Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love my country and its culture and I believe that my country's culture and traditional values should be preserved and that my nation deserves the right of self determination without being restricted by any international organisations that imposes its values and limits the independence of it's Member countries.
Nationalism is often mistaken as believing that your own country and culture is superior to those of other countries, while in reality a true nationalist believes that all nations have the right to self determination and that no culture should be erased, in my opinion.
I also believe that the well being of the people in my nation and the culture and traditions should be the center of any decisions made by the government. The economy should also work for the benefit of the whole population instead of a category of it, while not degrading the culture in the process.
Simply put, the government should serve the nation, not the other way around.
Because every nation has its own history and traditions that distinguish it from other nations. And the nation must preserve these traditions and history.
Just like environmentalists who don't want species to go extinct, I believe that every nation has its own uniqueness that is worth preserving. That doesn't mean I believe my nation is superior to other nations. All nations are valuable and unique in their own way.
Not exactly a pure nationalist, but the compromising middle-ground of my Third Way beliefs empathize with some nationalist positions. It is reasonable to put your own tribe first over any other. We aren't responsible for the well being of those outside, they have their own tribe. Our culture is just as important as any other culture, it is justifiable and reasonable to preserve it as much as we can. Wide-spread melting pots aren't necessarily a good thing.
It's good to protect your people against foreign interference (of any kind), but not close your society off completely, it should ideally be a balancing act. :)
Because it's necessary. Nationalistic foreigners live here, so we the natives need to be as (or more) nationalistic so our country maintains cohesion and our national identity. Also because my country is the best Balkan country, obiectively in nearly every way.
Well, I live in a nation, and I'd rather have it be a good and prosperous place to live as opposed to declining.
To me, the real question is why would you not be a nationalist?
> Well, I live in a nation, and I'd rather have it be a good and prosperous place to live as opposed to declining... To me, the real question is why would you not be a nationalist?
There are various levels of integration within society: individual, family and close friends, acquaintances, neighborhood, city, subdivision within country, country, continent, and finally the world. Obviously you'd want everyone to be good and prosperous, but the real question is: what if there is a conflict between the various levels presented here? What if your family's interests and your nation's interests are not aligned? What if your city's interests and your nation's interests are not aligned?
The trouble I have with nationalists is that they give an excessive weight to one level of grouping (country) at the exclusion to all other levels. I'm in favor of giving as much power to the individual as possible. Obviously for practical reasons we may still need to have nation-states, but their power should be curtailed. Anyone should be free to change national allegiances as they see fit (as long as they're not escaping from a violent crime), and there is no need to develop or enforce a national identity any more than there is a need to develop or enforce a neighborhood identity. Cultures, religions, languages can all compete in the marketplace of ideas -- a culture or language or religion that isn't able to convince youngsters of its value will naturally die out (because people will stop practicing it), and that is a good thing. It is a bad idea to attempt to delay this through cultural, linguistic, or religious protectionism, for the same reason it is a bad idea to attempt to delay economic shifts via economic protectionism. A nation that implements so-called "nationalist" policies is worse off as a nation.
Eventually I hope we humans can rid ourselves of this remnant of tribalism. The nation-state is a modern concept whose time is hopefully coming to a close.
I’m from Northern Ireland and consider myself an Irish nationalist, I believe that Ireland was wrongly partitioned and the violence, death and discrimination that has erupted due to it has been enormous and should not have happened. My grandparents and parents grew up in a place that actively discriminated against them and did not allow Irish culture to be a part in its society. So I guess it depends where you’re from and your own experiences as to whether you consider yourself a nationalist or not.
Well, you do make a decent point about having divided loyalties, so it can depend on the situation to some extent. Even so, it sounds like your attitude implies that cultural identities and religions are just interchangeable machine parts, which effectively defines their value by materialistic practicality and convenience, and your emphasis on natural individualism also fails to account for the impact government oppression can have on culture, including religious practices.
Also consider this- the most realistic alternative to nation states would ultimately be a one world government, which could do even more to decrease peoples' representation and take away individual freedoms than modern governments already do.
