Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 22:16:21 GMT
turk In so much as I think I got the gist of what you said in your post of a little earlier, you're arguing that politics is totally devoid of virtue and noble purpose and is populated by people who trade in lies and bullshit. It's a morass of venality with few if any saving graces. Accordingly, all politicians are charlatans and serial liars and anybody who seeks some sort of higher moral ground, and tries to call out all the deceit and falsehood, is a brazen hypocrite. Because they must be liars too. Everyone is as bad as each other in other words. The only real difference is between those who get away with it and those, like Johnson, who get found out. Manifestos, statements to the Commons, pledges, government statistics are all, essentially a pack of lies. Wow. I mean really, wow. Eh?? I thought that was a jolly good post by ole Turk and it seems to me to be a mute đ€« point as to whether or not you actually got it . Itâs look the other way time Batty - thatâs all. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 6, 2022 22:19:13 GMT
My ideal would be a single world government to deal with macro issues such as climate change, but without any oppressive state apparatus such as armed forces and "secret services" at it disposal. Local affairs would be managed through locally elected assemblies at the lowest level possible with direct rather than representative democracy for major issues. So called "Nation states" - largely artificial creations of the period of Empire (c1500-1900CE) - would have no place at all. They are invariably geared for war and oppression of both their own people and others. Colonial oppression was of course wholly wrong and should never have happened in the first place. However, most post-colonial states are artificial creations - lines on maps drawn by Europeans - and many are highly oppressive of minorities within their borders. I would happily see them cease to exist to be replaced by the model above. Fundamentally human beings are human beings. Supposed "Nations" and nationalism are a way of dividing us against each other for the benefits of elites. I'd quibble with your dates. England, Scotland, France and many others became recognisable states long before 1500, and there were many long before them - Egypt and China for instance. I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. |
|
|
|
Post by caroline on Feb 6, 2022 22:33:51 GMT
I think a lot of floating voters will make their choice based on the party leaders. As these voters effectively decide elections the character and charisma of said leaders is important, even if it isn't supposed to be. Well, you are entitled to your opinion (even though you are wrong) but I think that most floating voters will want to know how their MPs pronounce âWithamâ. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 6, 2022 22:37:50 GMT
oldnat - "No individuals get a loan, so any legal challenge would have to be based on another premise." So if no individuals get a loan, then there is nothing to repay? There's your legal challenge, perhaps? turk - I have to say this, but I think you are wrong. There is a category difference between Johnson's lies and the more normal evasions and cherry picking that is normal for politics (and any other kind of debate, anywhere). It's a standard defence line in such a scandal to trot out the hoary old chestnut 'oh but they're all the same', but no - they really aren't. Plenty of Conservatives know this too, and all Conservatives - even you - will follow this line once Johnson is deposed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 22:38:36 GMT
Well, you are entitled to your opinion (even though you are wrong) but I think that most floating voters will want to know how their MPs pronounce âWithamâ. They certainly wonât be confident about pronouncing it if theyâve read the exchanges here... And of course Mercian is right - the identity of a potential PM, Corbyn, Johnson, May etc is critical. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,686
|
Post by steve on Feb 6, 2022 22:46:56 GMT
pjw1961 A world view those who were on ukpr might recall I have espoused for years. It's difficult for anyone who believes in any form of nationalism , however benign to get their heads around the concept, that for some of us nationalism and the nation state are the problem. Nice to have company.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Feb 6, 2022 22:48:18 GMT
