You are a nationalist.

[Mouthwash]

I am unable to see a fundamental division point on the spectrum here:

1. Transitioning to a world without borders can't be done overnight- nations may be obsolescing but are still necessary to keep order.
2. Transitioning to a world without borders is impractical and utopian, so national divisions are a necessary evil.
3. Homogeneous societies are happier and more cohesive. They have the right to keep it that way.
4. The collective is humanity's natural state of being. The will of the people and the nation are the same thing.

There's no real difference between saying "nations work better than global citizenship because [insert reason here]" and "nationalism is natural and good." At their core, both are appeals to pragmatism. Assuming you don't support an immediate and total abolition of national borders (or a proletariat revolt), then you are a nationalist.

I'm posting this in response to liberals claiming to be 'non-nationalists' or that nationalism is egoism.

 

[Perfection]

Mouthwash, I usually like your championing of unusual beliefs but this equivocation is obviously false. You are smarter then this, bro.

 

[Agent327]

One would hope so. Especially seeing as the nation-state was a 19th century invention, that would imply people were habitually living in an 'unnatural state' prior to that.

 

[Arwon]

Look harder.

 

[Mouthwash]

Mouthwash, I usually like your championing of unusual beliefs but this equivocation is obviously false. You are smarter then this, bro.

No need to make arguments or anything, your intellectual fiat has won the thread.

 

[Agent327]

Well, to be honest, the OP is kind of self-defeating.

Look harder.

At this:

The will of the people and the nation are the same thing.

you mean? It's straight from the Nazis (only the Leader is missing, to embody the will of the people). If I didn't know any better, I'd think this was a joke.

(It is, actually, considering that nationalism originated from Liberalism - before it was hijacked by the extreme right.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is certainly a valid question.

If you have no practical scheme for the elimination of borders, and in fact aren't even bending a single brain cell for a single moment in any given day towards finding such a scheme, are you really "not a nationalist"?

Hang in there Mouthwash, you are on to something.

 

[Mouthwash]

you mean? It's straight from the Nazis (only the Leader is missing, to embody the will of the people). If I didn't know any better, I'd think this was a joke.

Yeah, it is. Fascists described the nation as an organism or a natural expression of human consciousness. It's not fundamentally different than saying that homogeneous societies are better; it's just at another place on the scale.

Suppose that there were humans who were eusocialites like ants. Would it be fair to say that the antmen would naturally organize themselves as collectives? Furthermore, would it be wrong for them to do so?

 

[Lohrenswald]

1. Transitioning to a world without borders can't be done overnight- nations may be obsolescing but are still necessary to keep order.

So this seems relatively intuitive, but:

2. Transitioning to a world without borders is impractical and utopian, so national divisions are a necessary evil.

You'd need to argue better for this statement (or at all, really)

3. Homogeneous societies are happier and more cohesive.

Since when? What arguements are there for this? And what does Homogenous really mean?

They have the right to keep it that way.

Even assuming the rest of statement 3 is true, this falls flat as an arguement for your thesis. For example, the nations Norway and Sweden have gone to great lengths to make the Sami societies less happy (and probably less homogenous, given what I believe you put into that term)

4. The collective is humanity's natural state of being. The will of the people and the nation are the same thing.

But see, the nation is only a tiny subset of all the kinds of collectives human make up and can make up. Regional populations might be at odds against the rest of a nations, or several nations can agree on basically everything. To accept just nations as the only collective is way oversimplified

I'm posting this in response to liberals claiming to be 'non-nationalists' or that nationalism is egoism.

I wouldn't call it egoism as much as I'd call it stupid

 

[Mouthwash]

You'd need to argue better for this statement (or at all, really)

Lots of people don't think that there is any reason to support their country over another, but also don't think that it should be abolished. Is this really so hard to explain?

Since when? What arguements are there for this? And what does Homogenous really mean?

You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing something here, but I'm only laying out what I see as various nationalist viewpoints. Homogeneous can mean literally anything- biological, cultural, religious. Take your pick.

Even assuming the rest of statement 3 is true, this falls flat as an arguement for your thesis.

What do you imagine my thesis is?

For example, the nations Norway and Sweden have gone to great lengths to make the Sami societies less happy (and probably less homogenous, given what I believe you put into that term)

I know nothing about the Sami and I can't glean anything from what you're saying. Even more mystifying is how you think this relates to the topic.

But see, the nation is only a tiny subset of all the kinds of collectives human make up and can make up. Regional populations might be at odds against the rest of a nations, or several nations can agree on basically everything. To accept just nations as the only collective is way oversimplified

I agree fully.

I wouldn't call it egoism as much as I'd call it stupid

Gun-toting rednecks still have more skin in the game than internet commentators. I'd take that over intelligence in a fraction of a heartbeat.

 

[Lohrenswald]

2. Transitioning to a world without borders is impractical and utopian, so national divisions are a necessary evil.

Lots of people don't think that there is any reason to support their country over another, but also don't think that it should be abolished. Is this really so hard to explain?

The latter does not support the prior

You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing something here,

Yea, whatever would make me think that?

