Socialism vs. Capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not treating "ethinic identity" as a universal negative; I'm treating the idea that states should be founded and held on the basis of ethinic identity as a negative. I don't know if it's a universal one, but it certainly doesn't have a good track record.
As recently as the early 20th century, countries within Europe had different cultures for practically every village and valley; France, Germany et. all had hundreds of different patois spoken within their borders. Trying to give every culture their own country leads inevitably to balkanization; trying to maintain some sort of cultural purity leads to bigotry against migrants; and trying to restore purity leads to programs to cause people to 'self-deport,' pogroms, ethnic cleansing, forced deportaitons, and genocide.

Yes is possible to create a perfect nation. I got see that one of the bigger problem of the humanity now and ever is the extremely lack of REAL empathy to the others. I see many aspies here and conclude that the ''outliers'' tend to be more wise than all of the supposedly called normal people. To me, one of the main principles of the idea of empathy is the RESPECT THE SPACE OF OTHER. Empathy is not the same that the simpathy.
Well, what we seeing actually in westernophere???

The old right left conflict. The outliers in recent past was treated by vulgar way by the majority, in the past there was a ''majority dictatorship'', now the outliers take the power and make exactly the same thing that the ''majority'' make in the past.
What are the people who understand these obvious corelation??
Aspies, introverted's and other related.
The perfect nation will be builded when the extremes accept each other OR both move of the nations and specially, when the REAL smart and wise people take the power.

Words like inevitable and 'leads to' are not justifiable when discussing the results of national self-determination, the terms are just far too simplistic. International legitimacy is a complex subject and using ethnic identity as a basis of a sovereign state is not a universal negative. States like Denmark were founded originally as nation states, then they developed into something else but there must be a unifying identity within a state or the separate elements will often result internal conflict. Balkanization occurs when there is no central identity, most often when the borders of a state, having been drawn by outside forces are not respective of internal identities. Perhaps fundamentally where you are going wrong is in your description of national self-determination as an end state, which it is not, it is an initial state of identity. Identity politics within a state are always in flux but there must be a common framework to begin from. Self-determination, as a mechanism for the construction of state identity has done more to end empires than almost any other force. As a result it should be studied and is studied as a neutral force, a catalyst, that results both positive and negative.

91, you first moved from a description of nations built on ethnicity to ethnicity in general, and now you've gone in the opposite direction and are discussing 'national identity' and 'national self-determination.'

I don't disagree with you at all that ethnic identity is neither good nor bad; nor do I disagree with you at all that the members of any given nation should have some sort of national identity.

What I disagree with is that the national identity should be based on some sort of exclusionary factor like ethnicity, in which people can be seen as 'Not real Americans, or 'Not real Chinese,' or 'Not real Burmans,' or 'Not real Rawandans,' or whatever, because of the family that they happened to be born into.

As for whether it's an end state or a state's origin, it is both; it has been both throughout history. You can't just pretend that the negative effects of ethno-nationalism don't exist because the ethno-nationalism in question arises late in a country's history. Jews in Germany got along decently well for quite a long time, before the cries of "Germany for Germans!" arose.

We have been discussing ethnicity and nationalism from your first post. Self-determination is a major component of that as is ethnic identity.

Umm... a nation is a cultural or ethnic identity. Nations and states are not the same thing, I think you are confused.



Almost all states are constructed out of nations and all of them have identity forces that keep the question of identity open to question and further development. You seem to have a preference for a certain nationless states and although setter-colonial states have had more or less successful identity projects based on citizenship rather than on national blocks, for the most part the development of the nation-state was a reaction against oppression. Naturally yesterday's solution is tomorrow's potential problem but the nation state was favoured as a concept by liberals (and still is) precisely because it leads to less oppression. The identity projects that follow are complex and risky affairs but are not necessarily doomed to fail.



Ethnic-nationalism exists regardless of whether two groups share space within the same state. The struggle for supremacy within the same block is what makes empires such oppressive entities. I don't pretend that these things don't exist, rather I see the negatives as a sign of failure and the positives (like Chinese food) as examples of how people manage identity politics.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1381716653
I am using the two as synonyms, yes, but I am not confused; it is well within the English standard to do so.