I'd quibble with your dates. England, Scotland, France and many others became recognisable states long before 1500, and there were many long before them - Egypt and China for instance. I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. I'd quibble with your dates. Seen from the viewpoint of most of Europe. Germany was only united as a nation state by Bismark in 1871 after defeating the French, in the Franco-Prussian War. Belgium was separated from the Netherlands in 1830, Italy was unified in the middle of the 19th century thanks to Garibaldi. Greece was only freed from Ottoman rule in the early 19th Century and the Balkans in the early 20th Century. Norway and Sweden dissolved their union in 1905, The Baltic States became independent of Russia after the revolution in 1917. The Austro-Hungarian Empire only collapsed after World War 1, when the irish Republic also became independent. So for most European nation-states we are talking of their founding within the century from 1820 to 1920. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 6, 2022 22:48:19 GMT
I think mercian is right on this. I am always surprised when I go canvassing how many people don't know who their MP is. Mind you I guess most of them don't know where Witham is either. They certainly wonât be confident about pronouncing it if theyâve read the exchanges here... And of course Mercian is right - the identity of a potential PM, Corbyn, Johnson, May etc is critical. I'm going to cut out and keep that! đ Expect to see it quoted every time I reply to you! |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on Feb 6, 2022 22:48:26 GMT
I think I know why the redoubtable Mr Somerjohn, my old car making confrere, heads to the Iberian Peninsular for sun and solace. It's becoming a centre left haven from European right wing populism. AntĂłnio Costaâs centre left government has just been re-elected in Portugal, improving on their 2019 performance in the process, and the increasingly impressive Pedro SĂĄnchez, first elected in 2018 in Spain, has cobbled together a variety of broadly centre left administrations since and, after hanging on in almost Wilsonian ways for much of that time, is gaining some rewards now, doing well enough in the polls to suggest the old maestro and survivor might be re-elected. I admire Sanchez very much. My sort of politician. It's dangerous to reach across different nations with their particular political cultures and try and draw universally applicable lessons, but as with the Social Democrat revival in Germany under Scholz, the lesson for the centre left in terms of getting into power appears to be to make common cause and eschew virtue based factionalism. Eyes on the bigger picture, a bonfire of the vanities and a steely eyed focus on the real enemy. They're usually the ones in the other tent, not yours. That tent is often running things too. Alas. You've got to evict them. As my lifetime hero Harold once said (my photo for the week) politics is the art of the possible. It always has been. It's a noble trade riddled with inevitable disappointment. Government too is a licence to disappoint really and change is always gradual in a pluralist democracy, but you can change a lot of people's lives immeasurably for the better by having a go. But you have to get in a position of power to even begin to have a go. Labour still have to earn that right, I know. Without being too proud about it all, I think it's worth having a look at Germany, Spain and Portugal and see what the broadly progressive political parties in those countries did in order to win. By winning, some good but very imperfect people are now in power, trying to change people's lives for the better. In disappointing ways too no doubt. But they're having a go. So bravo Antonio, Pedro and Oliver. Keep on keeping on. A Mateus Rose, San Miguel and a Pilsner on me.  Looks like your autocorrect changed Olaf to Oliver! The SPD are still a long way away from where they used to be and only got about 26% of the vote, itâs just that the CDU did even worse. Itâs why a 3 way coalition was needed for the first time nationally. The real party on the up in Germany and who were already in governing coalitions in various states are the Greens. They look like they may replace the SPD as the main party of the left in the not too distant future. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 6, 2022 22:51:42 GMT
pjw1961
"I am opposed to all forms of nationalism"
So, you are including post-colonial nationalisms in that opposition?
