Boy oh boy if only I could make more people read this. So many people in India just conflate patriotism with nationalism and it has become a fashion to brand any patriotic talk as "nationalistic". And they assume they are right because they think great people of past agree.
Nationalism breeds patriotism which breeds selfishness. I still prefer Rabindranath Tagore’s human to human connection over nationalism.
Patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my refuge is humanity. I will not buy glass for the price of diamonds, and I will never allow patriotism to triumph over humanity as long as I live - Rabindranath Tagore
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high.
Where knowledge is free.
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments.
By narrow domestic walls.
Where words come out from the depth of truth.
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection.
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way.
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit.
Where the mind is led forward by thee.
Into ever-widening thought and action.
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
As Ambrose Bierce wrote in The Devil's Dictionary: "In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." http://dd.pangyre.org/p/patriotism.html
The meaning is that scoundrels, when confronted with evidence of their unanswerable crimes, will instead answer a different question: "Do you support some unquestionably virtuous cause?"
This is the reason that that runners of big cons typically give very generously to charities. See Anthony Trollope's "The Way We Live Now".
Oh, I understood it differently. So it means that some scoundrels will use some virtue (in this case patriotism) to hide behind and not that patriotism is a bad thing?
I wonder if this particular 'virtue' has ever led to anything good. There is a parallel in the difference between, say, love (for one's land) and faith on the one hand and patriotism and (organized) religion on the other - the latter ones have invariably been used directly to promote hatred and intolerance in support of some political goals or in justifying criminal acts.
I didn't downvote, but it may be more inspired by your style of presentation than your opinion. It is hard to make out what you are saying because your writing looks more like lecture notes or a shorthand of your private thinking process than a means of communicating to others. Please understand that I don't mean to be snarky, and I would be the first to acknowledge that writing clearly is difficult.
I'm genuinely confused how writing in a transparent manner, being detailed, providing links to claims, etc can be considered hard to understand. And as usual, I am always happy to answer any question asked of me in an honest manner, so feel free.
I had a more substantial reply, but since my sincere and valid question was enthusiastically and immediately downvoted requiring me to keep the tab open until my censorship is lifted, I accidentally closed the tab. To me, the anti-intellectual groupthink overtaking online sites is rather alarming, especially considering how they are now where the vast majority of news (and accompanying discussion) is hosted and due to private ownership, no freedom of speech is required. And even if it was, a deliberate "misrepresentation" of someone's words can turn a controversial-at-best comment into a claimed (see this subthread) racial slur or threat of violence.
Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing. When Orwell wrote this piece he was influenced by the war, extreme situations like wars or famines always cloud your judgements.
I recommend reading the seemingly unrelated The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell. It describes the skills that would be necessary to rebuild civilisation after a hypothetical global cataclysm. Why is it relevant? If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources. Without these, nearly all technologies of daily life would break down in a very short time frame, including agriculture and medicine. The connections and dependences between countries are massive and completely unavoidable at our current level of technological development. In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail. (It may also fail because the resources dwindle extremely fast, viewed at an evolutionary time scale. Expanding mankind into space is unavoidable, or at least robot mining will be needed.)
Add to this the fact that we can communicate in real-time with the whole world and get news about distant events and politics within minutes, and patriotism starts to appear in a completely different light - as a silly appeal to traditions with no substance. Bear in mind that nations are entirely artificial entities and territorial conflicts have become (almost) impossible due to the global trade dependences.
This doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with mild forms of patriotism, of course, just that there are no particular advantages to it in the long run.
In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology.
I suppose there's some semantic clarification needed here. I don't see why identifying with one's ancestors [1] (patriotism) or nation (nationalism) precludes free trade, multiculturalism, human decency, etc.
On the contrary, if we want people to think long-term, it's important to get them to associate personal motivations (love of their grandchildren, love of their neighborhoods) with the sacrifices needed to keep civilization healthy (taxes, public service, military service, compliance with environmental regulations, etc.).
I guess it's possible you see "patriotism" and "nationalism" as requiring negative isolationism, xenophobia, etc. If that's true, is there a word for "thinking locally, acting globally" that allows for appreciating your homeland, ancestors, neighbors, etc.?
Do you love your country, your homeland, your family, your culture? Then that's very okay. Do you think that your country, your homeland, your family, or your culture are objectively superior to others? Then you're a fanatic/xenophobe.
