innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,069
I just noticed one of the resident liberals trying to justify his hatred of Russia with the like "we got rid of oppressive empires in Europe, now we must dismantle those in the peroiphery."
I think that the topic of Empires is worth analysing in depth. Because plenty of people display much shoddy though about them, politically.
1. The idea that europeans voluntarily abandoned the idea of Empire is false.
"We" in europe didn't get rid of empires. They natives (the regional native elites specifically) rebelled and kicked us out. "we" lost empires. in the 1940s the dutch liberals, like everyone else in the netherlands, wanted to drown the indoonesian rebellion in blood and reestabelish their empire there. It was the Japanese that put an end to the dutch empire. Not the dutch liberals.
But perhaps the left, the socialists, you will argue? Well the socialist in France for many decades argued that Algeria was an integral part of France and inalienable. There was unanimity along the whole political spectrum for most of the 20th century there.
2. the idea that empires are political oppressive is presented in contrast with the nation-state being liberating. But does that resist historical examination?
This required a answer to the question of what liberal ideology is. Its main claim is individual liberation, and usually framed as "from the state as the oppressor". Empires being worst than nation-states would then suppose that empiores are necessarily politicaly more oppressive than nation-states. But is that true?
The nation-state, in political thory (practice is another matter...) a 19th century political fashion that caught on ideologically among european and europeized liberals and got realized during the 20th century. But the historical models are few. It was France that other would-be states copied. And France took many centuries to centralize, involving quite a few wars and much bloodshed and repression. The south of France was first submitted to the crown in Paris with the Albigensian Crusade, which would match today's description of a genocide. But that was incomplete, and France remained a kingdom with strong regional institutions and local dialects for centuries. It was only the republic that forced uniformity - and that too was enforced by wars and slaughter of wrong-thinking peasants and independentist regional elites. This model nation-state was in fact a little empire forged through war.
It is unsurprising then that Germany too got forged by war. Same with Italy. The formation of these actually supressed nations, reducing a number of historical polities to a single nation. The opposite also happened in Europe, the breakup of one large polity: the end of the austro-hungarian empire started a series of wars that haven't yet ceased. "Liberation" as in fall of empires did not produce homogeneous nation states. And the proponents of the nation-state theory turned out to be warmongers doing ethnic cleansings of any people deemed "non-nationals" within thee shares of the old empire they managed to occupy militarily.
The curent installement of this oppression by the nation state is happening in Israel. A would-be nation-state is now attempting to wipe out one of the peoples in its territory in a bid fo fulfill the political ideal of the nationan-state.
3. Are there in fact any teleological views that propose the nation-state as an end of history?
The previous two points questioned the desirability of the nation state as opposite to ("multi-ethnic") empire. Imo it is not a given.
But the nation-state is also often defended as as inevitable politlcal conclusion. The bloodshed of its creation is justified away as being inevitable.
Why?
Are nation-states politically more stable? Who can say, as the vast majority are such recent constructs?
Are nation-states less likely to involve themselves in wars? It is true that the post-ww2 era did not have many wars in Europe. But the whole 18th century era of empires didn't have many in Europe either. 1815-1914 had only a few wars and those were about creating nation-states by swallowing smaller estates. Histpry is not conclusive in this and cannot back the idea of nation-states as more peaceful.
Are nation-states less repressive internally?
This is a very interresting question. I think the answer is also: inconclusive. There are plenty of nation states oppressing "non-nationals" or "non-ethnics". And there is also the greater ability of a government to force individual conformity on a population shose members are all part of a shared culture. Thing Japan where "the nail that sticks out gets hammered" and the justice system has a near-100% conviction rate. There are also plenty of empires that are repressive out of fear of rebellions. But neiother of these things is inevitable.
So: can the liberals who fetishize the nation-state as the desirable political organization justify their preference? Or are they just unthinkingly parroting the ideas currently in fashion, predominant now in media discourses?
I think that the topic of Empires is worth analysing in depth. Because plenty of people display much shoddy though about them, politically.
1. The idea that europeans voluntarily abandoned the idea of Empire is false.
"We" in europe didn't get rid of empires. They natives (the regional native elites specifically) rebelled and kicked us out. "we" lost empires. in the 1940s the dutch liberals, like everyone else in the netherlands, wanted to drown the indoonesian rebellion in blood and reestabelish their empire there. It was the Japanese that put an end to the dutch empire. Not the dutch liberals.
But perhaps the left, the socialists, you will argue? Well the socialist in France for many decades argued that Algeria was an integral part of France and inalienable. There was unanimity along the whole political spectrum for most of the 20th century there.
2. the idea that empires are political oppressive is presented in contrast with the nation-state being liberating. But does that resist historical examination?
This required a answer to the question of what liberal ideology is. Its main claim is individual liberation, and usually framed as "from the state as the oppressor". Empires being worst than nation-states would then suppose that empiores are necessarily politicaly more oppressive than nation-states. But is that true?
The nation-state, in political thory (practice is another matter...) a 19th century political fashion that caught on ideologically among european and europeized liberals and got realized during the 20th century. But the historical models are few. It was France that other would-be states copied. And France took many centuries to centralize, involving quite a few wars and much bloodshed and repression. The south of France was first submitted to the crown in Paris with the Albigensian Crusade, which would match today's description of a genocide. But that was incomplete, and France remained a kingdom with strong regional institutions and local dialects for centuries. It was only the republic that forced uniformity - and that too was enforced by wars and slaughter of wrong-thinking peasants and independentist regional elites. This model nation-state was in fact a little empire forged through war.
It is unsurprising then that Germany too got forged by war. Same with Italy. The formation of these actually supressed nations, reducing a number of historical polities to a single nation. The opposite also happened in Europe, the breakup of one large polity: the end of the austro-hungarian empire started a series of wars that haven't yet ceased. "Liberation" as in fall of empires did not produce homogeneous nation states. And the proponents of the nation-state theory turned out to be warmongers doing ethnic cleansings of any people deemed "non-nationals" within thee shares of the old empire they managed to occupy militarily.
The curent installement of this oppression by the nation state is happening in Israel. A would-be nation-state is now attempting to wipe out one of the peoples in its territory in a bid fo fulfill the political ideal of the nationan-state.
3. Are there in fact any teleological views that propose the nation-state as an end of history?
The previous two points questioned the desirability of the nation state as opposite to ("multi-ethnic") empire. Imo it is not a given.
But the nation-state is also often defended as as inevitable politlcal conclusion. The bloodshed of its creation is justified away as being inevitable.
Why?
Are nation-states politically more stable? Who can say, as the vast majority are such recent constructs?
Are nation-states less likely to involve themselves in wars? It is true that the post-ww2 era did not have many wars in Europe. But the whole 18th century era of empires didn't have many in Europe either. 1815-1914 had only a few wars and those were about creating nation-states by swallowing smaller estates. Histpry is not conclusive in this and cannot back the idea of nation-states as more peaceful.
Are nation-states less repressive internally?
This is a very interresting question. I think the answer is also: inconclusive. There are plenty of nation states oppressing "non-nationals" or "non-ethnics". And there is also the greater ability of a government to force individual conformity on a population shose members are all part of a shared culture. Thing Japan where "the nail that sticks out gets hammered" and the justice system has a near-100% conviction rate. There are also plenty of empires that are repressive out of fear of rebellions. But neiother of these things is inevitable.
So: can the liberals who fetishize the nation-state as the desirable political organization justify their preference? Or are they just unthinkingly parroting the ideas currently in fashion, predominant now in media discourses?