To use your terms, however, I think that any time ethnicity is considered more important a determining factor for what state one should be in, than citizenship is, there are bound to be some pretty significant problems.

That definition is inappropriate for discussing nationalism. That places the term within the IR/Poli-Sci literature, so its important to get the difference between the terms right.

http://geography.about.com/cs/political ... nation.htm

Ethnicity is a factor within a cultural group. You and I live in settler colonial states that have had a rather interesting germination as opposed to those who exist in the more traditional nation state construct. We had the luxury of generating identity from much cleaner slates from the bottom up, which is where all identity is best formed. Top down identity construction is generally the effort of imperial activity. Thus when the majority of states were created (from around 1800-1950) the clear preference was for a from the bottom up development, which is where nationalism, as an expression of the grassroots came to the forefront of history.

People have been arguing in favor of collective identity projects since at least the time of Alexander the Great but that has been mostly reflective of the efforts of emperors and kings to consolidate their conquests. Where I see the majority of the problem sitting is in top down exclusionary efforts. Collective identity might emerge but it cannot be enforced. What you see as the downside of ethnic-nationalism is also shared in the same danger of enforced top down identity politics inherent in empire building. So I suggest the negative is actually in defying the grassroots and that the ethnic-nationalism that generated the state system we live in today is the result of attempting to end oppression, rather than maintain it. Hence why, for so long, national self-determination was considered hugely idealistic because of how hostile it was to the assertion of central power.

what you said was

And, no, I do not agree that said definitions are inappropriate for discussing nationalism. Chinese in general are extremely nationalistic, regardless of whether they're Han or not.

yes.

Yes, but not necessarily ethnonationalism, and especially not to such a degree that minority populations were expelled from their homes.

Top-down exclusionary efforts would not be successful without a great deal of support from the majority of the population. Hitler was elected.

True, but it can be promoted and supported - even in a way that does not imply that other peoples in other countries are somehow lesser beings.

I can see your point in that.

Any secessionist attempt can be considered an exercise of ethnocultural-nationalism, so that's not an unfair fear, and not all secessionist movements are based on real oppression.

You have succeeded in moderating my distaste for ethno-nationalism, and in contrasting it to the negatives of its polar opposite, if not in convincing me that ethno-nationalism is, on balance, a good (or neutral) thing.

I'm curious about what you have to say about the long- (long, long) term effects of empire: the Roman, English, Spanish, and French empires are long gone, but the current states that formerly made up those empires seem to view each other with a certain degree of kinship that may help to reduce the conflict between them.

That was rather tricky of you LKL, your original statement was about ethnic-nationalism, at that point states and nations are very useful separate definitions. It makes no sense to use the term nation to describe the state when discussing the term ethnic nationalism refers to an internal unit in the same was as the more relevant definition. The reason IR uses two separate definitions is because each encapsulates something interesting and distinct from the other. It is also why IR students are taught the difference in first year.

It is worth point out that Han Chinese make up over 90% of the population and having spent significant amounts of time in China, I can say that they are not all the 'extreme' in their nationalism (although some certainly are). Making blanket statements about China is difficult, I recommend you visit Tiananmen Square and you will experience the sense of overwhelming identity confusion that is at the heart of contemporary China. The Forbidden City is a wreck and stands next to statues that represent the bulldozing of China's history. Massive communist buildings stand next to large amounts of advertising for the capitalist mecca of Shanghai and all of it stands on the site of a suppressed democratic revolution. China is hugely confused as a westerner I have had old ladies ask for photographs with me (even in a big city like Shenyang young women snap photos of white people because we are still a very rare sight there) and I have had taxi drivers curse me out for being white. I have met academics who called the government stupid who still have secure jobs at major universities and seen Christians repressed. Its a really strange but interesting place.