> Do you think that... your culture are objectively superior to others?
Fair enough, but what do we do about the culture of "citizens of the world"? Aren't we trying to create or grow a better culture when we reject nationalism? Is that fanaticism? Why not?
Culture constantly changes, it's unavoidable even when you love your current culture. If you aren't viewing it as the objectively superior culture it isn't fanaticism.
Maybe I was reading too far into your statement. But in general terms, politics (and conflict in general) stems from a struggle over the power to allocate scarce resources towards conflicting conceptions of what is “good” or “deserving”. Often times, statements against privileging your own group to the detriment of others—and I concede you didn’t make that case directly, but I’ve often seen your comparison invoked in such arguments—implicitly assumes that politics, too, should be transcended. There is a sentiment that politics is a vestige of irrationality, and that if everyone was properly educated and could see the greater good, they would necessarily favor that over parochial group interests.
The survival and unity of a nation gives substantial long term benefits, contrary to what you believe, because effective nations make modern life possible through their guarantee of property rights and rule of law which are both prerequisites for any substantial economic activity. Not only this, but they also facilitate managed capitalism within their borders through their enforcement of regulation and wealth transfers in the form of taxation and public spending.
The nation is an integral part of the global economic and social structure not because of petty adherence to "tradition" as you believe, but because it plays a necessary and valuable role.
Given this, to say Patriotism is unproductive or backwards is foolish.
Nations are fundamentally a collection of people and entities that accept (sometimes begrudgingly) living in a union is better than living apart. It's important that people feel proud of their union and value its existence just as two people in a romantic relationship must value that relationship in order for it to survive and thrive.
> Both nationalism nor patriotism barely make sense any more. Time are changing.
People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong.
> If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources.
Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over.
> In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail.
That's fundamentally not true. Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running. If you expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ), then we are more than able to keep our society running without the rest of the world.
> In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology.
What? Maybe if you are denmark or iceland, but that doesn't hold true for the US.
Also, your entire argument is about international trade, not transnationalism. You need nations to have international trade.
And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union.
The current international system will continue as long as nations deem it beneficial to themselves. If it ceases to be, then it will end.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about any system. And I highly doubt china, russia and much of the world will adhere to the US/European led international system for much longer.
Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world.
The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. The only comparable situation in human history was the mongol empire where mongol's established direct or indirect control over pretty much all of eurasia. That system crumbled also.
>Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over.
This is simply, objectively, not true.
>Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running.
Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6)? Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)?
>The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world.
In terms of technology, the last 100 years have been more transformative than the 10,000 before. It's silly to compare this to the mongol empire.
> Doesn't the US import almost double what it exports
Yes, though that's due to legal restrictions on domestic drilling, not some sort of physical necessity.
> Also, why has the US worked so hard in the past 70 years to maintain influence across the world, warring and pillaging and murdering, and trading and bribing as well? Doesn't their standard of living rest on the global state of affairs they strive to maintain (or further exploit)?
There are multiple schools of thought and multiple eras of the US. What should be US involvement in UN, Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.
>Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world.
What if most hegemonic powers in a "pax" period tend toward your pragmatic attitude and as a result create a societal gestalt which becomes a self fufilling prophecy of paralyzed stagnation? Why should we assume that just because a "silly utopian transnationalism" hasn't happened yet it can't possibly happen at all? The technology available to a hegemon in the 21st century is unlike anything a previous hegemon has ever known. Betting the future will follow the patterns of the past is a safe bet until it isn't.
> And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union.
Bingo. Nation states drove society, and they'll continue to drive society.
Very well said. Along the same line of thinking, I'd like to point out a few things from the article that were a bit of a revelation for me:
"As the nearest existing equivalent I have chosen the word ‘nationalism’, but it will be seen in a moment that I am not using it in quite the ordinary sense, if only because the emotion I am speaking about does not always attach itself to what is called a nation — that is, a single race or a geographical area."
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1)."
"But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests."
"Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Now, maybe this is somewhat skewed by when it was written, but based on my interpretation of modern people's usage of the word nationalism, it seems completely consistent with current times.....so my question is basically: why is race (and force/violence) considered inseparable from nationalism? Or even more precisely, why is it seemingly only people who live in extremely ethnically diverse societies who think this way (go watch some "man on the street" interview videos on YouTube and you'll see that Modern Western Progressive values that only originated in the last 20 years aren't shared universally across the planet)?