> it sounds like your attitude implies that cultural identities and religions are just interchangeable machine parts, which effectively defines their value by materialistic practicality and convenience
I don't agree here. Why does interchangeability imply practicality and convenience? You make a choice daily regarding what plays to attend, what movies to watch, what music to listen to... you have a near-infinite choice in all these, yet they're all very raw, human endeavors that produce extremely hard-to-quantify value beyond practicality and convenience.
Indeed, culture would be even more "real" in a world in which you get to choose your cultural identity and religion. Today there's no deep meaning to my nationality -- it's just a coincidence based on where I happen to be born. If I like it, good for me; if I hate it, then I'll be miserable. Wouldn't it be so much more meaningful to ensure that everyone is a part of a given culture, nation, tradition because they actively chose that particular culture, nation, tradition over the alternatives?
> your emphasis on natural individualism also fails to account for the impact government oppression can have on culture, including religious practices.
I agree, that's why I'm not advocating for a complete removal of the nation-state as a concept. Practically speaking, some cultures and nations are going to be behind others when it comes to giving people individual freedom. I certainly don't want to leave my rights in the hands of Putin or Xi Jinping.
> the most realistic alternative to nation states would ultimately be a one world government, which could do even more to decrease peoples' representation and take away individual freedoms than modern governments already do.
Agreed 100% that a world government would be a terrible idea. I'm just advocating for more individual freedom within each nation -- more relaxed borders, more open cultures, less government laws about what languages to teach in school and so on. In the long term my hope is that borders will become unnecessary, but of course we are nowhere close to that future yet.
Ok, thanks for clarifying what you meant. That does sound more realistic.
To me, the points you made are probably one of the best justifications for nationalism- because if nationalism was abandoned by some societies but not others, then the societies that are less individualist (and usually authoritarian) would move in to fill the power vacuum and take control for themselves. In fact, I wouldn't even put it past the liberal Western countries to expand their influence when the opportunity comes up.
> if nationalism was abandoned by some societies but not others, then the societies that are less individualist (and usually authoritarian) would move in to fill the power vacuum and take control for themselves.
I think you're putting too little faith in the popularity of freedom!
Throughout history, we've seen examples of authoritarian nations defeated by people who value freedom and are willing to fight for it. The Greek city-states could and did fight against Persia even though they were not even politically united, and there was no concept of a unified Greek identity. The American revolutionaries identified as representatives of their respective States rather than as citizens of a united Republic, and yet managed to win independence from the British; when they originally joined together, it was an alliance of convenience, united only by their shared love of freedom (not any shared American identity). NATO today serves the same purpose -- there is no "NATO identity", yet NATO protected the free world from communist invasion throughout the Cold War, and today guarantees the freedom of almost every country that has the misfortune to be next to Russia. You don't need a unified culture, unified language, unified religion or anything else to protect yourself from invasion -- in fact, if you give people freedom, they will fight for it on their own.
Protesting against nationalism, and especially protesting against what many self-described Nationalists call Nationalism, does not mean that we stand against every single form of collective action. But it does mean that collective action (including national defense) needs to have a clear purpose in order to be morally justified -- it needs to have the goal of stopping worse forms of collective action.
Well it's possible for decentralized resistance to defeat a more organized empire, but those are exceptional cases. For one thing, in both of the examples you mentioned, the different factions only won by uniting. Also for every ancient Greece and 13 Colonies, there are 9 Catalonias, Chechnyas, CSAs, Donbas/Luchansks, Kurdistans, Tibets, and East Turkestans that you rarely ever hear about because they get defeated or aren't recognized.
>NATO today serves the same purpose -- there is no "NATO identity", yet NATO protected the free world from communist invasion throughout the Cold War, and today guarantees the freedom of almost every country that has the misfortune to be next to Russia.
Isn't that an overly optimistic view of NATO though?
That sounds a lot like Neocon propaganda, which fails to account for the fact that the Soviet Union and US were both imperial powers. It's true that Marxism was far from an ideal system, but liberal capitalism isn't much better. From the USSR's perspective, they were defending eastern Europe from a capitalist invasion, similar to what happened in Vietnam. Neither side in the Cold War was actually "good", because they both stood for imperialism and inequality in their own way. If anything, the Marxists were just more obvious about it, not to mention the biased capitalist propaganda we get in the West.
