5 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.
forapurpose 8y ago
There's no basis offered for any of the parent. Some things are obviously false: > oil ... That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone > expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ) etc. These are arguments of white christian nationalists, who, as Orwell pointed out about nationalists in general, have no interest in reality, only justifying their hateful cause. They ignore the incredible, outrageous evil of Nazism, the universality and priority of human rights and freedom, basic economic reality, and the predictable destruction that comes with nationalism. The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity orders of magnitude beyond anything else in human history. It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak (it has a long a way to go, but it has come a very long way since WWII). A person must really embrace hate in order to give that up for nationalism, racism, and the destruction that inevitably follows, a return to pre-WWII or even pre-WWI. I suspect many of the white christian nationalists take that peace and prosperity for granted; they don't realize it was constructed by the survivors of WWII, who knew far more of nationalism and the world without a rules-driven world order.
- andrepd 8y ago
  >The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak. Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by the boot of American might and imperialism, for the benefit of themselves: for the maintenance of their supreme place in the world on the back of neocolonialist exploitation of weaker countries. Is this not the picture of "undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak"? Let's not forget the odious bootlicking of Saudi princes, for instance, and their positively medieval rule, for their economic favour. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Execution_of_Operation_Ajax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#The_1973_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#The... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor_genocide
andrepd 8y ago
>Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. This is simply, objectively, 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. Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6)? Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)? >The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. In terms of technology, the last 100 years have been more transformative than the 10,000 before. It's silly to compare this to the mongol empire.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports Yes, though that's due to legal restrictions on domestic drilling, not some sort of physical necessity. > Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)? There are multiple schools of thought and multiple eras of the US. What should be US involvement in UN, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. I don't think that really disproves the point.

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.

forapurpose 8y ago

There's no basis offered for any of the parent. Some things are obviously false: > oil ... That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. > Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone > expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ) etc. These are arguments of white christian nationalists, who, as Orwell pointed out about nationalists in general, have no interest in reality, only justifying their hateful cause. They ignore the incredible, outrageous evil of Nazism, the universality and priority of human rights and freedom, basic economic reality, and the predictable destruction that comes with nationalism. The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity orders of magnitude beyond anything else in human history. It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak (it has a long a way to go, but it has come a very long way since WWII). A person must really embrace hate in order to give that up for nationalism, racism, and the destruction that inevitably follows, a return to pre-WWII or even pre-WWI. I suspect many of the white christian nationalists take that peace and prosperity for granted; they don't realize it was constructed by the survivors of WWII, who knew far more of nationalism and the world without a rules-driven world order.

andrepd 8y ago
>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak. Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by the boot of American might and imperialism, for the benefit of themselves: for the maintenance of their supreme place in the world on the back of neocolonialist exploitation of weaker countries. Is this not the picture of "undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak"? Let's not forget the odious bootlicking of Saudi princes, for instance, and their positively medieval rule, for their economic favour. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Execution_of_Operation_Ajax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#The_1973_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#The... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor_genocide

andrepd 8y ago

>Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over. This is simply, objectively, 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. Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6)? Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)? >The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. In terms of technology, the last 100 years have been more transformative than the 10,000 before. It's silly to compare this to the mongol empire.

paulddraper 8y ago
> Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports Yes, though that's due to legal restrictions on domestic drilling, not some sort of physical necessity. > Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)? There are multiple schools of thought and multiple eras of the US. What should be US involvement in UN, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. I don't think that really disproves the point.