I know nothing about the Sami and I can't glean anything from what you're saying. Even more mystifying is how you think this relates to the topic.

An example of nations being detrimental to society

Gun-toting rednecks still have more skin in the game than internet commentators. I'd take that over intelligence in a fraction of a heartbeat.

wat

 

[Flying Pig]

It also needs saying that states and nations are not the same thing - that was the whole point of the original nationalist movements. So arguing that political boundaries are a good thing does not make you a nationalist. You might say that it puts you on the spectrum, but lumping everyone on such a spectrum together is a bit silly - by the same token, everyone who drinks wine may as well be French, because French people drink wine.

 

[Mouthwash]

The latter does not support the prior

Why not? I think they're perfectly consistent.

Yea, whatever would make me think that?

I meant that I wasn't arguing anything with my list. I was only listing examples from the spectrum of beliefs that accept the nationstate (to whatever degree).

An example of nations being detrimental to society

Yes, but they're detrimental to another society. Brexiteers don't want to reconquer India.

wat

Skin in the game is more reliable than intelligence. You can post all you want about how racial discrimination is ignorant and pathetic, but if you were in Syria right now you would absolutely judge people by whether they were Kurd or Arab, Sunni or Shia.

It also needs saying that states and nations are not the same thing - that was the whole point of the original nationalist movements. So arguing that political boundaries are a good thing does not make you a nationalist.

But right now the two are correlated very closely. Even multi-national countries often try to either eliminate differences (Iran, China) or the minority population itself (Syria, Iraq).

You might say that it puts you on the spectrum, but lumping everyone on such a spectrum together is a bit silly - by the same token, everyone who drinks wine may as well be French, because French people drink wine.

I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here.

 

[Flying Pig]

But right now the two are correlated very closely. Even multi-national countries often try to either eliminate differences (Iran, China) or the minority population itself (Syria, Iraq).

I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here.

Well, yes, which is where my second point comes in. You are saying, I think, that people who support the existence of states generally support the existing borders of states, and nationalists generally support the same, which puts statists on the same spectrum as nationalists, and therefore makes them essentially the same thing.

This is the problem with using the words 'nation' and 'state' as if they mean the same thing: you're looking at two very different trains of thought that lead to the same place. The basic point of nationalism is that people are formed into natural communities by shared language, culture and history (or at least an arbitrary proportion of that), and that these come before states - as such, states ought to follow the pre-existing national borders. That was the whole point of early nationalism - that, for instance, there existed a 'German nation' that was spread between (among others) Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Switzerland, Italy and Denmark, and that these states therefore had no legitimacy: the only legitimate state was one that entirely and exclusively contained a 'natural' nationality. Most people who support the existence of (say) the USA do not do so because they think all Americans are naturally formed into a pre-state national community, but an American nationalist who supports the USA would have to do so. Of course, that's ridiculous, which is why American nationalism, and white seperatism/supremacism are often so difficult to untie - they just redefine 'American' to exclude the parts that make it look unlike a nation-state.

This is where my point about the spectrum comes in: there's a crucial difference between the positions 'France should exist because political borders are a good thing, and those around France are as good as any' and 'France should exist because the French nation exists, and France is its territory'. Putting them together is like putting together my two hypothetical wine drinkers - one person might drink wine because they're French, and another person might drink wine because they like the taste: saying that they're both on the 'French spectrum' is not particularly useful.

 

[AdrienIer]

2. Transitioning to a world without borders is impractical and utopian, so national divisions are a necessary evil.

Lots of people don't think that there is any reason to support their country over another, but also don't think that it should be abolished. Is this really so hard to explain?

Lots of people may not think it's practical, but you're not giving any reason why such a thing would be impractical.

The first experiment on the subject (which is in its very early stage, and is known as the European Union) is at the same time a success and a failure. It's a success because former nation-states are now a working conglomerate of nations. But it's a failure because not enough nationalists in those nations haven't been "converted" to a non-nationalist viewpoint, and are actively trying to undermine the project, while not enough people are actively trying to make it work (for example the heads of state who routinely condemn the EU for their own mistakes and ineptitudes). Add that to a number of giant mistakes made when building the EU, and later when dealing with various crisis, and you have a possible giant failure at hand.

I think the argument can be made in both direction : that it tends to prove that uniting the world, in the very long term, undern one entity, is possible because it's now proven that nation states aren't condemned to remain nation states forever, or that it tends to prove that it's not possible because trying to build a multi-state entity brings too many unsolvable problems.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I think most people have nationalist tendencies or subscribe to some nationalist aspects in personal philosophies, but I don't think "all people are nationalists". If you look at it like a continuum, a half circle dial, and the right side is "nationalist", the left side is "something other than nationalist", most people fall somewhere, in variation, of the middle. There are nationalists, and this has a pretty clear-cut definition. You might be reducing, or watering-down, what it is to be nationalist.

