Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Shall we do away with name too? All identity?
I'd be ok with just getting rid of nationalism... Nothing wrong with identity, but nationalism fosters an us vs them mentality that fucks over people in most of the world.
I don't think that's going away whether or not you foster it. Tribalism seems to be baked into our DNA. You can get rid of nationalism nominally, but it'll pop up with sports teams or brand loyalty or racism or whatever. But Us vs. Them is too deeply ingrained to fix by abolishing one basis vector on l upon which it expresses itself.
True, but those other forms aren't tied to wars and economic disparity in the same way, so kicking nationalism to the kerb would still be a win.
Individual identity is good. National identity is bad.
What is a nation, but for a flag, a name, and some imaginary lines in the dirt to fight wars over?
This is a bad take. Extreme individualism is not a good thing.
Having individual identity in of itself is not an inherently bad thing, but neither is collective identity. People are all unique, and so it makes sense that each person will have an individualistic identity that's true to them. However, we are also social creatures and we need others to survive. Being parts of groups is how we evolved to become the species that we are today. People need to have both collective and individual identities to thrive.
National identity is just another form of collective identity. You identify with your family, with your coworkers, your friends, the residents of your community, and so on. National identity is you identifying with the people of your society. There's nothing wrong with that.
No, not quite. National identity takes a spectrum of collective identity and then divides it into borders, creating distinctions between 'us' and 'them'. But, ultimately, we are all one people.
National identity tries to ignore the blurred lines between different collective identities. It tries to impose a sharp boundary between one identity and another, where no such boundary truly exists -- because people are always intermixing (when they're not prevented from doing so by force) and even interbreeding.
Take the example of a child born to two parents from different national identities -- which national identity does the child inherit? With the sharp distinctions drawn by 'nations', the child can't truly be part of both -- they have to be raised in and become a part of one or the other, with one taking precedence over the other. With actual collective identities, though, the child could easily be part of both collective identities, because neither one seeks to exclude the other. (For every distinction drawn about what a national identity is, you also make a distinction about what it is not, shutting off possibilities of mixing and mingling.)
But even without considering intermarriage and heritage, cultures always mix to some degree wherever they meet. People on one side adopt some of the practices, culture, and identity from people on the other side. Every meeting of two collective identities always results in a blurred line sooner or later. But nationalism is a dogmatic oversimplification that insists upon discrete 'nations' that don't intermingle and intermix at the edges. And it mostly only functions as a tool to facilitate tribalism.
I disagree with this analysis because I frankly don't think it's even accurate.
I think we need to start by acknowledging a simple reality, which is that all identities exist to include and exclude. That's what an identity is, it's a set of identifiers that makes something distinct to the things its compared to. So all identities can be twisted and framed as "us vs them", but I think that's a mischaracterization of the concept.
We also need to acknowledge that we are inherently tribalistic beings by our very nature. We are social creatures that have evolved to survive in small groups. The well being of our groups were essential to our survival, and therefore we have developed a strong sense of belonging to the groups we had ties with and we were wary of groups that weren't because they could be hostile and could threaten the well being of the group we were in. We would like to think that we have evolved, but we really haven't. We still have the same brains as back then and they still have the instincts. This is why tribalism is such a prominent part of our society today even if it seems counterproductive.
With that being said, you are correct that nationalism is form of tribalism, but I don't think that's an inherently bad thing. Ultimately different groups of people are in fact different from each other. Different geographies, cultures, histories, languages, and customs do lead to very different societies. It makes sense that people identify with the society that they're from. Nations are ultimately just our modern civilization's version of the small tribal groups that our prehistoric ancestors had, and because of that, nations are here to stay because they appeal to nature. It's not something that we can get rid of.
We have to make the distinction between nations and states because I don't think you know the difference between them. A nation, by definition, is just a community of people who share a collective identity. It's a social concept that exclusively refers to people and exists in the minds of people. A state, by definition, is the political sovereign entity that was created to rule. These are not interchangeable. There are nations that don't have states like Kurdistan or the Uyghurs, and there are states that don't have a single national identity like Bosnia or the UK. The point is that you're confusing nations with states and countries, but these are not the same thing. Nations do NOT have physical or political characteristics like sovereignty or territory.
