Is nationalism a necessary evil?

Nationalism is not "evil", it's a natural state. Wolf packs are nationalist, ants colonies are nationalist, every social form of life is nationalist, why should it be "evil" when it's about humans?

Nationalism is a murderous death cult. You'd think causing both world wars would be enough to consign it to the dustbin of history.

>I’m Better Than You Because I Was Born On A Specific Plot Of Land: The Ideology

t. IQ 80

Go back to Krautchan nigger

Not an argument

Do you people not understand that putting a group first does not necessarily mean that you believe it is a better group than any other right?

If you put your family first, does that mean you think your family is the best family there is? Or is it just yours?

Don't be a fucking idiot.

>Do you people not understand that putting a group first does not necessarily mean that you believe it is a better group than any other right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

People never admit that they're wrong on the internet, but what you've commented here is just about as close as it gets.

yes
my country and many others would still be under the control of the Eternal Anglo without it

>muh natural state
The difference here is that nationalism is entirely a human construct. The natural state of humans is hunting and foraging for food while migrating from place to place in small tribes, but I don't think any of us want to do that anymore. Also, please explain this:
>every social form of life is nationalist

>Also, please explain this:
>>every social form of life is nationalist
Wolf packs, ant colonies and every other social form of life defend their community and their territory regardless of any goal other than survive and despite the fact that their opponent are the same species. And it works, it works since millions of years, it's thanks to this behaviour that these species evolved and became better.
In few words, war is essential for social forms of life, peace would turn them into mud.

Nationalism is the human equivalent of a wolf pack, ant colony, bird nest, etc. Nationalism comes from the same root of self preservation by preserving others like you, to ensure that those closest to you achieve biological success.

because we are not wolves or ants

thus we don't need to eat, don't need to reproduce? biologically speaking?
his comparison is stating that is only natural for humans to do these things.
>inb4 naturalistic fallacy
I'm speaking descriptively.

You're correct. We're a species of aggressive tribal ape.

>All organic social cohesion is nationalism

Jesus Christ what a fucking brainlet

t. Grug

Seems like he's just saying it's a logical extension of territorial groups of social animals. Then again I don't think you have any desire for an honest conversation about this.

Nationalism is a cultural adaptation to certain societal conditions. Like everything else it varies in usefulness based on the problems which exist in a society, it can be helpful sometimes and hurtful at other times.

If it were inherent to our nature to be nationalistic, then nationalism would have become widespread before the 19th century.

But it isn't. It's not even a natural extension. In the first place, animals aren't sentient in the same way humans are, so it's impossible for them to have an idea of territory as their birthright, or, in fact, any idea of territory, regardless of whether or not they defend it. Wolf packs will migrate if food becomes scarce; territorial defense is matter of the material worth of the territory. If the territory ceases to be productive, it is given up. There is nothing nationalistic about this.

Nationalism entails a common idea of identity based on birth in a certain arbitrarily predefined territory that is inhabited for an also arbitrarily set length of time. The main difference between other animals and humans as regards territorial defense is this; the other animals will give up lost territory unless the most materially advantageous option is to fight to the death for it, while humans will fight to the death for a piece of land even if they have other, better options available.

It also seems that nationalism would require some semblance of language, for it's certainly not possible for wolves to consider themselves as belonging to a certain place without being able to form the thought "we are the wolves of such and such a forest."

The entire world is turning into a neural network with human beings as the nodes. We can communicate instantaneously with people across the planet, in all the numerous ways that we do on the internet. Civilization is self-organizing itself to become ever better at self-organization, we are the singularity. Nations, ownership, and hierarchy have become maladaptive even to those who benefit from them the most, and humanity will discard such things. You cannot stop the future, you can only hope to postpone it, and as humanity's destiny draws ever closer, the powers that be push against the future ever more violently. Their think tanks came to the same conclusion, and now the world's powerful frantically try to stop informational Marxism.

*Cringe

Don't bother with logic mate this place is a lefty shithole

So nationalism is just large scale tribalism?

It's not necessary but it sure is evil.

>implying (((((((((evil))))))))) is a concept to be taken seriously.

I'd like to argue that it is not an "evil" as long as it doesnt go too far. You know, too much of a good thing might be bad for you and such.
Nationalism in my eyes is nearly essential for having a stable country, because if you cant have pride in your collective achievements, what is compelling you to stay with that group?

No. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. There is nothing wrong with loving your country but as soon as you believe that it is superior and more deserving than all other countries you have crossed the line to nationalism. Wanting to put your contries best interests first is also fine so long as it isn't at the expense of another nations sovereignty.

>if you cant have pride in your collective achievements, what is compelling you to stay with that group?

Seriously, nigger?
>I don't speak other languages
>All my friends and family are here
>My job is here
>This country has a decent standard of living
All are perfectly validly reasons for "liking" your country without overly sentimental flag-waving faggotry.

Besides, if we can take pride in "collective achievements" (which is a fucking spook if I've ever heard one - how many Americans really contributed to the moon landing?) it follows logically that we should have shame in our country's historical sins and keep age-old grudges with other nations over bullshit from decades or centuries ago. It's retarded.

>If you put your family first, does that mean you think your family is the best family there is? Or is it just yours?
It's heavily discouraged to put your family first in many situations. If you're a politician and suddenly everyone working under you is your brother/sister/cousin then you're practicing nepotism. Similarly nationalist tendencies ought to be curbed when it comes to country vs country relationships.

Also yes, by putting your family first you're thinking your family is the best one from a moral standpoint. It's the most deserving one to get food rations during a catastrophe for example.

>if we can take pride in "collective achievements" it follows logically that we should have shame in our country's historical sins and keep age-old grudges with other nations

This is my main issue with anti-nationalists. Quite often they're not this logically consistent. They say that having pride in the good things from the past is absurd and bad but then go on about how the current generation should be ashamed of the country's historical sins and should feel guilt for it. I can understand the point of view that only individual achievements matter but this should logically be true for the bad deeds.

Also, some "anti-nationalists" (in Europe at least) are often just useful idiots for the nationalists of the "other side" or simply crypt-nationalists themselves. They will hate the nationalism of the host country but support the nationalism of neighboring countries, that of minorities or regional separatists.

Organizing in larger packs is a tool for survival, that higher classes have adapted to enrich themselves at the expense of the common man through these half-lies that are states.
We simply don't need them anymore. They're useful but irrational, and a great tool for evil.

it stands for HИКOЛA I (Nikola the First)

>you cant appreciate your family, language, job and living conditions without having a liking for the abstract construct of a "state" looming over your head
>implying such state is necessary for good things to exist
>posting a picture of an anarchist on top of that

>national sovereignty and self-determination
>a bad thing
You don't have to have a superiority complex about whatever hole you were born in to be a "nationalist," if you believe nations should have the power to manage their affairs free from foreign meddling that also qualifies. The kind of bureaucratic superstate we see in the EU and UN I believe to be the end form of the colonial system more than anything, with smaller nations having their policies dictated for them with promise of reward.

nations should be brought to hell to form empires

Give me one good reason why abolishing 'the state' wouldn't dissolve into absolute anarchic chaos with everyone buttfucking each other.

I understand that states themselves are essentially abstractions in a global anarchy. But I don't care about "abolishing" them unless it benefits me, and it wouldn't.

I've never heard anti-nationalists say that guilt is necessary. If you're specifically referring to progressives, they focus more on wanting to remedy modern outcomes of past injustices - nobody lobbies for "Irish rights" in America because, while once oppressed, they're not really separate from the mainstream "white" identity anymore. Of course, being an egoist, I don't think there's any real imperative to do that. Just because you reject nationalism doesn't mean you have to embrace every specific ideology that opposes it. Ancaps, while autistic, also reject nationalism without really being "progressive".

>If it were inherent to our nature to be nationalistic, then nationalism would have become widespread before the 19th century.
?
As far back as history goes, not only it always existed but it was the only model. What do you think the world was before 19th century??

>it's impossible for them to have an idea of territory as their birthright, or, in fact, any idea of territory, regardless of whether or not they defend it. Wolf packs will migrate if food becomes scarce; territorial defense is matter of the material worth of the territory. If the territory ceases to be productive, it is given up.
Wow wow wow, wolves have a very precise idea of their territory to begin with, and if sometimes the borders move (not that often) there are STILL borders. They're not wandering randomly in the wild like you seem to think.

like said wolves do have territories which they defend from others. And the migrate on because they are nomads. Most people today aren't nomads, and live on land secured for them by past generations. If wolves found a patch of land which always had an abundance of deer you can bet they will stay in this territory indefinitely and would defend it from others.

