Hacker News Reader

> nationalism of any kind is one of the most pernicious scourges on humanity...That's not nationalism.

I would suggest instead of using an `-ism` just say what you mean. It just leads to needless arguments otherwise.

X are Ys. Ys believe Z. Therefore Xs believe Z.

The fallacy is that not all X's believe Z, but painting everyone with the same brush is a much easier way to channel one's anger.

You inflame the discussion when you say "whatever the flavor" and "of any kind", because there are clearly many kinds and different interpretations as exemplified in this discussion.

Also try the definition from Wikipedia:

> Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

Seems to counter your definition quite extensively, which is why I direct you back to my original suggestion.

You manage to focus on the language of the message and attempt to use that to dispel the messenger's argument without addressing it?

If we talk about the content here - what is being mentioned is the existence of a historical precedent in which those calling themselves nationalist are hateful toward the minority and supportive of selective homogeneity of the population - which is commonly accompanied with segregation, oppression, and violence.

> those calling themselves nationalist are hateful toward the minority and supportive of selective homogeneity of the population

This is a much better claim for debate because we can now review all those who self-identify as nationalist and see if they were all hateful.

But it’s a completely different topic than was posted.

>> Those 200 million Muslims who live in India and are part of the Indian nation, yet they're not Indian enough for the nationalists

What's the difference between that and a religious war then? Nationalism in the US originally meant that American Protestants were going to be Americans first and Protestants second, and American Catholics were going to be Americans first and Catholics second.

Nationalism was about putting national identity above other forms of identity. White nationalism isn't nationalism, it's just racism. Nationalism means that those people who you have nothing in common with? Well, now you have this one thing.

Not to be sound all pro-nationalist here, I'm more of a city-state guy, most problems don't need national solutions. But nationalism, at its best, is a way to combat the bigotry you are talking about, not to exacerbate it.

What does it matter what some historical US nationalist movement was going for? "Ethnic nationalism" is clearly what's gaining traction the world over, and being discussed. They use the not-unfamiliar conflation of race/religion/nationality based on some ethnic mythos, to equate patriotism with purity of a local monoculture. Is there some "true nationalist" group out there of any prominence?

This is a pretty one-sided view of nationalism. You make it sound like a unifying thing when a key point is usually creating a cohesive identity which excludes certain groups. Though it is true that much nationalism in America has been civic nationalism, which is mostly formed around citizenship and shared values (but note also the southern nationalism formed around different shared values, and the nativism starting in the middle of the 19th century). Here is a study of contemporary American nationalism: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bonikowski/files/bonikowsk...

The nationalists being talked about in the article are Hindu nationalists. They explicitly want to create a shared identity that excludes Muslims.

*Response to your edit

"That's not nationalism."

No, what follows is your definition of nationalism. From the Oxford dictionary:

Nationalism:

the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country Scottish nationalism

(sometimes disapproving) a feeling of love for and pride in your country; a feeling that your country is better than any other.

"Nationalism is the belief that the group you're part of (usually tied to some national identity myth) is superior to others, and usually goes hand-in-hand with xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism."

The rest of your argument is a straw man. Obviously anyone would denounce xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism and all the other vile actions you mention.

And please don't edit your original comment to change the context, continue the conversation down stream in the comments section.

Read the definition more closely:

"the desire by a group of people who share the same race, culture, language, etc. to form an independent country Scottish nationalism"

Emphasis on the "share the same race, culture, language, etc".

That's very different from the simple notion that nations should exist.

At the root of this are feelings of superiority to those that don't share those aspects -- the out-group -- as illustrated again and again and again by the oppression of the out-group by the in-group.

"Obviously anyone would denounce xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and fascism and all the other vile actions you mention."

Obviously not anyone, or they would not be so popular.

Ok so please enlighten me on what basis nations should form?

The whole basis of a nation is the creation of an in group and an out group.

Considering a nation is defined by its borders, I would assume land area rather than ethnic groups.

Really??? Which borders? What seperates Germany from France from Turkey? Why not throw all of them together.

Why not go all the way, and add Russia to the mix? Do you foresee this being practical in the real world?

Which takes us back to my original comment on the OP's post, whom decry'ed nationalism as evil. And me saying that statement as being too simplistic a take on reality.

It would help to explain what purpose you think borders serve.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what point you are attempting to make. You listed several nations that already exist, and then said we should lump them together for some reason? I'm not sure I follow.

"on what basis nations should form?"

Free association.

As the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

It's variety of people, customs, cultures, and opinions which make for a healthy nation, not a monoculture of brainwashed xenophobes.

>> As the inscription on the Statue of Liberty says

There is only one inscription on the Statue of Liberty, it reads "JULY IV MDCCLXXVI".

It makes me wonder: in some centuries from now (assuming humanity is still largely intact), will most people stop caring about the land mass they're born on and perhaps deliberately join a powerful organization that largely takes the place of a national identity? Kind of like MMORPG "guilds" - deeper than a company, and more voluntary than a nation. Slate Star Codex's Archipelago concept might also be of interest here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic...