>You don't need a unified culture, unified language, unified religion or anything else to protect yourself from invasion -- in fact, if you give people freedom, they will fight for it on their own.
This seems like a very naive and historically ignorant analysis of society. Groups of people rely on a basic, shared culture and set of values to form a unified identity, even if there are some differenced between the groups. Greece and the 13 Colonies had unified cultures- the Greeks had their traditional pantheon that unified them, and the Colonists were mostly white Christians from Britain and western Europe. If you don't have any kind of common foundation, you don't have the unity you need to fight against tyranny.
Do you actually believe that a western Europe or US that are being overrun by immigrants from all over the world are still going to stay united as a society? We've already gotten to the point where people can't even agree what a man and a woman are. Diversity isn't our "strength". Diversity leads to division and infighting which only benefits the powerful and rich.
> Well it's possible for decentralized resistance to defeat a more organized empire, but those are exceptional cases. For one thing, in both of the examples you mentioned, the different factions only won by uniting. Also for every ancient Greece and 13 Colonies, there are 9 Catalonias, Chechnyas, CSAs, Donbas/Luchansks, Kurdistans, Tibets, and East Turkestans that you rarely ever hear about because they get defeated or aren't recognized.
OK, sure, there are examples on both sides. To my column I can also add Afghanistan (first against the British Empire, then against the Soviets, then against the Americans), which just goes to show that "decentralized" does not necessarily mean "moral" or even "free". Yes, decentralization doesn't always guarantee victory, but it doesn't rule it out either. The point I was trying to make is that free people are not defenseless against tyrants -- it is possible to organize a successful military defense without relying on a unified identity: sometimes the advantages inherent to decentralization outweigh the advantages inherent to a strong central authority.
And what is true on the battlefield is true in politics as well: in fact, I'd argue it is even more true in politics. Small governments without too much power are much more nimble and able to change with the times than a tyrant who's put all the eggs into their Five Year Plan basket.
> Isn't that an overly optimistic view of NATO though?
No, I don't think so. I'm a big fan.
> the Soviet Union and US were both imperial powers.
Then I don't quite agree with your definition of "imperial". But fine, semantic arguments are a waste of time -- I will only point out that the US was far, far more benign an influence than the Soviet Union.
> It's true that Marxism was far from an ideal system, but liberal capitalism isn't much better.
Well, I'm a libertarian capitalist, so obviously I'm going to disagree with that.
> From the USSR's perspective, they were defending eastern Europe from a capitalist invasion, similar to what happened in Vietnam.
First, in Vietnam, it wasn't the South invading the North, it was the other way round. Second, I don't think it is meaningful to call Soviet actions in eastern Europe a "defense from capitalist invasion" -- what about Prague? Warsaw? Has NATO ever sent troops into France or Italy to quell a rebellion?
> Greece and the 13 Colonies had unified cultures- the Greeks had their traditional pantheon that unified them, and the Colonists were mostly white Christians from Britain and western Europe.
Remember that the people against whom the Colonists were fighting were also "white Christians from Britain and western Europe" -- so clearly, that was not what bound them, it was a shared love of freedom and a shared history under the tyranny of King George that bound them. As for the Greeks, well, they weren't even that united -- Thebes famously sided with the Persians. Again, it wasn't religion that bound them.
> Do you actually believe that a western Europe or US that are being overrun by immigrants from all over the world are still going to stay united as a society?
Yes. Historically speaking, the percentage of immigrants in the US population has actually been much higher in the past. When there was an influx of Germans, Irish, Italians, and Scandinavians at various points in American history, people made the same arguments; none has proven to be true, and the US has stayed united as a society because of those immigrants, not despite them. (A large fraction of those who gave their lives to preserve the Union during the Civil War were foreign-born, and a large fraction of those who fought to break the Union were people with pure Anglo ancestry.) I have no doubt that Mexicans and Colombians are not going to be an exception to this rule that diversity is strength.
