Is nationalism a uniquely conservative political phenomena? Seemingly all nationalist regimes in world history have had socially conservative ethical values. Even when their economic agendas are often left-leaning the statement holds.
therefore; conservatism -> nationalism -> statism?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Nationalism started as a left-wing, anti-monarchic movement. Modern Scottish and Catalan nationalism are also left-wing.
nationalism as a concept doesn't mean what you think it does. It arose in the 19th century during the british empire who wrote that all peoples of the world have a right to belong to their own country, rather than be ruled by an Emperor. A uniquely leftist position, being the overthrowing of the dominon of a Monarch and a popular revolution in the name.
>Is nationalism a uniquely conservative political phenomena?
Nope
Nationalism is a modern meme created to justify the fake nation states
Stalinism was pretty conservative and anti-revolutionary
t. trotskytite
Nationalism is seen as leftist in the third world.
All countries are nationalist by default since all countries are gigantic tribes looking for resources only for them.
Nationalism started out left wing as this user said. The old order held that the state was founded upon the patrimony of the king, with the people being like furniture that came with the lands which the king/state owned. Nationalism which broke out in the Spring of Nations 1848 revolutions saw the state as being primarily made up of/by/for the people.
Right so countries formed by nationalism like Italy and Germany are memes but the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires were natural countries with natural borders
>the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires were natural countries with natural borders
Imperial Monarchies didn't claim so.
For them, the definition of their countries is literally "everyone who is subject to and loyal to the X Dynasty." It is also understood to be maintained by force.
Meanwhile, in Nation states.
>DUDE WE ARE A NATION, ITS NATURAL TO BAND TOGETHER! IGNORE DIVISIONS LIKE RELIGION, CULTURE, AND SUCH!
Nations formed by nationalism were formed because people shared a nationality.
Italy was formed because everyone who lived in it was catholic who spoke Italian.
Germany was formed because everyone who lived in it spoke German.
Empires are artificial because they ruled over totally separate nationalities held together by the stability of the ruling government and the strength of it's military forces.
Also the fact you claim cultural divides make nation-states a meme means you have no grasp of nationalism and nation-states themselves.
>Nations formed by nationalism were formed because people shared a nationality.
Funny how they have to be hammered in.
>Empires are artificial because they ruled over totally separate nationalities held together by the stability of the ruling government and the strength of it's military forces.
Like I said: Empires never claimed to be natural. Their power is pure de Facto.
The only thing resembling claims of "naturalness" among them is shit like universalist rhetoric like Divine Right, or unifier of a certain world religion, but most of the time it rests on "I can protect you and fuck up your enemies.."
>hammered in
Unlike an empire right
Nationalism was a major movement all over the world, from British India in the 20th century to Geribaldi's redshirts. It was a powerful movement because so many people believed in it, and were willing to contest the old order.
I'd like you to find me a movement of people that wanted their nation to be controlled by a foreign empire willingly.
Is the old left wing nationalism really any different from the Trumpian nationalism of today? Both were born out of this idea that the people, the average joe, should rule over his own country, that the people of a country have a right to self determination, rather than an elite class beyond borders who see the countries and the people in them as nothing more than pieces on the chess board. With the elites once being high ranking noble families and the ones of today being international corporations+another elitist political class
>Unlike an empire right
Yes, and?
This was my point: Empires were more honest. Nation-states meanwhile bluster on about how they were natural, because speaking some language or belonging to an ethnic group apparently means you should ignore existing ties and loyalties and join this totally natural thing they're trying to make.
>Literally waving Indian Nationalism as an example
You have no idea what a clusterfuck that is. A clusterfuck that remains a problem to this fucking day.
Take Europe and tell every state, culture, religion, and ethnicities in Europe that they belong to a single nation. You now have an equivalent of the mess that is India.
>Blunder on
Except they're right, people should be ruled by people of the same nationality. Why should a foreign emperor rule over other nationalities.
Sorry pal but willingly forming a nation for a common culture is more natural than being ruled by some despot from a far away capital who doesn't speak a word of your language.