Colonial powers should have continued to exercise power over colonies obtained through right of conquest? Before I answer your question, I will note I am fully aware that what follows is probably never going to be possible (although world government is the stock in trade of Science Fiction): My ideal would be a single world government to deal with macro issues such as climate change, but without any oppressive state apparatus such as armed forces and "secret services" at it disposal. Local affairs would be managed through locally elected assemblies at the lowest level possible with direct rather than representative democracy for major issues. So called "Nation states" - largely artificial creations of the period of Empire (c1500-1900CE) - would have no place at all. They are invariably geared for war and oppression of both their own people and others. Colonial oppression was of course wholly wrong and should never have happened in the first place. However, most post-colonial states are artificial creations - lines on maps drawn by Europeans - and many are highly oppressive of minorities within their borders. I would happily see them cease to exist to be replaced by the model above. Fundamentally human beings are human beings. Supposed "Nations" and nationalism are a way of dividing us against each other for the benefits of elites. Lofty ideals, many of which I wish that humans could evolve to adopt, but we are where we are. Colonial powers did create artificial units of peoples to consolidate their power - but that should have no meaning according to your thesis. All humans are the same, and the national/tribal identities that had been created in Africa, for example, had been simply a way in which their elites had manipulated them in their own interests. That may well be the case, and the colonial powers were but countermanding that conditioning by forcing them into cross tribal/national units of governance, and incorporating them all as citizens of a wider system. Of course, we both know that's crap. The coherent governance structures that had developed over centuries (which we could conveniently call "nations") should not have been disrupted by colonisation. The rebellion against that is termed "nationalism" - which you claim to oppose all forms of. Your position is intellectually incoherent. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,136
|
Post by domjg on Feb 6, 2022 22:52:17 GMT
turk In so much as I think I got the gist of what you said in your post of a little earlier, you're arguing that politics is totally devoid of virtue and noble purpose and is populated by people who trade in lies and bullshit. It's a morass of venality with few if any saving graces. Accordingly, all politicians are charlatans and serial liars and anybody who seeks some sort of higher moral ground, and tries to call out all the deceit and falsehood, is a brazen hypocrite. Because they must be liars too. Everyone is as bad as each other in other words. The only real difference is between those who get away with it and those, like Johnson, who get found out. Manifestos, statements to the Commons, pledges, government statistics are all, essentially a pack of lies. Wow. I mean really, wow. it seems Turk has fully embraced the nihilistic Putin approach to politics. If your outfit is crap Try to stamp out hope by trying to convince people that everyone is just as bad or worse really. Moral bankruptcy factor 10. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 6, 2022 22:59:07 GMT
My ideal would be a single world government to deal with macro issues such as climate change, but without any oppressive state apparatus such as armed forces and "secret services" at it disposal. Local affairs would be managed through locally elected assemblies at the lowest level possible with direct rather than representative democracy for major issues. So called "Nation states" - largely artificial creations of the period of Empire (c1500-1900CE) - would have no place at all. They are invariably geared for war and oppression of both their own people and others. Colonial oppression was of course wholly wrong and should never have happened in the first place. However, most post-colonial states are artificial creations - lines on maps drawn by Europeans - and many are highly oppressive of minorities within their borders. I would happily see them cease to exist to be replaced by the model above. Fundamentally human beings are human beings. Supposed "Nations" and nationalism are a way of dividing us against each other for the benefits of elites. I'd quibble with your dates. England, Scotland, France and many others became recognisable states long before 1500, and there were many long before them - Egypt and China for instance. I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. The concept of a "nation state" as it is espoused by nationalists today, i.e one essentially based on language and shared culture, was meaningless in both the ancient world and the medieval world. If you had spoken to someone in England or Scotland in 1300 the concepts of loyalty to a liege monarch and/or "Christendom" and the church would have been their base position. They would have had no idea what was meant by a "nation state". The current concept appears in Western and Northern Europe from around 1500 with Spain, France, Portugal, England, Denmark, Sweden and only much, much later in central, southern and eastern Europe - really only in the 19th century in fact. The creation of supposed "nation states" (often embracing many minority groups) was all about military and economic power and empire building. |
|
|
|
Post by davwel on Feb 6, 2022 22:59:37 GMT
pjw:
"""You seem to assume I am a right-wing, have a dislike of Scottish people and am a keen UK Unionist, and you are wrong on all three counts. Which is exactly the danger of making assumptions. If anything, I am opposed to all forms of nationalism and one of Theresa May's "citizens of nowhere". ""
Your assumptions on what I believe about you is the opposite of what I have concluded from all your posts here.
