Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

It's both.

Take for instance, "America is NUMBER ONE!"


what does that REALLY mean?  the implicit statement, is that America has all the best things in abundance, and all that translates into the greatest power to exert that kind of extortion internationally.

[scriver]

Nation=/=state=/=governement=/=homeland.

Indeed. Stamps on IDs have nothing to do with it. Yet you were the one who brought them up.

The Second International (1889–1916) was an organisation of socialist and labour parties, formed on 14 July 1889 at a Paris meeting in which delegations from twenty countries participated.[1] The Second International continued the work of the dissolved First International, though excluding the powerful anarcho-syndicalist movement and trade unions. In 1922 the Second International began to reorganise into the Labour and Socialist International.[2]

Nobody thinks that cooperation is bad, if that is your point.

Yet it should be noted that the mindset of this internationalism, especially when in the minds of people of imperialist cultures such as German, American, or Russian, easily gets warped into imperialism and a need to force other nations and states into subjugation, as happened with the USSR and the Third/Communist International (in that aspect it is very similar to how easy nationalism turns into supremacism). It's no coincidence that you'll find it more among revolutionary socialists rather than democratic socialists. The former believes that it is their "duty" to force the revolution on others, the latter believes people have to choose socialism themselves.

And regardless, it proved to just be empty words. Fair weather words from fair weather friends. A fair weather ideology for a fair weather mind.

It's both.

Take for instance, "America is NUMBER ONE!"


what does that REALLY mean?  the implicit statement, is that America has all the best things in abundance, and all that translates into the greatest power to exert that kind of extortion internationally.

That's not nationalism. America is not a nation. It is a state.

[hector13]

It's both.

Take for instance, "America is NUMBER ONE!"

what does that REALLY mean?  the implicit statement, is that America has all the best things in abundance, and all that translates into the greatest power to exert that kind of extortion internationally.

It is not, however, the only one. If a country requires something on an international market that another country is not willing to provide economically, they will probably look elsewhere.

[wierd]

A state is a territory with its own institutions and populations. ... A nation is a large group of people who inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture, or another commonality.

The United States is BOTH, since it is a well defined geographical area, with a populace that has a shared national identity.

"America is Number One!" is both statist, and nationalist, at the same time.  The distinction between the two is a red herring in this example--  The person from the deep south, and the New Yorker, both can assert that statement, and feel it as persons of a national identity. Neither of the two questions the national pedigree of the other.

[dragdeler]

-

[wierd]

It's both.

Take for instance, "America is NUMBER ONE!"

what does that REALLY mean?  the implicit statement, is that America has all the best things in abundance, and all that translates into the greatest power to exert that kind of extortion internationally.

It is not, however, the only one. If a country requires something on an international market that another country is not willing to provide economically, they will probably look elsewhere.

Which is why the US (and pals) have been trying SO. VERY. HARD. to introduce artificial controls on things that are not intrinsically tied to a national identity or chain of production.  You know, things like eternally persistent patents and copyrights.

[Naturegirl1999]

Humans are humans. We needn’t divide ourselves into groups and fight each other, internationalism would be humans working for the interests of humans, not groups of humans working for groups at the expense of other groups

[wierd]

"My group of humans is better than that other group of humans, which justifies my mistreatment of that other group of humans, for the benefit of my group of humans" is the basic feature of nationalism.

That was kinda the point I was making.

[Naturegirl1999]

Yep, and I agree that that “justification” is shit.

[TheSteppeWolf]

Again, not what I meant. What I meant by nationalism, in my case, is a harmless pride in my country without thinking of it as that much superior to be protectionist. I said it thrice already! Maybe I used the wrong word? Patriotism?

Now tell me, how is that harmful?

[MaxTheFox]

Again, not what I meant. What I meant by nationalism, in my case, is a harmless pride in my country without thinking of it as that much superior to be protectionist. I said it thrice already! Maybe I used the wrong word? Patriotism?

Now tell me, how is that harmful?

It isn't but be careful of it developing into something worse. I'm not saying it necessarily leads to actual racism but still be careful.

[scriver]

A state is a territory with its own institutions and populations. ... A nation is a large group of people who inhabit a specific territory and are connected by history, culture, or another commonality.

The United States is BOTH, since it is a well defined geographical area, with a populace that has a shared national identity.

"America is Number One!" is both statist, and nationalist, at the same time.  The distinction between the two is a red herring in this example--  The person from the deep south, and the New Yorker, both can assert that statement, and feel it as persons of a national identity. Neither of the two questions the national pedigree of the other.

Except a cornerstone of a nation is a mutual feeling of belonging together. Which Americans fundamentally lack.

"My group of humans is better than that other group of humans, which justifies my mistreatment of that other group of humans, for the benefit of my group of humans" is the basic feature of nationalism.

No, that is the basic feature of supremacism, of which nationalist supremacism is a variety.

That’s not nationalism, that’s capitalism.

Also.

And that's why I found the neo-colonialism jab unfair. There are """historically successful""" (-.-) examples of internationalism that didn't end in authoritarian regimes, or aspire to the one world governement controlled by illuminati lizards... such minor examples as the U.N. or the E.U.

And if this is going to derail into a discussion about the merits of the EU then I'll preamptively ask you WHO predicted that a monetary union would be a bad idea. Please let's not. Yes everything sucks as it currently is, but I'd subscribe that in large parts to the ingenious perversion of all things, and that shit starts with language.

EU is neither successful (Germany is successful, but I am not surprised a German conflate the two) nor does it not aspire to European domination/federalisation or world domination. If you don't want this conversation to be about the EU then I'd suggest not bringing it up.

mpf... stamp in ID... you go try claim a nationality without that anywhere but your friendly neighbourhood cops that knows your aunt, tell me how it went

A nation and a nationality is a people. Where the people exist, a nation exist. By your reasoning, there is no such thing as a Kurdish nation. And I don't think you think that.

Humans are humans. We needn’t divide ourselves into groups and fight each other, internationalism would be humans working for the interests of humans, not groups of humans working for groups at the expense of other groups

We shouldn't fight each other or work against each other. Groups exists. We are different peoples, just like we belong to different families. I love my family more than I love yours, and you love your family more than you love mine. That doesn't mean we think our own families are better than the other's. It doesn't mean we can't work together.

[dragdeler]

-

[Naturegirl1999]

What is the point of being proud of one group of people, separate from the numerous other groups of people? I used to think my country was great, then I thought of all the wars we fought, and continue to fight, to remain “number one.” Are you willing to die for your human group? Even if it starts to war with other human groups? If your country invaded its neighbor without provocation, would you support it!

[TheSteppeWolf]

What is the point of being proud of one group of people, separate from the numerous other groups of people?

I... it's actually hard to explain. But I feel like being proud of it. I don't think you'll understand. I know I'm probably not being rational.

Are you willing to die for your human group?

If I was defending it, from other countries, or fighting against a home grown dictatorship or anarchy? Yes.

If your country invaded its neighbor without provocation, would you support it!

This just means it has probably betrayed its current (quite peaceful compared to... most of our history Lol) ideals and thus I wouldn't support it. I would either move out or try to sabotage the war effort.

Also we're not really going to invade anyone. Our glory days are past.