Is it possible to get rid of nationalism?

[Terxpahseyton]

Since at this point we are only arguing with tautology: They are called city-states.
And while it is true that patriotism is not necessarily nationalism and apples are not oranges and Bob has a different name than Tim - I am not seeing your actual point other than "No you are wrong those are undue generalizations here are some big words." which I am not sure what to do with.

 

[Traitorfish]

Dialectical materialism necessary for being Marxist is not reductionist how?

The claim that dialectical materialism is necessary to Marxism is extremely reductionistic, yes, but I don't see what that has to do with anything?

Since at this point we are only arguing with tautology: They are called city-states.
And while it is true that patriotism is not necessarily nationalism and apples are not oranges and Bob has a different name than Tim - I am not seeing your actual point other than "No you are wrong those are undue generalizations here are some big words." which I am not sure what to do with.

Constructing "nationalism" as a plausibly transhistorical phenomenon means diluting your concept to the point of "nationalism" to the point where it ceases to exist as a distinct phenomenon, so the whole line of argument is basically self-defeating. When applied equally to the civic pride of an ancient Athenian, the clan-loyalties of a 16th century Mac Dhòmhnaill and the political commitments of a German '48er, "nationalism" simply ceases to be a meaningful category of analysis.

 

[Flying Pig]

A state needs the monopoly on the use of force, which is not necessary for a polity - you can theoretically imagine an extremely loosely federal country with a common foreign policy but with all domestic policy left to the Laender. There is therefore no one body which claims the monopoly on the use of force within the entirety of the country, but it would be one polity if the Laenderagreed that it would be so.

I used the German Laender because 'states' is confusing, but I mean states as in 'State of California' not 'State of Israel'.

 

[Yeekim]

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).

Human sure can be non-nationalistic, but that usually means they use other categories than nationality to make a distinction between Us and The Others.

 

[Hygro]

Human sure can be non-nationalistic, but that usually means they use other categories than nationality to make a distinction between Us and The Others.

Including but not limited to "I literally know these people and I don't literally know the others". The other ways of "us vs them" can manifest so differently from nationalism that extrapolating the same logic and results is fruitless.

Take Christianity, the "us" is the believers, the "them" is the nonbelievers. A pacifist evangelist doing it right would have a lot of love for the other, not see them as an opponent or an enemy, or even as a different type of person, but someone to bring into the fold.

And that's still a modern human concept with a lot of similarities and already its real different.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

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).

Well now I've finally received a definition of "polity" that can be differentiated from "state". Was looking for it from traitforfish as this discussion comes from another thread but that is gone now.

Anyway, city-states are still states though, are they not? They're just made up mainly of one city

 

[Traitorfish]

Nobody denied that city-states are states. It's kind of in the name.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

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

You seemed to be implying here that city-states were/are not states.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't mean to. Only that not all human polities are states. "City-state" isn't the primal form of human society, after all; even Civ has barb villages.

 

[timtofly]

I don't see the term nation-city working any more than nation-area.

It would be hard to see Europe as a nation, unless each nation gave up it's nationhood.

That was one of the issue with the founding of the US. The States where afraid of loosing their statehood. Which 300 years later, they may well have done.

In essence giving up nationalism is the willingness to come together into one union, without any factions.

If the whole world were of one polity, then all nations would have to agree to trust each other and there would be no factions that would threaten that union. I cannot see this forced on any one, seeing as that only brings war and resentment. Can every one be of one mind, is the bigger question.

 

[Winner]

It would be hard to see Europe as a nation, unless each nation gave up it's nationhood.

And by that you mean what, exactly?

I am more than willing to give up on my country's sovereign status; so long as we gain reasonable representation in whatever European government that assumes certain responsibilities previously held by nation-states (defence, security, trade policies, redistribution, etc.), the rights of the individuals are protected and the principle of subsidiarity is respected (especially in cultural matters), I don't give a damn about being able to call Czechia sovereign or not. I can still maintain my "national" (linguistic, really) identity as a Czech person, I don't need a sovereign nation state to do it for me.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I did favor this once. Reality has shown that currently we have politicians who largely are indifferent to the public, and in a supposed european nation we would have politicians indifferent to the public faking the reason for their behavior by playing different millions in ethnic groups against each other.

It is already happening, anyway, in the great eurolandia we live in.

 

[Tahuti]

It would be hard to see Europe as a nation, unless each nation gave up it's nationhood.

And by that you mean what, exactly?