Why make assumptions about a person when you forget or misjudge their posts, simply on the basis that they come from Scotland so are ignorant about Essex and rarely "visit" there.
Maybe you have forgotten my exchanges here with that strongly RoC person who stayed in Saffron Walden. He was entertaining, and often talked about the views of people he had met in the town.
Possibly your have chosen the wrong person from Scotland to make standard average comments about. Some I am sure go to England less often than I. The book "Being English in Scotland" gives data on the percentages of incomers in the Scotland local government areas, so we have parts such Lanarkshire that are likely to have less travelling to England than the NE.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 6, 2022 23:02:52 GMT
I'd quibble with your dates. England, Scotland, France and many others became recognisable states long before 1500, and there were many long before them - Egypt and China for instance. I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. I'd quibble with your dates. Seen from the viewpoint of most of Europe. Germany was only united as a nation state by Bismark in 1871 after defeating the French, in the Franco-Prussian War. Belgium was separated from the Netherlands in 1830, Italy was unified in the middle of the 19th century thanks to Garibaldi. Greece was only freed from Ottoman rule in the early 19th Century and the Balkans in the early 20th Century. Norway and Sweden dissolved their union in 1905, The Baltic States became independent of Russia after the revolution in 1917. The Austro-Hungarian Empire only collapsed after World War 1, when the irish Republic also became independent. So for most European nation-states we are talking of their founding within the century from 1820 to 1920. I need no history lessons from you. That's why I didn't mention the cases you did. I'm not going to do an exhaustive counter-list because we'd be here all night, but there are plenty of other examples. Switzerland for instance. Lithuania had become a nation before 1500. Italy of course had once been part of the Roman Empire, and Germany and Italy used to be made up of many smaller nations which became consolidated. That doesn't mean the smaller nations weren't states. Of course conquests and consolidations have happened over time, I was just trying to make the point that the inclination to form states did not start in 1500. I agreed with most of the rest of the original post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 23:02:53 GMT
They certainly wonât be confident about pronouncing it if theyâve read the exchanges here... And of course Mercian is right - the identity of a potential PM, Corbyn, Johnson, May etc is critical. I going to cut out and keep that! đ Expect to see it quoted every time I reply to you! You are quite right to be proud đ„Č of an accolade such as that from such a top pundit mercian. Certainly one for your mantelpiece. |
|
|
|
Post by caroline on Feb 6, 2022 23:04:10 GMT
I think you're wrong there. I'd say that robbie's description pretty much applies to me, and I believe I'm considered RoC - I've even been called far right! I think you're falling into the trap of believing that those that you disagree with politically are somehow worse human beings than your 'side' just because they have different priorities or ideas to yourself. Then unsurprisingly we disagree. I see no contradiction if somebody considered right of centre is also a socialist. I think you are falling into the trap of assuming what my political orientation is. Just being an anti-fascist doesn't necessarily make one left wing. I agree that being anti-fascist doesn't make one left wing but to consider someone right of centre as a socialist is a bit bazar. Many people in the Lib. Dems consider themselves LOC but might puke at being called a socialist. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 6, 2022 23:07:19 GMT
Alec
"So if no individuals get a loan, then there is nothing to repay?"
As I struggle to comprehend the inanities of Sunak's scheme, that would appear to be the case.
No individuals will receive a loan from UKGov, and will not have to repay a loan they never got.
The suppliers will have received a loan which they have been instructed to distribute as ÂŁ200 per current meter that they supply to. To recoup that expenditure, they have been instructed to levy ÂŁ40 per year from each April quarterly bill (whether the individual paying that bill was the same one whose bill in October 2022 was reduced, or not).
As no individual received a loan, no individual will be asked to repay it. In most cases the consumer whose bill was reduced by ÂŁ200 in October 2022, will be the same as the the one paying an extra ÂŁ40 every April for 5 years - but there will be many anomalies in which some individuals will have their energy bills reduced by ÂŁ200 and have no consequential increases, while others will have the increases without having had the benefit of the previous reduction.
