6 ms·

Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. When Orwell wrote this piece he was influenced by the war, extreme situations lik

Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. When Orwell wrote this piece he was influenced by the war, extreme situations like wars or famines always cloud your judgements. I recommend reading the seemingly unrelated The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell. It describes the skills that would be necessary to rebuild civilisation after a hypothetical global cataclysm. Why is it relevant? If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Without these, nearly all technologies of daily life would break down in a very short time frame, including agriculture and medicine. The connections and dependences between countries are massive and completely unavoidable at our current level of technological development. In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail. (It may also fail because the resources dwindle extremely fast, viewed at an evolutionary time scale. Expanding mankind into space is unavoidable, or at least robot mining will be needed.) Add to this the fact that we can communicate in real-time with the whole world and get news about distant events and politics within minutes, and patriotism starts to appear in a completely different light - as a silly appeal to traditions with no substance. Bear in mind that nations are entirely artificial entities and territorial conflicts have become (almost) impossible due to the global trade dependences. This doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with mild forms of patriotism, of course, just that there are no particular advantages to it in the long run. In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology.

thankthunk 8y ago
> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong. > If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail. That's fundamentally not true. Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running. If you expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ), then we are more than able to keep our society running without the rest of the world. > In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology. What? Maybe if you are denmark or iceland, but that doesn't hold true for the US. Also, your entire argument is about international trade, not transnationalism. You need nations to have international trade. And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union. The current international system will continue as long as nations deem it beneficial to themselves. If it ceases to be, then it will end. There is nothing inherently good or bad about any system. And I highly doubt china, russia and much of the world will adhere to the US/European led international system for much longer. Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world. The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. The only comparable situation in human history was the mongol empire where mongol's established direct or indirect control over pretty much all of eurasia. That system crumbled also.
- naeemtee 8y ago
  > And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union. Bingo. Nation states drove society, and they'll continue to drive society.
- verylittlemeat 8y ago
  >Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world. What if most hegemonic powers in a "pax" period tend toward your pragmatic attitude and as a result create a societal gestalt which becomes a self fufilling prophecy of paralyzed stagnation? Why should we assume that just because a "silly utopian transnationalism" hasn't happened yet it can't possibly happen at all? The technology available to a hegemon in the 21st century is unlike anything a previous hegemon has ever known. Betting the future will follow the patterns of the past is a safe bet until it isn't.
- mistermann 8y ago
  Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me: "As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a single race or a geographical area." "By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1)." "But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests." "Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." Now, maybe this is somewhat skewed by when it was written, but based on my interpretation of modern people's usage of the word nationalism, it seems completely consistent with current times.....so my question is basically: why is race (and force/violence) considered inseparable from nationalism? Or even more precisely, why is it seemingly only people who live in extremely ethnically diverse societies who think this way (go watch some "man on the street" interview videos on YouTube and you'll see that Modern Western Progressive values that only originated in the last 20 years aren't shared universally across the planet)? Let's check the dictionary: Nationalism: 1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation. 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism. 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4. the desire for national advancement or political independence. 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. The only definition even remotely close to race/racism is #3, yet do a google search for "nationalism" in the news and on forums (including this one, and in this very thread) and I bet you'll discover that in the vast majority of cases you'll find it being used in a way that's synonymous with racism. I will often ask people I see doing this why they do it, what their exact meaning is, but no one will ever answer. In my opinion, these types of people are, ironically, similarly as evil as racists, in that they hate a group of people based on falsehoods or false stereotypes. I'd love to know if anyone can think of a good explanation for this phenomenon. And considering how widespread it is, "people are dumb, get over it" seems like a completely disingenuous copout, equivalent to a racist-apologist.
humanrebar 8y ago
I suppose there's some semantic clarification needed here. I don't see why identifying with one's ancestors [1] (patriotism) or nation (nationalism) precludes free trade, multiculturalism, human decency, etc. On the contrary, if we want people to think long-term, it's important to get them to associate personal motivations (love of their grandchildren, love of their neighborhoods) with the sacrifices needed to keep civilization healthy (taxes, public service, military service, compliance with environmental regulations, etc.). I guess it's possible you see "patriotism" and "nationalism" as requiring negative isolationism, xenophobia, etc. If that's true, is there a word for "thinking locally, acting globally" that allows for appreciating your homeland, ancestors, neighbors, etc.?
- andrepd 8y ago
  Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.
  - dmarusic16 8y ago
    Are politics becoming outdated, in your opinion, too?
    - andrepd 8y ago
      ?? I don't follow.
      - dmarusic16 8y ago
        Maybe I was reading too far into your statement. But in general terms, politics (and conflict in general) stems from a struggle over the power to allocate scarce resources towards conflicting conceptions of what is “good” or “deserving”. Often times, statements against privileging your own group to the detriment of others—and I concede you didn’t make that case directly, but I’ve often seen your comparison invoked in such arguments—implicitly assumes that politics, too, should be transcended. There is a sentiment that politics is a vestige of irrationality, and that if everyone was properly educated and could see the greater good, they would necessarily favor that over parochial group interests.
ardent_uno 8y ago
The survival and unity of a nation gives substantial long term benefits, contrary to what you believe, because effective nations make modern life possible through their guarantee of property rights and rule of law which are both prerequisites for any substantial economic activity. Not only this, but they also facilitate managed capitalism within their borders through their enforcement of regulation and wealth transfers in the form of taxation and public spending. The nation is an integral part of the global economic and social structure not because of petty adherence to "tradition" as you believe, but because it plays a necessary and valuable role. Given this, to say Patriotism is unproductive or backwards is foolish. Nations are fundamentally a collection of people and entities that accept (sometimes begrudgingly) living in a union is better than living apart. It's important that people feel proud of their union and value its existence just as two people in a romantic relationship must value that relationship in order for it to survive and thrive.