A nation is a fluid concept that doesn't have defined edges, its what people say it is, and it exists as long as there are people who identify with it. For example, in the case of nation states, there are different kinds. For example, Armenia is nation based on ethnic nationalism where the nation is defined by the Armenian ethnicity. If you're ethnically Armenian then you're a part of the Armenian nation regardless of who you are and what you believe. Likewise you got the US, which is a nation that's based civic nationalism where the nation is defined by political citizenship and shared values. As long as you hold those values and have American citizenship then you're an American.
The point is that your claim of nationalism being dogmatic is wrong. A nation doesn't have rigid edges nor does it segregate nor does it isolate. A nation, at its core, is just a set of identifiers that a group of people share. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It something that has its place in our world. Like with anything else, nationalism taken to the extreme is a bad thing, but when it's not, its simply a way for people with commonalities to associate with each other. Even if you snap your fingers and everybody forgot what nationalism is, a new but very similar concept will emerge to take its place because people will always want to be a part of a greater good.
Well, I do concede that I'm very much fighting a losing battle against human nature. Humans are hard-wired for tribalism, and national identity is an easy way to take advantage of that. (One of many.)
But I do want to call attention to an internal tension within your argument:
versus
If it doesn't have rigid edges, if it doesn't segregate, if it doesn't isolate ... then how does it include and exclude? How does it accomplish what you say all identities exist to do?
I think I just worded myself poorly. What I meant is that all identities include and exclude because that's just the nature of categorization. Identity, as a concept, only exist in the abstract. It only exists in people's minds, and therefore, it has no rigid edges because psychology and no rigid edges. This is because identities, including collective identities, are defined subjectively by individuals. When an identity is codified and enforced, it stops being abstract and becomes an ideology because you're trying structure society around a particular set of views. Ideologies are what rigid edges, segregate, and isolate.
For example, there's nothing inherently wrong with defining being German as being ethnically German. That's the standard definition of ethnic and national identity for most of human history. It only becomes a problem when an ideology comes in, boxes the identity with a strict definition, codifies this definition as the only one that's allowed, and enforces it by trying to get rid of anybody who strays from it. That's how you get the Nazis. The identity got stripped down to the arbitrary and subjective views of a few individuals who tried to impose them on everyone else. Somebody can identity as ethnically German and live with other ethnicities in peace.
National liberation and sovereignty in colonized and neocolonized countries is a key first step in internationalism.
It's a trap, a pitfall on the way to actual freedom. Who gave them the idea that they need nations and flags in the first place, if not the colonizers?
And many of the nations 'liberated' by previously colonized people just end up being a tool of their oppressors through neocolonization. Their national government -- and even their national identity -- are useful tools to be corrupted and controlled by colonizers.
No, this is myopic. Figures like Frantz Fanon and Kwame Nkrumah have correctly analyzed the necessity of establishing statehood and creating pan-African coalitions to resist the overwhelming might of western finance capital and neocolonialism. Nationalist compradors for neoimperialism are a consequence of deliberate balkanization and fragmentation by neocolonial powers. Same with Palestinian, Latin American, and Asian resistance to colonialism and neocolonialism.
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, and Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism by Kwame Nkrumah are extremely useful and describe exactly the extent to which nationalism is useful in the anti-colonial context, and the extent to which it falters and holds the people back, devolving into tribalism. We can see the correctness of their views today with the progressive nationalist movements in resisting neocolonialism from Burkina Faso and the Alliance of Sahel States, where statelets are unifying into a front to support each other and resist foreign domination from France and the US.
A necessity? Perhaps. But a necessary evil, then.
National identity is still a bad thing. It should not be celebrated, and it should be abolished as soon as feasible.
National sovereignty, celebration of indigenous cultures and maintaining the rights of self-determination for all peoples, is the first step towards genuine internationalism. Genuine sovereignty cannot be imposed from without, but comes from within. Tribalism and the progressive elements of nationalism are separate things. The basis of genuine internationalism is nations on equal footing and sovereignty.