Cheers. Well there already is a broad international identity that is being formed, at least amongst the wealthy and educated. I had the luxury to live at an International House during my last stint in America and there were over a hundred different countries represented in the population. Two of the groomsmen at my upcoming wedding are Muslim (one is Tunisian and the other Turkish) and I am marrying an ethnically Chinese but naturalised Australian girl. The identity is emerging but it will take a very long time to become very widespread. The old empires had their projects that sort of tried to develop a unitary identity but it was never going to work because it was too heavily associated with interest and power. It has to happen naturally, although it certainly can be encouraged. My Tunisian mate was educated within the vestiges of French system but the American system of integration seems a much better model because it does not demand you give up as much of your culture.

Dude! I was quoting you! I was following your lead, and clarifying what I meant when I used the words differently!
Would it help if I said, "Chinese in general are extremely statist, regardless of whether they are Han or not."? Because they mean the same thing to me.

Well, I will defer to your expertise since I haven't been there; my impressions of Chinese statism (happy?) comes from Western and Al Jazeera media reports. How long ago was your visit?

How would you compare the modern internationalism based on wealth and education to a) a similar internationalism of the wealthy and educated a century ago (I'm thinking, 'Murder on the Orient express' for a novelized depiction of that)? One difference I think must be glaring is a decrease in racism and an increase in intermarriage. And, b) the sort of fellow-feeling between, say, Great Britain, America, Canada, Belize, Australia, and New Zealand?

I will give you some ground because nationalism as a concept has a historical and contemporary significance and there is a degree of overlap. However, statism would not really be correct because statism generally refers to the role of government in a society. China is certainly statist but not in the same way that one would term nationalist. State usually refers to institutions whereas nation is generally used to discuss groups, at least in IR. As to how statist the populations of Tibet and Xinjiang, which contain the largest non-Han populations, my feeling would be, although I have never been there that they might see things differently.



I was last in Beijing a month ago. I have been very lucky to go there a few times now. I would recommend you check out e-ir.org, thediplmat.com and foreignpolicy.com for good stuff on China.



Europe is a really interesting example because, like the Islamic world we have a common religious heritage. We also used to have a quite internationalized nobility and warrior class. A knight from France had more in common in terms of lifestyle with one in Germany than either of them had in common with a peasant. What seems to have changed is that the situation has become far more global. I really hope that this trend continues to develop.

did you write those links like that on purpose? If so, it's too late for me to figure out what e-ir.org is supposed to be.

Sorry my mistake e-ir.info, they are all International Relations links for day to day analysis.

I don't really buy the claim capitalism has lifted "millions out of poverty". For one thing the definition of poverty is extremely conservative - just because they're making $2.25 rather than $1.45 doesn't mean they are middle class or doing remotely well. Nor does it measure the loss of community and place globalization/capitalism has caused for them.

Also outside of China the progress is quite slight - slower than it was before the neoliberal era.

I was recently in the Rason Special Economic Zone. That one piece of capitalism, combined with the Kaesong Industrial Complex provides the vast majority of the best paying jobs in North Korea. The ration system in the North meets around 40% of the needs of the people, the of the people's basic needs are met through the underground economy. The reason you don't see any old people in North Korea is because they are at the grey markets (they are the only ones with the time available to engage in buying and selling things). Many of the old women have bent spines from carrying loads between towns. Capitalism not only provides them with their only source of individual economic wealth but it is the only thing keeping everyone in that country from starving. The Chinese day traders bring in goods in boxes and trucks which are then distributed through the underground markets. People grow secret stashes of food and harvest seafood where they can. The underground market that the North has done its best at times to destroy (although now they give it a bit of support) is more successful than the centrally planned economy when it comes to meeting the people's needs. I can think of few better arguments for a free market than that. I stood in the central square of Pyongyang and saw less people than I did in a provincial capital underground market.

I think that North Korea and the Soviet Union proved that communism does not provide the greatest good for the greatest number; Cuba, I'm not so sure about. The failures of Soviet Russia and N. Korea, though, don't mean that the best answer is the laissez-faire economy that the libertarians are constantly pushing here in the US; unfettered capitalism doesn't have a great success rate, either, for the majority of the people. The economies that do the best for their citizens are free-market economies with regulations to keep wealth from running rampant, high marginal tax rates, strong infrastructure programs, and social safety nets to keep people from dropping out of society through no fault of their own.