patriotism?

[kochman]

You get paid bro.

But not well enough compared to the risks...
Of course, that goes for all the important jobs (teachers, firemen, etc)... we have to save that money for our basketball and football players after all.

 

[MobBoss]

Saw this and thought it quite appropriate...

 

[Berzerker]

by your definition some of them biblical prophets wouldn't be patriots, they were constantly trash talking the authorities

how do you square your views on patriotism and dissent with Jesus?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Saw this and thought it quite appropriate...

I agree. I think it is highly appropriate.

And so is this:

Link to video.

“Highly charged exchanges take place between those who believe patriotism is automatically possessed by those in authority and those who assert that patriotism is not a pattern imposed but a condition earned by the quality of an individual’s or a people’s behavior…It is time to talk of patriotism not as an abstraction steeped in nostalgia, but as behavior that can be judged by the standard of “liberty and justice for all.” Patriotism can be a great asset for any organized society, but it can also be a tool manipulated by unscrupulous or cowardly leaders and elites.”

Ralph Nader, “We Need a New Kind of Patriotism,” in The Ralph Nader Reader.
Originally published in Life magazine in 1971

 

[LucyDuke]

But not well enough compared to the risks...
Of course, that goes for all the important jobs (teachers, firemen, etc)... we have to save that money for our basketball and football players after all.

Who's to say? Some military employees say they are very satisfied with their compensation.

 

[JollyRoger]

We should pay them in American Flags.

 

[MobBoss]

by your definition some of them biblical prophets wouldn't be patriots, they were constantly trash talking the authorities

how do you square your views on patriotism and dissent with Jesus?

Jesus said 'render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. He wasnt the one the Jews thought was going to lead them in armed rebellion against the Romans. His issues were with the priesthood that werent following Gods word. So he wasnt a dissident, he was the bringer of the new covenant.

@Form. There is no proof that verifies that GWB ever said that. Its a claim by a single journalist (an atheist btw), and wasnt recorded or heard by anyone else. So please dont state it as fact when there simply isnt any proof that it is a legitimate quote. In fact, just about the only sites online that allege it are all pro-atheist websites.

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: The rule of the Tavern is broken here, three days ban. Others, please try not to engage heavily on his posts that doesn't directly address the topic of this thread while he's away.

I've known more than a few that have given their all for this nation. You aint one of them.

I've never said you didnt have a right to say what you want. Ever. However, the rest of us do have the right to say how stupid you are

Right. This is why your're not a patriot, and never will be. Your outright hatred of soldiers volunteering to serve their country outrages you no end, even to the point where you have to belittle their service, although many have been horribly wounded or killed outright in same service you revile.

Pathetic.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Patriotism means putting loyalty to a fictional entity above loyalty to actual human beings, and is therefore fundamentally objectionable.

That's strange, because I seem to recall Marxists are all about telling people to put class loyalty ahead of personal loyalties, which would seem to be a pretty extreme case of favouring a fictional entity over actual human beings...

 

[Traitorfish]

Jesus said 'render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. He wasnt the one the Jews thought was going to lead them in armed rebellion against the Romans. His issues were with the priesthood that werent following Gods word. So he wasnt a dissident, he was the bringer of the new covenant.

I've honestly never understood this interpretation. If it means splitting Being up into two distinct spheres, that belonging the the secular authorities and that belonging to God, with neither having a claim on the other, does it not imply that the secular authorities are the equal of God? It seems more consistent with the rest of Yehoshuah's ministry to interpret it as an ironic way of suggesting that, because everything is God's, the secular authorities can make no reasonable claims on a Christian.

That's strange, because I seem to recall Marxists are all about telling people to put class loyalty ahead of personal loyalties, which would seem to be a pretty extreme case of favouring a fictional entity over actual human beings...

(I was wondering when somebody would say this. )

Some Marxisms, yes, and insofar as they do I also find them to be objectionable. The concept of "the working class" presented by the Second and Third Internationals was of a positively existing entity, an imaginary community in quite the same sense as the nation, simply dispersed across existing national borders. But I already reject that sort of crusty Second International positivism at a purely ontological level, instead adopting a conception of class as an historical process that presents opportunities for certain transformative intersubjectivities, and that's not something that you can really be "loyal" to. And even if you could, "the working class" is interesting to me because of what I understand as its potential for self-abolition, and why would you be loyal to something you want to see vanished forever? On neither level would it make much sense for me, at least, to call for "loyalty".

Rather, I think that we owe our loyalty to other people, to a recognition of community humanity, and it simply the case for me that this loyalty necessarily takes on an anti-capitalist form. If it does not for you, then that's not because you are not "loyal to the working class", simply because you're working within a different theoretical framework.

(Part of this is that I think you're using Marxism to denote a particular range of 20th century ideologies, while to the extent that I identify as "Marxist" as its an adherent of a particular tradition of critical analysis. My ethics and politics would probably seem to you something closer to anarchism. But, either way, the criticism's a fair one, and I hope my response suffices.)

 

[Winston Hughes]

Okay, as far as it goes, that seems a consistent and coherent position.

But would you not accept that it's reasonable to hold greater loyalty to some individuals than others?

