/lit/ - Literature

Something by Hegel for sure

>is nationalism moral

no

>>9333997
Thanks

> is nationalism moral?
No it's only liked by /pol/ manbabies.

>>9334055
There is nothing inherently immoral about nationalism. Also fuck off back to Plebbit with that pic.

>>9334105
Hot sources babe

>>9334105
>he says posting a reddit tier image

I want crossboarders to leave

>>9334105
There is nothing wrong with Reddit.

>is nationalism moral?

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean. I can't take anyone seriously who judges things based on such vague notions as "morality".

>>9333985
Read Mishima.

>>9334133
dude seppuku lmao isn't a citable source unfortunately

>>9333985
Do you want modern nationalism or romantic nationalism?

Rousseau's Discourses + Heidegger's Memorial Address can help a babby into these types of ideas.

>>9333985
Max Stirner, the ego and his own.

>>9333985
Nationalism is reality. We're all nationalists... it's just that your nation doesn't control any land

>>9334666
>im proud to have been born on this plot of land which is dominated by people who aren't me

>>9334678
well said, I also take pride in "my" "race's" accomplishments in which I did nothing to further.

>>9333985
is nationalism moral? im leaning towards no, but i need to think about it more. it sure has caused a lot of immoral consequences in the world thats for sure.
a better question would be, is nationalist 'rational'? that would be an immediate no. it makes no fucking sense to be nationalist, thats why

>>9334710
>it's irrational to associate with people who share the same values as you and help them prosper

?????

>>9334732
>Implying you necessarily share the reigning values upong your nation.

>>9334743
Your nation IS those who you share values with. You're applying an idiosyncratic definition of a nation as "a plot of land" with borders around it. That would be a country.

>>9334743
Nation ≠ State

>>9334747
You are wrong as well, an example of a nation would be ancient Greece, similar culture and race but not under one rule. A state without a nation would be something like Iraq with loads of minorities that do not identity or support each other and want independence. A nation state would be a country like modern Russia or Japan.

>>9334747
wait, what? whats the point even calling it nationalism then? why not have a better word for it by now?

>>9334774
>thinks russia isn't split into autonomous minorities regions who don't identify or support each other.

>>9333985
It's not an issue of morality, it just doesn't add anything to people's lives other than a vague sense of pride + causes a lot of unnecessary conflict/death.

Is nationalism is defined as "putting the interest of your country over other nations", then yes it is perfectly moral. In the same way that you put the interest of your family over other families.

Best book on the birth of and childhood of nationalism, and its interplay with infant socialism that i have ever read

>>9334797
B-b-but Hitler

This thread is terrible.

Read pic related to at least give yourself some foundational understanding of the history of differing nationalistic ideologies and ideas.

any moral argument for nationalism must account for its genocides

>calls people cucks
>believes in nationalism, an ideology that would punish you for being a neckbeard who posts frogs online all day

literally what did they mean by this? I know /pol/ doesn't read but still

>>9334826

if every country was nationalist, there would be no genocide

>>9334832
If we were living in Gravity's Rainbow Pynchon would write a passage about how they only support it because they'd be forced to procreate with attractive white women to "save their race" like the Mineshaft Gap in Dr. Strangelove

>>9334833
>leaders of nation want profit
>don't actually give a shit about race or religion, that's a tool to control lowbrow proles
>war and genocide make profit
>"if all countries were nationalistic, we wouldn't have war"

really makes u think

>>9334826
>any moral argument must be consequentialist

Ummmmm no... wew /lit/ is full of brainlets

>>9334838

>leaders dont care about race or religion

This is never true. This is one thing that Marxists have always been totally incorrect about.

>>9334639
Modern;

>>9334832
Mad cuck? Go prep the bull

>>9333985

I don't know if it's moral, but forcing countries to be globalist is certainly not any more moral.

>>9334826
*any moral argument for the specific kind of nationalism employed

It's like saying hippie communes and Soviet gulags are on par because they share a basis in ideology.

>>9334747
>>9334762
Shared culture doesn't imply shared values.

