Oppressive empires - a false argument of liberals?

[r16]

no problem , now that everybody knows NATO has no need of , no use for and no access to such people .

 

[Farm Boy]

An argument for empire, relatively, comparing the proclivity to wipe out peoples? Complete with the 1940s Imperial Japanese? Maybe the definition of empire is being used too sparingly. I guess, unless, we're looking at what people say instead of what they do.

Is this just a point that self labeled liberals are also oppressive? Of course they are. The self is king.

 

[Verbose]

It's a matter of historical record that the implementation of citizens' rights and free and open societies was part of the post-French revolution shift towards liberalism. Often as not through revolution, but certainly also as a matter of gradual reform. Mileage would vary.

That's the major gains from all of it.

The historical empires were bulwarks against this – "the prisons of the nations" (Astolphe de Custine).

The Russian empire is still around, not a free and open society, and hasn't ever been, not really – which is the mark against it, not it "being Russian" somehow. (Except a strain of Russian national ideology that positively celebrates these deficits as somehow "genuine" and essential, but then that's just an optional buy-in).

That nation states can also be oppressive does not falsify any of this. By itself it certainly has no need to be free, open, liberal or anything else of the sort. Again, mileage will vary.

It's just that it again is a matter of historical record that these kinds of reforms focusing on "the people" as the subject of history, and the source of political legitimacy, allowed a link-up between the nation state projects and the free and open society – liberalism, democracy etc.

Autocracy doesn't gain any value from being exercised by a nation state as opposed to an empire.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

These days we have Belgian-Turks too, people with both Belgian and Turkish nationality.

You say that like it's a novel concept, when half the country is Belgian-French and the other half Belgian-Dutch

Ah I see, I can easily change my post there to read "people with both Belgian and Turkish nationality." there...

It was just a joke /done.

What was the original?

 

[Remorseless1]

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?

Very interesting thesis.

Unfortunately, your assertion that the only nation state carrying out an oppressive, genocidal was against a neighbor. The Russian Republic, as you well know, has for two years tried to subjugate and occupy Ukraine, then obliterate its culture (Stalin tried the same cultural genocide in the 1930s) before absorbing it into Putin's new Russian Empire.

 

[Crezth]

Accident de parcours, The Berlin congress gave it to Leopold as his private property and then they almost forced us take it on as a colony.

We told him to go to Berlin, stand up, and demand "a piece of the cake".

Never thought they'd say "Yes. Please."

Oh it was just an accident, nice. Well maybe all the evil empires just had accidents? Let’s be neighborly and help out.

 

[Angst]

not a liberal, and not inherently supportive of the western liberal nation state model. one thing i want to say for this thread is that following the logic of points 1-2, which are mostly (good) practical historical reasons as to why western empires fell, it doesn't actually account much for the discrepancy in rights between west and rest (eg russia). with a different quote you were responding to, which of course contextualizes your post and therefore your point, the whole historical breakdown could as well be read as a necessary method to bring down russia. they can't on their own, we ourselves required blood...

of course, point 3 kind of nuances this, but i wanted to point that out. i don't think you went far enough in point 3 outlining why the violence shouldn't be done. western abuses are heinous, but it just doesn't compare to the state of things in other geopolitically competetive powers internationally. just taking a step back and reading the op with another lens is an argument to invade russia.

now, i don't want to invade russia, and i seriously appreciate the historical perspective. so for this last part of the post, i want to underline that. the idea that some spirit of liberation just lifted us out of aristocracy and brutality is an ahistorical farce, and it's always important to bring up why it happened. it's also... i don't know, it's kind of racist? that we were just enlightened and lovely and raised ourselves out of it with some spirit of rational liberation, while foreigners just incidentally failed to... but yea, it was goddamn bloody. earliest instances of liberalism in france and the usa were insane, in different forms (police state and white supremacist respectively). like, even when progress happened peacefully in western nations, it was through a lot of internal pressure, with the powers-that-be giving into leftist demands to secure some sort of stability. look at what social democrats used to push in the very early 1900s. early pamphlets were very left. it's very much capitalist governments giving into compromise that made things happen during peacetime. even when bloodless, it was not because we just decided to become more liberal, it was very much under the threat of the sword.

 

[Verbose]

No one wants to invade Russia. In any scenario that's a crap show. Always has been. At what point might it become necessary to invade Russia? Who knows. But that really depends on what Russia is up to. Or put differently – hypothetically only at some unknown point where invading Russia might be less of a liability than not invading Russia.

And regardless, if Russia changes sufficiently by its own accord to not be an entity threatening others with in invasion, that would arguably solve all the problems. Including the question whether it might become necessary to invade Russia at some point, or not.

But for now, a lot of the problems stem from the fact tht Russia never stopped being an empire.

 

[Angst]

some do. :/ they're rare, but they exist. a lot of it is just rhetoric ofc, to fire up abase

 

[Kyriakos]

No one wants to invade Russia. In any scenario that's a crap show. Always has been. At what point might it become necessary to invade Russia? Who knows. But that really depends on what Russia is up to. Or put differently – hypothetically only at some unknown point where invading Russia might be less of a liability than not invading Russia.