Let's check the dictionary:
Nationalism:
1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or political independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.
The only definition even remotely close to race/racism is #3, yet do a google search for "nationalism" in the news and on forums (including this one, and in this very thread) and I bet you'll discover that in the vast majority of cases you'll find it being used in a way that's synonymous with racism.
I will often ask people I see doing this why they do it, what their exact meaning is, but no one will ever answer. In my opinion, these types of people are, ironically, similarly as evil as racists, in that they hate a group of people based on falsehoods or false stereotypes.
I'd love to know if anyone can think of a good explanation for this phenomenon. And considering how widespread it is, "people are dumb, get over it" seems like a completely disingenuous copout, equivalent to a racist-apologist.
>The only definition even remotely close to race/racism is #3, yet do a google search for "nationalism" in the news and on forums (including this one, and in this very thread) and I bet you'll discover that in the vast majority of cases you'll find it being used in a way that's synonymous with racism.
That's because, US and a few other multi-ethnic nations aside, most nation states are either somewhat ethnically consistent, or have one dominant ethnic majority -- and thus nationalism there is also related to ethnicity (and/or race).
Race is also not always seen as meaning whole classes of people (like black, white, asian, latin, etc) but can seen as defined for historically and genetically similar lineage too, so, e.g. Norwegians could be seen as different to Swedish in racial terms (and often such arguments invoke such terms).
Sure, but this doesn't address the phenomenon of why actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism. If anything, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, your difficulty in seeing how Western multicultural societies are different in this respect (the assumption that nothing but extreme malice can possibly be behind nationalism) demonstrates my point. Unless I've misinterpreted you, which is very easy (and common) to do in these types of conversations.
>Sure, but this doesn't address the phenomenon of why actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism.
Because it was an extreme example, and those tend to dominate further discussion.
Plus nationalism (even in the legit patriotism version) has fallen out of favor in the age of globalism, so everyone who wants to follow the cultural party line feels free to compare it to Nazism.
>If anything, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, your difficulty in seeing how Western multicultural societies are different in this respect (the assumption that nothing but extreme malice can possibly be behind nationalism) demonstrates my point.
Well, for what is worth, I'm not an American, and not exactly westerner either.
> Because it was an extreme example, and those tend to dominate further discussion.
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your line of thinking. What is an extreme example? And this explains what (I'm referring to "because....")?
> Plus nationalism (even in the legit patriotism version) has fallen out of favor in the age of globalism, so everyone who wants to follow the cultural party line feels free to compare it to Nazism.
No disagreement here, but if this is the case, are people simply unable to see this in themselves? Do they intuitively (as seems to be the case) know not to reply to any questions that might broach that particular possibility?
>I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your line of thinking. What is an extreme example? And this explains what (I'm referring to "because....")?
Sorry, can you state your original question more clearly? It seems obvious to me which is the extreme example I was referring to, and how it answers your question -- besides, I even quoted the part I was replying to.
You asked about how "the phenomenon of why actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism" could be addressed.
My answer is that the reason actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism is because Nazism was an extreme example of nationalism, and people tend to use extreme examples when discussing a phenomenon.
Plus, racism/Nazism have very ugly connotations, so it makes sense to associate nationalism with those phenomena, in an era when nationalism is in disfavor in favor of globalization.
>No disagreement here, but if this is the case, are people simply unable to see this in themselves? Do they intuitively (as seems to be the case) know not to reply to any questions that might broach that particular possibility?
> My answer is that the reason actual (dictionary) nationalism has become synonymous with racism/Nazism is because Nazism was an extreme example of nationalism, and people tend to use extreme examples when discussing a phenomenon.
I mean, this is certainly plausible, but I don't think it's that simple. There are all sorts of examples of degrees of one thing or another, yet is there any other example where a major portion of the public suddenly lost all perspective to the degree that they believe things that are literally incorrect (and mock those who are not)? It's not just that people are exaggerating things, the fundamental beliefs are such that it is considered not possible for a nationalist to not be a racist, if not worse. Rarely are such outrageous and objectively false claims challenged, and frequently any challenge is downvoted to net negative.
>It's not just that people are exaggerating things, the fundamental beliefs are such that it is considered not possible for a nationalist to not be a racist, if not worse. Rarely are such outrageous and objectively false claims challenged, and frequently any challenge is downvoted to net negative.