I am more than willing to give up on my country's sovereign status; so long as we gain reasonable representation in whatever European government that assumes certain responsibilities previously held by nation-states (defence, security, trade policies, redistribution, etc.), the rights of the individuals are protected and the principle of subsidiarity is respected (especially in cultural matters), I don't give a damn about being able to call Czechia sovereign or not.

I doubt a Pan-European identity is necessarily mutually exclusive with the national identities of the nation-states that compromise the EU. In fact, even the US has not managed from stopping people to view themselves as Californians or New Yorkers who may also view themselves as Americans.

^I did favor this once. Reality has shown that currently we have politicians who largely are indifferent to the public, and in a supposed european nation we would have politicians indifferent to the public faking the reason for their behavior by playing different millions in ethnic groups against each other.

It is already happening, anyway, in the great eurolandia we live in.

I actually think politicians at a European level tend to be better than national politicians: They are more sensitive to issues like privacy (which are niche issues in national EU-member state politics at best) and there is a consensus culture, but one with a tradition of constructive criticism. Which is a far cry from the flame war politics that are particularly endemic to national level politics.

 

[Flying Pig]

I actually think politicians at a European level tend to be better than national politicians: They are more sensitive to issues like privacy (which are niche issues in national EU-member state politics at best) and there is a consensus culture, but one with a tradition of constructive criticism. Which is a far cry from the flame war politics that are particularly endemic to national level politics.

I would argue that this is largely a consequence of being relatively invisible to their constituents, in contrast to national politicians. In general, the level of bile, pettiness and showmanship in an assembly rises in proportion to its memorability to the public on election day. Hence assemblies which have longer terms of office, such as the US Senate as opposed to the House, tend to be more consensual. The same occurs to an even greater extent in the House of Lords, because there is no electorate for them to please.

 

[Traitorfish]

Trust the Prods to ruin it.

 

[Tahuti]

I would argue that this is largely a consequence of being relatively invisible to their constituents, in contrast to national politicians. In general, the level of bile, pettiness and showmanship in an assembly rises in proportion to its memorability to the public on election day. Hence assemblies which have longer terms of office, such as the US Senate as opposed to the House, tend to be more consensual. The same occurs to an even greater extent in the House of Lords, because there is no electorate for them to please.

Well, the solution would be to either indirectly elect parliaments (which probably would never gain traction politically), increase the length of terms (probably won't get any traction either) OR decrease them. Elections are hardly spectacular if you hold them each year, and mundane events won't attract much media attention.

 

[timtofly]

And by that you mean what, exactly?

I am more than willing to give up on my country's sovereign status; so long as we gain reasonable representation in whatever European government that assumes certain responsibilities previously held by nation-states (defence, security, trade policies, redistribution, etc.), the rights of the individuals are protected and the principle of subsidiarity is respected (especially in cultural matters), I don't give a damn about being able to call Czechia sovereign or not. I can still maintain my "national" (linguistic, really) identity as a Czech person, I don't need a sovereign nation state to do it for me.

When other nations recognize a different nation, ethnicity, and by extension behavior may be the first thing that comes to mind. That is not what makes a nation though. It is the way that nation is governed, or conducts itself in relation to other nations.

One is not giving up one's ethnicity, nor basic customs, unless those customs do not mix well in the new union as a whole.

If the Nation of Europe after 400 years is a true nation, ethnicity will more than likely be less diversified and will be viewed as one. That is because a nation as one unit allows the free flow of people groups if they so desire to move around and mix in with other people groups.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, the solution would be to either indirectly elect parliaments (which probably would never gain traction politically), increase the length of terms (probably won't get any traction either) OR decrease them. Elections are hardly spectacular if you hold them each year, and mundane events won't attract much media attention.

I disagree; while it would certainly increase voter fatigue, there would be a far greater incentive to go for 'slam-dunks' in debates, since spectacular displays of debating prowess seem to be what people equate with competence in their politicians.

 

[Traitorfish]

Annual elections were regarded as common sense by most democrats until the late 19th century. Assumption was that it kept elected officials in check, reminded them that they were in fact representatives, and not authorities in their own right. Unicameral parliaments, too. It's only in the last century that democrats have adopted the conservative advocacy for turgid, Byzantine government.

 

[Tahuti]

Unicameral parliaments, too. It's only in the last century that democrats have adopted the conservative advocacy for turgid, Byzantine government.

Bicameral parliamentarism prevents populism from gaining traction and is a good thing: For instance, opinion polls in the Netherlands suggest that Geert Wilders' Freedom Party would become by far the largest in the Dutch House of representatives (the 2nd chamber). However since his party has no seats in the 1st chamber, which is elected by representatives of the provinces, he will never be able to wield any power. He will not face such a check in a unicameral parliamentary system.