Do You Support The Nation-State?

[Mock Turtle]

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 where 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 other. This is what the game Monopoly tries proving.

But still, I think many are likely to look at the past of many countries, as to colonialism and exploitation, and perhaps see that 'there but for the grace of God' (but not literally) we might be where other countries are now - given that I'm more inclined to believe Jared Diamond's view as to human development based on land masses forming as they did - so a bit random. And given such I can't see why any wealthy country would want to remain as such rather than some serious levelling up occurring. Apart from the obvious reasons. But then I have no answers as to this.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

It's a mutual feeling.
Sometimes Europeans complain about the US interference in some matters, but they don't mean American commoners, at all.
They don't mean them, they mean the political élites, and the MIC.
American commoners is what make America great. Not the élites, which are an irrelevant, small number.

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.

Italy and Germany had parallel lives. They reached the complete national unification, in the same year, 1870, with the take of Rome, and with the battle of Sedan.

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.

We don't use the term Yugoslavia any more because it evokes a past of wars, Tito, etc...
We use the term Balkan countries; for example now my country and others are helping Albania and Bosnia join the EU.

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

Thanks to Brexit, the EU technocratic élites are weakened, so they are bossing around, less and less.
It needs to be reformed. A change is needed.

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.

Exactly. I dream of a world where there is not the "Us vs Them" mentality, but every nation-state respect other nation-states.
We Europeans ought to respect other countries and other continents, but other countries and other continents ought to respect Europe, and its cultural, juridical, and historical identity, founded upon the roots of Western Civilization.

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.

European countries may be different. But Europe has a only, unique soul, That you cannot find anywhere else.

 

[Rival]

But still, I think many are likely to look at the past of many countries, as to colonialism and exploitation, and perhaps see that 'there but for the grace of God' (but not literally) we might be where other countries are now - given that I'm more inclined to believe Jarod Diamond's view as to human development based on land masses forming as they did - so a bit random. And given such I can't see why any wealthy country would want to remain as such rather than some serious levelling up occurring. Apart from the obvious reasons. But then I have no answers as to this.

Yes, geography plays a huge role in this. Europe does well for being a horizontal plane, South America and Africa do badly for being vertical. It's a very odd problem to solve.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Well, it's true that nationalism has several meanings, one of which is devotion, especially undiscrimating or excessive devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state. I used it in that sense.

But it is also interesting that you refer to England. What nation do you think you belong to? England or the United Kingdom? I should tell you that I have little or no attachment to England - especially after the last few years.

 

[Rival]

Well, it's true that nationalism has several meanings.

But it is also interesting that you refer to England. What nation do you think you belong to? England or the United Kingdom?

I believe I am British abroad, and I am English at home. I see myself largely as English, but then again I'm a Mediaevalist, and my concept of 'The United Kingdom' is fading rapidly. I find more and more that my education and culture is highly English and Anglican (Church). I see this more and more too in my conversations with Vou.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

I believe that the nation state is inherently reactionary while supporting the right of each to self determination.

 

[exchemist]

I believe I am British abroad, and I am English at home. I see myself largely as English, but then again I'm a Mediaevalist, and my concept of 'The United Kingdom' is fading rapidly. I find more and more that my education and culture is highly English and Anglican (Church). I see this more and more too in my conversations with Vou.

That's sort of the point I've been making, about various levels of identification. I see no reason to single out the particular level in the hierarchy of the nation state as being the only one that is valid.

My time in the Netherlands, the nationality of my wife and son, and the whole deeply unedifying business of Brexit - which stripped me of the European citizenship I had come to value so much - have all conspired to destroy most of my loyalty to England. Though as someone with a dormant love of Scotland (now rekindled by my son being at university there), I have some feeling for Britain, still, I suppose.

 

[Rival]

That's sort of the point I've been making, about various levels of identification. I see no reason to single out the particular level in the hierarchy of the nation state as being the only one that is valid.

My time in the Netherlands, the nationality of my wife and son, and the whole deeply unedifying business of Brexit - which stripped me of the European citizenship I had come to value so much - have all conspired to destroy most of my loyalty to England. Though as someone with a dormant love of Scotland (now rekindled by my son being at university there), I have some feeling for Britain, still, I suppose.

The issue I see with this is that we are still culturally, linguistically, religiously Europeans, regardless of any official papers for a union. I will always be European, by virtue of being English. There's a strong distinction between the union and the culture. A European living in Canada is still a European. I don't grasp the need for a union for this ideal, really. We did it in the Middle Ages with a tacit union under Christendom. Nowadays we're trying to replicate that, but with a nebulous European Union identity that doesn't really mean anything to me or many people. As with many of my fellow cultural Anglicans, 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England'.

 

[Augustus]

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.

WW1 was significantly a product of the break up of larger powers.

Whether or not large blocs prevent war during their existence, their break up certainly increases the potential for war.

 

[Augustus]

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

Decentralised federal states are probably the least bad option.

Transnational blocs are unlikely to be viable in the long term without a common thread or external enemy to hold them together through times of crisis.

Increasing scale and complexity leads to increasingly detached and inefficient governance and vastly increased fragility.

 

[Rival]

Decentralised federal states are probably the least bad option.

Transnational blocs are unlikely to be viable in the long term without a common thread or external enemy to hold them together through times of crisis.

Increasing scale and complexity leads to increasingly detached and inefficient governance and vastly increased fragility.

