Do You Support The Nation-State?

[Rival]

Or would you prefer something of a bloc of united nation-states with a single military etc?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I prefer blocs like the EU and African Union if and only if each nation within them is allowed to retain its culture, heritage, identity, and language. I do not support grouping of states under a single government and military in a way that dissolves the uniqueness of each, as in the Soviet Union and some past empires that eroded the heritage of each nation to try to impose a unified language and culture.

 

[Stevicus]

Or would you prefer something of a bloc of united nation-states with a single military etc?

The concept of nation-states may have been useful at some point, but I think they've outlived their purpose. In today's world, the concept seems anachronistic and toxic, especially when considering the ravages that nationalism has wrought upon humanity.

Also, with nearly 200 sovereign entities in the world today, it increases the odds of more random elements, where one or more could become rogue nations - or they might be too small or weak to defend themselves, in which case the larger powers would feel an obligation to use force to defend their sovereignty. This is how WW1 began, with Serbian nationalists clashing with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had dreams of expansion into the Balkans, which had just recently gotten free from the hold of another multinational empire. This triggered Germany's "blank check" to Austria and the Russian mobilization which then caused Germany to declare war. Along the same lines, the British declared war on Germany for violating Belgium's neutrality, as Belgium was also unable to defend itself against its larger neighbor.

If these small nation-states had been part of a larger regional power, they'd be much more difficult to dominate or attack, and it would reduce the likelihood of a world war breaking out over a turf war.

As Cyrus in The Warriors pointed out: "The problem in the past has been the man turning us against one another. We have been unable to see the truth, because we have been fighting for ten square feet of ground, our turf, our little piece of turf. That's crap, brothers!"

 

[Rival]

The concept of nation-states may have been useful at some point, but I think they've outlived their purpose. In today's world, the concept seems anachronistic and toxic, especially when considering the ravages that nationalism has wrought upon humanity.

Also, with nearly 200 sovereign entities in the world today, it increases the odds of more random elements, where one or more could become rogue nations - or they might be too small or weak to defend themselves, in which case the larger powers would feel an obligation to use force to defend their sovereignty. This is how WW1 began, with Serbian nationalists clashing with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had dreams of expansion into the Balkans, which had just recently gotten free from the hold of another multinational empire. This triggered Germany's "blank check" to Austria and the Russian mobilization which then caused Germany to declare war. Along the same lines, the British declared war on Germany for violating Belgium's neutrality, as Belgium was also unable to defend itself against its larger neighbor.

If these small nation-states had been part of a larger regional power, they'd be much more difficult to dominate or attack, and it would reduce the likelihood of a world war breaking out over a turf war.

As Cyrus in The Warriors pointed out: "The problem in the past has been the man turning us against one another. We have been unable to see the truth, because we have been fighting for ten square feet of ground, our turf, our little piece of turf. That's crap, brothers!"

I hear this kind of idea a lot but I don't think it works. There are always going to be territorial disputes and land-grabs; plus the idea, as with Brexit, that some are never going to appreciate being subsumed into a bloc. Largely those from powerful countries like the UK would rather not join, as we see it as diminishing our power (which seems to be the point?) and rather too socialist in the sense of having financial obligations to smaller, less well off countries. From a capitalist pov it seems like nonsense to prop up countries that cannot do it themselves with money better spent on something more workable.

 

[exchemist]

Or would you prefer something of a bloc of united nation-states with a single military etc?

I don't think it is either or. But I certainly do not think the nation state, a comparatively late invention in historical terms, is something sacrosanct or fundamental.

The reality, surely, is that we are ruled, and owe a measure of allegiance to, a number of different levels of organisation, starting from local then regional, then state level, possibly then to a federal level (e.g. as in Germany or the USA) and then to alliances of states of one sort or another e.g. NATO, the EU, the UN etc. (I think it was John Major who pointed out the only place in the world with a 100% autonomous nation state is North Korea.

 

[Rival]

I don't think it is either or. But I certainly do not think the nation state, a comparatively late invention in historical terms, is something holy and fundamental.

The reality, surely, is that we are ruled, and owe a measure of allegiance to, a number of different levels of organisation, starting from local then regional, then state level, possibly then to a federal level (e.g. as in Germany or the USA) and then to alliances of states of one sort or another e.g. NATO, the EU, the UN etc.

I find myself concerned that these blocs could become huge powers, such as in 1984, which are too big and powerful for their own good. We can see a new formation of the historical Allies against a new coalition of Russia-India-China, which would be incredibly unpleasant.

