5 ms·

I am unclear on how strong nationalism is an authoritarian signal. Can you go into more detail there?

by zaphar 1y ago

shakna 1y ago
Because it makes it easier to create scapegoats, and excuses for why restrictions must be created. Blame the Jews, the immigrants, the trans, and then people will grudgingly accept the Gestapo, ICE, prosecution without proof or courts. Which then allows you to target the opposition without proof.
croes 1y ago
Because it’s a fake nationalism where they decide who and what is considered part of the nation and who and what not.
glenstein 1y ago
Well the Axis powers from World War II are the most obvious demonstrations of nationalism begetting authoritarianism. Germany, Italy, and Japan were nationalist in the extreme. And Italy from that time is such a clear example that it's basically the canonical example used to teach how fascism emerges. Contemporary examples include the Philippines, Hungary, Poland's Law and Justice Party, and arguably Russia, Turkey and India. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. The United States unfortunately is shaping up to count as an example as well. Extreme forms of nationalism tend to have a narrative of grievance, a desire to restore a once a great national identity, and a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens, and enemies without and within, against whom authoritarians powers must be mobilized. So there's a conceptual basis, in terms of setting the stage for rationalizing authoritarianism, as well as abundant historical examples demonstrating the marriage of nationalism and authoritarianism in action. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but I would say there's an extremely strong and familiar historical canon to those who study the topic.
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  But that would only be something nationalism signaled if the converse weren’t also true — eg, totalitarian states like the USSR, CCP, etc. Those also had: - grievance narratives; - a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens and enemies; and, - use the above to justify authoritarian powers. You haven’t shown that nationalism played a particular part in that cycle; just that it also happened in nationalist states. Almost like the problem is those factors, rather than nationalism.
  - shakna 1y ago
    The USSR absolutely used a nationalist view in their propaganda [0] As did the CCP [1]: > Ideals and convictions are the spiritual banners for the united struggle of a country, nation and party, wavering ideals and convictions are the most harmful form of wavering. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/nationalism-in-the-ussr-a-historical-and-comparative-perspective/EE65B99FD1D9EAE1A7BC640C1319C8B7 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Commun...
  - glenstein 1y ago
    I actually considered listing them as additional examples, but I had to stop somewhere and they had their own distinct wrinkles. I think the major difference in their respective cases pertain to the ideological dynamics of the particular strains of communism that manifested in those countries. What they lack is a fixation on the purity of national heritage as a primary source of moral truth and a foundation for a self conception. Instead they tended to regard themselves as part of universal, international struggle and understood conflict in economic and ideological terms. What they had in common was the sense that conflict with this chosen enemy necessitated authoritarianism. There's more than one path to authoritarianism, and they overlap. Different mechanisms don't disprove one another, they exist side by side.
mattlutze 1y ago
Here is an interesting review of how the two are historically strongly correlated[1]. Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism, help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]" Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on. 1: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-4285b067eec6/files/s8g84mm37n https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-42...
adastra22 1y ago
Do you know the history of nationalism in Europe, and Germany in particular? Hint: it’s the “Na” part of “Nazi.” You are getting downvoted because this pretty basic stuff. Either you’re part of today’s lucky 10k, or your post reads very much like far-right Gish galloping.
- dinkumthinkum 1y ago
  I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
  - shakna 1y ago
    The "far left" is anarchy. I don't really see anarchists wanting to keep police around.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      Far left has traditionally meant communism.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
- notrealyme123 1y ago
  Didn't know the term "Gish Galloping". Thanks! I've experienced this so often in discussions with far right people.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

I am unclear on how strong nationalism is an authoritarian signal. Can you go into more detail there?

by zaphar 1y ago

I am unclear on how strong nationalism is an authoritarian signal. Can you go into more detail there?