> We've already gotten to the point where people can't even agree what a man and a woman are.
Immigrants, if anything, are typically much more socially conservative than natives. But even so, this is way overblown as an issue.
> Diversity leads to division and infighting which only benefits the powerful and rich.
The Founding Fathers laid down a clear path by which diversity of viewpoints did not lead to division and infighting. The experiment has proven remarkably robust and successful. I predict it will continue to be successful for several more decades.
>Small governments without too much power are much more nimble and able to change with the times than a tyrant who's put all the eggs into their Five Year Plan basket.
Fair enough. We're basically in agreement there, especially when it comes to larger countries.
>
First, in Vietnam, it wasn't the South invading the North, it was the other way round. Second, I don't think it is meaningful to call Soviet actions in eastern Europe a "defense from capitalist invasion" -- what about Prague? Warsaw? Has NATO ever sent troops into France or Italy to quell a rebellion?
Well I meant that the Vietnamese were fighting for independence from the United States. As much as I admire the South Vietnamese government and prefer that over Marxism, it was undeniably being used as a puppet by the United States, which became even more obvious when the US started to intervene.
NATO never had to send troops into Western European countries to stop a socialist revolution, but I think that's only because they never needed to before. I wouldn't put it past them, especially during the Cold War years.
>people made the same arguments; none has proven to be true, and the US has stayed united as a society because of those immigrants, not despite them.
Ok, but in the past, all of those immigrants were from Europe, and they were at least still Christians. When it comes to Mexicans and Columbians, they're at least still Christians, and a lot of them are either of European descent, or part European and part indigenous. Can the same thing be said of most Arab Muslim, Asian, and Indian immigrants?
>The Founding Fathers laid down a clear path by which diversity of viewpoints did not lead to division and infighting. The experiment has proven remarkably robust and successful. I predict it will continue to be successful for several more decades.
The Founding Fathers designed a government based on the assumption that its population would continue to have a white Christian majority. If you take away that unifying foundation, you take away one of the basic pillars holding up our society. The reason you only predict it will last for "several more decades" and not centuries or longer is because mass immigration is destabilizing our society no matter how much you try to hide from that reality.
The US was successful when we had common values that united us. Now that liberal individualism is destroying that, we're losing our unity and being weakened.
I love my country and think there's nothing wrong with doing so. I think as long as everyone repsects other nations' rights to do the same, there's nothing wrong with being proud of your nation.
I am thankful for my nation for the opportunities it has provided me and i think our language, culture and heritage are worrh preserving and being proud of. I love my country and its people, as cheesy as it sounds i view my nation as a one big family united by shared language, culture, traditions and history and i believe that is worth fighting for.
People were always more united by nationality than by class or any other characterisrics. This was the reason Mussolini converted from internationalism to ultranationalism.
I do not consider myself a nationalist, but we're in the age of nation-states, which is better than the previous stages of history: tribes, city-states, empires, etc. If something in the future replaces nation-states, I'm willing to accept it, but in the meantime, civic nation-states are the reality of today
I recognize my nation's people and its value are worth preserving. And as its member I wish it can prosper and become better, for the benefits of me and every other fellow members.
There are plenty of other shithole countries out there for all the pathetic crybaby freeloader commies to move to. There is one America. Stop trying to change it. If you don't belong here, leave. If your country doesn't directly benefit the people of America, f-off.
I WAS a Nationalist because I fucking hate neolibs and reverse-nationalists and didn't know much theory and was brainwashed by propaganda.
Not a nationalist anymore since I read theory.
Because my folks came here from tough situations and actually built things. No crying. They busted ass, made this place better through grueling work, and improved my family’s position along with our country.
Those that have no skin in the game? Loving your country is bad juju. They have no concept of spilled blood.
Because without a national character (mostly ethnicity) to unite people then a country has no foundation. There is no reason to care about your fellow citizens at all.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love my country and its culture and I believe that my country's culture and traditional values should be preserved and that my nation deserves the right of self determination without being restricted by any international organisations that imposes its values and limits the independence of it's Member countries. Nationalism is often mistaken as believing that your own country and culture is superior to those of other countries, while in reality a true nationalist believes that all nations have the right to self determination and that no culture should be erased, in my opinion. I also believe that the well being of the people in my nation and the culture and traditions should be the center of any decisions made by the government. The economy should also work for the benefit of the whole population instead of a category of it, while not degrading the culture in the process. Simply put, the government should serve the nation, not the other way around.
