+10 redhouse....obviously a pointless topic posted by a rabid loon...This thread, by intent of erist, will devolve into a Putin-esque "Amerika Sucks and All Evil in the Universe is Their Fault". Don't bother...

Depends on the nation and time period. Depends on the extremity of it. Depends on how far someone will go to make it evident. Depends on whether or not it turns from nationalism to nativism. In other words, define it further.

1) The nation-state is an obsolete imagined community. It is both too large and too small to be an effective mode of organization. Too large because we have always, as human beings, tended to band together in much smaller communities of kinship and too small because many of the problems now facing us as humans are essentially global in scope and can't be addressed by any one country. The dual questions of organizing production/consumption in a globalized economy and dealing with global climate change cannot be solved by countries acting as autonomous rational actors attempting to maximize their own self gain.

2) The nation-state has always been a tool to make invisible those whose subjugation are required for the functioning of that same nation state (The role of undocumented immigrants or slaves in the economy of the US one such example, the disappearing of former revolutionaries, artists, queers, etc into the gulags of Russia another such example)

3) It is irrational and harmful to prioritize identifying with people in one country as being objects of concern over others for the simple fact of being "countrymen".

4) Nationalism provided an expansion of concern to more people than one's self or family at one point in time, and thus was a valuable period in the evolution of humans on earth. But now it causes more problems than it solves because it both limits the ability of people to identify with other humans around the world, and also limits the ability of people to make decisions on things that effect their lives most as self-governing communities.

5) Any war fought between nation-states inherently has people in one nation state valuing the lives of their citizens more that the citizens of the other nation state. Obviously irrational and harmful. ie how many Iraqi lives are equivalent to one American life?

NB: Nationalism may also be primarily based around self-determination for occupied/oppressed people. In that sense, a right to self-determination comes first, but one should not have any illusions that there is a good nationalism or bad nationalism.

Oh, isn't that cute?? erist transcribed some passages out of one of his college text books and thinks he is impressing people with his feigned intellectualism. Putin will be so proud of you? Have you met Putin, erist. He will like you...might I recommend you wear leather chaps on your first date, and offer him your authoritarian whip with your eyes turned down...

Discussing the nation-state as a mode of socioeconomic organization I suppose, and it's side effects on human consciousness. Patriotism a fool's game in my mind, but don't want to get sidetracked on some discussion about how it's okay to be proud of the ways your country has acted in the world (of course it is!) nor how this is just a covert way to slag on the US.

There might be no one on this site I disagree with as much as Putin in terms of political strategies for the future - given that authoritarian socialism has resulted in incredible amounts of misery and suffering AND sent people (rightfully) running from socialism as a way of organizing human affairs in a way that 1000 McCarthy's could never have done. But if he's down for a BDSM playdate, sure send me a PM, I'll happily take revenge for Barcelona. Unfortunately, college these days, despite the charges of conservatives of Marxist indoctrination, tends to be a holding container for drunk teenagers, teaches little practical skills, and tends to reward mediocrity.

I don't agree with anything erist just said.

Erist fails to notice that far more bloodshed is committed these days between groups within nation states (i.e. those wonderful local/kinship communities), than between nation states. Quick, when was the last war of any magnitude *between* nation states in South America? Answer: The war of the Triple Alliance, over a hundred years ago. But I can count a half dozen countries who have had bloody civil wars on that continent. The disparity is even greater in sub-Saharan Africa - where interstate war is virtually unheard of but civil war has destroyed countries all around the region. The bloodshed in Iraq has occurred overwhelmingly in the "civil war" stage, rather than the conventional war between the dilapidated Iraqi military and US/Coalition military machine. Ditto Afghanistan. The problem in those two countries is the *lack of state authority*, not having too much of it.

