Michael Lumish
There is much dislike for "nationalism" on the progressive-left because -- due to World War II and the Nazis -- they generally equate it with fascism.
But what we call nationalism is the basis of the modern international system usually attributed by historians to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
So, how would a world without nation-states -- which is to say, without nationalism -- function? I can think of two possibilities, although surely there must be others.
One would be an international series of anarchist groupings, small independent townships and farming communities. Sort of like a world made up of an endless series of kibbutzim. The likelihood of any such thing emerging is virtually zero and hardly something that would benefit humanity.
The other alternative is considerably worse. It would mean a one-world government, presumably executed by the United Nations. In other words, the result would be global authoritarianism.
Those of you calling for open borders are calling for precisely that because nations do not exist with open borders. Nations are defined geographically precisely by borders.
If you can think of any other alternatives beyond the nation-state, I would love to hear.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, PhD, proprietor. (mike.lumish@gmail.com)
Yes, it was something like 10 years ago when I first learned of the European (left's) certainty that Nationalism by its very nature inevitably gave rise to Nazism, that the nation state itself was the problem, and that the EU, a centralized superstructure that eventually erases borders for everyone's own good, was a cure for that "woeful" state of affairs. I thought, "Wow! That's a BIG mistake, (and a good enough reason for them to hate Israel, while never bringing up the idea that it would make their cherished cause, a "palestinian" state, problematic. See the proclamations of the late purportedly anti-nation state guru, Tony Judt.)." The European left was quite effective in pushing this idea, and now it has been imported to our shores. I would just note that the Nazis had a rather bellicose disdain for the nation state, at least everyone else's nation state, seeing as how they launched themselves into the empire business, swallowing up whole countries (aka nation states) on behalf of the Reich (or Empire). HELLO!
ReplyDeleteBut sheep, aside from saying ba'a'a, follow.
Note: "for everyone's own good" was tongue in cheek.
DeleteRule by Doodad. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
ReplyDeleteI thought the cider house rules. Silly me!
DeleteSome Democrats do get it:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy5AZ_MTv4Q
Carl Benjamin, Akkad Daily
Heather Mac Donald believes she has the facts on her side and she hates idiocy. I'm with her.
ReplyDeleteHere she is with Dave Rubin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz65wQocIYs&list=TLPQMTQwMjIwMjDP8She-eEtkg&index=1
Alternatives to the nation-state? I think pretty much everything else has been tried. That's how we wound up with the nation-state, no?
Hold on. Don't get rid of t just yet.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkTgBz9RYls
Mike,
Niall Ferguson currently lives in your neck of the woods.