Would or could you argue that the decline in Christianity/Christendom has led to the fracturing of Europe as a political entity? The nation-state is a largely Protestant concept, and we know Protestants in England even now have a tendency to favour being outside of the EU. The common thread of the cross has gone, and this seemed to come to a head in the late Victorian-Edwardian eras with the collapse of Empires and the World War. This coincided with rising rates of complete non-belief and political ideologies/idealism.

 

[Augustus]

Would or could you argue that the decline in Christianity/Christendom has led to the fracturing of Europe as a political entity?

More a failure to understand Western liberalism is a legacy of Christianity rather than a universal product of reason is likely to lead to the demise of liberalism.

Europe has never been much of a political entity,

I do believe nations or other groups need a common religion or mythos to unify them though.

The idea everyone can be citizens of the world united by their common humanity alone while living in an infinitely diverse harmony is rather fantastical.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

I'd go for an independent free nation.

 

[Stevicus]

WW1 was significantly a product of the break up of larger powers.

Whether or not large blocs prevent war during their existence, their break up certainly increases the potential for war.

Another way to look at it would be the larger powers fighting over the same region. If they had just decided to let Austria have Serbia, that would have been the end of it. But because Russia wanted to aid Serbia, that triggered Germany, and it escalated quickly.

 

[Left Coast]

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

At this point I think we need a combination of both things. Indepedent nations ought to have the sovereign rights over their land and have the ability, within reason, to govern themselves. But international alliances and organizations have a place too, so long as they are freely agreed to by the individual states. States acting in cooperation can accomplish more together than separate, often for their mutual benefit. Some progressives long for a day when nations will vanish; I see no need nor good reason to want that. There's nothing inherently evil about nations; they're organized groups of people like any other.

 

[exchemist]

The issue I see with this is that we are still culturally, linguistically, religiously Europeans, regardless of any official papers for a union. I will always be European, by virtue of being English. There's a strong distinction between the union and the culture. A European living in Canada is still a European. I don't grasp the need for a union for this ideal, really. We did it in the Middle Ages with a tacit union under Christendom. Nowadays we're trying to replicate that, but with a nebulous European Union identity that doesn't really mean anything to me or many people. As with many of my fellow cultural Anglicans, 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England'.

An EU passport is a tangible symbol of being part of the EU family. Speaking as someone who spent a 30 year career making friends with people from different countries, it was a good feeling to think that these EU people were all "family", that the feelings of friendship were reciprocated, and that the whole of Western Europe belonged to us all, jointly. There was a real feeling that we were all batting for the same side. That has now gone. Our act of leaving feels to them like a repudiation of that friendship. They keep asking why. So for me, with my experiences, membership of the EU was real, valuable at a personal level (let alone the economic advantages) and much to be missed.

The notion of some of our politicians that, instead, I should now transfer my sense of belonging, back to the very country that has snatched away membership of that extended family, is ridiculous. But my son is still part of the family, I'm happy to say .

 

[Heyo]

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.

Yep. And the anachronism is for multiple reasons, of which some haven't been mentioned, yet.
Although not a new phenomenon (the Dutch and British East India Companies were basically multinational powers worth more than some countries), corporations have become powers in themselves that can and do play nations against each other. They need international regulations.
The climate crisis can't be tackled by individual nations, we need an international solution.
The EU is a model for successful (widely, if we disregard GB) multinational cooperation. I expect other groups will form with similar intent, Africa for example.

The main problem when forming unions like the EU or even an international group like the UN (but with real democracy and real power) is federalism. Rights and duties of each level of government have to be precisely defined and accepted. I.e. national leaders will have to give up some power to greater union - and people don't like to relinquish power they have.

 

[Yerda]

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.

I think I agree with this.

I find something desirable in both the idea of the nation and in the hope a united human people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I feel it's outlived it usefulness and has become more problematic than it's worth. It may have helped unit people and eased up on inner fighting in those groups, but today we've just become a bunch of individual actors who need to come tonsee ourselves as members of something larger so we think in terms of peaceful coexistence of member-states working with eachother instead of remaining a multitude of individuals working for our own interests which will inevitably lead to conflict. Nation states still like war, but with member-states we have more possiblity for negotiations and peacefully resolving conflicts without war. It also seems a defensive necessity, such as we are seeing in Ukraine with the Russian invasion, it can help keep individual nation states from being trampled by the boots of tyranny and defend against the idea that might is right.

 

[Rival]

I feel it's outlived it usefulness and has become more problematic than it's worth. It may have helped unit people and eased up on inner fighting in those groups, but today we've just become a bunch of individual actors who need to come tonsee ourselves as members of something larger so we think in terms of peaceful coexistence of member-states working with eachother instead of remaining a multitude of individuals working for our own interests which will inevitably lead to conflict. Nation states still like war, but with member-states we have more possiblity for negotiations and peacefully resolving conflicts without war. It also seems a defensive necessity, such as we are seeing in Ukraine with the Russian invasion, it can help keep individual nation states from being trampled by the boots of tyranny and defend against the idea that might is right.

But we do still see the powerful states dominating the least powerful in these groups; the US actually does better at regulating this kind of behaviour than the EU does. A lot of people see the EU as a German project, which it has often seemed to be. This still breeds resentment. I can see the idea in principle, but in theory there will always be a dominating force. I also don't like the protectionism of the EU.