It's not like the general public (or even more media / public figures for that matter) are well rooted in the history of ideas, or care to examine most the conventional understanding of ideas of their time.
Once a thing falls out of favor (like nationalism has) it gets reduced to some caricature very quickly and can be associated (falsely) with all kinds of prejudices.
Consider the case of the hippy and the underground movements, how they were all the rage in the 60s and 70s and utterly mocked (and misunderstood) from the 80s onwards.
Again, I don't completely disagree, and thank you for actually being willing to have a reasonable discussion. But it's not like I'm springing this question on people in an off-road or inappropriate way. Nationalism is literally the topic of conversation, and many people have expressed disagreement with downvotes if not slurs.
And this isn't a rare occurrence, it is fundamental ideology, apparently not up for discussion or negotiation. People who fundamentally disagree, which wouldn't be you, will not enter a discussion. Ironically, it is the same unthinking behavior that those they hate so much are known for. I'd call it extreme, but it isn't, it has absolutely taken over the mainstream psyche.
When people refuse to think any more, I think some concern and discussion is appropriate.
That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it.
The endlessly repeated lesson of history is that if human rights are not universal, if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't', then it ends up justifying denying rights to any person or group, and the brutality that follows. That's why the foundation of the United States is universal human rights, 'all men are created equal and endowed ... with inalienable rights'. We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time.
In contrast, universal human rights as the basis of the post-WWII order has provided the greatest expansion of freedom and prosperity in human history, with no comparison. Why would anyone want to give that up? Why are we looking for ways to divide people and to justify and whitewash hate?
What is the basis of nationalism? That a human being's rights and my regard from them depend on an imaginary line on the earth? One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd.
Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others. The nationalists say all white Christian people are part of their nation, but a most of those people don't see it that way. Certain nationalists claim me as part of their 'nation', but I abhor and oppose them and certainly am not a member. Nationalists are a small group of people who, just like the tyrants and evil people before them, simply try to impose their will on others. I believe the others should live free.
> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion: white and Christian (though the religious aspect is sometimes less emphasized), like ISIS'/Daesh's nationalism based on Islam. You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it.
That's somewhat true only in a very narrow world of USA and ISIS. In most of the world, nationalism is based on very different terms.
> One step this way, I love them; one step the other way, I oppose them? It's absurd.
Nah. Nationalism doesn't mean opposing anybody. It's belonging to community and working for it's greater good.
> Finally, nationalism is an obsession of a small group imposed on others.
Most people don't care about any political, societal or any other philosophical discourses. They just follow few people who are interested in that kind of stuff. As far as I looked all revolutions were imposed by a small group of concerned citizens on the rest of the community. I'm yet to find an exception where majority people truly believed in the original idea from day 1. They just followed people who seemed worthy.
Sure, let's discuss specific political movements. For example spring of nations in mid-19th century Europe or fall-of-iron-curtain movements of late 1980s/early 1990s in, again, Europe.
In both cases they effectively ended oppression and brutality. In most cases, it was direct result of ethnic hatred towards those people who called themselves nationalists.
Humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. We're simply not capable to feel connected to every human on planet earth. Nationalism is probably one of the better and more sustainable forms of tribalism. Definitely better than highly polarised or multi-cultural (which is totally different from multi-ethnic or multi-racial) societies.
Most of what you listed if chauvinism, not nationalism. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong if society wants to stay (not become) homogenous. It's easier to come to social contract that way. Which is the most important for healthy society.
> Humans naturally gravitate towards tribalism. We're simply not capable to feel connected to every human on planet earth.
Human have lots of bad instincts - violence, war, hatred, greed, etc etc - but history shows beyond a doubt that we overcome them and it works astoundingly well. But we've overcome those things and built democracies, liberty, a world where violence and war is at historic laws, lifespans are probably double what they were for most of history, women are in the workforce, we walk on the moon, human rights and prosperity have expanded by orders of magnitude. All of that came from the embrace of universal rights and liberty.
> We're simply not capable ...
In fact, we certainly are!
The question is, why would anyone want to take away all that success and ruin it?
> but history shows beyond a doubt that we overcome them and it works astoundingly well
Yes, yes, end of history and all that jazz. Yet greed is at all time high. We had a couple attempts at that in 20th century and it didn't went well at all. Hatred and violence are still strong. I'm
A lot of things you listed were done in societies that didn't fully embrace liberty/democracy/universal rights. USSR or commie China or Japan or Singapore. Western civilisation that did fully embrace them built their prosperity without any of those things and now just run on their former glory.