thankthunk 8y ago

> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong. > If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail. That's fundamentally not true. Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running. If you expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ), then we are more than able to keep our society running without the rest of the world. > In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology. What? Maybe if you are denmark or iceland, but that doesn't hold true for the US. Also, your entire argument is about international trade, not transnationalism. You need nations to have international trade. And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union. The current international system will continue as long as nations deem it beneficial to themselves. If it ceases to be, then it will end. There is nothing inherently good or bad about any system. And I highly doubt china, russia and much of the world will adhere to the US/European led international system for much longer. Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world. The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. The only comparable situation in human history was the mongol empire where mongol's established direct or indirect control over pretty much all of eurasia. That system crumbled also.

naeemtee 8y ago
> And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union. Bingo. Nation states drove society, and they'll continue to drive society.
verylittlemeat 8y ago
>Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world. What if most hegemonic powers in a "pax" period tend toward your pragmatic attitude and as a result create a societal gestalt which becomes a self fufilling prophecy of paralyzed stagnation? Why should we assume that just because a "silly utopian transnationalism" hasn't happened yet it can't possibly happen at all? The technology available to a hegemon in the 21st century is unlike anything a previous hegemon has ever known. Betting the future will follow the patterns of the past is a safe bet until it isn't.
mistermann 8y ago
Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me: "As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a single race or a geographical area." "By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1)." "But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests." "Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." Now, maybe this is somewhat skewed by when it was written, but based on my interpretation of modern people's usage of the word nationalism, it seems completely consistent with current times.....so my question is basically: why is race (and force/violence) considered inseparable from nationalism? Or even more precisely, why is it seemingly only people who live in extremely ethnically diverse societies who think this way (go watch some "man on the street" interview videos on YouTube and you'll see that Modern Western Progressive values that only originated in the last 20 years aren't shared universally across the planet)? Let's check the dictionary: Nationalism: 1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation. 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism. 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4. the desire for national advancement or political independence. 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. The only definition even remotely close to race/racism is #3, yet do a google search for "nationalism" in the news and on forums (including this one, and in this very thread) and I bet you'll discover that in the vast majority of cases you'll find it being used in a way that's synonymous with racism. I will often ask people I see doing this why they do it, what their exact meaning is, but no one will ever answer. In my opinion, these types of people are, ironically, similarly as evil as racists, in that they hate a group of people based on falsehoods or false stereotypes. I'd love to know if anyone can think of a good explanation for this phenomenon. And considering how widespread it is, "people are dumb, get over it" seems like a completely disingenuous copout, equivalent to a racist-apologist.

humanrebar 8y ago

I suppose there's some semantic clarification needed here. I don't see why identifying with one's ancestors [1] (patriotism) or nation (nationalism) precludes free trade, multiculturalism, human decency, etc. On the contrary, if we want people to think long-term, it's important to get them to associate personal motivations (love of their grandchildren, love of their neighborhoods) with the sacrifices needed to keep civilization healthy (taxes, public service, military service, compliance with environmental regulations, etc.). I guess it's possible you see "patriotism" and "nationalism" as requiring negative isolationism, xenophobia, etc. If that's true, is there a word for "thinking locally, acting globally" that allows for appreciating your homeland, ancestors, neighbors, etc.?

andrepd 8y ago
Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.
- dmarusic16 8y ago
  Are politics becoming outdated, in your opinion, too?
  - andrepd 8y ago
    ?? I don't follow.
    - dmarusic16 8y ago
      Maybe I was reading too far into your statement. But in general terms, politics (and conflict in general) stems from a struggle over the power to allocate scarce resources towards conflicting conceptions of what is “good” or “deserving”. Often times, statements against privileging your own group to the detriment of others—and I concede you didn’t make that case directly, but I’ve often seen your comparison invoked in such arguments—implicitly assumes that politics, too, should be transcended. There is a sentiment that politics is a vestige of irrationality, and that if everyone was properly educated and could see the greater good, they would necessarily favor that over parochial group interests.

ardent_uno 8y ago

The survival and unity of a nation gives substantial long term benefits, contrary to what you believe, because effective nations make modern life possible through their guarantee of property rights and rule of law which are both prerequisites for any substantial economic activity. Not only this, but they also facilitate managed capitalism within their borders through their enforcement of regulation and wealth transfers in the form of taxation and public spending. The nation is an integral part of the global economic and social structure not because of petty adherence to "tradition" as you believe, but because it plays a necessary and valuable role. Given this, to say Patriotism is unproductive or backwards is foolish. Nations are fundamentally a collection of people and entities that accept (sometimes begrudgingly) living in a union is better than living apart. It's important that people feel proud of their union and value its existence just as two people in a romantic relationship must value that relationship in order for it to survive and thrive.