Creation of Nations
- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
New Scientist
"France, for example, was not the natural expression of a pre-existing French nation. At the revolution in 1789, half its residents did not speak French. In 1860, when Italy unified, only 2.5 per cent of residents regularly spoke standard Italian. Its leaders spoke French to each other. One famously said that, having created Italy, they now had to create Italians'
Jan Zielonka of the University of Oxford agrees that further integration of Europe’s governing systems is needed as economies become more interdependent. But he says Europe’s often-paralysed hierarchy cannot achieve this. Instead he sees the replacement of hierarchy by networks of cities, regions and even non-governmental organisations. Sound familiar? Proponents call it neo-medievalism.“The future structure and exercise of political power will resemble the medieval model more than the Westphalian one,” Zielonka says. “The latter is about concentration of power, sovereignty and clear-cut identity.” Neo-medievalism, on the other hand, means overlapping authorities, divided sovereignty, multiple identities and governing institutions, and fuzzy borders.
The nation state did not materalise out of thin air. Still less did it always exist as some kind of looming background presence or potentiality way back in the mists of time as nationalist mythology would have it. Rather, it was an almost deliberately crafted invention – see Benedict Anderson's book, "Imagined Communities", on this – the outcome of a complex process of structural and spatial reorganisation coinciding the emergence of capitalism. In Europe in 1500. for instance, there were approximately 500 more or less autonomous political units – an intricate patchwork ranging Italian city states (though by then many of these had already fallen victim to conquest) to numerous principalities (often themselves the product of dynastic splits) and a scattering of consolidated kingdoms. Some of these were nominally part of one or two much larger sprawling entities such as the Holy Roman Empire which was as Voltaire once remarked was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" (Essai sur l'histoire générale et sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations,1756). By 1900, however, the political landscape looked very different indeed, The number of self governing units involved had been drastically whittled down to a mere twenty-odd nation-states having jurisdiction over the entire European landmass (Ch 1, "Reflections on the History of European State-making", Charles Tilley The Formation of National States in Western Europe , Princeton University Press, 1975 , p. 24). In between these two points in time, an array of forces contrived to bring about this transformation, prominent among these being the emergence of absolutist monarchies in several parts of Europe in this period, most notably the bourbon "Sun" King of France, Louis XIV . I am skeptical about the concept of "neo-medievalism", though. Capitalist ideology and nationalism go hand in glove. While the one prevails, the other will continue – notwithstanding globalisation
These videos by Philosophy Tube about different aspects of nationalism might be interesting:https://youtu.be/JlYUmyPoL30https://youtu.be/E_JQd-EsDjQ
This is a historical comparison of what a nation really is: The Novelist Ramon Marrero Arysty wrote a book named: Over, it is based on what is called 'Bateyes", Conucos, or Company Town, it describes the inhuman conditions that were living the workers of the Sugar Plantations, and that type of Journalism produced his death, killed by the lovely corporations, and businessmen that some peoples like to adore like saintsThe workers were in debt with the owner of the factories, and they never received a monetary compensation, they had a small grocery store and everything was purchased on credit, and at the end of the month they always owe money to their masters. It was a constant circle, they did not have any school system for the children, they did not know how to read and write, they grow up in order to work for the owner of the plantations, it was like raising animals to produce milk, eggs, and meat. They worked 16 hours a days and they said that they were lazyCompany town (or Bateyes) was a type of condition that also existed in the South region of the US where the owners of the plantation kept the African slaves, and they worked for their masters, and they never owned anything, and the same conditions existed in the "Bateyes", and that type of existence were created by the US corporations, specially by the South Puerto Rican Sugar Company. This company now has billions of dollars, and in certain moments it was managed by a Cuban anti-communists known as Russell who killed many young peoples and leaders of worker’s unions (now is known as the prestigious Gulf and Western). Those peoples are the same ones that in our times are talking about democracy, to build walls, and accusing the workers of being parasitesPersonally, I think that a nation is a 'Batey",or Bateyes, or a company town, or a Conuco ( plantation, farm ) where workers are used to produce for a plantation, or the owners of the plantation, romantically cover with the ideology of nationalism and patriotism, pride, conquering, expansion, killing others peoples to make a better future, it is like a Christmas tree, if you remove all the lights and ornaments, Christmas songs, it will be a tree without any romantic meaning, therefore, all nations are false and they are based on illusions, and sometimes those illusions become very dangerousThat concept can also be transferred, or applied to large advanced capitalist nations, instead of producing for a farm, workers are producing for a factory, or services, but the working and living conditions are similar, and the false illusions are bigger. Nationalism came first, and then nations or bateyes came up later, but both are walking together, that is reason why we can see millions of workers supporting the deportation and the killing of others workers, and supporting the plan of the owners of the plantations, the color of the skin has changed from black, mulattos, mixed, to white but in essence it is the same, and all are slaves too, but some slaves have the illusions that they are free, the worst slave is the one that believe is freeThere is also a book named the Power Broker it is about the real estate division of Manhattan, the whole city of New York is divided in ethnic communities integrated by Italian, German, Irish, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Africans, etc. those