 

[exchemist]

I find myself concerned that these blocs could become huge powers, such as in 1984, which are too big and powerful for their own good. We can see a new formation of the historical Allies against a new coalition of Russia-India-China, which would be incredibly unpleasant.

On the contrary, blocs comprising several states are less likely to agree on dangerous courses of action, as it is unlilely their objectives would all be served by such things. Groups tend to be more conservative than individuals. We see the damage done by badly governed individual states all around, from Russia to the UK.

 

[Rival]

On the contrary, blocs comprising several states are less likely to agree on dangerous courses of action, as it is unlilely their objectives would all be served by such things. Groups tend to be more conservative than individuals. We see the damage done by badly governed individual states all around, from Russia to the UK.

I'm not sure this follows for the US, which has been incredibly aggressive with the aid of the UK and others. It does concern me.

 

[Stevicus]

I hear this kind of idea a lot but I don't think it works. There are always going to be territorial disputes and land-grabs; plus the idea, as with Brexit, that some are never going to appreciate being subsumed into a bloc. Largely those from powerful countries like the UK would rather not join, as we see it as diminishing our power (which seems to be the point?) and rather too socialist in the sense of having financial obligations to smaller, less well off countries. From a capitalist pov it seems like nonsense to prop up countries that cannot do it themselves with money better spent on something more workable.

I can't really speak to Brexit or the situation of the EU, although I know that the U.S. government has spent a great deal of money on sending aid to and/or propping up other countries. That, too, has diminished our power and made us into a debtor nation in severe decline.

As for it being socialist or capitalist, it's hard to say. It seems that in recent decades, the capitalists have been pushing for a world without any trade barriers and have advocated a global economic system. They seemingly advocate for a more internationalist system where the nation-state becomes less and less important.

There are banking conglomerates and corporations which are larger, financially, than many nation-states in this world. The existence of numerous nation-states, many of which are unstable and impoverished, almost seems an impediment from a capitalist point of view.

However, from a nationalist point of view, the idea of keeping many smaller states at odds with each other and in a somewhat dependent condition guarantees the hegemony and primacy of the larger nations. But even that has run into roadblocks in recent times and could eventually backfire.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not sure this follows for the US, which has been incredibly aggressive with the aid of the UK and others. It does concern me.

The EU was formed with the express intention of preventing war between nation states in Europe, at which it has been highly successful. The UN was formed to reduce conflicts at the global level. It too has had a measure of success.

Your idea of a merging of India, China and Russia (into what? A federation?) strikes me as a bit fanciful. India and China are deadly rivals. And China evidently has great misgivings about Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Any alliance between these three would in my opinion be limited in scope and/or of short duration, because their interests are not aligned.

 

[Rival]

The EU was formed with the express intention of preventing war between nation states in Europe, at which it has been highly successful. The UN was formed to reduce conflicts at the global level. It too has had a measure of success.

Your idea of a merging of India, China and Russia (into what? A federation?) strikes me as a bit fanciful. India and China are deadly rivals. And China evidently has great misgivings about Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Any alliance between these three would in my opinion be limited in scope and/or of short duration, because their interests are not aligned.

I wasn't talking so much about a federation more so an allyship. Whilst China may have misgivings, India is still trading with Russia as far as I know, and has not condemned them. I'm concerned about China re Taiwan and what would happen if anything kicked off there. Whilst they may not agree with each other, they seem anti-Western enough to make friends. India's ultra-nationalism and its treatment of minorities, Muslims et al. strike as similar to Chinese nationalism and how China views and treats minorities. It's not a good look and I find it daunting.

 

[exchemist]

I wasn't talking so much about a federation more so an allyship. Whilst China may have misgivings, India is still trading with Russia as far as I know, and has not condemned them. I'm concerned about China re Taiwan and what would happen if anything kicked off there. Whilst they may not agree with each other, they seem anti-Western enough to make friends. India's ultra-nationalism and its treatment of minorities, Muslims et al. strike as similar to Chinese nationalism and how China views and treat minorities. It's not a good look and I find it daunting.

OK, but then that's another matter, surely. Alliances are not alternatives to nation states, after all.

I agree the direction of travel of India is alarming - even now to the extent of possible state-sponsored assassinations, apparently! I don't think Canada, of all countries on this Earth, would whip a storm for the fun of it. China is clearly moving into techno-totalitarianism. But the driver for both, and for Russia's glorified banditry too, is nationalism.