If judicial reviews are still allowed in the UK, after the Tories have done their worst, there may be a mechanism available to challenge the obvious unfairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 6, 2022 23:12:13 GMT
I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. The concept of a "nation state" as it is espoused by nationalists today, i.e one essentially based on language and shared culture, was meaningless in both the ancient world and the medieval world. If you had spoken to someone in England or Scotland in 1300 the concepts of loyalty to a liege monarch and/or "Christendom" and the church would have been their base position. They would have had no idea what was meant by a "nation state". The current concept appears in Western and Northern Europe from around 1500 with Spain, France, Portugal, England, Denmark, Sweden and only much, much later in central, southern and eastern Europe - really only in the 19th century in fact. The creation of supposed "nation states" (often embracing many minority groups) was all about military and economic power and empire building. They may not have used the term nation state, but they would have known who their king was and what country they were in. And go back to Rome - ok it's called an Empire not a nation state but it had a common language and culture - look at all the Roman Villas, Baths, Amphitheatres etc in England and Wales. I was just quibbling about your 1500 date. Look at the way Richard of England and Louis of France squabbled over the leadership of the Third Crusade. I agreed with most of the rest. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 6, 2022 23:12:39 GMT
Before I answer your question, I will note I am fully aware that what follows is probably never going to be possible (although world government is the stock in trade of Science Fiction): My ideal would be a single world government to deal with macro issues such as climate change, but without any oppressive state apparatus such as armed forces and "secret services" at it disposal. Local affairs would be managed through locally elected assemblies at the lowest level possible with direct rather than representative democracy for major issues. So called "Nation states" - largely artificial creations of the period of Empire (c1500-1900CE) - would have no place at all. They are invariably geared for war and oppression of both their own people and others. Colonial oppression was of course wholly wrong and should never have happened in the first place. However, most post-colonial states are artificial creations - lines on maps drawn by Europeans - and many are highly oppressive of minorities within their borders. I would happily see them cease to exist to be replaced by the model above. Fundamentally human beings are human beings. Supposed "Nations" and nationalism are a way of dividing us against each other for the benefits of elites. Lofty ideals, many of which I wish that humans could evolve to adopt, but we are where we are. Colonial powers did create artificial units of peoples to consolidate their power - but that should have no meaning according to your thesis. All humans are the same, and the national/tribal identities that had been created in Africa, for example, had been simply a way in which their elites had manipulated them in their own interests. That may well be the case, and the colonial powers were but countermanding that conditioning by forcing them into cross tribal/national units of governance, and incorporating them all as citizens of a wider system. Of course, we both know that's crap. The coherent governance structures that had developed over centuries (which we could conveniently call "nations") should not have been disrupted by colonisation. The rebellion against that is termed "nationalism" - which you claim to oppose all forms of. Your position is intellectually incoherent. I have no desire to be rude, but actually it is you that is being inconsistent. You are saying, quite correctly, that tribal societies were overridden by colonial exploitative powers (themselves "nation states" be it noted), but then also saying that the removal of those powers was a "nationalist" revolt. How can it be a "nationalist" revolt when there was no nation before the colonists arrived? Why did independent Rwanda end up in genocide? Why are the French speakers in Cameroon suppressing the English speakers? Why were the Rohingyas in Myanmar butchered? Like pretty much every state on Earth these are not really nation states and governments imposing a single "nationhood" on them ends in blood. Nations are the problem, not the solution. P.S I am entirely happy for the Scots to leave the union and for a united Ireland. In fact if Wales would become independent I would happily move there. But in no case would I think the creation of a new nation state is actually going to improve things for anyone in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Feb 6, 2022 23:14:14 GMT
I going to cut out and keep that! đ Expect to see it quoted every time I reply to you! "Hello? IT support? My computer screen isn't working. I think it might have happened when I took my scissors to it..." đ |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 6, 2022 23:18:39 GMT