>As far back as history goes, not only it always existed but it was the only model.
Lol, did you hear this on /pol/? Nationalism isn't just a preference towards one's in-group.

>What do you think the world was before 19th century??
In Central Europe, monarchies actively suppressed nationalism in most cases until 1848. Nationalism has existed to some degree in England and France since the Hundred Years' war but that's basically the only example I can think of.

I think we don't have the same definition of nationalism. Egyptians were nationalist and went at war with their neighbours to expand or defend their nation, Athenians were nationalist and went at war to expand or defend their nation, Huns, Incas, French, name it, absolutely every state entity was nationalist until WWII and the creation of supranational organizations (note that "supranational" is the official term, for a reason). I don't know where you got your utopian vision of the world but it's utterly wrong.

>necessary
>evil

>I think we don't have the same definition of nationalism.
More like you don't know what the scholarly definition is.

>Egyptians were nationalist
No they weren't. There did not exist the idea of an "Egyptian Nation" outside of the context of the monarchical state. The region was divided between warring kingdoms at the time, and when one dynasty took over it was from pure military force, and the pharaohs ruled not on behalf of the "Egyptian Nation" but rather from divine right. The pharaohs even ruled most of the land as a personal dominion.

>Athenians were nationalist
They weren't for the majority of their history, Athenians saw themselves as citizens of their city first and as Greeks a distant second. The only time nationalism was important was when the Hellenic world as a whole was threatened, during the wars with Persia. And even then it never extended to its modern form, there was never a call for a unified Greek nation-state until the 19th century.

>Huns
Dude seriously? A fucking tribal horde, nationalistic?

>Incas
Fun fact, the "Inca" was not the name of the ethnic group, rather it meant something like "king" or "lord". And they called their state the "four provinces", rather than something like "Quechaland" which it would have been called if it were a nation-state.

>France
After the Hundred Year's War it was to some degree, yes. But even then it was still heavily aristocratic until the French Revolution.

>went at war with their neighbours to expand or defend their nation
No, they went to war to extend state power.

>utopian vision of the world
Nigger what? How is what I'm saying in any way, shape or form utopian?

At the risk of using a different meaning of the term, Scottish people give 'nationalism' a good name.

Part of the issue ITT is that people are conflating nationalism with tribalism, which is the natural tendency for people to gravitate toward individuals that are also "like them" whether it be in skin tone, age, living proximity etc.

Nationalism DOES NOT EXIST without a nation-state being the unifying catalyst. Ergo appealing to natural states of animals is a waste of time. Wolves are not unified by their nation-state. They're unified by their species and packs.

A better way to phrase the OP's question then would be: "Is unifying people through a nation-state a necessary evil for a functioning society"?

Nationalism
>Political movement of individuals who become aware of forming a national community because of the links (language, culture) that unite them and who may want to build a sovereign state.
>Political theory that affirms the predominance of the national interest over the interests of the classes and groups that make up the nation or in relation to other nations of the international community.
Move the goal all you want but this is what nationalism is, and this is what every nation in history intended to do.

>Political movement of individuals who become aware of forming a national community because of the links (language, culture) that unite them and who may want to build a sovereign state
Most states throughout history did not meet this definition. Basically every monarchy in history was based purely on military power, where the state was not sovereign but merely a tool created and used by the monarch, who WAS sovereign. Historical republics such as Rome, Venice, Novgorod, etc. were based on coalitions of aristocratic and mercantile interests which shared power.

>Political theory that affirms the predominance of the national interest over the interests of the classes and groups that make up the nation or in relation to other nations of the international community.
Again, most states did not meet this definition. Monarchies acted in the interest of the monarchs and the aristocratic classes, not the interest of the people or nation.

> this is what every nation in history intended to do.
No, most nations throughout history were composed of individuals who were not interested in building a sovereign state, and especially not one which united them based on culture/language/etc.

Nationalism is a modern movement, there were some isolated examples before the 19th century but certainly not "every nation in history".

Wolves form packs of a dozen or less individuals, not nations of millions.
This is retard speak and I wouldn't doubt that you're a furry when your argumentation defaults to wolf comparisons.

If your family isn't the best, why are you putting it first

>Nationalism is a modern movement
What?

Read through my posts, I've gone over this. It existed only in rare instances before the modern era.

Ant colonies are nations of millions (and don't fall under the furry category). Your argument seems to be cherrypicked and a bit retarded don't you think?