You can say whatever you want, but a nation made for a specific nationality will always be more natural than an empire.
Nationalism/Conservatism/Traditionalism comes out of a disgust reaction that humans have for things that have negative long-term consequences for their family's reproductive chances. Sodomy deteriorates the immune system and spreads disease, polygamy creates social disorder and limits the access to reproduction, racemixing dissolves social homogeneity and creates a decline in social cohesion and in some cases a decline in intelligence or other important traits, bastardization and single motherhood creates dysfunctional children, etc.
Regardless if you agree that those are true, that's the origin of it; it's a process similar to that Democrats/Anarchists/Socialists go through get when they want to redistribute things to make their reproductive outcomes equally likely to people of higher stature/quality.
Liberal/Libertarian/Bourgeois strategy is to buy reproduction; not that difficult to understand.
Their political ideologies are expressions of their reproductive strategies.
He's right though. Most modern nations weren't "natural" creations, and were typically forced through bloodshed and oppression (France, Germany, and Italy spring readily to mind in regards to groups of people that spoke different languages, had different cultures, or just didn't want to play ball with this whole "nation" thing). There's nothing inherently "natural" about them, and they're never an entirely voluntary construct. In practice, they're not really much different from an empire, just with different rhetoric.
Because to people of the past, loyalty to a dynasty was really a big fucking deal?
People didn't follow kings because they were cucks. The Dynasty represented for many a unifying force that transcends ethnic divisions.
This is why many empires looked down against nationalists. To them they were people who just want to be special for the sake of being so and promoted ethnic violence.
Which Ironically is exactly what happened in this glorious age of nations.
I consider nationalism a far more justifiable cause than imperialism though.
Why though? If you're suppressing someone who speaks a different language to maintain state authority over a particular patch of land, what difference does it make if you're doing it to create a "nation" or if you're doing it on the basis of Imperial authority? Aside from the former being much less honest.
He's not wrong though. Stalin was pretty socially conservative compared to other Bolsheviks.
Conservatism, statism and traditionalism were associated with monarchism.
In an nation state, that person will speak the same language as you, and identify with the same nation as you.
Quite often a nation state is formed to prevent imperial authority being established. Why should a Czech pay taxes to fund Austrian Imperialism rather than pay taxes to fund the Czech army to defend the Czechs themselves.
The nation exists independent of the nation-state
Empires looked down on Nationalists because they weren't willing to pay taxes to a foreign government that primarily served the interest of the ruling nationality
Yeah, but what if there are people with a different language and a different culture living on land that is also shared with people that speak your language and share you culture? Say the first group doesn't want to play ball with your nation-state. What then?
Hogwash.
>Is nationalism a uniquely conservative political phenomena?
No, case in point the bloody Nazis.
>a highly socially conservative regime is a counterpoint
Did you not read the OP?
>Hogwash.
What do you think and ethnic group is you retard? Why did the Austro-Hungarian empire break apart along national lines? Why did they insist on population transfers and divisions based on ethnicity? It was just an accident?
"Dude nations don't exist bro, its all just violence"
Then a natural nation states creates a border that contains only the people that belong to that nationality. Often that separate group may only represent a tiny minority of the population.
>Why did the Austro-Hungarian empire break apart along national lines?
WWI.
>What is Chavismo?
>speaking some language or belonging to an ethnic group apparently means you should ignore existing ties and loyalties
If you have no ties and loyalty to people of your ethnic group and that speak your own language there's something very wrong with you. Especially in the XIXth century, before globalization.
lmaooooo kys you modal dilettante
>What do you think and ethnic group is you retard?
An ethnic group. An often fuzzy construct of anthropology without a concrete basis in reality.
>Why did the Austro-Hungarian empire break apart along national lines?
Because that was the most efficient way to administer the remaining territories.
>Why did they insist on population transfers and divisions based on ethnicity?
Practicality.
>It was just an accident?
No. It just had a pragmatic political reason behind it, rather than representing some idiotic notion of a transcendent nation.
