Mine (and Your) Nationalism

[Vlerchan]

People might remember a while back I began a thread asking about the reasons behind people's support for nationalism. I've since decided to incorporate nationalist - well, it revolves around multiple levels of identification, nationalism being one - thought into my worldview having arrived at the conclusion that nationalism is the most effective tool for binding people together in an environment that is both anti-statist and market-based but orientated towards anti-capitalism (market socialism) and communitarianism.

I'm creating this thread for people to discuss their own nationalism and the reasons that these people hold nationalist worldviews. I'm also seeking help with conceptualising my own nationalist-based worldview.

---

The first issue I have is considering a basis for nationalism that makes sense in-line with what I'm proposing, i.e., that compliments rather than contradicts the radical feminist, social liberalism, etc. points that I hold. Irish nationalism has historically been characterised by virulent anti-British imperialism, but being otherwise internationalist in its outlook, Catholicism, general anti-Modernism, and left-wing economic values. Since partition it has also held irredentist views surrounding the reclamation of the six Northern counties. I oppose most of this, which more or less involves recreating the basis of Irish nationalist identification.

I view the nation-state as being redundant in-face of increasing globalisation, being unable to act as an effective vehicle for the nation's interests without an undesirable disengagement from world markets. This is the basis I use to reject irredentism (and, so anti-British imperialism), i.e., wanting to unite Ireland at a political-level: it just doesn't matter. This is also the basis I use to accept pan-Europeanism based around the stable political culture common to European democracies, seeing as Europe happens to be powerful enough combined-economic base to retain relative autonomy within markets, lending itself to policy-making capabilities more reflective of people's, as opposed to market's, interests.

Within this context I see scope for 'various' Irish Nationalism with their respective local characteristics. Strong respect is paid to the local identities of people (i.e., the parish's) but these local identities all reflect an overarching Irish nationalist structure to some considerable extent. This is conducted in a similar vein to how Irish nationalism - and German nationalism and French nationalism - might all exist within the ideal of pan-European identification, i.e., sharing that political culture.

For obvious reasons - well, at least for those who know my posting - I reject the Catholicism and anti-Modernism of Irish nationalism in favour of different set of values. But this leaves me with my actual dilemma. What am I supposed to base Irish nationalism gone: I've rejected historical antagonisms, territorial integrity, and a high culture (that was unravelling anyway). At the moment, I'm considering [1] homage to a shared conception of history, [2] homage to the arts, [3] homage to some more indistinctive, and potentially mythically, ideal of 'Irishness'. But that's the main reason I created this thread, I'm looking for inspiration from others as to what forms the binding force of their nationalism.

[Living For Love]

This sentence defines what nationalism is for me:

You can't take care of something properly if you don't love it.

Nationalism isn't about thinking your country is better than the others, it's just about valuing your own cultural identity and respecting the country in which your were born in (even though no one should be forced to like their country, obviously).

[Microcosm]

Tiago answered this well, I think.

Different people would be nationalistic for different reasons. I think in America it has become part of redneck culture to be a nationalist blowhard for the USA. For me, I don't consider myself a nationalist. However, if I ever moved to a smaller country that I just really loved I might be. If I moved to Norway, which is a rad place to live I think, then I'd probably be nationalist in that I support their ideas by which their government is run.

[phuckphace]

I know you aren't going to like this but I'll start out by noting that I see several base requirements that must first be met to qualify as "authentic" nationalism.

- it is inherently non-democratic, i.e. nationalism cannot be voted out of existence after the populace is steered away from nationalist goals by demagogues.
- it is inherently anti-capitalist, socialist and pro-worker (duh). capitalism and its bedmate internationalism (sorry) are nation-destroyers.
- it is inherently ethnonationalistic. when I hear the term "Irish" I think of a specific group of people with a specific culture and history, associated with the geographical region called Ireland, experienced by them in a way unique to them. if I were to take the Irish people and swap them out for, say, Hawaiians, the latter wouldn't magically become Irish by virtue of being dropped into Ireland, nor would the culture remain recognizably Irish for any length of time. so obviously, no to non-Euro immigration (a slower version of the above) and if we simply *must* take in immigrants, Germans only. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart-3?fsrc=rss) (Arbeit macht frei!)

some notes on the above points:

I distinguish between "hard" and "soft" (hah) ethnonationalism. the former has been tried several times and as you are aware did more harm than good. my own variant of "soft" ethnonationalism respects basic human rights, i.e. reversing immigration trends by mass deportation rather than concentration camps. "Nationalism for everyone" is the rule of thumb here.