Nationalism in imperialist countries is exclusively negative. This is what is in service of perpetuating imperialism, and justifying racial supremacy. This is unambiguously an enemy to be crushed. Nationalism is not progressive in general, but in a particular context exclusively, such as Palestinian nationalism against genocide.
You can have celebration if indigenous cultures and maintain the rights of self-determination without national sovereignty.
And, in fact, nationalism very often interferes with the rights of self-determination, because the nation often imposes laws that interfere with it.
I don't want "internationalism" -- I want post-nationalism. No nations at all, anywhere.
Fuck nations. People should be on equal footing and sovereignty.
All "countries" are imperialist. As soon as you lay claim to territory and exclude others from it, you're setting up your own little empire. So all nationalism is exclusively negative.
Sovereignty is only secured by the creation of an organized body, a monopoly on force, that can resist external domination. Statelets cannot do this, nor can disorganized regions. This is why finance capital breaks up and balkanizes countries it wishes to dominate, either politically via the creation of new statelets, or through economic balkanization of existing States.
Secondly, the national question. A nation and a state are two different things. A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. This is how I am using the term, and what I mean by gaining national autonomy. Internationalism, then, is the unity of many different national groups.
Saying "fuck nations" in this context seems to be saying you wish to erase all identity and all cultural history, creating a sort of blob of humanity, but this isn't what I believe you mean, hence why I am taking the time to explain exactly what I mean.
As for how you are classifying imperialism, this is frankly a bit absurd. Surely you can understand that the Alliance of Sahel States, in resisting French neocolonialism, is playing a progressive role. However you choose to interpret the Sahel States securing their sovereignty as "imperialism," surely you can see that this is far less consequential than the economic domination levied against west Africa by France and the US, no? By your estimation Palestinians are imperializing Israel by trying to secure their own statehood, and I know that's not what you actually believe, right?
But it is still consequential. It is still bad, and it is still wrong.
"Internal domination is the only way to resist external domination." Both should be abolished. I realize that one may be a necessary evil in order to resist the other, but the goal should be for that necessary evil to be as temporary as possible, and it should be abolished as soon as you can safely do so.
It's kind of what I mean.
You don't need national identity. You don't need national cultural history. You can have individual identity and individual cultural history. These can be defined by yourself and the others you relate to. There's no need for them to be defined by a 'nation'. In this respect, 'nations' are merely a way of categorizing and organizing individuals' identity and culture ... and in so doing, it often imposes sharp boundaries and distinctions where there are really just blurred lines and spectrums. You don't need to divide people into nations in order to have identity and culture.
Is it, though?
Every state is its own little empire, enforcing its will against the individuals within it just as more powerful states try to impose their will on other states (and their own people). They demand tribute, extract resources, and enact their will through force just like any empire. Doing it on a smaller scale makes them a less urgent problem, but they're still a problem.
You have to actually justify the things you say. Anarchism is truly even worse than communisation theory.
Read Hegel's Philosophy of Right or any Winfield and you'll immediately realize how philosophically incoherent your position is.
Others you relate to! I wonder if this somehow inevitably transforms into national identity!
A state cannot possibly exist except when enforced through violence. That's why it's still bad, that's why it's still wrong. The existence of any state, any government, any hierarchy is inherently an act of violence ... almost always against people who did not consent to it and are unable to escape it.
Now who's not justifying the things they say? If their arguments are too complicated to present in a Lemmy post, they're too complicated to be bothered with. "Read theory" is a thought-terminating cliche.
Presumably, if you're recommending them, you understand them well. So feel free to present the relevant part of their ideas right here, in your own words.
This 'inevitably' of yours is doing a lot of heavy lifting. And hasn't been at all justified.
'Others you relate to' are not a nation. You'll very rarely find two people who relate to the exact same set of other people. Every individual has their own unique connections, their own unique set of 'people you relate to', who they can choose to share an identity with. Even for two people who have the same connections and relations, each of them may choose differently when it comes to choosing which ones they identify with the most.
