Tfw you realise that nation states are a modern concept

>anarchism
>the only system that describes human behavior

that's true if the humans whose behaviour you are describing is 18 year old crust-punks who got kicked out of their parents house but took their family dog with them and sneak on to trains and panhandle and do ketamine and either die or grow up and get a job.

They considered Greeks Greek and everyone else as not Greek, that's nationalism. I even said they didn't agree politically.

>>tfw you realise that nation states are a modern concept

and its practically impossible to explain this to people, they all either project nationalist ideas into prehistory or negate the notion of a nation completely, both out of shitty ideological reasons, and whenever you have a conversation about that with one or the other they just end up reaffirming whatever version of imaginary beforefore times they hold dear

thats fucking wrong though, they werent nationalistic, and no greek city state considered all of greece to be one entity

That's not Nationalism. A Nation is a culture surrounding Language, Ethnicity, and other sundries.
A Nation State is not the same thing as a Nation.

Reminder that Liberals being rationalists, they try to define ''a nation'' and they fail.

except that nations are implied by ethnicity geography language religion and culture. humans are in-group biased. before the nation state there were still 10000000 other variations of tribalism. the reason the nationalism meme took off so well is that humans are already tribal.

> implying something that isn't modern isn't as good
And next, you'll say that modern art is worthwhile

thats not what a nation is

>It's modern therefore it's bad

weird look at this stateless nation held together only by ethnicity language and tribe

those arent nations

Maybe read up on what anarchism is after ruminating the usual propaganda

Yes it is.

Look up Multination States

so you think its a coincidence then that anarchists rebel against the portions of the state that most resemble the rules of their parents, whose houses they were just kicked out of. like law enforcement. but not the portions of the state that don't. like hospitals.

humans function optimaly in conditions of hierarchy, we are biologicaly programmed for it, its not that we cant function without hierarchy, its not that we do not spontaneously organise without 'someone in charge', in fact people do that all the time and yes, in smaller sets and systems of less volume, power or intensity it acrtualy works just fine, and in some cases much better, its simply that sub-dom relations are what we are made for, and if we lived in a anarchist society thats what people would psontaneously order themselves into, and without institutionalised hierarchies, without official status, just by the simple organic logic of inherent differences in potential and quality, it would be fucking beautifull

the distinction betveen anarchy and hierarchy is itself absurd, whatever humans do as a organised group implies, pressuposes and requsits some fucking 'archy' of whatever sort, even a group of friends organising some deal are explicitly a holarchy but implicitly theres a order to things and they know this, practicaly every human behavior that involves more than one human being has a structure and a order to it and this is biologicaly inherent and tied up in contingencies same as how our joints work or how our intestines function

problems start when hierarchy and structure become institutionalised and instrumentalised, proscribed by laws and decrees and written into constitutions, weather its a question of institutionalised equality or institutionalised inequality makes no difference, it fucks up mechanisms of spontaneous order, its momentary hierarchy attempting to become immortal by removing itself from the constantly shifting and changing multiplicity of inescapable relations and necesary conflicts, and is basicaly the socio-political equivalent of cheating

They considered all of Greece to be one nation, with a shared identity. That's not the same thing as them considering Greece to be "one entity," united politically or even ideologically.

I don't understand why you're having trouble grasping this. "Nations" and "states" are different things, that's why we fucking have the term "nation-state."

except for anarchic social order is inevitably subsumed be explicit and agreed upon hierarchies. even this board has explicit decrees.

it is self evident that anarchy is inferior. there are no successful anarchic societies in existence.

>fell for the doublespeak

fucking pleb

>Da Vinci would have had no concept of himself as as 'Italian', he was just a man that lived on the Medici families land.
No he would have thought himself as a citizen of the republic of Florence, or just a Florentine in foreign land. Do more reading

>no argument
>muh p-p-pleb

...

>every anarchist is cringeworthy neck beard runaway crying out for help and structure
>not real anarchism!