(I'm a bit puzzled by why you'd want to call yourself a Marxist at all. It hardly carries a single positive implication outside of the ivory towers of leftist academia (though I'll grant you that it can be something of a free pass there). Also, isn't there something rather anti-egalitarian - and perhaps even a little cultish - about raising one rather wealthy intellectual to such an exalted position in our social discourse as Marxists do with Marx?)

 

[Leoreth]

Not that it should matter, but Marx wealthy?

 

[Winston Hughes]

Not that it should matter, but Marx wealthy?

A rhetorical touch. I know he lived in what we would consider poverty for a while, but he experienced considerably greater wealth over the course of his life than most people of his era.

 

[Traitorfish]

Okay, as far as it goes, that seems a consistent and coherent position.

But would you not accept that it's reasonable to hold greater loyalty to some individuals than others?

I don't have any problem with that, I just don't think that it makes much sense to cut it along national lines. I think what matters is concrete relationships, which only ever appear to express themselves in national terms.

[Spoilered to minimise off-topic-ness:]

Spoiler :

(I'm a bit puzzled by why you'd want to call yourself a Marxist at all. It hardly carries a single positive implication outside of the ivory towers of leftist academia (though I'll grant you that it can be something of a free pass there).

Well, I generally don't, at least these days, it's just a label that's stuck round here. It's not even an objection to the connotations, I just don't think that the term actually communicates my thinking in any effective way. ("Marxian", mebbe, but that's almost deliberately nebulous as a label.) Probably my own fault, these things usually are, but at this point it's something that I suffer rather than embrace.

Also, isn't there something rather anti-egalitarian - and perhaps even a little cultish - about raising one rather wealthy intellectual to such an exalted position in our social discourse as Marxists do with Marx?)

To be honest, I can see where you're coming from. A lot of Marxists do a really sloppy of job of making a distinction between Marxian thinking and Marxology, which leads them to simultaneously invoke Marx as some sort of prophet, and to impose their own particular revisions or expansions of Marx's thought onto Marx himself. Down that road, as you're doubtlessly aware, madness lies.
However, I don't think that there's any harm in identifying Marx is a singular powerful social thinker, provided that you keep a level head about it. Plenty of folk working in the Marxian tradition can and do add in elements from non-Marxian traditions like anarchism or feminism, or from non-Marxist and even anti-Marxist thinkers like Weber, Nietzsche and Heidegger. These days, the only people you'll find even claiming an undiluted Marxism are living relics like the Sparts or the ICT, and they are quite frankly a bunch of complete weirdos.

I mean, in practice, I'm no more beholden to Marx than the average liberal is to Locke, Rousseau and Mill. I'm just explicit about it.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I don't have any problem with that, I just don't think that it makes much sense to cut it along national lines. I think what matters is concrete relationships, which only ever appear to express themselves in national terms.

In which case, I tend to agree with you. My own national sentiment goes barely any further than supporting the football team (for my sins). However...

I would still consider myself as possessing a degree of loyalty towards the state of which I am a citizen, on account of it having provided education, healthcare, security, and a whole load of other benefits to me and to people who I care about. Not blind loyalty, of course, but enough that I feel able to describe myself as patriotic when the question comes up.

[Spoilered to minimise off-topic-ness:]

That's very interesting. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is pretty much true with myself as well. I feel fortunate to not be born in Mexico, but I wouldn't complain very much if my mother's side of the family had stayed in Canada instead of moving across the river when slavery was finally abolished.

And while I would prefer if nationality was eventually completely eliminated from Olympic competition, especially playing the anthems at the awards ceremonies, I do usually enjoy watching the US teams win.

 

[Berzerker]

Jesus said 'render unto Caesar what is Caesars'. He wasnt the one the Jews thought was going to lead them in armed rebellion against the Romans. His issues were with the priesthood that werent following Gods word. So he wasnt a dissident, he was the bringer of the new covenant.

How do you bring a new covenant without dissenting from the old one? Caesar executed Jesus for disobeying Caesar's law banning the Jewish monarchy - so "render unto Caesar" makes no sense when interpreted as an endorsement of "the state". Jesus didn't lead a tax revolt - the Romans would have reacted by killing his followers and he knew that - but most of his arguments were with the Pharisees, the legal arm of Jewish society. Jesus wasn't a dissident? He's the epitome of dissent, paying for it with his life...

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I would still consider myself as possessing a degree of loyalty towards the state of which I am a citizen, on account of it having provided education, healthcare, security, and a whole load of other benefits to me and to people who I care about. Not blind loyalty, of course, but enough that I feel able to describe myself as patriotic when the question comes up.

Shouldn't that loyalty be extended over the borders of your country? It's the 21st century, nations don't exist in some kind of a bubble with no interaction with other nations whatsoever. Yeah, your country has provided you education, healthcare etc., but it couldn't have done it without the help of other countries (international trade, pacts, treaties, international organizations and even corporations).

To answer the question of this thread: no, I'm not patriotic, except when it comes to football and some other sports. I don't feel like I'm in debt to my country. If I should thank someone or something for my life I'd thank the whole world.

 

[Berzerker]

so patriotism takes the form of gratitude

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

my question, specifically, is, is it a bad thing to be unpatriotic and if so why?

Yes. State, nation, government are the pillar of civilization. And patriotism is the pillar for them.