If this ever does happen, how might in-group favoritism and out-group hostility change on average? I think people voluntarily self-organizing based on their preferences and principles is definitely preferable to something arbitrary foisted upon you at birth, and of course tribalism will always exist in almost any situation, but there are some interesting trade-offs to think about here.

What are the odds a hypothetical future without nationalism leads to a form of tribalism that's riskier than nationalistic tribalism? People may feel a deeper identity connection to something they've actively joined for philosophical and sociological reasons, rather than due to their GPS coordinates or what their parents believe. There could be something like (cold or hot) religious wars, except with a ton of different religions forming and changing all the time, and based on differing principles and practices instead of differing supernatural beliefs.

You could look towards the EU today for some clues. You have 27 nations of quite different cultures and socioeconomic status with free movement of labor.

I have found though that people like their country's customs and traditions a lot and are proud of the country their parents are from.

However it's true that based on how strongly held some political beliefs are, some people would identify more with those from another country with the same political beliefs than those in their own country. Same with religion. It's important then to have things they share in common so they can get along in day-to-day life whilst disagreeing about other things.

Diversity of thought and opinion is important, and I would argue thats its actually a good thing to have GPS coordinates determining a grouping, rather than letting people form groups with who they get along with best.

What is the optimal grouping of countries and politics is an interesting question to ponder. Lots of lessons can be learned from history on this such as how borders of countries were drawn during British colonialism and also after each World War.

The goal perhaps is to find the largest groups of people to put together whose political spectrums are not too wide that people can't get along with one another.

A system of laws people agree to. Many Americans clearly don’t want to live by the same set of laws and so secession is coming back again. The tribalism currently being shown is that people almost discriminate viscerally more on basis of political alignment than about race, gender, or even religion now (Catholics and Protestants aligning together in the US around any political identity is a massive shift in the political landscape of the past 200 years).

Is this even that controversial of a take?

Unfortunately, it is. Nationalism has surged in popularity across the globe, and I think they would disagree with this take. I do not think nationalism would be as popular as it is if the GP's comment was uncontroversial.

If you follow it to it's conclusion to abolish nation states and create a world level confederacy ala EU or a politically binding UN, yes very much so. Usually people try to give some defense of patriotism or "acceptable" nationalism, but in my opinion the truth is that until we have the whole planet in a multilayer jurisdiction where local problems are solved locally but there's a clear path towards escalation into global jurisdiction, nationalism will continue to fuck us.

This is an idea that I have been kicking around in my head for several years and I’m interested in learning more about it. Do you have any recommendations on writers that expound on what the world would look like without nation states?

The Project for Perpetual Peace, written in the 18th century but still timeless

https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Pe...

Super interesting thought. Seems like it would make a good book. Something like Sapiens, looking through history but with a focus on why nation states arose and fell, and then extrapolating. The EU is a great modern case study. The topic of [Federation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) is a good starting point to, because to get to world like that would involve several steps of federation, or some all-encompassing treaties.

I don't think that's necessarily the conclusion. One of the major changes after WWII is that now mostly all the Germans lived in Germany, Poles in Poland, Czechs in Czechloslovakia, French in France, etc. That seems to have led to a stable solution. Conversely, the places where ethnicity and/or religion are mixed are constant sources of strife. This conclusion leads to a lot of dark places so it is rightfully rejected on those grounds, but it does seem to work.

I mean, that observation that you need cultural homogeneity (the most charitable version) is simply wrong. Switzerland has been multi cultural for hundreds of years and continues to be so, the US hasn't seen a civil war in a similarly long time, thinking of china or india as culturally homogenous is silly and on a larger scale, the roman, byzantine and ottoman empires were stable internally over stretches from decades to centuries.

The root cause of strife isn't hetereogenity, it's lack of institutions and mechanisms to resolve strife without violence.

Why is that the conclusion? Seems an absurd reduction. Would also lead to abolishing family, which would have no real benefits.

I agree with it as a reaction to the idea that strong fences make good neighbors. Good neighbors aren't a static thing. But as an end goal reduction? Seems lacking. A strong set of nations seems to be more benefitted from all nations in the set being strong. Not in any domination.

Your solution to nationalism is a government you cannot flee from. At least with two states if one mistreats you it is possible to flee.

It is not controversial at all, among a wide swathe of the public. But I think it's wrong.

Nationalism is in-group altruism, focused on the members of a particular political unit. It has the disadvantage of excluding outsiders. We all know that this can lead to war and to hatred of outsiders. Noone can say that nationalism has no dark side.

However, the advantage of nationalism is that it is realistic. It has a focused goal: this state should be run for the benefit of the people living in it. The goal is achievable, as can be seen by the existence of modern nation-states with features like democracy, written constitutions, law courts and social welfare.