Furthermore he fails to notice that the globalized economy is failing precisely because it is withering away the power of the nation state. Societies are breaking apart at the seam because the ability to maintain law and order has decayed. Globalized and local institutions are even more impotent and ineffective at handling these problems than the nation states Erist is critiquing. The nation state has been the most progressive/effective mechanism at organizing production in the history of mankind. The post-war world enjoyed vastly higher life expectancies and living standards thanks to the strength of the nation state. Regions of the world where nation states are weakest are precisely the areas where living standards are poorest.

Nationalism can build the capacity for problem solving because institutions become more effective when the people governed by them identify with one another. The source of weakness for the European Union is the varied countries don't identify primarily as Europeans. The only way for that to happen is for them to develop a common other against which they demarcate a strong European identity. That isn't going to happen.

The civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa are in fact nearly directly caused by the fact that the various colonial powers drew some arbitrary lines on the map and said "here, you people all live together in one country and pretend you like each other." The only reason the current configuration of nation-states exists in Africa is because of colonialism. The EU could hardly be accused of being weak. Arguably it took an area of the world where there had been constant fighting for thousands of years and gave it a remarkable level of peace/quiet. It's current problems have more to do with the oligarchy of banksters running the currency show than with a lack of a European identity.

"There might be no one on this site I disagree with as much as Putin in terms of political strategies for the future"

Not exactly shocked that a "libertarian socialist" identifies a leftist as the primary opponent. We're used to getting shot in the back from your kind.

Anybody who actually thinks Erist's strategy works here's a quick question. Does anybody remember what concrete demands Occupy Wall Street made? No of course not, because they didn't make any, because they relied on ineffective libertarian socialist methods of organizing. That's not to say they weren't courageous and didn't do good work, but their lack of message points to the fundamental weakness of their kind of moral puritanism. Unlike anarchists, I don't believe fellow leftists are my primary ideological adversary. Anarchists are more fond of circular firing squads than dealing with the real enemy. They are as allergic the idea of compromise as the Tea Party astroturfers, and they are a pain in the ass to work with on a practical level. For all their talk about "horizontal decision-making" they are as domineering about getting their way 100% of the time as any tin-pot dictatorship they decry.

The problem with nationalism in these sub-Saharan countries is that they didn't come into being as European and American nations did (or Asian for that matter). If all that separates you from your neighbor is an arbitrary straight line drawn through a desert, then, *yes*, you may want to reconsider what you define as a nation locally. As for my country, or Putin33's, the moment you cross the boarder you also cross a cultural and a linguistic barrier.

"The civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa are in fact nearly directly caused by the fact that the various colonial powers drew some arbitrary lines on the map and said "here, you people all live together in one country and pretend you like each other.""

The lines weren't really arbitrary. I reject the notion that the history of Africa is nothing but the history of colonialism. The fact is in some if not most cases European (and Turkish) colonialism occurred at the request of the local populations via various treaties. For example, Somali tribes invited the Turks to help them fight/defend themselves against the Portuguese & Ethiopians. So for a good chunk of modern Somali history it was a protectorate of Turkey and/or Zanzibar.

The fact is the Sub-Saharan climate has not been conducive to state-building, because of the mobile/fluid populations which are difficult to count or tax. There were no obvious lines with which to draw boundaries based on population. Also for the most part colonial authority only really extended along the coasts. The interiors were barely touched until the last decades of New Imperialism.

Another fact remains that these "artificial" boundaries are the most vehemently defended in the world, with repeated resolutions from African regional organizations upholding international boundaries as sacrosanct. So one must find somewhere else to look for the weakness of African states.

You are making this too complicated. Nationalism or patriotism is suggesting that one group of people is 'better' or more significant or more important than another. Basically, in my book, that is wrong.

Do you care about family members more than non family members?

Just to clear up this rather annoying confusion.

Patriotism is generally considered to be a healthy love of one's country, language, culture, cuisine, etc. without it being a statement that another man's country, language, etc. is worse than yours. It's like love of family, you love yours because it's yours.

Nationalism is the variant in which you hate another man's country.