Walking on the moon was possible specifically because of war effort.
> > We're simply not capable ...
> In fact, we certainly are!
Dunbar number. Anything above that needs a super simple approach to keep people together. Greece crises was a fantastic example. Lots of people were against bail out. Meanwhile they were pissed others don't want to help them too. If fellow europeans don't feel strong connection, I doubt they'd truly feel it for culturally much more different people on the other side of the globe.
> The question is, why would anyone want to take away all that success and ruin it?
What success? The success to not be able to keep population at replacement levels? Rampant mental illnesses? All that while democracy support is at 50 years low, liberty is in danger and people are too afraid of violence and war to solve any problem?
Oh and it's been a while since we were on the moon and it doesn't look like it's happening any time soon...
> That's all academic. Current nationalists base their 'nation' on skin color and religion
They do?
> You can read people advocating it in HN, just like you can read many attempts to whitewash it.
> if you accept the nationalist argument that 'people on my side have rights and those on the other don't'
> We've had enough slavery, segregation, Holocausts, Tutsi massacres, Milosovic's, ISIS's, oppression of women, Nazis, etc, etc. to know how it turns out; we don't need to try again and hope it's different this time.
(I might as well excerpt your entire post, it is the perfect embodiment of my confusion on this topic. As are the rising downvotes, arguably proving my point and censoring my voice, as I will now have to leave this tab open and wait to post my sincere rebuttal later. Freedom of speech is a great principle until it disagrees with your ideas I guess.)
I gave you a definition of nationalism from the dictionary, I will ask you once again: what definition are you using for the word nationalism?
Going further, what is the origin of the various extreme beliefs & hatred you hold? Where did you learn these ideas?
There's no basis offered for any of the parent. Some things are obviously false:
> oil ... That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over.
> Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone
> expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc )
etc.
These are arguments of white christian nationalists, who, as Orwell pointed out about nationalists in general, have no interest in reality, only justifying their hateful cause. They ignore the incredible, outrageous evil of Nazism, the universality and priority of human rights and freedom, basic economic reality, and the predictable destruction that comes with nationalism.
The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity orders of magnitude beyond anything else in human history. It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak (it has a long a way to go, but it has come a very long way since WWII). A person must really embrace hate in order to give that up for nationalism, racism, and the destruction that inevitably follows, a return to pre-WWII or even pre-WWI. I suspect many of the white christian nationalists take that peace and prosperity for granted; they don't realize it was constructed by the survivors of WWII, who knew far more of nationalism and the world without a rules-driven world order.
>The American-led world order since WWII has led to an expansion of freedom and prosperity [...] It also embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy rather than the undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak.
Wow... The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places will disagree with you. The will of the people stamped down by the boot of American might and imperialism, for the benefit of themselves: for the maintenance of their supreme place in the world on the back of neocolonialist exploitation of weaker countries. Is this not the picture of "undemocratic system of the strong forcing the weak"? Let's not forget the odious bootlicking of Saudi princes, for instance, and their positively medieval rule, for their economic favour.
> The people in Guatemala [1], Iran [2], Chile [3], Timor [4], and dozens other places ...
Agreed, and I considered whether to include that part of the story. On one hand, every HN comment can be criticized for leaving out details - we always can write more; these aren't dissertations or books, and each comment needs to draw the line somewhere. On the other, I probably should have mentioned that side of it.
But with that issue in mind, I was careful to write something that didn't contradict the parent's point. I said the expansion of freedom and prosperity have been unprecedented, which is true. It should be even more, including for the people of the places mentioned above, but it still has been unprecedented. I also wrote that the international order "embodies a just and fair way of managing international affairs, through law and democracy"; I was careful not to say it implemented those things are actually is democratic; it's not nearly that. But the UN, alongside the leading country actively promoting democracy and liberty is a huge step forward compared to human history, as are other international organizations and structures. There is a very long way to do, and every person that has suffered in those places and does suffer today deserves justice; we have a lot of work to do.
I always really admired Orwell's style as a political journalist and writer. He writes clearly and gets to the point. He doesn't hide in flowery ambiguity, like most journalists do when writing about "isms."
Here specifically, I don't think he's clear and timeless.