>>9334797
You must sustent your claim of morality. Isn't it in fact selfish to put your families interest above others? Isn't it more moral to put humanity's interests above all? Even christianity, in all its moral bankruptcy, preaches the abandonment of the family to follow Christ.

>>9333985
Nationalism only works/worked when it was paired with liberalism.
Just look at 1848 so called spring of nations.
based on that I'd say that it's pretty useful for nation building, but once that happens, it's not that useful any more.

>>9334888
>Isn't it in fact selfish to put your families interest above others?

Yes, but there is nothing wrong with being selfish.

Telling people they cannot give prefernece to their own families is far more evil, than actually giving preference to your own family.

>>9334888

Do you really believe people shouldn't prioritize their own children over others?

>>9334895
>Telling people they cannot give prefernece to their own families is far more evil

why?

>>9334908
>>9334888
>race and country = family

kys

>>9334895
>>9334902
I'm saying there's no reason to claim that doing so (giving preference to your family) is more moral.

>>9334908

Because you are asking humans to suppress their most basic instincts for the sake of the collective. You are basically saying that individual preference has no place in your society.

>>9334902

He's clearly talking out of his ass. Christianity "preaches the abandonment of the family"? Nigga wat.

Your only purpose on this blue marble- if we can call it that- is to pass on your genes. Failing to do that essentially renders your life a failure. Family is everything.

>>9334917
A line of reasoning was made earlier in which they started from nation and ended in family. There's obviously a relationship, even if it's not a perfect analogy.

>>9334908

I honestly do not have a "logical" answer to that question, but I would never want to live in a society where giving preference to your own children is seen as evil. That just seems incredibly perverse.

>>9333985
Nationalism is arbitrary, if your country has done you right it is moral to love it, if contrary then no.

Ethnic pride is more important, your bloodline is the most important relationship in life. Which is completely irrelevant to modern national identities due to multiculturalism

>>9334888
>Isn't it more moral to put humanity's interests above all?

It would be in humanity's interest if everyone acted in their own self interest

>>9334927
Apostles, Christ. Too obvious to provide citations.

>>9334927
>Your only purpose on this blue marble- if we can call it that- is to pass on your genes. Failing to do that essentially renders your life a failure. Family is everything.

Under this line of reasoning an argument could be made for the purpose of life being eating and shitting, as they're too biological functions. You're rendering reproduction as more important arbitrarily.

>>9334926
>basic instincts

lol

>>9334939
That implies people know what's they're best interest.

>>9334932
that's been the basis for hunter-gather/tribal societies. are they perverse?

>>9334938

It's not irrelevant, notice how most people still vote along ethnic lines. And notice how most people still segregate themselves.

>>9334949
life's purpose*

>>9334953
surely government, experts and "friends of mankind" will find out for him

>>9334938
modern? it's been irrelevant for human history. symbolic kinship has always existed and people have always migrated and blended together.

>>9334960
Why is bloodline more important?

>>9334973
Nations in history were always focused around ethnic groups, multicultural mixed states are a modern invention.

>>9334991
no they aren't. ethnicity is the modern concept.

>>9334991
Kek nah, Europe has been multicultural for at least 2000 years

>>9334991
>Ancient Rome is a modern invention

>>9335011
under christian umbrella which destroyed all heresies pretty efficiently.

>>9335030
You can be heretic only if you were Christian in the first place

>>9335030
And the inquisition started in the 13th century if I remember correctly

>>9335010
Just wrong

>>9335023
>conquest and subjugation are ethnic mixing
>all races were treated equally in rome
Wow interesting anon

>>9335055
Everyone was allowed to keep their religion and culture so long as they saluted and worshipped the Emperor as well. It really was multicultural.

>>9335055
>just wrong

not an argument.

>>9335059
not to mentioned that "romans" started with intermarriage and cultural exchange between Etruscans and Romans.

>>9335055
>conquest and subjugation
That's a retarded view to think that all the migrations that happened during Ancient Rome and after that were products of wars and conquests

Am I a nationalist if I don't want my country to become more Islamic?

>>9335010
every greek tribe had a legendary hero forefather which in turn was the son of a god. you think they did it as tourism attraction?

