: 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.OK now explain the nationalism of the American Indian Movement or the Indians that got wiped out by euro colonialism. They had a concept of nation and people that was not attached to ownership in the sense you are suggesting.
Your speaking as though property has had such profound importance always and in every culture, which isnt the case.
: 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?
I acknowledge that nation doesnt have to come into identity, but I'd prefer the freedom for it to, how often have people voluntarily marched of to fight for "the colours" without coercion etc.?
The class spooks and engineers your refering to dont appear on the radar that often, it's more of a recent phenomena than you'd think, the best example I can think of was vietnam.
: : 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.Or cosmopolitan identity. This is fairly dry and cynical Red, I'm an irish patriot right (well not while I'm here in NI, ironically to many people would misunderstand and become outraged) but I can take a great interest in the cultures of other nations etc. which is more than mere toleration.
: 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.
Maybe your right but it's a bit cynical for my liking all that determinist rehetoric do people never act for themselves without the acquire wealth motive? If they do couldnt they be liberals?
: Thats all Ireland is, didn't exist until 1922, even before the English came (and the english Came before England existed).
No shit? What did we just rise up out of the water? Maybe Ireland didnt exist but eire did.
:I agree environment determines, but I don't think you've been determined by the Environment in Cork.
Cork's a nice place I've stayed there a few times but I know what you meant how can I owe allegiance or whatever to places in Ireland I dont live.
: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.
Well I manifests itself metaphysically, if you want reason refer to my earlier statement about environmental conditions determining peoples development of identity etc.
I refered to you as a religious marxist because rather than assess things on an ad hoc or individual basis to seems very much like you keep refering back to given "principles" or established "fundamentals" rather than acknowledging that there are exceptions to every rule and generalisation isnt always correct.
: : 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.
I'll repeat I'm not saying nationalism or socialism RD, it isnt a case of either or.
: : That stone cold rationalism is going to inspire a lot.
: Better than dying for something that doesn't exist.
Yeah the defenders of the Paris Commune died defending something that didnt exist either.
: 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.
Really, just sounds rehetorically religious here, I'd like to see evidence, what is this over powering force of "inconsistancy" that will corrupt any socialist who isnt purely Marxist?
: : 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.
We'll never know thankfully but I doubt it afterall did the Italians or Hitler do that? Fought to the last man they did and they where merely defending political orders not fulfilling a kamakazi religious fantasy in which their empiror had God status.
: 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.
We're really hitting a brick wall here, it might just be time for the old agree to disagree because I dont see the point no matter what I say I get Marxed.
: : 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.
well nationalism alone is a bit of a dead end alright, as I've said before I'm not arguing for a nationalist approach as opposed to a socialist one jsut that your vehement anti-nationalism is by choice and not a prerequist it socialist organisation.
: 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.
Israel is a good example of bad nationalism, all nationalism to a certain extent can be like that but then I wouldnt try ever to make my view as exclusive or chauvinistic as that.
: 2:Reversing Colonialism where a state didn't previously exist (much of Africa) means building new states.
It doesnt mean building and serving elites in the way you are implying though.
:Further, removing foriegn colonialism does not remove teh colonialism of teh ruling class.
What ruling class?
: 3:Your call man.
Yeah, that's right.
: : 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.
OK do that and see neo-variants of nationalism arise as powerful as they once where.
: : 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?
No but suggesting that GM motors etc. have a consistant plan aside form near sighted profiteering is a bunch of shit and that is what neo-marxism does.
: they slaughtered civilians, they fired on a hospital, sending in non military aid would have been better.
Yes and allowed the Serb holocaust to continue?
: : 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.
Yes and it was the common nationalist that get wiped out most often because the leaders where fit to organise their protection, dont expect to here praise of their actions here. However for every leader praising irish song there's been written there's about three about the plight of the commoners etc.
: : 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.
By real community you mean what? National identity (and I mean that in the sense of one who finds it truly voluntary I could claim to Irish, British, Scots, English or Celt if I wanted) is a part of that you know?
: : 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.
But the workers I know aspire to that so surely they're part of that class, or maybe classes dont exist in the easy theoretical sense that your working to here as a Marxist.
: 1:Keynsianism doesn't work- its inherently inflationary.
Propaganda, Keynesianism is difficult not impossible/unworkable.
: 2:Why a Euro-federation, why not world wide solidarity.
Could you see that? The UN is a shambles at present Europes what we got and despite Germany's past and my dislike of the Dutch I think it deserves a try.
: 3:Who cares what our currency is called or where its based.
I dont.
: Your policies sound more like those of teh current communist party...
They do? What simply because they're pro-europe or want some planning and reductions in income differentials or something? I hope that's not some kind of shock tactics my views are my own not the product of parties or monthly blast of propaganda.