Nationalism is a hyper-awareness and worship of some idealised idea of the nation state, and a desire for your nation state to out-compete others in some way.

 

[Rival]

OK, but then that's another matter, surely. Alliances are not alternatives to nation states, after all.

I agree the direction of travel of India is alarming - even now to the extent of possible state-sponsored assassinations, apparently! I don't think Canada, of all countries on this Earth, would whip a storm for the fun of it. China is clearly moving into techno-totalitarianism. But the driver for both, and for Russia's glorified banditry too, is nationalism.

Nationalism is a hyper-awareness and worship of some idealised idea of the nation state, and a desire for your nation state to out-compete others in some way.

Surely this is jingoism? I am a nationalist in that I believe in the nation-state, but not because I believe England ought to lord it over others.

 

[Stevicus]

I wasn't talking so much about a federation more so an allyship. Whilst China may have misgivings, India is still trading with Russia as far as I know, and has not condemned them. I'm concerned about China re Taiwan and what would happen if anything kicked off there. Whilst they may not agree with each other, they seem anti-Western enough to make friends. India's ultra-nationalism and its treatment of minorities, Muslims et al. strike as similar to Chinese nationalism and how China views and treat minorities. It's not a good look and I find it daunting.

I agree that they could conceivably forge a temporary alliance, given that each has their reasons for finding itself somewhat at odds with the West. The problem for the West nowadays is that the rest of the world grew up and has its eyes open now. We can't pull the wool over people's eyes, like we did back in the days when we bought Manhattan for $24 worth of wampum. The historical empires of the West were built up as much on con artistry and flimflammery as brute force.

Now, we're facing a world where more governments and national groups simply aren't buying our BS anymore. It doesn't have to necessarily be hostile or conducive to conflict, but it might require some rethinking and readjustment on how the West has typically viewed and perceived the non-Western world.

For one thing, we can't go on acting as if it's our prerogative to be calling all the shots and dictating how the world system should operate.

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely.
The Nation-State is a notion that is inherent and indispensable to the ultimate essence of Europe, since you cannot have Europe, unless there is the respect towards the Nation-State.
It's a sacred notion, that nobody shall and can violate.

It consists in the respect of the cultural, linguistic, historical, juridical and ethnographic identity of that Nation-State.

 

[Estro Felino]

The concept of nation-states may have been useful at some point, but I think they've outlived their purpose. In today's world, the concept seems anachronistic and toxic, especially when considering the ravages that nationalism has wrought upon humanity.

The EU countries are at peace since 1945.
Respecting the Nation-State can be done peacefully and with a pacifistic approach.

Also, with nearly 200 sovereign entities in the world today, it increases the odds of more random elements, where one or more could become rogue nations - or they might be too small or weak to defend themselves, in which case the larger powers would feel an obligation to use force to defend their sovereignty. This is how WW1 began, with Serbian nationalists clashing with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had dreams of expansion into the Balkans, which had just recently gotten free from the hold of another multinational empire. This triggered Germany's "blank check" to Austria and the Russian mobilization which then caused Germany to declare war. Along the same lines, the British declared war on Germany for violating Belgium's neutrality, as Belgium was also unable to defend itself against its larger neighbor.
If these small nation-states had been part of a larger regional power, they'd be much more difficult to dominate or attack, and it would reduce the likelihood of a world war breaking out over a turf war.

It's a long process. But I think that peoples have the right to self-determination.
For instance, if Catalonia wants to become independent, it's their right to do that.

Or even Kosovo had to strive for its own independence, despite the fact that not everyone recognizes it as an independent state.

As Cyrus in The Warriors pointed out: "The problem in the past has been the man turning us against one another. We have been unable to see the truth, because we have been fighting for ten square feet of ground, our turf, our little piece of turf. That's crap, brothers!"

What brings all the European peoples together is the respect of the national identity, which means, that Europe has its own soul.
The same soul which worship beauty, freedom and justice.

Justice implies that the Nation-States are independent from one another.

 

[Stevicus]

The EU countries are at peace since 1945.
Respecting the Nation-State can be done peacefully and with a pacifistic approach.

Well, even that took a great deal of work, and it helped to be under the umbrella of American military and economic power. But the cost for Europe is having to put up with our smiling faces from America - along with McDonald's, Coca-Cola, rock-and-roll, and an active U.S. military presence on the continent. Americans tend to have a positive view of Europeans, and most Europeans I've talked to seem to feel the same way about Americans. Except I think Europeans can get slightly annoyed and irritated by us at times.