domjg"crossbat11 Looks like your autocorrect changed Olaf to Oliver! The SPD are still a long way away from where they used to be and only got about 26% of the vote, itâs just that the CDU did even worse. Itâs why a 3 way coalition was needed for the first time nationally. The real party on the up in Germany and who were already in governing coalitions in various states are the Greens. They look like they may replace the SPD as the main party of the left in the not too distant future"Mea culpa. Can't blame the autocorrect. I thought it was Oliver! Never been great on names. As for the SPD and the likelihood of them being superseded by the Greens in Germany, in a PR electoral system, it sort of doesn't matter very much does it? Neither of them will ever form a government on their own and will need to build alliances of like minded political parties to gain power. I'm not an expert on German politics, and I know Merkel formed CSU/SPD coalition governments for long periods, but the SPD and Greens policies are quite similar and compatible. The general point I was making in my earlier post was that where centre left parties in Europe are gaining/retaining power, they are doing so by building broad electoral alliances that ensure they prevail (or that give them the best chance of winning). The alliance then pertains in government. I'm increasingly convinced that the centre left in British politics will have to game the current electoral system if they are ever to win again.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,590
|
Post by pjw1961 on Feb 6, 2022 23:19:41 GMT
I'd quibble with your dates. Seen from the viewpoint of most of Europe. Germany was only united as a nation state by Bismark in 1871 after defeating the French, in the Franco-Prussian War. Belgium was separated from the Netherlands in 1830, Italy was unified in the middle of the 19th century thanks to Garibaldi. Greece was only freed from Ottoman rule in the early 19th Century and the Balkans in the early 20th Century. Norway and Sweden dissolved their union in 1905, The Baltic States became independent of Russia after the revolution in 1917. The Austro-Hungarian Empire only collapsed after World War 1, when the irish Republic also became independent. So for most European nation-states we are talking of their founding within the century from 1820 to 1920. I need no history lessons from you. That's why I didn't mention the cases you did. I'm not going to do an exhaustive counter-list because we'd be here all night, but there are plenty of other examples. Switzerland for instance. Lithuania had become a nation before 1500. Italy of course had once been part of the Roman Empire, and Germany and Italy used to be made up of many smaller nations which became consolidated. That doesn't mean the smaller nations weren't states. Of course conquests and consolidations have happened over time, I was just trying to make the point that the inclination to form states did not start in 1500. I agreed with most of the rest of the original post. You're mixing up states and nation states. Tuscany was a state; the Roman Empire was state. Neither was a nation state (one because it did not encompass all the Italian speakers, the other because it was a multi-lingual empire). Italy is a nation state. Lithuania was actually part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a vast but very loosely held together confederation, in the early modern period. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 6, 2022 23:33:31 GMT
mercian leftieliberal and pjw1961 - "I'd quibble with your dates." Could be wrong here, but I think this is the first "quibble!" on UKPR2. Better call @crofty for and adjudication? Bearing in mind tht it's a waxing new moon, it could be a tight judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 6, 2022 23:34:10 GMT
You're mixing up states and nation states. Tuscany was a state; the Roman Empire was state. Neither was a nation state (one because it did not encompass all the Italian speakers, the other because it was a multi-lingual empire). Italy is a nation state. Lithuania was actually part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a vast but very loosely held together confederation, in the early modern period. Never heard of Latin? Anyway, I don't know what your particular definition of a nation state is as opposed to a state, but I was just trying to say that the concept of a nation state as I understand it predates 1500, even though it wasn't universal. To keep it simple, and avoiding going down labyrinths of history and geography, let's take England. It was a unified country before the Norman Conquest and spoke more or less the same language (though even today a broad Devonian and Tynesider might find verbal communication difficult, not to mention the Black Country)! Would you argue that the current UK or USA are not nation states because they don't encompass all native English speakers? Anyway, it was but a minor quibble and as I've said I agree with most of the rest of the original post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 0:13:51 GMT