are workers of the Bateyes that worked in factories instead of plantations, and the housing were spread in ethnic groups instead of living inside the plantation, those workers produced large profits for the textile industries, and then, they were removed by the so called process of Gentrification, and in that process and individual by the name of Donald Trump also made his fortune in real estate.The deindustrialization of the USA produced the emerge of the Real estate industry, and the speculation in this business by banks and realtors, most of those property did not have a very high price, they were built by the HA, or the Veteran administration for a very cheap price to be used as shelter for the wage slaves and the factory workers, the same process that some nationalists are attacking in our time, is the ones that turned them into rich peoples riding in the back of the sweat of the working class, and now they are using nationalism as a tool to motivate others workers to fight against their class brothers and their only real allied that they have. Nations, nationalism, and patriotism they are the same mental poisons
Terrific and subtitles too.
Writting of the Socialist Party on Nationalism:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-823-march-1973/poison-nationalismhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1988/no-1002-february-1988/lunacy-left-wing-nationalismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1998/no-1125-may-1998/world-view-lenin-theorist-nationalismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/socialist-writers/rosa-luxemburg-and-national-questionSocialist Party of Canada on Imperialism, nation and socialismhttps://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/imperialism.and.socialism.htm This is another aspect that distinguishes the WSM from all the others political parties
robbo203 wrote:The nation state did not materalise out of thin air. Still less did it always exist as some kind of looming background presence or potentiality way back in the mists of time as nationalist mythology would have it. Rather, it was an almost deliberately crafted invention – see Benedict Anderson's book, "Imagined Communities", on this – the outcome of a complex process of structural and spatial reorganisation coinciding the emergence of capitalism. In Europe in 1500. for instance, there were approximately 500 more or less autonomous political units – an intricate patchwork ranging Italian city states (though by then many of these had already fallen victim to conquest) to numerous principalities (often themselves the product of dynastic splits) and a scattering of consolidated kingdoms. Some of these were nominally part of one or two much larger sprawling entities such as the Holy Roman Empire which was as Voltaire once remarked was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire" (Essai sur l'histoire générale et sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations,1756). By 1900, however, the political landscape looked very different indeed, The number of self governing units involved had been drastically whittled down to a mere twenty-odd nation-states having jurisdiction over the entire European landmass (Ch 1, "Reflections on the History of European State-making", Charles Tilley The Formation of National States in Western Europe , Princeton University Press, 1975 , p. 24). In between these two points in time, an array of forces contrived to bring about this transformation, prominent among these being the emergence of absolutist monarchies in several parts of Europe in this period, most notably the bourbon "Sun" King of France, Louis XIV . I am skeptical about the concept of "neo-medievalism", though. Capitalist ideology and nationalism go hand in glove. While the one prevails, the other will continue – notwithstanding globalisationImperialism also goes hand to hand with nationalism. The Western Powers have always given lecture on demcracy to other nations by justifying millitary invasions. The Soviet did a large campaign with the so called Patriotic war, and they extended their tentacle up to Germany, they were ready to do their final stop in Portugal. The so called National Liberation is part of the conception of Nationhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/swinging-sixties/why-socialists-oppose-vietcong
I think we have to face the problem that belief in a nation has grown stronger and has become more of an obstacle for achieving socialism.People have adopted a belief that nations …even continents in respect to Europea "civilisation"..share common culture if not language and how can we deny that religion has grown in prominence of being a distinguishing feature. I don't think discussing the concept of nations as a neo-medieval idea is too far off the mark.Nations are breaking down and the EU is adopting a policy of being a Union of Regions. Cities have become more like city-states and have often seen as not the same nation as the provinces and rural areas…London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam… In America the Fox narrative is to differentiate the "liberal" east and west sea-boards as not the real America. We have a movement for an independent California, and state-rights rather than federal obligations are in conflict. Scotland seeks to break the union with England to establish a union with Europe. Hong Kong seeks the same status as Singapore. ..Economic Enterprise Zones are getting their own administrative laws. The Gulf States are basically City States..Abu Dhabi, Dubai. Many sovereign powers have been ceded to trans-national authorities..ICC etc and Trump, Le Pen and Brexit has fed on this. But as a world socialist/world citizen, these developments offers some hope, not fear. The environmentalists have challenged borders as much as the refugee crisis has undermined frontiers.It's the insular protectionist xenophobia that worries me. I'm for a pix and mix planet of peoples. Don't know how many times i have come across white rastas and white indians (both the sub-continent ones and the North American native eco-warrior variety). Religion is a market place of theologies, there is a church to suit everyone.People have indeed become polarised on the subject of nations and it is a battle we have to fight.Another timely reason for a change of name for the Party?…If we are considering becoming a national organisation, can we also consider our structure going beyond and becoming a global one …if we are considering placing our journal online, can we also consider placing our decision-making online?