Seriously, you can read Republic where Socrates compares the Greeks favorably to other nationalities and says that they are ideal to create a state, because the northern barbarians are very courageous but intellectually inferior, whereas those from Asia are sophisticated but cowardly, and the Greeks form the mean between the two.

>>every anarchist is cringeworthy neck beard runaway crying out for help and structure

Although I should add that ethnocentrism isn’t synonymous with nationalism, and the Greeks had no desire for a nation-state so it wouldn’t be accurate to say that Socrates was a nationalist.

>"anarchist"
>state funded academic thriving in hierarchical bureaucracy

pic related is anarchism without the taxpayer funding and police enforced social order.

>Da Vinci would have had no concept of himself as as 'Italian'
That's wrong, though. Nationalism didn't take the same form as it did in the 19th century, but it did exist. Take, for instance, Machiavelli. Machiavelli dreamed about Italy unifying, based on the idea that Italians form a nation and belong together. I know you're in no position to read them, but Croatian patriotic poetry from the 15th century reflects the consciousness of one nation (Croatia) being locked into a fatal struggle with another nation (the Turks) perfectly, and that's even though no actual state of Croatia existed at that point (it formally did, as a kingdom under the Magyar king, but not in practice). All of them reference "Croatians" and "Croatia". Nationalism did exist. Not in the 19th century sense, when it was connected to the liberal, centralizing political forces, but it nonetheless existed.

t. I have never read a single book on anarchism or bothered to explore the core concepts of it but I need to dismiss it

the beauty of anarchy is that we dont need (you) anyway

>Nationalism did exist. Not in the 19th century sense, when it was connected to the liberal, centralizing political forces, but it nonetheless existed.

This. Even as early as the 700s Bede described a distinctly English identity emerging among the various tribes in Anglo-Saxon England.

Read Benedict Anderson. When a group is small enough that someone can personally know every member, having a sense of collective identity/community is easy. In larger tribes, even if someone doesn't know every other member, the populations are low enough that they almost always know someone who does and can base that sense of community on those shared personal connections. That's why when people in tribal societies meet they almost always start by trying to figure out what relatives and/or acquaintances they have in common.

In a population of millions, relying on personal ties to create that sense of community is impossible. That's what makes the invention of nationalism so powerful and - it finds a way to make people feel like they're part of a collective along with tens of millions of strangers.

Ya, wouldn't "nationalism" have always existed on some scale going all the way back to tribes?
Or am I missing the definition?

Ya, but it dosnt get you anywhere. We lived like that for tens of thousands of years before the "state was "invented".

>That's why when people in tribal societies meet they almost always start by trying to figure out what relatives and/or acquaintances they have in common.

urban people do this too, urban living makes people 'pseudo-tribal' where the group is based around locality, as in the neibrorhood, the street, the local crew, this does intensify depending on how much illegal shit is going down

Ethnocentric nationalism existed in Egypt with even with ancient monarchs like Narmer who unified Egypt. Egypt operated as a nation state in relation to other kingdoms, and as a self-governing entity.

Nationalism is the only set of values based on human nature rather than arbitrary rules or ideology.

Humans, like essentially all animals, operate around nourishing and protecting family. "Nation" being conceptualized as a gigantic extended family with its own property, history and traditions is the only way for society to have unity, identity, and direction.

You could consider that kind of a precursor to nationalism, but I wouldn't say they're the same. If you live in a city you can reasonably remember it's whole layout, were most shops are, where the port, the church, the castle is. If you don't know someone, you can be sure you've walked the same streets as them, gone to the same market as them, been to the same festival as them and so you can immediately get a sense of kinship with them.

In a nation, you can't ensure any of this with someone on the other side of the nation. You can't even ensure you'll be able to understand them. That person might relate to someone a mile away much better but because they live across the border, you're expected to relate to this guy better because you arbitrarily live within the same lines on a map.

No, it's linguistic and cultural.