An alternative to nationalism is internationalism. That sounds better: nobody is excluded! But internationalism, like the Pope, has no battalions. It has few existing, global institutions that can be used to get things done. Some people think we should push for more such institutions, maybe by empowering the UN. Others reasonably reply that a world government might easily become a world tyranny. Others used to believe that international socialism, and the workers of the world, might provide the "battalions". The twentieth century showed that to be a dangerous dead end.

In the absence of those institutions, internationalism tends to devolve into hot air. If you disagree, and think of yourself as an internationalist, ask yourself how much of your money you have spent helping the world as a whole. If it's less than 1%, I accuse you - no offence - of talking hot air. By contrast, I pay large amounts of taxes to my nation's government. I have to (which is a good thing), but even voluntarily, I do things like voting, which helps keep democracy going.

In short, nationalism is the only system of widespread altruism that actually works.

“Nationalism is the only system of widespread altruism that works” sounds a lot like “the horse and buggy is the only system of long distance transportation that actually works”.

Sure, if you invent the automobile, tell me about it. I've said why I think the alternatives are inferior.

This ignores some forms of religion. A fairly old cross national system. Complete with is own set of problems.

Yup, that's an excellent point. Religion invokes various kinds of altruism - often though not always limited to the in-group - and it clearly "works" in some sense and has survived for millennia. I guess it's hard to recommend religion to someone on that basis though, because that is not the basis that religion recommends itself on. You can't become a Christian because you think (like Rodney Stark) that Christians are very helpful to each other. You can only be a Christian by accepting Christ as your personal saviour.

"Accepting" the belief of a religion is far less friction than moving to a place. Not even comparable to having been born there. :D

> It has the disadvantage of excluding outsiders

And pacifists (see leon Blum in 1914).

And people who generally don't agree or arn't part of the national imagination, but nevertheless are part of the nation (southern USSR around WW2?).

In general the nationalism of the general population is easy to exploit for people who don't care and have the power to do so.

Your problem is that modern "nationalist" movements do not have the goal of "this state should be run for the benefit of the people living in it".

It's "this state should be run for the benefit of <ethnic group>, and anyone else should be purged". It's about ethnic groups, not citizenship.

Well sure, but that is a bit of a simplistic take on the matter.

If you could trust in the goodness and decency of external actors, or if all of humanity was super-rational, then there would be no need for nationalism or perhaps even nation states.

But humanity is not super rational, politicians will use sentiments including nationalism to gain power, and just wishing it away will not make it so that all humans suddenly become trustworthy or super rational, thus the need for nationalism and nation states to bring about a hopefully stable balance of power.

What would you do if you provide shelter during a downpour to some people? And instead of thanking and trying to integrate (and understand) the way you live in your home, these people start thinking that they own your home and YOU should be the one who should be tolerant of their actions.

You even cook food for them and provide them a safe space. They insist on getting particular cuisines and criticize you for being closed-minded if you don't know how to cook individual dishes. They find books in your home which do not align with their thought bubble, so they start tearing them (or burning them). They find rooms which they find do not follow the "correct" architectural patterns, so they proceed to "renovate" your rooms and windows. They see your taste in art absurd, so they take markers and start scribbling over the paintings on the wall. They start forcing you and your relatives to do a particular set of actions because, according to them, that's the "right" way to live.

What/When will be your tipping point? (if any).

Contrast this to a situation where those people realise the rules of the house, and just change themselves to integrate and live peacefully or realise the failure in doing so and just leave.

Will you think that the rules in living my house are somehow "superior" ? Of course no. These are just some set of rules and ideals which makes the most sense for you. There is no value proposition on the superiority of one rule being better than another. Just whatever works for YOU.

"What would you do if you provide shelter during a downpour to some people? And instead of thanking and trying to integrate (and understand) the way you live in your home, these people start thinking that they own your home and YOU should be the one who should be tolerant of their actions."

This is a fantasy.

The people who "refuse to integrate" are usually marginalized and oppressed, and have no realistic future in the society that insisting that they "integrate".

Not to mention that "integration" usually means losing one's own historical, religious, and ethnic identity, from language to customs, which those people in the majority who insist that minorities should integrate would themselves be outraged by if they had to give up their own identities in the same way.

People who are all gung-ho about integration rarely have even the faintest idea of what it's like to live long-term as an immigrant or an outsider in a society very different from their own. They think it's a piece of cake to integrate. They should give it a try themselves sometime in a radically different place and see how they like it.

Yet many immigrants do just that, if not by the first generation, then in later generations when their children forget the old ways and do anything to fit in, and yet that's not enough for the bigots and xenophobes (ie. nationalists). They have to be of "pure blood" down to the nth generation (especially ironic in the US where virtually everyone descends from immigrants of not so very long ago).

If your analogy held true, we would all be here in America imitating a native American culture. My guess is that isn't the culture you are advocating should be adopted by your house guests.

Your house rules aren't better than anyone else s. Some people believe that the rights of the individual should come before the rights of any group, because everyone is an individual.