Putin, like I said I'd be happy to debate anarchism vs authoritarian socialism in another thread. I'm sure we could work well together on any variety of anti capitalist or anti war or pro justice initiatives. I'm only pointing out to Krelling that tyig us together based on our anti-US beliefs makes little sense when I think a large chunk of your political goals are quite dangerous.

In regards to linguistic and cultural boundaries. Yes this is an are where the US has arguably excelled in some ways. Despite its vicious legacy of white supremacism (and in some cases because of it - see how the Irish became white for example) it has created a functional multicultural society on a scale not really seen in any European countries. And seems at least somewhat immune in the modern days to the sort of Openy fascist rhetoric beig seen in NL, Greece, Austria, etc

I'm not saying the nation state has never been a useful mode of organization. Just that it currently poses a larger threat to effective governance and well being than a tool for it

Patriotism is love of State. Nationalism is love of Nation. The two are not the same. A state is a legal entity, a nation is a community of people.

For example, Kurdish nationalists tend not to be patriotic vis-à-vis the Turkish state and its institutions. Ditto Hungarian nationalists re: the Romanian state, or Catalonian nationalists & Spain.

It makes little sense to call people in the United States nationalists since the US is not really a national community in any real sense. We're united by nothing but particular institutions. There might be some who want reorganize the US along national lines (America belongs to only those of Anglo-Saxon European descent) but that's quite different.

Interesting Putin, although I do believe for people that live in a country where they respect the authority of the state that governs it the terms patriotism and nationalism are used in the way I describe above.

Anyways, this is a BS thread. An Irish person can have a perfectly reasonable love of his island, as it's an isolated thing that's best run by local people (the Irish) in their own tradition (Irish culture). The same goes for such a country as Iceland. For these types of countries to give up their nationhood is absolutely idiotic.

Also "nationalism" is not a "belief system." It's a default state of mind at best. Why am I in this thread again?

How about identifying as a member of country X stronger than identifying as a human is now problematic. Sharpen it a little for te purposes of a non-sidetracked debate?

I actually do identify people as human before identifying them as residents of a certain country. I can nicely combine that with any patriotic elements in my character. Seriously, what are we discussing here? :-)

Why should Iceland be a nation? It's been Danish since time immemorial. Nationalism is a belief system in the sense that it aims to have a national community control political institutions for itself. Not every group feels this way, so it's wrong to say it's a default mindset. Very few states are pure nation-states.

What? You're actually doubting Iceland being a nation? Is this another comment we can put on the Putin33 nonsense pile where such beliefs are "North Korea is not a monarchy" and "Jacob Zuma is turning his Presidential palace into a hospital" can live a happy life or are you actually going to say something useful on this topic?

To us islanders nation states are a nice and easy concept. Your nation is all the stuff you can get to by walking, and is generally full of people who speak like you do and act in more or less similar ways. Foriegn is that weird place over the sea where people speak a strange language, act very differently in social situations, and (for large parts of the UK's history at least) go out of their way to try and kill you.

True story... When I was little I always imagined that countires were seperated by giant walls. I was rather disappointed to find you could go from one to the other without noticing, and wondered how the locals could cope :p.

I don't doubt it's a nation, I just don't get the rationale for it. Were the Danes abusive? What's the point?

^What Octavious said. People on an island like to manage their own island. We have islands in the NL, they like a certain degree of autonomy and I'm more than happy to give it to them. Also, what did Octavious' friendly people do to deserve your hostility? Ask for a minor contribution to sustain and expand their megalomanous empire? Hardly a reason for a revolutionary war Putty...

Excuse me, are you new? I'm last person who defends the justice of the revolutionary war. Canada turned out just fine.

wut

http://95.211.128.12/webdiplomacy/forum.php?threadID=784812

You think the US would be more effectively and ethically governed from London than from Washington? :S

Nowadays? Who knows. In the year 1775? Yes.