: Well I disagree I think nationalism can exist legitimately because it is way in which people construct a personal, individual, identity. Variants which arent based on mutuality, respect, parity of esteem are illegimate though, that's not a generalisation like your religious marxism though.But its an idetity, as you so rightly noted, based around property, a notion of owning an area of the world, and specifically, as around teh property boundaries delineated by the ruling elites.
Individual identity can be constructed without reference to states, or geo-political entities. How often have such identities been used to send workers off to sluaghter in teh service of their masters?
: Yeah, I can see the comparisons between left-wing anarachists like the levellers and blairism already.
I simply provided another example. The point becomes, though, when you have plurality within a nation state, what you have effectively is tolerance, and from Bill's quote we find:
Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but it is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes
to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience,
and the other of granting it. The one is the Pope armed with fire fagot and the other is the Pope selling or granting indulgences.
An excellent quote from Tom Paine. If you have Britian, you must have the british, if you have pluralism and diversity, all you'll have in britain is the British tolerating their Others.: National boundaries that are increasingly irrelevant to the market? Just excuse me one second RD but from reading classical liberal and American revolution era material I find that the early "capitalist" revolutionaries (I prefer liberal, they really weren't as Machavellian as the people who have inherited their mantel) where as internationalist as they where libertarian.
Indeed, they needed to internationalise their revolution to internationalise their markets- as the English liberals had done by using their government in an agressive foriegn policy- plus America was still a colonial economy at the time of the revolution.
: I dont really know how to convince you of this, it is rather metaphysical but I think that since my environment defines a lot of me (any Marxist worth his salt would agree with a bit of sociological determinism now wouldn't he?), there's a connection there. Administrative Unit? Bit harsh dont you think?
Thats all Ireland is, didn't exist until 1922, even before the English came (and the english Came before England existed). I agree environment determines, but I don't think you've been determined by the Environment in Cork. you're right its metaphysical, and while you;re calling me a religious marxist, you;ve offered no reason other than mysticism for your nationalism.
: But you owe it loyalty and allegiance, I wouldnt even say I owe my "nation" that because it'd mean allegiance to leadership, this self-activity thing sounds a bit like self-identity which is a bit like what I was arguing.
Right, and self-identity and self-activity can only be found through democracy, and full opennes, which means socialism, choosing a set of masters under capitalism means simply choosing new masters.
: That stone cold rationalism is going to inspire a lot.
Better than dying for something that doesn't exist.
: However as far as "no connection to political activity" goes as I've said before if anarchists, socialist, liberals etc. cant exploit nationalism then Machavellian politicians or nazi's will your attitude is a bit like that of the German Communist Party prior to Hitler, it's a bit like a lot of Marxists, rehetoric or faith shouldnt be allowed to over ride the realities of the situation.
As long as people have nationalist atachments we can't get rid of teh market, it is fundamentally attached to a model of society that is inapropriate world-for socialism. if we manipulate it, we have to obey its logic, and we end up just like the nationalist machiavelians ourselves.
: Would the japanese not have seen their war as a war of defense once they began to lose? I hope your aware of the nationalist nature of the VC struggle they where fighting for the unification of thier country not really a social revolution.
Yes, I'm aware of that, I only support them in their self-defence, I don't support the 'anti-imperialist war'. the apanese government would have surrendered to stay in power, and save their own skins.
: How can you generalise like that? Rehtorically Marxism understands nationalism as that, I'm a "nationalist" in some sense and I dont support eliteism and think of myself as a consistant socialist.
Like I say in the other post- nations are adminsitrative units of property, national identity is a version of the stockhome syndrome, excusing a govnerment held in emotional reverence for its good acts neglects a rational analysis of the structures which underpin its good acts.
: Points might make it easier:
: 1)Nationalism doesnt have to be divisive, racist etc.
: 2)National identity doesnt necessarily involve building new states but reversing colonalism and imperialism.
: 3)I'm not interested in Socialism if it doesnt fit with my vision, it's someone elses dogma.
I'd recomend Edward Said's CULTURE AND IMPERIALISM which coverswhat has happened to a fair few nationalist risings in teh middle-east, among other things.
1:How can you have a nation without knowing who belongs or not- look at Israel, they have parliamentary meetings on trying to work out who is a jew and Who not.
2:Reversing Colonialism where a state didn't previously exist (much of Africa) means building new states. Further, removing foriegn colonialism does not remove teh colonialism of teh ruling class.
3:Your call man.
: Fine I understand all this and I've never seen defense of the elites as consistant with my ideas about nationalism, facts are RD the Workers joined, the workers welcomed etc. now I'm not going to welcome any marxist condescention about the workers being fooled if their enthusiasum met with a left wing vacumn then the right was going to fill that in.
Yes, teh workers joined, no we shouldn't leave a vaccuum, no we should patronise, thats why we must honestly and consistantly denounce nationalism, and get the message across.
: This is all a bit conspiratorial for me...
Not at all- is me saying teh board of GM motors won't pursue a policy if it makes them a loss a functional description or a conspiracy theory?
: I disagree...
they slaughtered civilians, they fired on a hospital, sending in non military aid would have been better.
: No your not I dont really integrate "great leaders" into my patriotic vision, what about all the unnoted people who where slaughtered by the Brits?
Thank god. yes, the British did suppress the Irish in a quite disgusting manner.
: This is all a bit conspiratorial again, liberals arent all opportunistic scum you know? What your saying here is that individual egotism is more consistant with socialism than some communal identity, well I dont know how the SPGB worked that out...
No, I'm saying that real concrete community is better than an abstract community. Further, I don't think the liberals are being conspiratorial, I think its inherent presuppositions in their ideology, specifically centred around nationalism.
: I know people who stack shelves who insist they are capitalists are they part of this capitalist class?
No. Only those who own the means of production, and amke enough money from investments to live without seliling their labour-power.
: I think Europe is relevent to me and I dont think I'm capitalist class, being a socialist and all, I'd like a united Euro-federation there's the possiblity that it could become a Keynesian economy capable of matching and then passing the US, once relatively liberal planning has been proven a success then people might like some radical changes and allow time for altruism in thier lives like you'd like.
1:Keynsianism doesn't work- its inherently inflationary.
2:Why a Euro-federation, why not world wide solidarity.
3:Who cares what our currency is called or where its based.
Your policies sound more like those of teh current communist party...