>natural nation states
Oxymoron. You also didn't answer my question.
>Ethinc groups aren't real lmao
Also i did answer your question, learn to read.
How is two population groups having a mutually unintelligible language "a fuzzy construct of anthropology without a concrete basis in reality."
Well then why didn't it break up before?
What's your argument? "LOL IT WOULD'VE BROKEN UP BY ITSELF?" Well tough shit, we didn't see that happen now, do we? The war broke it up. Just as the war broke the German and Ottoman Empires up.
It was held together by force by the dominate ethnic group; it wasn't a nation-state you retard.
Literally kys lmaooo
>If you have no ties and loyalty to people of your ethnic group and that speak your own language there's something very wrong with you.
>Laughing_arabs.jpg
>Laughing_chinese.png
"lmao, let's ignore religious, tribal, clannish, political, affiliations and just band together coz we rook same."
>It was held together by force by the dominate ethnic group
Dominant dynasty.
Even the German nationalists bitched about the Habsburgs m8.
Yeah when they wanted to create a German nation-state, not when they were extracting rents from Poles and Serbians
Irish nationalism is also left wing. Panslavism and pangermanism started as left wing, but turned into right wing once the monarchies of Russia and Prussia respectively exploited it.
I wouldn't call the nazis conservative, if anything they were syncretic and almost universally centrist. They were too modernist to be reactionary/conservative, too reactionary to be progressive, too capitalist to be socialists, too socialist to be liberals, etc. The only thing they were "extreme" in were racial doctrines - and if anything, racialism was considered progressive for a long time if you know anything about the movement.
But you didn't. You just asserted that your nation wouldn't include such a group, or that such a group would be tiny. But both are just dodging the question. As we can see with the separatist movements throughout the world, that the question isn't that simple.
They might have literally nothing else in common, or might only speak the same language due to necessities of trade, or being subject to an imperial rule.
Religion and politics mostly follow ethnic limes you dimwit
>confusing the words dominant and dominate
Ameriblob detected. And Austria-Hungary had nothing to do with ethnic dominance, Hitler himself loathed them because like half the aristocracy in the empire were Czechs.
I've been thinking about it. I don't think nationalism itself is bad, in fact it's a great concept, but nazism itself is bad because all it is a reactionary movement toward leftism. It doesn't have anything interesting to say and it was just a fake culture, that's why the art behind it was so shit and they were taking symbols that had nothing to do with their movement (like the swatiska)
I mean, think about religious symbols, they stay in the human consciousness because they actually represent something. The Jewish star of David represents the interconnected nature of the Jewish people and the impossibility of them being spiritually separated from one another. The Christian Cross represents Jesus's sacrifice to atone for mankind. The Islamic moon and star represents Islam's goal of uniting the various Middle East's and beyond's tribes under one goal.
This is why a lot of neo nazi's or neo nazi sympathizers actually dislike the use of the swatiska because when they used it, it had no real meaning, and over time, it's come to mean a sign of brutality and death to anyone who isn't German ethnically.
>Religion and politics mostly follow ethnic limes you dimwit
Yes, just like how all Chinese are communist and would love to go back to the Mainland.
Or like how all Arabs are Sunnis.
If there are different nationalities within the borders of a nation that desire independence, then it's not a natural nation state.
But if the nationality that belongs to the nation-state exists as the majority of the population, then it belongs as part of that nation, no matter how unruly a minority can be.
So what exactly makes this suppression of this ethnic group any different from an Imperial suppression?
Finnish nationalism was left wing also, though not communist.
Also, bonus round: what do you when you have a group of people that speak that same language who don't want to play ball with your nation idea?
Left wing meant just "liberal" pretty much until Lenin.
Most modern political philosophies go back to the revolutionary era.
Conservatives seek to preserve the new social order that came out of the revolutions
populous seek to protect the perceived interests of the folk against foreign and elitist threats
progressives seek to continue advancing the concept of equality that arose
libertarians seek to continue advancing the concept of liberty that arose.
