Is Nationalism A Good Thing?

A little pride can encourage us all to take chances we never would and to even become better people, but without honesty and a willingness to examine the Big Picture, pride goeth before the fall.

 

associating yourself with a name a political process has given to a place, there is some point to this?

if it is about altruistically associating yourself with something greater then yourself,
why not something less limited, like an entire planet's biosphere, a galaxy or a universe?

 

Pride can only have meaning, for those who comprehend the true value of paying it forward.

 

"paying it forward" to me, involves creating and exploring, and at least an acceptance, if not absolute infatuation, with logic, consideration, honesty and imagination.

 

Paying it forward has no meaning in a social species, without intimacy.

 

intimacy is an option, not the nature of the universe in which we exist.

 

Ok so the original poster seems to have run away, presumably he has learned that Nationalism isn’t that good an idea and has changed his views about it.

 

The need for globalism

It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism).

People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status.

But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

So what we are getting in is the dismantling of the distributive system in the developed countries while in some developing countries the conditions resemble what was happening in the west before people’s struggle to get rid of exploitation (the fire in Bangladesh that killed over a thousand factory workers comes to mind).

So what can be done well as James K Galbriath has argued –

We must confront the global inequality crisis. For this, we must, in the final analysis, raise real wages in the countries with which our workers compete, expand their markets for our goods, and reduce their pressure on our wage structure”

To me what neoliberal inspired right wingers seem to be aiming for is for a few to be able to exploit the many more easily across the globe.

I think we need to fight again for social balance but this time it has to be global. To counter the economic globalisation that has already taken place we need social globalisation to be brought in, and that means social global governance to counter the already in place economic global governance.

 

I doubt that : p

 

But nationalism can come in many forms/degrees. One can be proud of one's country yet still care and strive for global equality.
It's like with neopaganism. It isn't dubious on itself at all. It just happens to be so that a certain amount of people with racist convictions will be attracted to it, has use for it and/or happens to identify with it. Same with nationalism. But nationalism on itself isn't always bad.
By the same logic globalism can be counterproductive. Like, 'as long as its done with good intention its all good'. Well no, far from always. Lots of people with nationalistic tendencies also have them out of good intention

 

Asmo

I can only point to the post in which i say "And that is why I think nationalism is more likely to turn ugly than not"

 

I think those are the nationalists that get the most attention. Nationalists seem to primarily be a group (or better said a label) for people who are proud of their country and/or want it to be politically independent.
At first instance a nationalist can be for a multicultural society just fine. I agree; we regularly see it differently. But that doesn't mean nationalism sucks by definition and in all forms

 

Neither should be an ultimate goal. They're both means to get somewhere

 

No alliances, no 'world war' after that assasination. Change my mind!

How are Joshua Tree or I rewriting history here btw?

 

Asmo

But what form of Nationalism does not try to create a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history?

Multiculturalism makes that difficult

As to political independence how far does that go and how is it reflected? I mean in cultural terms should all people that speak a common language have independence from each other, what about people of differant religions.

 

I am not up to speed on my world history and so can't comment on World War I. But I said it before and I'll say it again, this is a hate group fixated on eliminating minorities from Britain, I think it's balderdash and ethnocentrism, and I am certainly in opposition.

 

@Balbus
I'm mostly thinking of nationalistic individuals. I just know too many that see our multicultural society as an inherent part of our nation. So I feel obliged to point out it simply can be and regularly is compatible.

 

What is a hate group? British nationalism in general? Are they against all ethnic or culturally different minorities and for what reason? If the reason for a lot of them is not their ethnicity, culture or religion but mainly about jobs can we really say its a hate group unified in ethnic/cultural/religious discrimination? Or is that generalizing.

 

Asmo

Sorry it might be just me but I haven’t meet anyone that describes themselves as a Nationalist that has been happy with multiculturalism they mainly complain about people not 'assimilating' enough.

I love Britain but I don’t call myself a nationalist and I also realise the country has a problem with people that do.

 

I actually agree with this to an extent and was going to make a similar point

But again on the flipside, the ugly side of nationalism, something that I see in the US a lot (because I can only speak for my own country) is a certain group of people who wish to exclude other certain people from the national identity. They don't leave room for muslims, hispanics, etc etc. They make thinly veiled racist comments about how "they" are destroying "our" way of life, as if the life of America hasn't always been tied to immigrants and the coming together of many cultures.

And I think this is the crux of why I'm against nationalism - because who gets to decide what the national identity actually is? And what of the people who are not included in that definition? There IS a sort of supremacist movement tied into defining an identity, be it racist or whatever else, because there's no way a single identity can encapsulate all people. And those who think they have the power to define the identity have already determined their culture and their identity is better than "the others"