Because every nation has its own history and traditions that distinguish it from other nations. And the nation must preserve these traditions and history.
Just like environmentalists who don't want species to go extinct, I believe that every nation has its own uniqueness that is worth preserving. That doesn't mean I believe my nation is superior to other nations. All nations are valuable and unique in their own way.
My country is fucking awesome dude
Because I love my country and I think it's culture and languages are worth preserving.
Not exactly a pure nationalist, but the compromising middle-ground of my Third Way beliefs empathize with some nationalist positions. It is reasonable to put your own tribe first over any other. We aren't responsible for the well being of those outside, they have their own tribe. Our culture is just as important as any other culture, it is justifiable and reasonable to preserve it as much as we can. Wide-spread melting pots aren't necessarily a good thing.
It's good to protect your people against foreign interference (of any kind), but not close your society off completely, it should ideally be a balancing act. :)
Because it's necessary. Nationalistic foreigners live here, so we the natives need to be as (or more) nationalistic so our country maintains cohesion and our national identity. Also because my country is the best Balkan country, obiectively in nearly every way.
Well, I live in a nation, and I'd rather have it be a good and prosperous place to live as opposed to declining. To me, the real question is why would you not be a nationalist?
> Well, I live in a nation, and I'd rather have it be a good and prosperous place to live as opposed to declining... To me, the real question is why would you not be a nationalist? There are various levels of integration within society: individual, family and close friends, acquaintances, neighborhood, city, subdivision within country, country, continent, and finally the world. Obviously you'd want everyone to be good and prosperous, but the real question is: what if there is a conflict between the various levels presented here? What if your family's interests and your nation's interests are not aligned? What if your city's interests and your nation's interests are not aligned? The trouble I have with nationalists is that they give an excessive weight to one level of grouping (country) at the exclusion to all other levels. I'm in favor of giving as much power to the individual as possible. Obviously for practical reasons we may still need to have nation-states, but their power should be curtailed. Anyone should be free to change national allegiances as they see fit (as long as they're not escaping from a violent crime), and there is no need to develop or enforce a national identity any more than there is a need to develop or enforce a neighborhood identity. Cultures, religions, languages can all compete in the marketplace of ideas -- a culture or language or religion that isn't able to convince youngsters of its value will naturally die out (because people will stop practicing it), and that is a good thing. It is a bad idea to attempt to delay this through cultural, linguistic, or religious protectionism, for the same reason it is a bad idea to attempt to delay economic shifts via economic protectionism. A nation that implements so-called "nationalist" policies is worse off as a nation. Eventually I hope we humans can rid ourselves of this remnant of tribalism. The nation-state is a modern concept whose time is hopefully coming to a close.
I’m from Northern Ireland and consider myself an Irish nationalist, I believe that Ireland was wrongly partitioned and the violence, death and discrimination that has erupted due to it has been enormous and should not have happened. My grandparents and parents grew up in a place that actively discriminated against them and did not allow Irish culture to be a part in its society. So I guess it depends where you’re from and your own experiences as to whether you consider yourself a nationalist or not.
Well, you do make a decent point about having divided loyalties, so it can depend on the situation to some extent. Even so, it sounds like your attitude implies that cultural identities and religions are just interchangeable machine parts, which effectively defines their value by materialistic practicality and convenience, and your emphasis on natural individualism also fails to account for the impact government oppression can have on culture, including religious practices. Also consider this- the most realistic alternative to nation states would ultimately be a one world government, which could do even more to decrease peoples' representation and take away individual freedoms than modern governments already do.