This is an essay about British politics of the time, for the British. Nationalism meant the bad guys from the war, which was just ending. Orwell is warning against fanatical politics likes those of the 1930s. Besides the war, the British Empire was ending. Orwell is warning the British about paranoid, nationalist politics the loss of empire was stirring up.
He is being delicate with his labels to avoid just calling his readers fanatics^. I think this leaves us with something less timeless.
Anyway.... First, he splits hairs to define nationalism separately from patriotism, the safer & less violent flavour of nation-centric "ism". Then he extends his definition of "nationalism" to include also... "such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism."
So, wtf does Orwell mean when he says "nationalism". It's not like patriotism, but is like Trotskyism? I think he just means fanatics. Ideologists that care more about winning arguments and wars then morals & greater goods supposedly furthered by ideologies.
That is relevant today. I think this essay would have been gone on to the top shelf of timeless political writing if Orwell had pretended to write for the French about the British, instead of "anticipating the troll" and mincing his words in response. Name the thing.
^Orwell's essay on Gandhi is written for Brits too. He doesn't hold back pointing out the fanaticism of Gandhi. This makes his positive points about Gandhi's nonviolent political methods clearer and more honest, having already named the superstitious elements what they were.
Yes, he really does seem to just mean fanatical adherents to an ideology, which may or may not be associated with a physical nation. He is certainly using the term "nationalism" in a non-standard way. But I think he did it because he was trying to point out the similarities between traditional nationalism and ideologues of all stripes.
I think he was also trying to piggy-back. To the British of 1945, "Nationalism" meant Germany, Japan, Italy and their other recent enemies. Everyone knew they were irrational, destructive fanatics. I think he was warning of similar in British politics.
> So, wtf does Orwell mean when he says "nationalism". It's not like patriotism, but is like Trotskyism? I think he just means fanatics. Ideologists that care more about winning arguments and wars then morals & greater goods supposedly furthered by ideologies.
Orwell defined what he was meaning exactly, in the second paragraph...
> By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
The sentences I quoted above resonate with me today, here in Scotland, pertaining to the Scottish National Party and especially with their rather foaming-at-the-mouth Nationalism. To see their behaviour - despite the 2014 Independence referendum in which the people of Scotland voted against breaking away from the United Kingdom - is to behold exactly the kind of irrational and in my view outright dangerous form of nationalism Orwell is writing about.
I consider myself a Scottish patriot, not a nationalist. I also consider myself a British patriot, not a nationalist, and it is for those reasons that I voted against Scotland becoming independent, breaking away from the UK, and it is also the reason why in my opinion the quicker the SNP lose their minority government in the Scottish parliament - they are being propped up by a handful of Scottish Greens who themselves demonstrate a propensity towards Communistic ideals hiding behind a thin veneer of "green" - the better.
What I meant is that usually Orwell doesn't mince words. That paragraph is a little flowery and ambiguous for him. The key words are "or other unit" which he later uses to expand the definition of nationalism out to potentially any ideology regardless of what it (if anything) it has to say about nations.
The definition of "patriotism" was (I think) intended as a disarming "I don't mean you" to British moderates. It's interesting that this part still (as you say) resonates in British politics today. I don't think it's quite honest though.
I think patriotism as Orwell defines it here is a moderate nationalism. More sentimental than ideological, as moderate political positions often are. It's not really different to modern european "democratic socialism" or whatnot. It is very different to early 20th century socialism, which were very fanatical.
What I meant overall is that I think if he was writing about the french, he would have just said "fanatics" instead of light stepping around local political sensitivities.
The distinction doesn't work very well as phrased here. It's too easy to convince oneself that I am a patriot, and they are nationalists. So it ultimately just becomes another tribal marker.
Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics. Celtic nationalsim -> pick any flavour of modern irish politics. Neo-Tories.. same.
Most people self labeling as any of these would unanimously (if not alway honestly) all self describe the belief as patriotic by exactly the definition that Orwell gave. The other isms on his list aren't about nations. I guess Trotskyists wouldn't necessarily call themselves patriots, but what does that prove?
> Any one on that list he gave, zionism -> pick any flavour of modern israeli politics
Just so I'm not misunderstanding you....so, any thing (I'm looking for examples of specific beliefs or policy goals that are motivated by Nationalism but passed off as patriotism) any politician in Israel believes is Nationalist, but presented(?) as patriotic? What does this look like in action?