Trying to force people into a national identity, though, ignores that. It pretends that you only relate to people of your own 'nation', and that nobody in your nation relates to anybody outside of it. It's drawing hard lines on a spectrum and trying to define portions of that spectrum as homogeneous groups, entirely distinct and different from others just on the other side of that line. It's artificial classification and division, trying to create cultural borders right along with the nation's geographical borders. It's nonsense, and -- at best -- a waste of everybody's time. (At worst, of course, it divides people into 'us' and 'them', fueling tribalism and conflict.)
Also, and this is a bit outside the point, but I very much don't like the idea of a 'national identity' being forced on me. If you couldn't tell already, I'm from the US -- a nation with a, shall we say, very tarnished national identity. I was born into it. No choice in the matter. And despite doing what I can to fight against it, despite most of those acts being done by people I have absolutely no relation to, I'm supposed to accept it as my identity? I don't want to be part of this nation -- I don't want to be part of any nation. I'm a human. I live on earth. My identity is my own. If anything, I identify more as a furry than as an American. I'm responsible for my own mistakes and my own shortcomings, not the mistakes and shortcomings of my 'nation'. I celebrate my own strengths and my own accomplishments, not the strengths and accomplishments of others who happen to share the same nation. I may have much more in common with some people of other nations than I do with some of the people in my own nation.
This 'national identity' was put upon me without anyone asking whether I wanted it, just because of where I happened to be born. It makes no more sense than astrology, really -- by the accident of when I was born, that makes me an "Aries". Should I share an 'astrological identity' with all other Aries and consider us all the same? Should I consider everyone with different astrological signs to be foreigners I don't identify with? It's utter nonsense. It's a convention that's only kept in place because the tribalism and division it produces benefits the ruling class.
Edit: I understand, though, why you might resist the idea of giving up national identity. A world without national identity is a messier, more complicated world. You can't neatly and easily categorize people anymore. You can't say people of one nation are good and people of another nation are evil. You can't say that people of one nation are oppressors and people of another nation are oppressed. You can no longer assume whether someone is with you or against you just because of where they're from. Without these artificial distinctions, you have to address the whole spectrum of human experience, you have to asses each person's identity based on their own individual connections ... and that's just impossible to do, certainly in any succinct way. It's giving up a (seemingly) useful tool for understanding the world. But the tool was never useful, not really. The understanding it offered was flawed. Because it wasn't based in reality, and only ever mattered as much as the people subject to it believed that it mattered.
I shouldn’t have to explain that repeating what you already said won’t somehow make it count as a justification.
I shouldn’t have to explain that telling you to read a specific book is not the same thing as saying “read theory” (nor is it a thought-terminating cliche, as just saying “read theory” could be); I shouldn’t have to explain why books aren’t five bullet points long in the first place or why “If their arguments are too complicated to present in a Lemmy post, they’re too complicated to be bothered with.” isn’t something anyone should unironically say.
I shouldn’t have to tell you that reading (thought-terminating cliche) about any nation will show you that the way you think things are presented (“It pretends that you only relate to people of your own ‘nation’, and that nobody in your nation relates to anybody outside of it. It’s drawing hard lines on a spectrum and trying to define portions of that spectrum as homogeneous groups, entirely distinct and different from others just on the other side of that line.”) isn’t actually how they’re presented. If only anyone had realized that ~the delineations between nations aren’t really so rigid and people of different nationalities have things in common and interact with each other! I shouldn’t have to explain that people of different regions have different cultures/languages, that the concept of nations is not a completely ideological invention and that conflicts between nations are not just caused by ideology.
I shouldn’t have to explain the difference between being an Aries and being of a particular nationality, how people of particular nationalities relate to each other in an actual way and how nationality can be changed, but that, as long as you stay in the US/retain US nationality you actually do have a stake in their position wrt other nations, whether you like it or not.
I shouldn’t have to explain to you how it’s arguing in bad faith to write out a condescending spiel about how you “understand” that I psychologically need the concept of nations to make sense of the world and that’s why I made fun of your “alternative.”