I'd quibble with your dates. England, Scotland, France and many others became recognisable states long before 1500, and there were many long before them - Egypt and China for instance. I would argue that it's a fundamental human instinct to form groupings that evolve into states. The concept of a "nation state" as it is espoused by nationalists today, i.e one essentially based on language and shared culture, was meaningless in both the ancient world and the medieval world. If you had spoken to someone in England or Scotland in 1300 the concepts of loyalty to a liege monarch and/or "Christendom" and the church would have been their base position. They would have had no idea what was meant by a "nation state". The current concept appears in Western and Northern Europe from around 1500 with Spain, France, Portugal, England, Denmark, Sweden and only much, much later in central, southern and eastern Europe - really only in the 19th century in fact. The creation of supposed "nation states" (often embracing many minority groups) was all about military and economic power and empire building. I really wanted to keep out of it, but as people got engaged with the subject... First of all, I fully agree with your desire, but it has to come from the people, if it does, even if in fragments, it can be embraced politically, and who knows... But it has to come from them. It is also important that you (and someone else) pointed out that the concept of national state is pretty recent. But from this direct link cannot be made to political action (earlier sentence of mine). Secondly, Stalin's pamphlet on Marxism and the National Question is a pretty good one on the subject, especially if one combines it with his speech (Concerning the national.question in Yugoslavia in 1925). Thirdly, without structural changes of our democracy it will never become an issue. Look at Brexit! It is an unbelievably good example of the friction of politics, economics, culture and whatever. The only way it can happen is the breaking down of transmission mechanisms between these (probably triggered by the economy). It is u likely to happen any time soon. However, it can happen through responsible business, sustainable business, etc. just it is not communicated in that way. But it could be done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 0:16:17 GMT
I'd quibble with your dates. Seen from the viewpoint of most of Europe. Germany was only united as a nation state by Bismark in 1871 after defeating the French, in the Franco-Prussian War. Belgium was separated from the Netherlands in 1830, Italy was unified in the middle of the 19th century thanks to Garibaldi. Greece was only freed from Ottoman rule in the early 19th Century and the Balkans in the early 20th Century. Norway and Sweden dissolved their union in 1905, The Baltic States became independent of Russia after the revolution in 1917. The Austro-Hungarian Empire only collapsed after World War 1, when the irish Republic also became independent. So for most European nation-states we are talking of their founding within the century from 1820 to 1920. I need no history lessons from you. That's why I didn't mention the cases you did. I'm not going to do an exhaustive counter-list because we'd be here all night, but there are plenty of other examples. Switzerland for instance. Lithuania had become a nation before 1500. Italy of course had once been part of the Roman Empire, and Germany and Italy used to be made up of many smaller nations which became consolidated. That doesn't mean the smaller nations weren't states. Of course conquests and consolidations have happened over time, I was just trying to make the point that the inclination to form states did not start in 1500. I agreed with most of the rest of the original post. They were not nation states - and that was the first claim you made. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 7, 2022 0:33:25 GMT
pjw1961
"You are saying, quite correctly, that tribal societies were overridden by colonial exploitative powers (themselves "nation states" be it noted), but then also saying that the removal of those powers was a "nationalist" revolt. How can it be a "nationalist" revolt when there was no nation before the colonists arrived?"
I know you are not trying to be rude, and neither am I, but you appear to be adopting a very "19th century European" concept of a "nation" and imposing it on different societies using different labels.
Of course, the colonial units created by the colonial powers divided the previous governance units (call them anything you want, but "nation" is the translation commonly used by the Zulus for themselves) and split them across different territories (Rwanda is a perfect example). That was the essence of colonialism to divide and conquer.
To deny that "nations" (want to try to provide a definition of that concept, beyond European assumptions?) existed prior to colonial rule is to display a deep ignorance of non-European societies.