Because if the land was given to the minority population, it would be minority rule and oppressive of the majority.
It is more just for the majority to rule.
Imperial suppression is when an empire ruled by a nationality that doesn't inhabit those lands rules them anyway.
Compare people of the same nationality that wanted to leave the nation state formed by them with those that wanted to leave imperial rule.
The tension will always be far far less than that of a multi-ethnic empire.
Can you find an ethnic group that doesn't have an organization dedicated to retaining or establishing their sovereignty?
Habsburgs didn't give a single fuck about ethnicity and they hated German nationalism just like any other nationalism. Habsburg empire was based on the principle of absolutism and strong Catholicism, not German ethnicity. They pretty much thought nationalists are all just liberal hipster fuckwits, and they were right.
Germans, Austrians, and Swiss speak mostly the same language. The Swiss have no interest in being part of a "German" nation, and Austria had to be annexed to become part of Germany.
Yes, but Finnish Nationalists were mainly social democrat, so not necessary liberal either.
>The tension will always be far far less than that of a multi-ethnic empire.
As an empire, Rome outlasted any modern-day nation state.
Also you have this weird, idealized image in your head of the formation of nation-states, ignoring the suppression of regional dialects and cultures that went on with the formation of many.
Only due to how new nationalism is compared to the timescale of the Roman empire, the stability of the nation-state is to how unwilling people in it want to secede from it.
I can't say that the forming of nation states was clean and innocent, but I can say that when it comes to 'being natural' and being justified, nationalism and nation-states still trumps imperialism.
France was multiethnic as fuck with Occitans, Normans, Bretons and whatnot, and the French state just assimilated them into French. Same thing happened in America.
But neither is intrinsically natural or justified, both just rest on might.
But in regions such as Japan, Italy, and Germany, the regional cultures were far smaller, often just regional dialects.
Except that a nation-state can continue to exist without requiring military rule to prevent citizens of the same nationality and culture forming new nations, at least a lot better than an empire.
>Japan, Italy, and Germany, the regional cultures were far smaller, often just regional dialects.
Are you a literal retard or just an average American?
>Except that a nation-state can continue to exist without requiring military rule to prevent citizens of the same nationality and culture forming new nations, at least a lot better than an empire.
But every nation-state has a military and sustains its existence through military force? Do you think the combined force of police and military have nothing to do with a nation's ability to hold itself together and avoid splinting into tribal kingdoms, city-states, or what have you?
not an argument
You could say the differences between Serbs and Croatians are even smaller yet they genocided each other. Anyway, cultural assimilation almost always works as long as we're talking about white people. America is a good example of this. In other words, the difference between a Spaniard and a Pole is primarily cultural, while the difference between a Spaniard and a Nigerian is primarily biological.
Ok pal I forgot that England, Germany, and Italy are literally struggling to prevent being broken up into regional clans
Serbs and Croats speak a significantly language, one could not understand the other. And for your other sentences, I don't see how this refutes anything I'm saying
t. American
Claiming that the regional differences between different parts of the German cultures is just "dialect" shows that you know fuck all about what you're talking about.
The entire bitchfest over Protestant VS Catholics that never fucking ended is just the tip of the ice berg of their differences. But that's how you American operate, if two people look the same and speak something that sound similar they must be automatically exactly the same, fuck thousands of years of history and incomparable culture & world view.
Serbian and Croatian is literally the same language you dumb fucking retard.
You know Prussia and Bavaria had themselves a nice little spat over that whole German nationalism business, right?
>one could not understand each other
Retard.
>And for your other sentences, I don't see how this refutes anything I'm saying
I wasn't trying to affirm or refute anything you said. I'm just saying multiculturalism works with white people but doesn't work with niggers.
Obviously this
>*tips fedora*
>Ok pal I forgot that England, Germany, and Italy are literally struggling to prevent being broken up into regional clans
The United Kingdom is a multi-ethnic state ruled by a constitutional monarchy. Germany had several wars on its road to nationalism, and is composed of several different ethnic states. Italy was composed of city-states that also had to have several wars towards unification. Military force was, is, and shall continue to be a component of what holds these countries together.
