: 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.Really I know a lot of people in the Celtic League and AIM that think what your talking about as a by gone age is their interpretation of nationalism, consistant national mutualism is the same as internationalism but it doesnt involve losing supporters to the right-wing.
: Indeed, but nationalism hasn't existed in every culture, yes tehre has been community, culture and identity, but not nationalism.
Community, culture and identity = national identity.
: Why? Why would you like nation to be a form of identity?
Because I would, RD you can understand why people want to parade their bedroom manner and why women hate men but you cant understand why I'd wnat to preserve an element of identity?
: 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.
Did they resist? I recall celebrations on the behalf of the people upon the declaration of war.
: 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.
That is one interpretation yes.
: Indeed, people often do, but economics will out.
I still dont reckon with such determinism and the hostility toward another political creed isnt in keeping with my views either. That's why Trots or Tories are more likely to say "get lost" than "lets have a drink and talk about it" when they hear someone express either a different opinion or the simple liberalism of political disinterest.
: 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...
I have to disagree Ireland was split into regions that where pretty much in a state of perpetual war with themselves and anyone they didnt recognise and the kings got that way by being established in battle.
Britain was celtic at a time too but a german invasion of angles and then saxons lead to the genocide of the celts and the anglo-saxons then went on to establish england when they decided they where one better than their ancestors who'd sailed across to the island.
: Can't we just call that 'freindship' and loyalty to familly and friends?
That has a lot to do with it too but once you get into loyalty you have the subserviance to elites business and exclusivity EG I'm loyal to eire I'll dispise the english.
: : 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.
Is mutualist national identity inconsistant with this socialist vision? I dont think so that whole socialism is this anything diverging from this is not is just a bit totalitarian RD, I guess I'm a heretic well that's just great I'm no fan of orthodoxy.
: : 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.
My perception of nation isnt exclusive, anyone who wants to claim their irish can anyone who wants to be anything else can do so too.
: 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.
Yeah just like the sioux nation did in America.
: 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.
retorhical nonsense.
: : 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.
The Flange Terrorists did not.
: 2:Germany wasn't given the option.
The Were Wolves didnt surrender.
: 3:They didn't fight to the last man.
They did in Germany, documented fact and thousands of civi's poisoned themselves when the ruskies arrived.
: Wel, try offering countr-arguments.
I have been but all I get is Marx.
: : 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.
Well I wouldnt consider myself overly refomist but what is wrong with reform anyway, the fabian approach of wearing out the opponent just as fabian did to Hannabals mighty army?
: But Israel is also very open, to any Jew, but its finding that such diversity cannot work (russian jew, African Jews, etc,.)
Really? I thought it was working fine as long as everyone got stuck into the nearest arab.
: : It doesnt mean building and serving elites in the way you are implying though.
: It usually has, though.
Yes but it dosnt mean it always will.
: : What ruling class?
: The capitalist class as own most of the wealth, in whose interest the state must act.
You have names and addresses? Where do they meet and hang out?
: And still are now, as even in the pittiful vote for Europe the other month, nationalism won hands down.
Not so much as a million idiots saying it was a German plot and insisting that it was all corrupt.
: 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.
The companies are at present more friendly with the WTO because surprisingly enough some states have been using electoral mandates to oppose the US corps will.
: : 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.
That's one view.
: : 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.
I dont think I'd disagree with that, how does it prevent you having a national sentiment at once?
: : 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.
Capitalist 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.
Keynesianism is liberal economic planning the economic planning involved in any alternative (left-wing?) vision is going to have a similar effect if you take that line.
: : 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.
That's one view maybe it's just not a credible alternative or a becon of mutualist nationalism.
: : 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.
It could go either way Fortress Yurp leading to Nazi empire or Mutualist Federation leading to Socialist Federation but that depends who participates (as opposed to marxist eulogues) and who can carry the national sentiments.