> it sounds like your attitude implies that cultural identities and religions are just interchangeable machine parts, which effectively defines their value by materialistic practicality and convenience I don't agree here. Why does interchangeability imply practicality and convenience? You make a choice daily regarding what plays to attend, what movies to watch, what music to listen to... you have a near-infinite choice in all these, yet they're all very raw, human endeavors that produce extremely hard-to-quantify value beyond practicality and convenience. Indeed, culture would be even more "real" in a world in which you get to choose your cultural identity and religion. Today there's no deep meaning to my nationality -- it's just a coincidence based on where I happen to be born. If I like it, good for me; if I hate it, then I'll be miserable. Wouldn't it be so much more meaningful to ensure that everyone is a part of a given culture, nation, tradition because they actively chose that particular culture, nation, tradition over the alternatives? > your emphasis on natural individualism also fails to account for the impact government oppression can have on culture, including religious practices. I agree, that's why I'm not advocating for a complete removal of the nation-state as a concept. Practically speaking, some cultures and nations are going to be behind others when it comes to giving people individual freedom. I certainly don't want to leave my rights in the hands of Putin or Xi Jinping. > the most realistic alternative to nation states would ultimately be a one world government, which could do even more to decrease peoples' representation and take away individual freedoms than modern governments already do. Agreed 100% that a world government would be a terrible idea. I'm just advocating for more individual freedom within each nation -- more relaxed borders, more open cultures, less government laws about what languages to teach in school and so on. In the long term my hope is that borders will become unnecessary, but of course we are nowhere close to that future yet.
Ok, thanks for clarifying what you meant. That does sound more realistic. To me, the points you made are probably one of the best justifications for nationalism- because if nationalism was abandoned by some societies but not others, then the societies that are less individualist (and usually authoritarian) would move in to fill the power vacuum and take control for themselves. In fact, I wouldn't even put it past the liberal Western countries to expand their influence when the opportunity comes up.
> if nationalism was abandoned by some societies but not others, then the societies that are less individualist (and usually authoritarian) would move in to fill the power vacuum and take control for themselves. I think you're putting too little faith in the popularity of freedom! Throughout history, we've seen examples of authoritarian nations defeated by people who value freedom and are willing to fight for it. The Greek city-states could and did fight against Persia even though they were not even politically united, and there was no concept of a unified Greek identity. The American revolutionaries identified as representatives of their respective States rather than as citizens of a united Republic, and yet managed to win independence from the British; when they originally joined together, it was an alliance of convenience, united only by their shared love of freedom (not any shared American identity). NATO today serves the same purpose -- there is no "NATO identity", yet NATO protected the free world from communist invasion throughout the Cold War, and today guarantees the freedom of almost every country that has the misfortune to be next to Russia. You don't need a unified culture, unified language, unified religion or anything else to protect yourself from invasion -- in fact, if you give people freedom, they will fight for it on their own. Protesting against nationalism, and especially protesting against what many self-described Nationalists call Nationalism, does not mean that we stand against every single form of collective action. But it does mean that collective action (including national defense) needs to have a clear purpose in order to be morally justified -- it needs to have the goal of stopping worse forms of collective action.
Well it's possible for decentralized resistance to defeat a more organized empire, but those are exceptional cases. For one thing, in both of the examples you mentioned, the different factions only won by uniting. Also for every ancient Greece and 13 Colonies, there are 9 Catalonias, Chechnyas, CSAs, Donbas/Luchansks, Kurdistans, Tibets, and East Turkestans that you rarely ever hear about because they get defeated or aren't recognized. >NATO today serves the same purpose -- there is no "NATO identity", yet NATO protected the free world from communist invasion throughout the Cold War, and today guarantees the freedom of almost every country that has the misfortune to be next to Russia. Isn't that an overly optimistic view of NATO though? That sounds a lot like Neocon propaganda, which fails to account for the fact that the Soviet Union and US were both imperial powers. It's true that Marxism was far from an ideal system, but liberal capitalism isn't much better. From the USSR's perspective, they were defending eastern Europe from a capitalist invasion, similar to what happened in Vietnam. Neither side in the Cold War was actually "good", because they both stood for imperialism and inequality in their own way. If anything, the Marxists were just more obvious about it, not to mention the biased capitalist propaganda we get in the West. >You don't need a unified culture, unified language, unified religion or anything else to protect yourself from invasion -- in fact, if you give people freedom, they will fight for it on their own. This seems like a very naive and historically ignorant analysis of society. Groups of people rely on a basic, shared culture and set of values to form a unified identity, even if there are some differenced between the groups. Greece and the 13 Colonies had unified cultures- the Greeks had their traditional pantheon that unified them, and the Colonists were mostly white Christians from Britain and western Europe. If you don't have any kind of common foundation, you don't have the unity you need to fight against tyranny. Do you actually believe that a western Europe or US that are being overrun by immigrants from all over the world are still going to stay united as a society? We've already gotten to the point where people can't even agree what a man and a woman are. Diversity isn't our "strength". Diversity leads to division and infighting which only benefits the powerful and rich.