Their quote was rather hyperbolic, but much of Israel's foreign affairs policy is aggressively nationalistic. I could give examples of their nationalism in action, but as an outsider I'd rather not assume I know what they consider patriotic. I'll pick an example from the USA instead.
The US phenomenon around "support our troops" is presented as a patriotic appreciation for true Americans making hard sacrifices. The best way to support our troops would be keeping them home, which would also be the best thing to do by Orwell's definition of patriotism. The slogan has been used as a way to demonize those opposed to US foreign policy, and as a form of propaganda to show young people how much their community will love them if they enlist, nationalist ambitions.
Israel is well beyond Nationalist if you ask me. But I'm trying to get some detail on this seemingly well known phenomenon of Nationalist actions being presented as patriotic. Maybe I'm wrong but it's starting to seem like some of these assertions are opinions based on some sort of social signalling rather than facts.
Orwell's definition of patriotism is fairly specific, and he mentions how hard it is to understand what anyone means when they say "patriotism" or "nationalism." Because of that, most things called patriotism barely try to fit Orwell's definition, but I can try again...
The Bush rhetoric about the necessity of the war on terror was presented in a very patriotic light by Orwell's definition. They brought up a seemingly constant risk to all American homes, and the often repeated line about the "terrorists hate our freedom" seemed to threaten and belittle the cultural values core to American patriotism. An appeal to patriotic feelings to justify nationalist actions.
If that doesn't work for you, I don't know what will. I'd guess you're using different definitions of the terms, as even my most cynical views on Israel would be nationalist.
> An appeal to patriotic feelings to justify nationalist actions.
Attacking foreign countries who are not a threat is Nationalism? Is there any even remotely authoritative source that would agree with this?
Maybe I haven't been clear, but this magical redefining of words is part of the issue I'm having. If I was to say Liberalism (just for example) was synonymous with <some repugnant crime>, people would give me a "HN timeout" within 5 minutes, but it seems like you can throw whatever you want under the Nationalism banter and it's all good. Does anyone have any integrity anymore, or is it fake news all the way down?
> I'd guess you're using different definitions of the terms
It seems I am, the ones found in the dictionary for decades. But this seems to conflict with some other definition that everyone else seems to know, but won't say out loud. It's a rather interesting phenomenon to observe from someone on the outside.
This discussion is in a topic about Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism." The first several paragraphs are spent defining what he is calling "nationalism." I had figured you had read it, or one of the various comments summing it up, or even questioned why I repeatedly mention "Orwell's definition of patriotism."
I don't think they are. To put it in orwellian-ish terms, it's pretty likely that the only people that will really insist on the distinction would self describe as patriots.
You will probably find a patriotism-nationalism-like relationship between moderate and extremist flavours of any "ism." Social-democrats & Marxist-purists, conservative-traditionalists & fundamentalist-theocrats; Democrats & Anarchists.... These all tend to come in at least 2 flavours: moderate or extra spicy.
>I don't think they are. To put it in orwellian-ish terms, it's pretty likely that the only people that will really insist on the distinction would self describe as patriots.
He laid out fairly specific definitions for both patriotism and nationalism. Under those definitions, they're clearly separate things. In short, he sees patriotism as a love of your home, while nationalism is the worship of the state/similar entity.
Given Orwell's extended definition it looks like Orwell is actually talking about to collectivism. It is not clear why he chose the more specific term 'nationalism' over the more general term 'collectivism'.
>Chesterton was a writer of considerable talent who whose to suppress both his sensibilities and his intellectual honesty in the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda. During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing, under its laboured cleverness as simple and boring as ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians.’ Every book that he wrote, every scrap of dialogue, had to demonstrate beyond the possibility of mistake the superiority of the Catholic over the Protestant or the pagan.
And here Orwell is being "nationalistic" (in his sense of the word) over his preferred ideas, doing what he accused others of: "there is always a temptation to claim that any book whose tendency one disagrees with must be a bad book from a literary point of view. People of strongly nationalistic outlook often perform this sleight of hand without being conscious of dishonesty."
This reminds me of Hoffer's The True Believer - he makes similar observations about how fanatics of different / opposing stripes are much more similar to each other than to non-fanatics, and how fanaticism is often transferable to a different object (nation, ideology, religion, etc.) for this reason.