I didn't invent the term "post colonial nationalism". I simply used the term that is widely used to describe the struggle for freedom from colonial rule.
It is a form of "nationalism" which you declared your opposition to along with any form of nationalism.
I merely suggest that your particular use of the term is derived from a rather narrow, culturally derived interpretation which you then generalise inappropriately.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 7, 2022 0:48:09 GMT
pjw1961"Italy is a nation state." Have you ever spoken to folk in Sicily or SĂŒdtirol? Italy is certainly a state. It has accumulated a number of other territories into itself, but the term "nation" is more an aspiration of the central elite rather than an actuality. Mazzini wrote many volumes trying to define the Italian nation through factors such as religion, language, diet, culture. None of them worked. In the end, he came up with the eminently sensible conclusion that "the nation of Italy consists of those who consider themselves to belong to it".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 1:07:43 GMT
Never heard of Latin? Anyway, I don't know what your particular definition of a nation state is as opposed to a state, but I was just trying to say that the concept of a nation state as I understand it predates 1500, even though it wasn't universal. To keep it simple, and avoiding going down labyrinths of history and geography, let's take England. It was a unified country before the Norman Conquest and spoke more or less the same language (though even today a broad Devonian and Tynesider might find verbal communication difficult, not to mention the Black Country)! Would you argue that the current UK or USA are not nation states because they don't encompass all native English speakers? Anyway, it was but a minor quibble and as I've said I agree with most of the rest of the original post. I'm no expert and will probably call down the wrath of Old Nat with this but here are my thoughts for what they are worth.
Nation states are a relatively recent thing. Kingdoms with antecedent names existed but were largely personal, often complex (County Palatines, Principalities, Marcher Lords, French/Irish/Scottish/Norse posessions etc. in England's case), often mult-national and not really sophisticated enough to constitute nation-states anyway until around 1500. Arguably neither the modern UK nor the USA are nation states. The UK can be defined as a multi-national state and the USA is a federated state. Although the UK is a very complex example and difficult to define. Countries within countries and all that. I don't like to be so dogmatic as to say I oppose all nationalism, but I do have a problem with it as an ideology, mainly due to the difficulty in defining what constitues a nation and the divisiveness that goes with it. Ethnic nationalism breaks down very fast. Followed to its logical conclusion we are probably all East Africans anyway. Cultural nationalism does at least have the virtue of allowing people to choose their nation but then you come to the problem of state borders and who gets to choose.
Taking Scotland as an example, my understanding (cue Old Nat's outrage) is that Scotland is not a soverign state, the UK is. Scotland has it's own laws, customs etc. but these are, if not granted, tolerated by the UK state. Tolerated is probably the wrong word but essentially the UK is the unitary state and the other 'nations' are subdivisions with some regional autonomy. So then who gets to decide who can break away? I think legally it is the UK government but the legality of that would be very complex. From a more self determinist point of view it seems right that if a majority of Scottish residents want to break away from the UK they should be allowed to do so, but then presumably the same applies to the subdivisions of Scotland, who could wish to remain in the UK. So, in my opinion it's a horrible mess best avoided. Personally, I like Scotland and many of her people, so I'd like them to be part of the UK with me but I wouldn't want to try to force them to. Other opinions are obviously available and will presumably be along soon to tell us why I'm wrong. 
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Feb 7, 2022 1:09:28 GMT
pjw1961"The concept of a "nation state" as it is espoused by nationalists today, i.e one essentially based on language and shared culture"Thankfully, I have always considered the term "nation state" to be either tautological (as it might be for Iceland), or expansionist nationalism (as with Putin) or simply inaccurate. You appear to have a simplistic view of these strange creatures that you term "nationalists". Regardless of which country they live in, the demography of the state they live in, or their views on anything, they all share a single definition of a term that may well not use or believe in, but that you have kindly provided for them. What a mono-visual world you inhabit. (That's not rude, just an expression of incredulity).
|
|