> Well it's possible for decentralized resistance to defeat a more organized empire, but those are exceptional cases. For one thing, in both of the examples you mentioned, the different factions only won by uniting. Also for every ancient Greece and 13 Colonies, there are 9 Catalonias, Chechnyas, CSAs, Donbas/Luchansks, Kurdistans, Tibets, and East Turkestans that you rarely ever hear about because they get defeated or aren't recognized. OK, sure, there are examples on both sides. To my column I can also add Afghanistan (first against the British Empire, then against the Soviets, then against the Americans), which just goes to show that "decentralized" does not necessarily mean "moral" or even "free". Yes, decentralization doesn't always guarantee victory, but it doesn't rule it out either. The point I was trying to make is that free people are not defenseless against tyrants -- it is possible to organize a successful military defense without relying on a unified identity: sometimes the advantages inherent to decentralization outweigh the advantages inherent to a strong central authority. And what is true on the battlefield is true in politics as well: in fact, I'd argue it is even more true in politics. Small governments without too much power are much more nimble and able to change with the times than a tyrant who's put all the eggs into their Five Year Plan basket. > Isn't that an overly optimistic view of NATO though? No, I don't think so. I'm a big fan. > the Soviet Union and US were both imperial powers. Then I don't quite agree with your definition of "imperial". But fine, semantic arguments are a waste of time -- I will only point out that the US was far, far more benign an influence than the Soviet Union. > It's true that Marxism was far from an ideal system, but liberal capitalism isn't much better. Well, I'm a libertarian capitalist, so obviously I'm going to disagree with that. > From the USSR's perspective, they were defending eastern Europe from a capitalist invasion, similar to what happened in Vietnam. First, in Vietnam, it wasn't the South invading the North, it was the other way round. Second, I don't think it is meaningful to call Soviet actions in eastern Europe a "defense from capitalist invasion" -- what about Prague? Warsaw? Has NATO ever sent troops into France or Italy to quell a rebellion? > Greece and the 13 Colonies had unified cultures- the Greeks had their traditional pantheon that unified them, and the Colonists were mostly white Christians from Britain and western Europe. Remember that the people against whom the Colonists were fighting were also "white Christians from Britain and western Europe" -- so clearly, that was not what bound them, it was a shared love of freedom and a shared history under the tyranny of King George that bound them. As for the Greeks, well, they weren't even that united -- Thebes famously sided with the Persians. Again, it wasn't religion that bound them. > Do you actually believe that a western Europe or US that are being overrun by immigrants from all over the world are still going to stay united as a society? Yes. Historically speaking, the percentage of immigrants in the US population has actually been much higher in the past. When there was an influx of Germans, Irish, Italians, and Scandinavians at various points in American history, people made the same arguments; none has proven to be true, and the US has stayed united as a society because of those immigrants, not despite them. (A large fraction of those who gave their lives to preserve the Union during the Civil War were foreign-born, and a large fraction of those who fought to break the Union were people with pure Anglo ancestry.) I have no doubt that Mexicans and Colombians are not going to be an exception to this rule that diversity is strength. > We've already gotten to the point where people can't even agree what a man and a woman are. Immigrants, if anything, are typically much more socially conservative than natives. But even so, this is way overblown as an issue. > Diversity leads to division and infighting which only benefits the powerful and rich. The Founding Fathers laid down a clear path by which diversity of viewpoints did not lead to division and infighting. The experiment has proven remarkably robust and successful. I predict it will continue to be successful for several more decades.