"Among the intelligentsia, it hardly needs saying that the dominant form of nationalism is Communism — using this word in a very loose sense, to include not merely Communist Party members, but ‘fellow travellers’ and russophiles generally. A Communist, for my purpose here, is one who looks upon the U.S.S.R. as his Fatherland and feels it his duty t justify Russian policy and advance Russian interests at all costs. Obviously such people abound in England today, and their direct and indirect influence is very great."
I find this somehow hard to believe. I can buy that the British intelligensia was probably full of people who thought communism was a good philosophy. But outright supporting Russia as their homeland? That doesnt make sense, unless there was some huge ex-patriation of Russian intelligensia types to other countries?
Remember that Britain at the time was a nation in transition. Essentially bankrupted by the war, still impacted by WW1, an empire in moral and financial collapse, and a legacy social order falling apart.
The Soviets appeared to be an answer to those problems, as they had replaced the most reactionary of legacy states with a new thing. Also, comintern was a thing that invested a lot of resources into influencing western thinking.
There were really was a belief among orthodox Western Communists that the Soviet Union was the future and that Stalin was a great man. They often became Rusophiles who learned Russian and went on trips to the Soviet Union where they were given carefully controlled tours which made the place seem like Utopia. That was different from just a belief in Communism -- as Orwell notes, there certainly were the Trotskyists, who believed that Lenin's revolution in the USSR had been betrayed by Stalin, but they had their own parties and organizations (and weren't that numerous).
Orwell is being obtuse when he says "nationalism."
What he meant is some flavour of what we'd call "ideologist" today, whether or not the ideology has much to do with nations or nation states. Communism was a major political movement all over europe (and the world) at the time. Most labour movements considered themselves communists.
Anglo-American liberalism was the biggest ideological faction, but Orwell doesn't seem to count that as "Nationalism." After that, communism probably was the biggest faction in universities in 1945.
But it's not just Communism, it's Russia itself. I see it even today among some members of our national Communist Party (which was historically Stalinist). They not only irrationally¹ defended the USSR, as they transferred that to current Russia and Putin. It truly boggles the mind.
And they are not Russians, or particularly care about the land or the people, it's a support of the Russian nation specifically.
¹ By irrationally, I mean what Orwell describes - defending actions they would never defend in other countries and ignoring inconvenient facts
Those people just love to support enemy of their enemy. It's mind boggling how many mental hoops they're willing to jump.
As eastern european, it was very sad to meet fellow europeans who didn't like that my country got away from monstrosity that was USSR and couldn't care about suffering of people as long as it helped to move forward their idolised ideology. Meanwhile they pretended to be "progressive" and caring about "common man" whatever that is...
Well, in our case it's a bit more complicated, because here, the USSR was actually helping the common man. We were living in a right-wing dictatorship ourselves and the communist party, which was one of the most important groups fighting against it (and whose members were tortured and sent to concentration camps in Africa), got a lot of help from the USSR.
I was born after the transition, so it's easy for me to separate the issues (and to understand that good deeds are not always done for good reasons), but to the people who lived it, there is a real dissonance that is hard to deal with.
Did communist party built at least single successful country in Africa?
It's like saying that Nazis helped a common man in Germany. And they did! Life for a common German man definitely got better in mid-late 1930s. But at a cost..
Regarding USSR, that help to far away countries was one of the reason why it fell. Life in USSR was shitty (maybe not Africa-shitty, but still). And people were unhappy that resources are sent away instead of improving their lives. There were plenty of jokes that there's no food or merchandise since some revolutioner dude in South America or Africa eats or wears them.
> ¹ By irrationally, I mean what Orwell describes - defending actions they would never defend in other countries and ignoring inconvenient facts
I just wanted to comment on your use of "irrational". That's a bad definition (meaning no connection with how people use the word). Every nationalist in every nation attacks others for things that they themselves would do if it benefited them. If the attacks work it's very rational.
I agree that it can be used as a rational tactic, but I don't think it's the case here; as Orwell mentions, it's more of a process of self-deception. It doesn't actually work - those I know can't even convince their fellow party members.
At the time, no form of nationalism was particularly popular in the UK, but there’d certainly be more people who were keen on Soviet Communism than on Naziism, the two big contenders at the time.
So, if you asked 100 members of the ‘intelligentsia’ which form of nationalism they preferred, 95 might say ‘none thanks’, with the other 5 opting for Soviet communism.