That would be like saying people in the United States and people in Canada are the same nation because they speak the same language and have a shared culture.

Chile and Mexico don't consider themselves the same nation you fucking imbecile.

JRR Tolkien also considered himself an anarchist.

>nations are new

wut

Is everyone larping, or do you people actually believe this?

Yes. They would've had the same culture, central government, economy would be based on a common sense of exchange and rules/customs, etc. They're just micronations.

Well, anarchy is about order without power... you are talking about "chaos".

>anarchy is about order without power
explain this. It strikes me that a vacuum will always be filled.

The creation of modern nations was preceded by long academic campaigns to create that one language that was commonly intelligeble. As the old saying goes, the Italians learnt to understand their own language through television.

>The creation of modern nations
So is everyone itt just going to ignore ancient nations for the sake of pure edge?

>As the old saying goes, the Italians learnt to understand their own language through television.

Extraordinary circumstances. Only 2% of the Italian population could speak the standard dialect when it was chosen. Worked out better that way because there are less exceptions to rules in Italian than otherwise might have been.

>So is everyone itt just going to ignore ancient nations for the sake of pure edge?

Ancient and modern nations are very different concepts.

Explain how, because the biggest difference seems to be that we use flags today and technology has proliferated information more quickly, and that's it. The fundamentals for a united culture and collective governing entity have been here for, well, ever.

>Modern often nations provide legitimacy to state
>Modern nations have unified language and symbolism
>Stronger sense of identity and collective memory
>In modern nation people are worth a lot to you because they are members of your nation

No an expert, but basically in the old days identity and loyalty revolved around religion or around a smaller community and then maybe with the big nation. Europe used to be a gradient of cultures, not entities divided by borders. I'll try to find some academic text that'll explain it better.

>The fundamentals for a united culture and collective governing entity have been here for, well, ever.
Not sure what you meant by this.

The thing is that most nationalists are reactionaries who spend their lives jerking themselves off about "the good old days" and pretend that their particular nation has somehow existed in it's modern form since time immemorial, with diversity of any kind being the "modern" development.

>"If you like hospitals but not the police then you're just a dumb teenager!"

It is. Nation is a collection of related people, never mind fatburgers who think it's a synonym of a country.

Come to think of it, isn't "We're the golden mean between barbarism and decadence" the argument every culture uses to claim that they're the best?

Or, y'know...

>most nationalists are reactionaries

Only the young Americanized ones on the net. For them history starts with industrial revolution and shit like nationalism, capitalism and single income nuclear family are "traditional".

>single income nuclear family
>freedom to own private property
>nationalism
>not traditional

Holy shit what kind of retard land did I walk into? Weren't the leftists reacting against the evolutionary order that established itself centuries ago and ever since?

I wouldn't say it's "without power" but the idea is to make things as democratic as is reasonable, so that as few people are getting fucked over as possible. Like instead of a national government there's a bunch of allied city governments, and instead of mayors everything is handled by city councils.

>Holy shit what kind of retard land did I walk into?

>not entities divided by borders

No they clearly defined borders. You can't even say they didn't, Greeks fought before they could write and when they learned to record, they recorded that they'd fight every year over petty border differences.Ancient nations too shared culture, which was looser linguistic traditions, signs and symbols. I personally like the story about the 300 year longs building of a cathedral. Generation after generation they spent building something. They don't know the ancestors who started it, but they knew they had to finish it. Few here(I'm guessing none of you deconstructionists) have anything like that. Not because it wasn't handed to you, but because you don't care about it.

The truth is the US, and soon Europe, will no longer be nations of unified value and culture. They're countries with many nations inside them, so maybe that's why everyone itt is having such a tough time with it. It'll remain that way until the next economic crisis hits and the west balkanizes.

>Single income nuclear families owning private property are the evolutionary order of things

Yeah see this is what I was talking about.

