideas, which may very well precede the existence of the state, if a state even exists at all. Switzerland was founded to stay independent from the Habsburgs, the USA in opposition due to British tax practices and more nations will be founded this way in the future. The EU could be considered as a nation in construction. What is more important to the existence and creation of a nation, more than ethnicity, language and ancestry, are political interests.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nationalism is indeed a modern concept. However, the human aspects that lead to nationalism are as old mankind itself. We are tribalistic creatures: We are not completely individualistic like Libertarians say, but unlike what Marxists like to claim, we are only social to the extent we perceive it's necessary as opposed to social in every possible way. We tend to form groups and then fight against other groups due to differing opinions we take out of self-interest. Nationalism is simply an application of tribalism on a massive scale.

And yet, it is we Marxists who are accused of sweeping, ahistorical reductionism. Go figure.

If we allow ourselves to include micro-state-style-nationalism like in the ancient city states of Greece, I believe we arrive at something truly consistent: That if people identify with the state - i.e. they feel sorta represented by it - there has always been nationalism.
It's a bit of a fraud to paint nationalism as talked about by historians like something genuinely new. It is the old story retold on a bigger scale. City state nationalism makes just as much sense as national nationalism or even tribal nationalism. You act as one and can hence depend on each other.

"Patriotism" is not necessarily identical to "nationalism", and "polity" is not necessarily identical to "state". So none of this really works.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

We've gone down this path before, but how are you differentiating "polity" and "state"?

 

[Traitorfish]

States are states. Non-states aren't states. Simple, when you look at it like that.

 

[Tahuti]

And yet, it is we Marxists who are accused of sweeping, ahistorical reductionism. Go figure.

Dialectical materialism necessary for being Marxist is not reductionist how?

We've gone down this path before, but how are you differentiating "polity" and "state"?

A polity is any political entity that covers some territory and/or population, from municipalities to supranational unions like the EU, and anything in between including states. States are unique from other polities in that these exist by their own ability, unlike municipalities and provinces in unitary countries (which can be disbanded by overarching state governments at whim... in theory) and supranational unions (which can be disbanded by governments bottom-up).