I'm going to disagree with you stating that the Alliance Sahel States banding together in the beginnings of a Pan-African coalition is imperialism, pretty firmly. This is, frankly, an absurd position that demonizes what is uncontestably an anti-imperialist coalition for seemingly no other reason than to satisfy a vague moral code you have. In practical terms, there is no way to resist neocolonialism without collective sovereignty. This is not done at the expense of others.
As for sovereignty being a "necessary evil," I don't agree, nor do I define it as "internal domination." States should be temporary, but only in the context of internationalism, ie as a joining of national states in one big international union until state lines are abolished and classes disappear, making states themselves redundant. I'm not going to finger wag Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, etc. for creating a powerful regional resistance coalition against France and the US.
The next comment is just an odd tangent describing why you don't think culture is important or relevant. I'm not sure how to respond other than to tell you to speak with indigenous resistance groups, assuming you live in a settler-colony like many of us unfortuantrly do.
As for calling states "little empires," this is again myopic. States are the means by which one class monopolizes its power. The national revolution creates a weak national bourgeoisie that can generally only be overtaken by the peasantry and urban proletariat. The anatomy of the national revolution is documented extremely well by Frantz Fanon in the work I mentioned earlier. Nkrumah deals with the Neocolonial phase, where external powers continue colonialism via financial means and balkanization.
States can be governed by the proletariat, in which case the majority is organized and are working together for the betterment of the whole. This is how socialism works. By defining a state as a "little empire," you are making a subjectivist argument, not a materialist one. Same as calling the Alliance of Sahel States "imperialist" for kicking out France and the US. You use buzz words and emotionally charged diction in place of an actual argument, hoping it carries the conversation. This doesn't hold up to scrutiny though.
You're deliberately misunderstanding me here, and I have very little patience for bad faith arguments.
They're not imperialist for kicking out France and the US. They're imperialist because of the control they exert over their own citizens.
And what is an empire, but the monopolization of power?
You're butchering the word "imperialism" to make a subjectivist argument. Calling the Sahel States "imperialist" for simply having states is extremely confusing when used in modern lingo, especially when imperialism is understood to be an international phenomenon. This is why using subjectivism is horribly unscientific, if you just label anything with a state as "imperialist," all you're doing is just saying you don't like states and therefore want to pile all the negative descriptors you can onto it.
lol, that's pretty rich, coming from a .ml
I don't see how. Marxist analysis of imperialism is based on a material process of capital export that happens when bank and industrial capital merge into finance capital. We don't call state power "imperialism" because states serve a given ruling class depending on the mode of production, and imperialism is an international system.
Don’t laugh don’t laugh
Generally a collective of people acting as a community. Of course it is all the worst things too, but it doesn’t have to be. I think a big problem is that the borders meet each other due to how many humans are on a planet this size. But imagine an infinite landscape where nations are far apart. When you arrive at one, you may find a group of people that like to collectively offer a set of protections and provisions. They also might have a set or treaties with nearby nations so each can benefit from each other’s resources.
Idealism, I know, but I’m just expressing that nations as a concept doesn’t necessitate the bad parts.
Not just idealism, pure fantasy:
That does not describe the real world in any way. Not even an 'ideal' world. It's not even physically possible. (And people accuse us anarchists of living in idealist fantasy land!)
In the real world, land is not infinite. Anytime one group (whether you call it a nation or a community or whatever) tries to lay claim to a portion of the land to the exclusion of all others, that's an act of violence -- because it's ultimately only enforceable through violence. Our finite earth belongs to us all. They did not create it, and they have no right (except 'might makes right' violence) to take portions of it away from you.
I explicitly pointed out that it was idealism. You’re barking at the moon. It’s like getting mad at a physics instructor for saying “imagine a frictionless surface and purely elastic collisions”. The point is to extract those things that can distract from a rigorous concept.
I’m not implying in anyway that this is the real world. Rather that the negative things associated with nationalism are not inextricably linked to the concept of national identity. If you don’t see it that way, fine. But this act like you think I meant this was a possible representation of the world we live in is just silly.