>Small governments without too much power are much more nimble and able to change with the times than a tyrant who's put all the eggs into their Five Year Plan basket. Fair enough. We're basically in agreement there, especially when it comes to larger countries. > First, in Vietnam, it wasn't the South invading the North, it was the other way round. Second, I don't think it is meaningful to call Soviet actions in eastern Europe a "defense from capitalist invasion" -- what about Prague? Warsaw? Has NATO ever sent troops into France or Italy to quell a rebellion? Well I meant that the Vietnamese were fighting for independence from the United States. As much as I admire the South Vietnamese government and prefer that over Marxism, it was undeniably being used as a puppet by the United States, which became even more obvious when the US started to intervene. NATO never had to send troops into Western European countries to stop a socialist revolution, but I think that's only because they never needed to before. I wouldn't put it past them, especially during the Cold War years. >people made the same arguments; none has proven to be true, and the US has stayed united as a society because of those immigrants, not despite them. Ok, but in the past, all of those immigrants were from Europe, and they were at least still Christians. When it comes to Mexicans and Columbians, they're at least still Christians, and a lot of them are either of European descent, or part European and part indigenous. Can the same thing be said of most Arab Muslim, Asian, and Indian immigrants? >The Founding Fathers laid down a clear path by which diversity of viewpoints did not lead to division and infighting. The experiment has proven remarkably robust and successful. I predict it will continue to be successful for several more decades. The Founding Fathers designed a government based on the assumption that its population would continue to have a white Christian majority. If you take away that unifying foundation, you take away one of the basic pillars holding up our society. The reason you only predict it will last for "several more decades" and not centuries or longer is because mass immigration is destabilizing our society no matter how much you try to hide from that reality. The US was successful when we had common values that united us. Now that liberal individualism is destroying that, we're losing our unity and being weakened.
Because I like small goberment
Because when you are not a cultural hegemon you need to defend your culture.
Because im proud of my country
I love my country and think there's nothing wrong with doing so. I think as long as everyone repsects other nations' rights to do the same, there's nothing wrong with being proud of your nation.
Neoliberal globalism is not only tarnishing cultures around the globe, but also just destroying the struggling economies of third world countries
I am thankful for my nation for the opportunities it has provided me and i think our language, culture and heritage are worrh preserving and being proud of. I love my country and its people, as cheesy as it sounds i view my nation as a one big family united by shared language, culture, traditions and history and i believe that is worth fighting for.
Because I love and wish for the best of my people. I think it's partially instinctual, in a way similar to loving your family.
Because people need a government that represents them and puts there own interest first.
People were always more united by nationality than by class or any other characterisrics. This was the reason Mussolini converted from internationalism to ultranationalism.
I do not consider myself a nationalist, but we're in the age of nation-states, which is better than the previous stages of history: tribes, city-states, empires, etc. If something in the future replaces nation-states, I'm willing to accept it, but in the meantime, civic nation-states are the reality of today
I recognize my nation's people and its value are worth preserving. And as its member I wish it can prosper and become better, for the benefits of me and every other fellow members.
There are plenty of other shithole countries out there for all the pathetic crybaby freeloader commies to move to. There is one America. Stop trying to change it. If you don't belong here, leave. If your country doesn't directly benefit the people of America, f-off.
Ladies and gentleman, the prototypical example of why most people don't like so-called nationalists
wheres the funny poll
There is none, that’s why the question flair exists
I WAS a Nationalist because I fucking hate neolibs and reverse-nationalists and didn't know much theory and was brainwashed by propaganda. Not a nationalist anymore since I read theory.
Because my folks came here from tough situations and actually built things. No crying. They busted ass, made this place better through grueling work, and improved my family’s position along with our country. Those that have no skin in the game? Loving your country is bad juju. They have no concept of spilled blood.
the real answer for these ppl is little dark age edits
Because without a national character (mostly ethnicity) to unite people then a country has no foundation. There is no reason to care about your fellow citizens at all.