Explain yourself, because someone who isn't indoctrinated into your way of thinking isn't going to "get it". When women worked en masse, really starting in the middle cold war along with the sexual revolution of the late 60's, that's when the west had seen mass mobilization of women working. It's been about half a century. On the other hand, men have been the primary working force since.... lol well I think you get it. What happened when women entered en masse? The labor force supply ballooned, which is great for companies. It also means that the average wage proportionate to the gains we had seen before depreciated, since now the service sector became dominant in western economies, and that was being filled up very quickly. Then, the same people who wanted as many women to work as possible decided that we should fill our countries up with as many migrants as possible. And we should have increased social welfare for everyone.

Pace yourself as you read this, I don't want your head to explode.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls

>8,000 women

Are you an actual retard?

>They're countries with many nations inside them

That's not a new development.

>No they clearly defined borders. You can't even say they didn't,
Usually they didn't. Borders used to be pretty loose, if there wasn't a river.

However you completely missed the point, I'll try to dumb it down. If you traveled from Poland to Russia back in the days, First you be like "This is Poland, Poles live here" then you'll be like "This is Poland, but it looks a little bit eastern", then you'll be like "Am I still in Poland? Can't tell from these folks, they look like something inbetween", then you'll be like "Where am I? Looks like I'm in a German town." then you'll be like "Oh these people look Russian, but still a bit western", then you'll be like "Yup, this is Moscow". Nowadays it's like "'I'm in Poland, Poles live here" then you'll be like "I'm on Belarus, Belarussians live here" then you be like "I'm in Russia, Russians live here".

Where did I say it was? It's a degeneration for a socially cohesive state. state|=government

>"Women weren't part of the work force before feminism!"
>*Shows proof that women were part of the workforce before feminism*
>"You're retarded!"

>autism, the post

Um no sweetie. Nowadays it's more like that than ever. And yes they did have borders. Do you want me to read you some stories? Maybe some where the Romans identified their borders? Would that help you?

Hold my hand, I know this is tough but I'm here to help:
>When women worked en masse
>en masse

>mass mobilization of women
>mass mobilization

We're talking massive proportions numbering closer to men. Now take that 8k figure of mill workers and compare it to the number of the work force as a total. Tiny right? I explicitly identified the argument being centered on proportions and mass amounts of women working, and you chose to ignore it in favor of something that had nothing to do with anything in the grand scheme of things. Honestly you could've tried the argument that women were working in sweatshops overseas or doing unpaid labor anyways, but you ignored it all for a single piece of irrelevant information against the whole....

So this is the power of Veeky Forums.

Nations are ancient.
OP was talking about nation-states, the idea that a state with a given land mass belongs to a nation, and should be run by that nation in the service of the nation.
It's not a completely new idea, but it gained huge currency in Europe in the 19th century, and now we take it almost as a given. To the extent that a lot of people believe that the words "nation" and "country" are synonymous.
For instance, the USA is clearly not "one nation, indivisible" and never has been. There is at least the African-American nation, the Hispanic nation, the First Nations, and the Everyone Else nation inside it.
And despite the rhetoric, there has never been a pure nation-state. Even France, a sort of prototypical "nation-state", has always had non-French populations inside it, like Bretons, Basques, Languedocs, Italians, Germans and Dutch.

WTF user this was actually a redeeming post. Thank (you).

France's definition of citizenship was unique at the time. And very pragmatic. If anything, the French redefined the nation state forever.

keep going. you're on the track of being marxist

>Um no sweetie.
This is your rhetorics on glucose-fructose syrup.

>Nowadays it's more like that than ever.
???

>And yes they did have borders
Try reading more slowly, burger. In ancient times borders weren't "clearly defined", unless there was something to clearly define them like a wall or river. They were define like "Fields A, B and forest F belongs to village V, which belongs to region R", "On this road you pay toll to lord X and on this part you pay to lord Y" or "king K owns land from the sea S to the mountains M".

>Maybe some where the Romans identified their borders
Interesting you bring Romans here. Their northern borders were prime example of loosely defined borders.