>Serbs and Croats speak a significantly language, one could not understand the other.
It's literally the same fucking language you retarded fuck I better understand people from Belgrade than I understand some retards from Hvar.Or Slovenes.
Just because our retarded government reeeeeees about muh different languages it doesn't change reality.
t. a fucking Croat
>multiculturalism
Meant ethnic assimilation, my bad.
Literally the only difference between Croat and Serb language is the accent.
No they're not
And yet Bavaria still agreed to unification and have not yet had a serious secession conflict
>united kingdom is multi-ethnic
>armed forces are stationed in every city in Germany and Britain to stop everyone forming a new nation
This is your last reply, do with it what you will
My bad sorry
>and Italy are literally struggling to prevent being broken up into regional clans
Northern & Southern Italians literally hate each other and there are constantly people who believe that Italy should split up and Tyrol wants to go back to Austria.
Americans should be banned from talking about Europe.
>No they're not
en.wikipedia.org
North Korea, and a lot of anti imperialist movements were marked as left wing Nationalistic movements.
More examples
IRA
Vietnam
>Conservatives seek to preserve the new social order that came out of the revolutions
Wrong. The left-right paradigm came out of the revolutions in the form of right-wing (conservative) monarchists and left-wing (liberal) enlightenment thinkers. Conservatism has always been opposed to liberalism and the enlightenment. The founding fathers would have referred to themselves as liberals, not conservatives.
But there won't be an attempt at secession or a revolt anytime soon. There wont be an armed uprising, nor will a secessionist political party win elections or a referendum,
>And yet Bavaria still agreed to unification and have not yet had a serious secession conflict
>what is Kulturkampf?
Please user just....just read a book please for the love of god don't get your informations from /pol/ memes please.
BECAUSE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS A FUCKING MILITARY THAT SUSTAINS THE COUNTRY THOUGH MILITARY FORCE
YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS MUCH OF A DENSE FUCKING FAGGOT CAN YOU!?!?
Oh but because they don't station soldiers on every street corner to make sure people are minding themselves, their military clearly has no role in sustaining the existence of their nation state.
Language is a weak determinant of ethnic compatibility at best. For instance, most Americans speak English and yet the country has some of the least cohesive and agreeable ethnic populations in the world.
So tanks roll through the streets?
There's a curfew?
Regional nationalists throw molotovs at police stations and are executed by firing squad?
Name me one active violent secession movement in Italy
You're the dense retard here pal
>And yet Bavaria still agreed to unification and have not yet had a serious secession conflict
Bavaria was annexed by Prussia when they btfo Austria and only agreed to "unify" when Bismark created a fake war with France in order to manipulate the Bavarians and Wuttemurgian into thinking that a unified Germany would be stronger. And even then Bismark tried to buttfuck the southern stated to be more Prussian by trying to eliminate every ounce of Austrian influence in them.
The entire Kaiserraich is literally based on a lie and only existed to make Prussia strong. If "nationalism" was really a thing then we'd have Grossdeutchland and not the Prussian Kleindeutchland.
You forgot to mention that in the 140 years of existence within Germany, Bavaria has not attempted to secede
Ok faggot explain Catalonia then? Explain why the Scottish referendum for independence happened? Explain why there aren't thousands of attempts to merge Northern Ireland with Ireland constantly?
If you can even find any of them on the map.
Fucking called it.
Again
>Kulturkampf
You are either a dumb American or a troll at this point and it's pointless to try to talk to someone whose entire history knowledge comes from BUILD WALL memes. Playing chess with a pigeon and all that.
Why did Austria secede from Germany after they lost the WWII? Why didn't they just remain a part of Germany?
>scottish referendum
Lost the vote and Britain wasn't going to use military force
>Catalonia
Never mentioned Spain but Catalonians are a separate nationality to the Spanish and Catalan is a separate language, this is not a good example.
>argument consists of buzzwords from /pol/
Sure thing pal you're the enlightened intellectual here