I've also lately taken on somewhat of an internationalist stance wrt nationalist movements, which might seem contradictory and it might very well be. but my logic is that world-capitalism could be defeated much more quickly if successful nationalist movements worked to support nationalism in other countries, kind of like how the USSR boosted Marxism around the world during its existence. a major hindrance in this area would seem to be that we've a hundred different variants of "nationalism" running around but only a couple seem worth the bother. :(

anything beginning with the term "radical" is probably going to be diametrically opposed to nationalism in any workable form, just a guess there. I also don't see any feminist alive buying into nationalism at all.

[Vlerchan]

I know you aren't going to like this[.]
But that's the fun.

it is inherently non-democratic, i.e. nationalism cannot be voted out of existence after the populace is steered away from nationalist goals by demagogues.
It's hard to respond to this without first understanding what 'nationalist goals' refer to. I question the spirit of the claim regardless. It would seem to me that authentic nationalism - one orientated about the will of the popular masses as opposed to elite - should create scope for the de-construction and re-construction of the nationalist agenda - being the organic expression of the nation itself.

However the major issue is that here dictatorship acts as a safeguard against post-nationalist forces but these forces arrive after the de-nationalisation of communities. In that case the war has been lost regardless of whether or not the now-despots hold power. So - from this - I think maintaining nationalists communities should take precedence over maintaining nationalist power.

- it is inherently anti-capitalist, socialist and pro-worker (duh). capitalism and its bedmate internationalism (sorry) are nation-destroyers
Internationalism presumes nations - and nationalism - exists so there's no reason to believe it leads to nationalism destruction. That's something that most people seem to misunderstand. The antithesis of nationalism is globalism - and of the antithesis of internationalism is isolationism or expansionism. You have Marxists who happened to be nationalists - like James Connolly - for that reason.

The point of the nationalism I hold is to organise labour on a local and national level within an internationalist - or at least pan-Europeanist - framework. I started with this framework and worked backwards no nationalism. Given this I think it's best to just agree to disagree - because the issue lies at something a lot more fundamental.

when I hear the term "Irish" I think of a specific group of people with a specific culture and history, associated with the geographical region called Ireland, experienced by them in a way unique to them. if I were to take the Irish people and swap them out for, say, Hawaiians, the latter wouldn't magically become Irish by virtue of being dropped into Ireland, nor would the culture remain recognizably Irish for any length of time.
Of course this isn't how Irish nationalism views itself in general. It maintains linkage to a distinct Irish culture but has been quite fine to integrate outsides - and large numbers at that: these were invasion forces. The Normans became "more Irish than the Irish themselves" and the English planters - for the most part: The North excluded - fell into our ranks. Lots of our most famous nationalists weren't of original Irish descent - or at all in some cases. Wolfetone - Yeats - Hyde - Childers - and DeValera himself was an Irish-American (as born in the US to Irish and Hispanic immigrants). Irish nationalism - at a historical level - has not been based in ancestral heritage as much as a common cultural anchorage.

Even the link to the island isn't essential given the extent that the Irish diaspora has managed in the creation of Irish nationalism. Though I am going to agree that Irish nationalism does hold a link to the island as being a symbol of the nationalist struggle.

Regardless as I think I've mentioned before: two of our three main parties have nationalist agenda. As far as I'm aware neither have ever called for a reduction in immigration because this idea of exclusion from the Irish nation has never quited resonated with the Irish nation itself.

but my logic is that world-capitalism could be defeated much more quickly if successful nationalist movements worked to support nationalism in other countries
I don't see this as being a contradiction at all.

Least of all since that could be argues to be in the national interest.

anything beginning with the term "radical" is probably going to be diametrically opposed to nationalism in any workable form, just a guess there. I also don't see any feminist alive buying into nationalism at all.
I know a woman who happens to be a 'hard' ethnonationalist - and supports totalitarianism and racialism and Japan's policies leading up to and during WWII - and is also a radical feminist. Granted it's a more fascistic take on radical feminism - but outside some structural issues we find agreement.

I would also consider her quite intelligent - one of the most profound posters I've come across - if the word of mine is worth much.

---

On a question - and considering the below - what's an American and what's the basis of American nationalism?

---

If I moved to Norway, which is a rad place to live I think, then I'd probably be nationalist in that I support their ideas by which their government is run.
This take on nationalism is something that's unique to people from the US as far as I'm aware. The term I use to describe it is 'constitutional patriotism' where glorification of the political and government action replaces emphasis on an actual nation.

You can be sure a Norwegian nationalist would emphasise her countries cultural and historical heritage.

This doesn't mean I think you're wrong. I just find it peculiar.