And regardless, if Russia changes sufficiently by its own accord to not be an entity threatening others with in invasion, that would arguably solve all the problems. Including the question whether it might become necessary to invade Russia at some point, or not.

But for now, a lot of the problems stem from the fact tht Russia never stopped being an empire.

That's very Carolian. Not settling for less than the ideal. See how well it worked for him with Russia ^^

 

[Verbose]

That's very Carolian. Not settling for less than the ideal. See how well it worked for him with Russia ^^

Not at all. (I doubt you have any idea what you are actually referencing - as if that was relevant.) You're really clutching at straws here.

 

[innonimatu]

The comment that put me thinking about the liberal discourse on empires was in that ukranian war thread. But this is not really about Russia. Or only Russia. Even today after two centuries of the spread of the nation-state idea, the world has plenty of nation-states that can be called "empires". India is very obviously one, and a recent one. China is one, and a very ancient one. A number of less obvious countries (say, Spain or the UK) are not nation-styates but collectons of nations still. Dig enough and nationalism can produce new nation states ad aeternun, anywhere.

What I meant to point out is that liberal discourse is applied selectively. To an extreme where they claim to be "ideologically" against the empires they dislike but they are all for an empire of their own! It is a phony ideology. Or at least its practicioners are phony.

Buit from there I decided to question what was so good about the nation-state anyway that it justified wars to forge it? And I think it is never ideology that justifies it. Those are post-hoc stories. Or excuses invoked by outsiders or adventurers to meddle somewhere. Where polities were created by nations, they were created, in every case, by conditions continget to that time and place. There is no general theory to be had about this. One must lokk at the whole history of each case, see what happened and how.

Whether one identifies with a nation and wants a polity to match; whether one goes to war or not for that wish; it depends on the circunstances specific to each time and place. Wether an Empire endures, grows or contracts depends on the circunstances of each case. More often than not empires break from the top: the separatists are the regional elites seeking more power for themselves, not "the people". That weas especially notorious in the breakup of Spain's american empire, where the leaders of the new states were making up ideologies to justify themselves and what poert/land grans they could do. The rebels in Mexico started out tryiong to invite the spanish king to go rule them! Bolivar started wanting to get ahead of a feared slave rebellion to prevent that. Etc.
Sometimes it's even the elites of the empire's capital kicking out troublesome peripheral regions. The dismemberment of the USSR was the last act of the Yeltsin-Gorbachev power struggle in Moscow, the winning move for Yeltsin. In my country's history the breakup of the United Kingdom with Brazil was a fight between liberal elites over power, not a rebellion "from below", and co-opted the royal family itself! The independence of Ireland was the UK's poiliticians ridding themselves of a troublesome factor for power politics in London's parliament, not due to any exhaustion of the British Empire at the time.

In short: there is no ideology that can explain these things. They are always complex and circunstantial. So of someone wants to claim that one form of polity is better than another, that must be explained for a specific place and time, appealing to the specific circunstances that should, on one's opinion, make one preferable to another.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not at all. (I doubt you have any idea what you are actually referencing - as if that was relevant.) You're really clutching at straws here.

I might be referencing Carolus' famous statement about not ending a war with an unjust treaty. Russia was the only enemy left and proposed a compromise. I hope you got which Carolus it is
Giving you a well-known historic example of the dangers of idealism in war, is rather obviously on topic and a reaction to your own post. Let alone featuring not one but two oppressive empires.

 

[Snowygerry]

The “liberal ideology” is not to support one empire or the other, but to play all against eachother, to mutual destruction.

We recognize no sovereignty but our own, ni dieu, ni maitre.

 

[r16]

everybody wants to invade Russia . It is the very essence of the thing . Could be convinced otherwise if the group talk was not the people suck and they should bow to their superiors but they could regain their honour by defending the Motherland against THEIR lessers . Oh yes , the reason everybody wants to invade Russia is their kinda oppressive ideas about governance . Liberate the suffering masses from their cruel masters , get both sides dead on the cheap . While Russians are so obviously Capitalists , ruining their country and people in it even in the best of times , the system is in trouble and will collapse if its demands of "growth" are not met .

translation : A war in Syria did not happen , so it would have to be in Azerbaycan and beyond . The glories so ably propagandized have convinced the worthless and so on Russian generals to prolong the fight so that they can ramp up production of stuff . Their tables of requirements to fight against their lessers as defined by the West were tripled . (Again and recently) . But , yes , we will read no comments about that . Not in CFC for starters .

 

[Snowygerry]

You say that like it's a novel concept, when half the country is Belgian-French and the other half Belgian-Dutch

I suggest you go read a bit, there’s no such thing, “Dutch” is an English invention, in fact, they couldn’t understand the political constellation here.

Dates only to colonial times.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I suggest you go read a bit, there’s no such thing, “Dutch” is an English invention, in fact, they couldn’t understand the political constellation here.

Dates only to colonial times.

You say that like it's a novel concept, when half the country is Belgian-French and the other half Belgian-Dutch Belgian-Germanic

 

[Snowygerry]

As opposed to Belgian-Romanized ? That’s better, a bit.

 

[Gorbles]

No one wants to invade Russia.

Factually incorrect.

 

[Zardnaar]

Factually incorrect.

These days.