: 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.They had a notion of community, of tribes. Further, their sense of 'self' and community came generally later- rather like, IIRC, the early Irish, who didn't have a word for foriegner, just a word meaning 'people'. When faced with the Imperial Other, they gained a sort of national consciousness.
: Your speaking as though property has had such profound importance always and in every culture, which isnt the case.
Indeed, but nationalism hasn't existed in every culture, yes tehre has been community, culture and identity, but not nationalism.
: 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.?
Why? Why would you like nation to be a form of identity?
: 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.
No, they marshalled teh troops quite well for world war one, a pointless blood bath for our masters "The Boy Sood on teh burning Deck" read out in Church-halls, every war in fact involves workers being sent to die by our masters.
: 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.
But such interest comes from the possibility of doing so from a position of being able to 'allow' them into 'our' space. If you have Ireland, you *must* have the Irish, and everyone else is an Other who has been 'allowed' in.
: 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?
Indeed, people often do, but economics will out.
: No shit? What did we just rise up out of the water? Maybe Ireland didnt exist but eire did.
That neither, at most there was the High King, but he had no realm, nor power, and teh various Local famillies IRISH KINGS AND HIGH KINGS gives teh details- but as I said, there was no England neither, teh percy familly ahd pretty much free reign in the north...France was built in the eighteenth century. There were irish people, but no @ireland'- the picture is confused in Britain and Ireland, because being islands gives the impression of eternal boundaries...
: Well I manifests itself metaphysically, if you want reason refer to my earlier statement about environmental conditions determining peoples development of identity etc.
Can't we just call that 'freindship' and loyalty to familly and friends?
: I'll repeat I'm not saying nationalism or socialism RD, it isnt a case of either or.
I think it is, because socialism must be world-wide to work (you can't have socialism in one country), otherwise we retain markets, and we retain social divisions.
: Yeah the defenders of the Paris Commune died defending something that didnt exist either.
No, they died for concrete gains, for their own freedom.
: 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?
1:A single identity- a nation is built round a single self-idenity that is exclusiary. To have Irish, we must know waht is not-irish.
2:If we have nations, we have property, since a nation owns its land- thus we will have competition over land property claims, and we will have war.
3:Nations are held together by patriarchal hegemonic forces, orwells 'one familly, with the wrong members in charge' implies just such a paternal vision- without hegeomny, which we cannot have in socialism, you don't have nations. hegemony buls the cannon, selects teh tradition, defines the identity.
: 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.
1;Italy surendered.
2:Germany wasn't given the option.
3:They didn't fight to the last man.
: 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.
Wel, try offering countr-arguments.
: 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.
Nationalism only can appeal to a reformist mind-set, really, and only has value for helping leaders lead.
: 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.
But Israel is also very open, to any Jew, but its finding that such diversity cannot work (russian jew, African Jews, etc,.)
: It doesnt mean building and serving elites in the way you are implying though.
It usually has, though.
: What ruling class?
The capitalist class as own most of the wealth, in whose interest the state must act.
: OK do that and see neo-variants of nationalism arise as powerful as they once where.
And still are now, as even in the pittiful vote for Europe the other month, nationalism won hands down.
: 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.
I never said the state has either- it simply must do what is in the short term interests of the ruling elite: Imperiaism: Rule by fuck-up.
: Yes and allowed the Serb holocaust to continue?
That could well have been sorted out in teh negotiations, NATO deliberately set the bar too high to provoke a war (there is a quote of one NATO official saying that to a Reporter). We know the Serbs accepted most of the Rambouillet plan, apart from appendix B. Further, NATO didn't intervene to stop a Holocaust, it intervened to stop a civil war from spreading.
: 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?
By community, I mean tehpeople you meet on the steets every day, and with whom, you live, and not pretend to have community with someone in Dorest (never been terhe!). etc.
: 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.
No, just because they identify with their capitalist master, and want to do that, doesn't mean they aren't working class- if they are selling their labour pwoer, they are workers.
: Propaganda, Keynesianism is difficult not impossible/unworkable.
No, pump priming causes inflation by excess issue of inconvertable notes. Even then, the government can't boprrow and spend its way out of a crisis of poverproduction, because its spending money that still has to be realised on markets, etc.
: 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.
The UN is a shambles because its a meeting house of nations, not a world of co-operation.
: 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.
I meant the idea that supporting Yurp can lead to progrss towards a wider internationalism.