>Read through my posts, I've gone over this. It existed only in rare instances before the modern era.
...No. You only affirm this without any reference. You even said the Huns weren't nationalist just because it doesn't please you while they were exactly under the definition.

Neither is this

Ant colonies don't have a central systemic structure of governance. All the ants are doing their own thing, it's just that their genetic programming means they can function together extremely well. There's nothing directing an ant, it doesn't have a concept of "the colony", it does what it does because it's programmed to and it benefits it's evolutionary line. Saying an ant is "nationalistic" means I could reasonably argue my phone is "nationalistic".

A tribal empire is not a state in the modern sense. Nor did the Hunnic leaders act in the "national interest", but rather to gain tribute and assert their own positions within their society.

No, in 100 years, there will only be one race one culture and one language.

Personal loyalty to a monarch is not nationalism. Kingdoms were literally owned by kings who kept treasuries and sworn vassals for their own benefit and their family lineage. The concept of a "nation" embodying the spirit of the common people was a much later populist concept and was actually connected to liberalism in its early stages. It varied from place to place (the Inca you cite could almost be called totalitarian socialists) but most people identified with their local town and language/religion rather than any modern concept of nationality.

>he thinks ant colonies are "ruled" by queens and not just reproductively specialized examples of extended kin selection

Wow, what a fucking retard.

I am well aware of both of those things, especially the latter case, I even granted that wolves would defend a territory to the death if they didn't have the strength to move to another, had cubs there, etc. Further, I indicated that as a long as a territory remained productive (e.g. if it has an abundance of deer), wolves will "choose" to remain there.

But borders can't exist without maps, which can't exist without some form of language as we humans understand it. Wolves do not consider themselves as "belonging" to a territory in its ideal sense, as Poles consider themselves to be Polish. A gray wolf in Selway-Bitterroot forest may well defend this land, but it doesn't think "I will defend this land because my ancestors have always lived in Selway-Bitterroot, and this gives me an inalienable right to formally possess the land." Wolves will leave a territory if holding it is no longer tenable. Fanatical nationalists will defend their "rightful land" until death, they will even thoughtlessly try to retake it after they've lost it, like the Poles and the French did.

>individualist country gets its individual asses kicked individually by nationalist country

See how China is currently BTFOing America and the third world diasporas in Europe are making the natives cower in fear.

>necessary
Nothing is "necessary," or everything is.

>evil
Fuck off to . Value judgements are shit. Wie es eigentlich gewesen.

>But borders can't exist without maps, which can't exist without some form of language as we humans understand it.
My chickens disagree. They never leave a certain perimeter determined by themselves (believe me I didn't taught them) even though there's no fence. Same with my dog.
On another note, cranes fly over my house to the south every year with an insane precision, they seem to have a map.
Pigeons do that too.
Of course animals know their environment, language or not (and they have a language).

nationalism==tribalism=human nature

There is a distinct difference between knowledge and instinct. Knowledge is conscious, instinct is not. This is also the difference between a person going back to their homeland and cranes flying south each year.

Animals definitely perceive their environment, I doubt that they "know" it in the sense humans do.

>evil
Fuck off back to R*ddit

We're off topic here but it's proven that pigeons follow railways and highways, it's not instinct, it's analytic and conscious.

It would be anarchy by definition, but not chaos. Communities managed by themselves are governments, but not states. As soon as the governors and the governed are different groups of people is where it turns into a problem.

Exactly this. But people only want to see it as a political matter because nationalism = nazism.

I guess controlling your own life isn't a benefit. I guess liberating your mind and society from propaganda isn't a benefit. I guess not being subject to being called by your state to die, killed by another innocent person, in a fight between two states who in no way except coincidental represent you or your interests is not a benefit.

Globalization will kill nation states pretty soon, so no..

Nationalism isn't evil but it is necessary.
More importantly though Racial identity and pride is necessary.

All that proves is that they have a propensity to follow straight lines that could well be instinctual. They could do this for the same reason birds alight on cables; the latter believe they are landing on trees, the former believe they are following waterways.

Since nationalism is an idea, I think the question of whether or not animals can have conscious ideas is absolutely germane to this topic, if the claim is being made that animals can be nationalistic.

>if the claim is being made that animals can be nationalistic
They ARE nationalist without a doubt (social species that is). Lions even perform murderous eugenics for the sake of the bloodline, literal nazis. Chimpanzee wage armed wars. And this is all about "nation" values, the group and the territory.