Also, the American experience is somewhat different, since most Americans descended from those who left their homelands and nation-states and came to America. Many had to give up their native language and their previous ways of living and assimilate to an American society. This was true for many of my ancestors, who came to this country speaking a different language (as many others did), but by the time it got to the second or third generation, they were all speaking American English and fully melded into the culture. While there might have been some latent national solidarity which kept some groups together, it was all under the basic idea that "we're all patriotic and loyal Americans now."

Language seems to be a key factor when it comes to defining national groups, as it has been in Europe. I think Italian and German nationalism became strong due to their movements to unify both countries, which had previously been divided into various small principalities and duchies, even though they spoke the same language. Then there were also language groups which persisted and survived even when part of another empire, such as the Poles or the Czechs or the Serbians, among others.

It's a long process. But I think that peoples have the right to self-determination.
For instance, if Catalonia wants to become independent, it's their right to do that.

Or even Kosovo had to strive for its own independence, despite the fact that not everyone recognizes it as an independent state.

The whole situation in the former Yugoslavia was and continues to be a sad tragedy with numerous atrocities associated with it. For centuries, that region was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and then Austria tried to move in - with the Russians also having an interest and affection for their Orthodox Slavic cousins. Multinational empires vying for control of a region of smaller nations who were themselves becoming more nationalistic as they clearly didn't like being ruled by other nations.

What brings all the European peoples together is the respect of the national identity, which means, that Europe has its own soul.
The same soul which worship beauty, freedom and justice.

Justice implies that the Nation-States are independent from one another.

Do European countries truly feel independent and sovereign today? Does the EU or NATO affect their ability to act independently?

Ideally, it would be nice if all the nation-states of the world could relate to each other as independent but respected as equal partners. If that's the case for the EU nowadays and they all respect each other and the rule of law, then good for them. If the whole world could be run that way, then maybe we could have a more peaceful and stable planet. I think that was one of the intents behind the creation of the United Nations, but that's only had mixed results.

I guess the main lesson of history is that no matter how much we try to conceive of an idealistic plan to bring about a peaceful, harmonious world, human beings will always find a way to mess it up.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I hear this kind of idea a lot but I don't think it works. There are always going to be territorial disputes and land-grabs; plus the idea, as with Brexit, that some are never going to appreciate being subsumed into a bloc. Largely those from powerful countries like the UK would rather not join, as we see it as diminishing our power (which seems to be the point?) and rather too socialist in the sense of having financial obligations to smaller, less well off countries. From a capitalist pov it seems like nonsense to prop up countries that cannot do it themselves with money better spent on something more workable.

So is this what we must accept, that there will always be wealthy countries and poorer ones, and that these poorer ones should simply accept this? Isn't this a bit immoral - given that the wealthy countries often seem to treat the less wealthy countries as cheaper means to produce what they consume - without much actual transfer of wealth?

 

[Rival]

So is this what we must accept, that there will always be wealthy countries and poorer ones, and that these poorer ones should simply accept this? Isn't this a bit immoral - given that the wealthy countries often seem to treat the less wealthy countries as cheaper means to produce what they consume - without much transfer of wealth actually?

Well, yeah. There's not much else to say. Even Christ says 'The poor you have with you always'. That doesn't mean we can't help, but I find that it's more difficult to help than you'd think. There are good ways to actually send charity, but you need to be in a good position first to be able to do that, knowing that it's going to the right people, not a corrupt government/org. The problem is that most of the places that are able to look after themselves were once empires (the country arguably doing the best for itself in Eastern Europe is Hungary - it once shared an Empire with Austria). Countries that did not amass wealth in the Age of Empire and the Age of Exploration are consequently poorer for it today. Creating wealth is not as easy as it used to be back when you could just take it. I just see this as the way of the world, in an amoral kind of way. Some places have wealth, others haven't. In a world that is naturally competitive, one will always amass more wealth than others. This is what the game Monopoly tries proving.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't have a well-informed opinion on the matter, but my inclination is to go "yes and no" and recognize there are benefits and drawbacks to all forms of human organization. "Yes" because the excessive size of the current human population more or less demands some sort of overarching governance structure whether it is this or something else. "No" because the excessive size of the current human population more or less demands consideration of ecological and environmental factors that transcend any drawn political boundaries.