Nationalism is growin and rising all over. It is getting worst than before WWI. I think it is time to become a global organization
Is the world going into the brink of a new form of ultra-nationalism ?
There is quite an interesting book written by my old Anthropology professor, Bruce Kapferer – a sort of maverick Aussie academic now based in Bergen – about the culture of nationalism. It is called "Legends of People, Myths of State:Violence, Intolerance, and Political Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia" and was published in 1988 though I see a new revised edition appeared in 2011. Here's a link to the book or part of the book itself: https://books.google.es/books?id=eww8QyTSxQ8C&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false What Kapferer tries to do is explain the power that nationalism holds over people, and its ability to capture their imagination and help forge their sense of identity. He uses a comparative approach – comparing Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism with Australian egalitarian nationalism in terms of their different underlying "ontologies" or perception of reality. Australian nationalist ideology is rooted in individualism and since, according to individualist mythology, the individual stands above society and,in a sense, predates society – think of the whole idea of the "social contract" a la Hobbes and co out of which society was supposedly born – this is why the individual is conceived of as being essentially a product of nature. Little wonder that in the West where an individualist outlook is deeply rooted , you tend to find a heavy emphasis on "human nature" type of arguments against socialism. It stems from the logic of individualist thinking itself Kapferer, if I remember correctly, also conjectures that racism itself is an outgrowth of individualist thinking. This sort of makes sense. If human beings are the "product of nature" so to speak then, ideally speaking, each of us must be identical in our basic nature and attributes. Socio cultural differentiation threatens the natural order and the autonomy of the individual in it. Socio-cultural differences are proof of the power of society to mould individuals and thus to dominate them.. Hence racism. At least thats how I remember the argument Kapferer was making…. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism he argues is completely different insofar as it based on a holistic , not individualistic, worldview. In such a worldview, the individual is a product of society not nature. It is the whole that determines the parts – not the parts, the whole. Social differentiation for example, as in the case of the caste system, is vital to maintaining the integrity and coherence of the whole, without which the individual loses his or her sense of identity and undergoes a process of fragmentation or dissolution This, according to Kapferer, is part of the reason for the sheer ferocity with which the Sri Lankan stage waged its war against the separatist Tamil Tigers. At the symbolic level , it represented the fragmentation, or tearing apart, of the nation state and hence also the fragmentation of the individual within the body politic of Sri Linkan society. Their whole sense of personal identity is bound up with the maintenance of Sri Lankan society itself I think these kind of "culturist" arguments are quite interesting from the standpoint of building upon, or adding to, a Marxist materialist explanation for the rise of nationalism and its enduring strength in today's world. But I don't they can ever be a replacement of the latter
Under UK law, people of the Jewish and Sikh faiths are considered not just religions but racial group under the racial discrimination acts.We have Israel that defines itself not by nationality but as a "Jewish" stateHere is an article that Hindu elements in India are adopting a similar policy http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/02/24/hindu-religion-or-nationality/
Quote:‘everyone living in India is Hindu’ and that Muslims might be Muslim by religion but they are Hindus by nationality’, is yet another interpretation of Word Hindu. He said that this is Hindustan so all those living here are Hindu. Both these, Hindu is a nationality and we are Hindustan are erroneous formulations in today’s context and need to be examined from the point of view of Indian Constitution.You would have thought that the most interesting case study would be the ‘exceptional’ nation the USA. Which had been for sometime a confederation of fairly autonomous statelets. The; European emigration, 1820–1978 On its own is quite interesting; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Americans
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.