You didn't get his post at all. It literally sailed above your head.

So many places with "defined" borders had big frontier land or areas they only had de jure/limited control over.

I too am trying to figure out what Just said.
Is woke as fuck. Lets just double the working population. Lets do it again. Then again. Then again. I wonder who is benefiting the most from all this?

Didn't Andorra pop up into existence because they couldn't decide on the border between Aragon and France so they said fuck it and decided the King of France and the bishop of Urgell should share the title and for a long while no one knew if it belonged to France or Aragon/Spain and in the end it became independent?

There were no clear borders anywhere unless there was a major natural obstacle in the way.

>Then again. I wonder who is benefiting the most from all this?

Everyone? The 1950's American dream lasted a pretty short while cuz no one was in good conditions psot war and even in the alte 50's other nations posed a threat to that dream.

Also off topic but Anglo labour always felt entitlement to jobs.

>When women worked en masse, really starting in the middle cold war
This may hurt a little, but consider following: History exists outside of post 1830s Anglo world.

Women always worked, unless they were married to well off man.

Yes, now go read "Seeing Like A State".

Americans are intensely out of touch with everything else. Women toiled the fields, worked taverns, tailor shops, tanneries, etc. Whatever job they could do and didn't include heavy lifting of large things.

Yeah, in the sense that he's mistaking banal observations which barely mean anything with stuff of substance.
Except Da Vinci did feel part of something we can call a nation that is a group of people with shared linguistic and ethnic attributes, he simply wasn't part of a nation-state.

This brainlet attitude that people were completely divorced from nations in the past despite the fact that people like herodotus basically used the definition of ethno-nationalism more than 2000 years ago is so stupid it boggles my mind.

>include heavy lifting of large things
Sometimes even that.

>This brainlet attitude that people were completely divorced from nations

It's Dunning-Kruger effect. Plebs would think that world operated on basis of nations and nationalism throughout the human history, because that's how it operates now. Then some leftist hears that nations are inventions of 19th century, takes that literally without the knowledge behind it; overblows it and tries to act smart.

The definition of a nation or a state was very different back then, and citizenship or its varying equivalents was again, different. The modern nation state and nationalism as we know it are both Enlightenment era concepts, built upon older ones. Idiots think some fag just thought this shit up in the 18th century and we've been living the lie ever since.

>The definition of a nation
The definition of a nation was not that different at all, at most the scope of it was different (usually far smaller) which is why you can read Cicero or Aquinas and find ethnocentric concepts in them that are basically the same as today.

>This may hurt a little, but consider following: History exists outside of post 1830s Anglo world.
You literally just nicked that from my other post, and it varies wildly. But the points concerning economics still stand.

Honored

Great post, no kidding either

>at most the scope of it was different
Scope is critical. By changing scope you can go as low as family and as high as mankind.

Provide quotes porn favor.

Aquinas
Whether piety extends to particular human individuals?
Objection 3 Further, in human affairs there are many other mutual relations besides those of kindred and citizenship, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 11,12), and on each of them is founded a kind of friendship, which would seem to be the virtue of piety, according to a gloss on 2 Timothy 3:5, "Having an appearance indeed of piety [Douay: 'godliness']." Therefore piety extends not only to one's kindred and fellow-citizens.
I answer that, Man becomes a debtor to other men in various ways, according to their various excellence and the various benefits received from them. on both counts God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. On the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one's parents and one's country.

The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinsfolk are those who descend from the same parents, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 12). The worship given to our country includes homage to all our fellow-citizens and to all the friends of our country. Therefore piety extends chiefly to these.
Reply to Objection 3. The relations of a man with his kindred and fellow-citizens are more referable to the principles of his being than other relations: wherefore the term piety is more applicable to them.

As for Cicero, read De Officiis 53-58 included. Can't quote it here because my pdf sucks and it's not in english.

uh...Nationalist democratic movements are what freed Europe from land based aristocracy. Go read up on the French Revolution.