>>9334832
I'd wager the neckbeard among all others would actually be the most acutely aware of the suffering caused by social alienation and lack of a larger purpose or structure to provide meaning to his life. Perhaps it is too late for him to become some kind of ubermensch, but be drawn to an ideology that could save others from the suffering of being cast adrift by the world that tortures him.

Absolutely awful thread. >>9334823 is the only one who has a clue what he's talking about.

Almost all non-academic discussions of nationalism are a complete non-starter because everyone understands something different by the term. That's why you always get aimless arguments like in this thread that conflate nationalism and patriotism, or nationalism and right-wing politics, or nations and states. So OP, if you want to read about nationalism you need to begin with a theoretical basis and definitions. Benedict Anderson ("Imagined Communities") is a good start here and kind of a classic, and Ernest Gellner ("Nations and Nationalism") defines the political ideology expressed by the term and traces its origins to modernity and industrialisation.

The topic of morality and nationalism is an interesting one but also subject to the kind of problems inherent with having two difficult-to-define terms. But I'd recommend reading Neal Ascherson's address to the Scottish National Party conference in 1986 - it's called "Don't Be Afraid, And Don't Steal!' and is in his collection Games With Shadows. I can't find it online but it might be there somewhere. He talks about the moral element - as opposed to economic, political, etc. - of Scottish, Czech and Polish nationalist movements. And on that note, it's worth stressing that talking about "nationalism" in general rather than specific nationalisms is usually unlikely to produce much in the way of insightful comment, as this thread demonstrates. Stick to general theory or the consideration of individual movements if you want to make sense of it, that would be my advice.

>>9335080
No, that alone doesn't inherently make you a nationalist.

>>9335059
Multiculturalism is the mixing of cultures/races, in empires there is subjugation under one government but usually little ethic migration and mixing.

>>9335066
The sky is 1000 feet tall

>>9335086
That would explain why the main proponents of collectivist ideologies are all complete losers.

>>9335086
>need nationalism to find purpose
That's really dumb anon

>>9335084
all people mythologise themselves. has nothing to do with ethnicity. the aeneid contradicts romulus and remus. turks and mongolians shared all the same folk stories. etc.

>>9335096
hobsbawm's "invention of tradition" belongs to same genre.
somehow this scientific consensus never reaches countries like ukraine.

I hope all non-nationalist fags enjoy being raped by supranational corporation world govt.

>>9335098
There was ethnic migration and mixing in Rome though. Not at the level of today but it did happen and was thus multicultural.

>>9335075
juvenal complained about foreigners and loss of identity in his satires. why should he complain if there were no "romans"?

>>9335147
He meant that Etruscans had been mixed and assimilated into the Roman people.

>>9335147
to juvenal someone from umbria was a foreigner. he also liked the jews well enough. "romans" implying that they were the admixture of two peoples from the beginning.

>>9335132
Yes, but Hobsbawm is pretty clearly opposed to nationalism on principle and as a result I don't think he treats it with appropriate academic distance. Anderson-Gellner-Hobsbawm is the holy trinity of nationalism studies but the first two actually seem to handle it as a sociological phenomenon rather than trying to turn the study into political point scoring, so I prefer to recommend them over Hobsbawm.

What do you mean about Ukraine? You mean it doesn't reach the academia there, or that the theories don't fit what's happening in the country's politics and on the ground?

>>9335112
How? It seems perfectly coherent to me

>>9335179
i meant that the same government and its think tanks legitimize and ampflify nationalism (with oldschool stuff like common language and customs) in one country while delegitimizing it at home with "imagined communities" consensus, which indicates arbitrary activism and not research.

>>9335202
That's sad, you could find purpose elsewhere, you are stuck in your own ideology, you said you need nationalism to have a purpose yet you talk like you know it won't happen, so basically you're giving up on finding what you want to find and justifying your current lifestyle by your context, putting the blame on others and forcing you to never change

I'm just sad for you not even arguing

>>9335427
I didn't say any of that though, I was stating a theory on why neckbeards in particular would be attracted to nationalism. I never mentioned my personal attitude towards nationalism.

I do think it is sad, however, but only for the fact that the huge rise in nationalism recently certainly indicates just how alienated a large portion of young men in particular are in our current society.