I know I often portray myself as nationalist, for patriotism and the interest in preserving national identity, because I feel the US constitution contains a superior philosophy. That's admittedly only best for me though, and I realize the importance of multiculturalism and globalization, even though those have tragic consequences for cultures which become somewhat obsolete on a world stage. I'm probably precisely in the middle of a continuum between nationalist and something other than nationalist.

Maybe I'm a "soft nationalist". Not sure I buy into exactly what people think that means, though.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, yes, which is where my second point comes in. You are saying, I think, that people who support the existence of states generally support the existing borders of states, and nationalists generally support the same, which puts statists on the same spectrum as nationalists, and therefore makes them essentially the same thing.

Absolutely not. The only accepted form of statehood these days (outside of the Middle East) is one that is based on nationalism, so why talk about anything else?

This is the problem with using the words 'nation' and 'state' as if they mean the same thing: you're looking at two very different trains of thought that lead to the same place. The basic point of nationalism is that people are formed into natural communities by shared language, culture and history (or at least an arbitrary proportion of that), and that these come before states - as such, states ought to follow the pre-existing national borders. That was the whole point of early nationalism - that, for instance, there existed a 'German nation' that was spread between (among others) Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Switzerland, Italy and Denmark, and that these states therefore had no legitimacy: the only legitimate state was one that entirely and exclusively contained a 'natural' nationality. Most people who support the existence of (say) the USA do not do so because they think all Americans are naturally formed into a pre-state national community, but an American nationalist who supports the USA would have to do so.

It doesn't have to be ethnic nationalism at all. It could be religious or ideological, even civic (while one might think that the Constitution is an objectively good system, you could also say that it has a separate meaning for Americans. People who aren't scholars don't have to be systematic about their beliefs).

Of course, that's ridiculous, which is why American nationalism, and white seperatism/supremacism are often so difficult to untie

Ooooooh-kay.

This is where my point about the spectrum comes in: there's a crucial difference between the positions 'France should exist because political borders are a good thing, and those around France are as good as any' and 'France should exist because the French nation exists, and France is its territory'.

There's no difference that matters in this case. The only thing I care about is that both of them are non-essentialist forms of nationalism- because one can hold non-essentialist beliefs that support fascism in practice. Thus claiming that there are 'nationalists' and 'non-nationalists' is entirely pointless, even more so declaring yourself the latter due to being in the Remain camp.

 

[Samson]

I think what you are saying is that anyone who does not believe in an immediate unilateral opening of your states borders is a nationalist, and on the same spectrum as full blown fascism? I cannot agree with this. These 2 statements seem categorically different, and not just different by degrees:

I think is is right and proper to discriminate on the basis of nationality.

I think it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of nationality. I think that if my country unilaterally opened its borders today would cause very serious real problems (possibly including violence) so we should not do that.

I feel that any definition of the term "nationalist" that includes both these 2 positions is so vague as to be a useless term.

 

[Flying Pig]

Absolutely not. The only accepted form of statehood these days (outside of the Middle East) is one that is based on nationalism, so why talk about anything else?

I don't think that's remotely true. There certainly is, in international law, a principle that 'peoples' should have the right to self-determination, but no clear sense of what a 'people' actually is, and a very clear sense that it does not match the nationalist idea of a 'nation' (for instance, when Yugoslavia broke up, the citizens of each previously-federal unit were considered a 'people', even though these federal units cut across national lines). I live in Britain, where we have four 'home nations' under a single state - each has its own flag, language(s), sports teams, food, even religious denominations. Cross the sea to the west and you're on the island of Ireland, home to one nation divided into two states. Get on the ferry and you can be in Spain, which includes Catalonia, home to the Catalan nation. Take a flight at Barcelona airport and you can be in the United States, which contains several sovereign Indian nations within its federal system, or Canada, which is home to the 'First Nations' alongside Canadians. You rightly mention the Middle East, where nobody would talk about Iraqis as a nation, or Afghans. None of these cases is a problem for how these countries are conceived, because none of them are supposed to be built around the nationalist idea, that the nation exists and should be coterminous with the state. There's a sense of nation-building - that states should work to build common identity between the people in them - but that's not the same thing.

It doesn't have to be ethnic nationalism at all. It could be religious or ideological, even civic (while one might think that the Constitution is an objectively good system, you could also say that it has a separate meaning for Americans. People who aren't scholars don't have to be systematic about their beliefs).

This is true, though nationalisms not based on something that is, in at least some sense, strongly tied to origins (such as language) are vanishingly rare.

There's no difference that matters in this case. The only thing I care about is that both of them are non-essentialist forms of nationalism- because one can hold non-essentialist beliefs that support fascism in practice. Thus claiming that there are 'nationalists' and 'non-nationalists' is entirely pointless, even more so declaring yourself the latter due to being in the Remain camp.

If you take nationalism by its usual definition, then a belief that states are a good thing is not a form of nationalism at all. You're welcome to say that words should be redefined, but you need to come up with a good reason why they should have new meanings, and so far I can't see any good reason in your post to throw out the dictionary.

 

[BvBPL]

People should work locally as a means to effect positive change. Where that means organizing around political subdivisions than those subdivisions should be embraced as effective instruments for betterment.