Because it makes it easier to create scapegoats, and excuses for why restrictions must be created. Blame the Jews, the immigrants, the trans, and then people will grudgingly accept the Gestapo, ICE, prosecution without proof or courts. Which then allows you to target the opposition without proof.

croes 1y ago

Because it’s a fake nationalism where they decide who and what is considered part of the nation and who and what not.

glenstein 1y ago

Well the Axis powers from World War II are the most obvious demonstrations of nationalism begetting authoritarianism. Germany, Italy, and Japan were nationalist in the extreme. And Italy from that time is such a clear example that it's basically the canonical example used to teach how fascism emerges. Contemporary examples include the Philippines, Hungary, Poland's Law and Justice Party, and arguably Russia, Turkey and India. Modi is a Hindu nationalist. The United States unfortunately is shaping up to count as an example as well. Extreme forms of nationalism tend to have a narrative of grievance, a desire to restore a once a great national identity, and a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens, and enemies without and within, against whom authoritarians powers must be mobilized. So there's a conceptual basis, in terms of setting the stage for rationalizing authoritarianism, as well as abundant historical examples demonstrating the marriage of nationalism and authoritarianism in action. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but I would say there's an extremely strong and familiar historical canon to those who study the topic.

zmgsabst 1y ago
But that would only be something nationalism signaled if the converse weren’t also true — eg, totalitarian states like the USSR, CCP, etc. Those also had: - grievance narratives; - a tendency to divide the world into loyal citizens and enemies; and, - use the above to justify authoritarian powers. You haven’t shown that nationalism played a particular part in that cycle; just that it also happened in nationalist states. Almost like the problem is those factors, rather than nationalism.
- shakna 1y ago
  The USSR absolutely used a nationalist view in their propaganda [0] As did the CCP [1]: > Ideals and convictions are the spiritual banners for the united struggle of a country, nation and party, wavering ideals and convictions are the most harmful form of wavering. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/nationalism-in-the-ussr-a-historical-and-comparative-perspective/EE65B99FD1D9EAE1A7BC640C1319C8B7 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Chinese_Commun...
- glenstein 1y ago
  I actually considered listing them as additional examples, but I had to stop somewhere and they had their own distinct wrinkles. I think the major difference in their respective cases pertain to the ideological dynamics of the particular strains of communism that manifested in those countries. What they lack is a fixation on the purity of national heritage as a primary source of moral truth and a foundation for a self conception. Instead they tended to regard themselves as part of universal, international struggle and understood conflict in economic and ideological terms. What they had in common was the sense that conflict with this chosen enemy necessitated authoritarianism. There's more than one path to authoritarianism, and they overlap. Different mechanisms don't disprove one another, they exist side by side.

mattlutze 1y ago

Here is an interesting review of how the two are historically strongly correlated[1]. Their conclusion is that "[...] ethnic and elitist forms of nationalism, which combine to forge exclusive nationalism, help to perpetuate autocratic regimes by continually legitimating minority exclusions [...]" Right-wing nationalism as we're currently experiencing it is exclusive. It broadly advocates for restoring revised historical cultural narratives of a particular ethnic group, for immigration restriction and immigrant removal, for further minority culture erasure, and so on. 1: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-4285b067eec6/files/s8g84mm37n https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:859c6af4-d4fd-461e-b605-42...

adastra22 1y ago

Do you know the history of nationalism in Europe, and Germany in particular? Hint: it’s the “Na” part of “Nazi.” You are getting downvoted because this pretty basic stuff. Either you’re part of today’s lucky 10k, or your post reads very much like far-right Gish galloping.

dinkumthinkum 1y ago
I don't know. It seems like from what you saying that you and honestly an enormous amount of people need to actually learn about 20th century European history and WWII. People are throwing around these terms of NAZI and Gestapo and all of this and I think they have no idea what they mean. The left is not against authoritarian. The left does not even want to really eliminate the police. They just want to be the ones to decide who are the thought-criminals and what to do with them. Also, that is not what Gish galloping. I don't know what is happening here.
- shakna 1y ago
  The "far left" is anarchy. I don't really see anarchists wanting to keep police around.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Far left has traditionally meant communism.
- adastra22 1y ago
  I do know my history. The Nazi party was a pan-German nationalist party. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Germans, and Germany are obviously quite sensitive to the dangers of nationalism and authoritarianism. Not just because of WW2, but also the experience of East Germany.
notrealyme123 1y ago
Didn't know the term "Gish Galloping". Thanks! I've experienced this so often in discussions with far right people.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]