 |
| |
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
In my view, "Nations" are more trouble than they're worth, they're up there with "Religions" and "Mass Media". If you don't have artificial constructs (I totally agree with Che on this) that link groups of people together then "the rule of the mob" is much lessened and as such wars and other kind of large scale conflict are unlikely.
I suppose in a way this viewpoint would fall under the heading "Anarchist" but I think that most people that call themselves anarchists wouldn't know the responsibilities this would bring. No longer can you mindlessly follow some moron who happens to have a load of cash, and maybe a modicum of charisma, but rather you'd have to make decisions for yourself, and for the good of the community. I realise that this completely irrealistic due to the fact that the sheep mentality has been ingrained in us for centuries, and that most people would be unable to make serious decisions for themselves.
[phew: feeling a bit political today, sorry for that...]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by statusperfect
My point is that they benefit from calling themselves a nation. Don't `they? |
Was that your point? I didn't see any argument advancing that theory.
And no, I do not agree that anyone necessarily benefits from being part of a nation-group, especially if your nation doesn't control the state. For example, it pretty much sucked to be Jewish in much of Europe during the 19th Century. They were all defined as outside the nation in France, Germany, Poland and Russia, etc. It sucks to be Serbian in Kosovo, or Euskadi in Spain, Irish in Northern Ireland.
Nor do I agree that being a member of the national majority in a nation-state necessarily makes you better off. Are the French people better off for being part of the French nation? Was it a boon to be sent off to defend the nation in 1914? The nation is simply woll pulled over your eyes, a creation of the ruling elite to make you imagine you have more in common with the rich guy on the top who may speak a similar language as you than some poor schmuck who lives across the border who has the same life as you but speaks German.
The workers of the world have no nation but the world.
...
Me thinks you are confusing the concept of nation with that of the state. Nation does not equal state, though nations may have states.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The nation is simply wool pulled over your eyes, a creation of the ruling elite to make you imagine you have more in common with the rich guy on the top who may speak a similar language as you than some poor schmuck who lives across the border who has the same life as you but speaks German. |
Good point.
quote:
Me thinks you are confusing the concept of nation with that of the state. Nation does not equal state, though nations may have states. |
I admit you have me there. What is the difference between the State and the Nation? The pundits always speak of the nation state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
"Family is more important than Nation. My family are the only ones who give a **** whether or not I eat. The problem here is that the Nation doesn't really respect the sanctity of the home any more."
"The Nation appears to our strongest social construct right now."
MosesPresley, I was somewhat confused by these statements interposed together. Are you trying to say that the Nation is a stronger social institution than the family?
Generally, things that are most important are also the strongest, though this is not always true. Is this the case here?
While the nation is a strong social construct, I would argue that family is both stronger and more important. |
"The Nation appears to our strongest social construct right now."
I think that family is often at odds with the nation, especially now, but for the most part the nation is in place to serve the needs of the family. They are inter-dependent. The family is a powerful social construct and is intrinsic to a healthy society. There are some problems with this, one is the dynasty effect. Families accrue wealth and power and generally pass this wealth and power to the descendants. Eventually if the ambition is there, these families rise to rule the nation or at the very least have considerable influence in their communities.
In keeping with the topic. Individual vs. Nation, I would have to say that although I depend on my nation and my family, the family also often goes against the needs of the individual. I depend on my family for all sorts of the support and I depend on the nation to provide the infrastructure, social services, and sense of community to ensure such support can be provided. The needs of the family come before the needs of the individual, but the individual has a lot more power in the family. They can somewhat easily leave their family. Leaving your nation permanently is a much more complicated affair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
A state is used to refer to a political body. States, Nation-States, City-States, "the State".....It is common for someone to use "state" to replace nation eg "The State of Israel". Thats why America is a "union" of "states" hence the United States of America.
I think.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
"Brilliance is typically the act of an individual, but incredible stupidity can usually be traced to an organization."
-- Jon Bentley
Substitute nation for organization.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
Che,
Good breakdown of the concepts of "state" and "nation."
The Arabs are a good example of the differences between the two. Many dream of a pan-arab state stretching from Pakistan to Morocco. But for now at least they are divided up into many smaller states. The concept of nation is therefore a belief, not hard reality. Germany was for a long time a nation but not a state (pre-Bismarck).
So, what's more important? It obviously depends on your personal views on ethnicity, history, values, religion, etc. I am ethnically a mutt, as are many Americans (largest parts being English and Sicilian), I don't buy into any religion, I have a history degree which taught me all about the various idiotic reasons we humans set about killing each other (and how "leaders" keep managing to convince us to do it), and I strongly value individual rights/freedoms while hoping to balance them somehow with equality (both under the law and in the sense of equal opportunity in life).
I would place family, friends, personal well-being and my beliefs about right vs. wrong ahead of the concept of "nation." The question it really comes down to is this: would I willingly risk my neck for the good 'ole US of A? The answer isn't a simply yes or no. It depends. If I really believed our "way of life" was in danger, I would fight. Otherwise, nope, they'll have to draft me. One key part of this question is that in order for me to feel that our "way of life" was seriously threatened, it would not just be a war between the USA and another country. It would pretty much have to be a World War.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
a mutt? |
Many Americans describe themselves as mutts. I'm a standard American mutt, i.e., I have ancestors of multiple geographic origins: England, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Wales, Spain (Sephardic Jew), Cherokee (or some other SE US Indian nation), and Mohawk (or some other NE Indian nation). My Irish ancestors can be traced back to Normandy, and from there to Scandinavia. My Italian ancestors might be from Germany and possibly Jewish at one point. So what am I? . . . A mutt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
There is no tyranny of the mob in a healthy democracy. |
Well I think democracy is turning more into an ochlocracy (is that a correct word in English?  ). See for example what unions can do nowadays... a company that has a factory somewhere that has a deficit, and wants to get rid of it will find it very hard to do so, because the unions (that represent the mob) have power so that the workers won't lose their jobs or so (which is stupid of course since the factory is eating up a huge budget of the company). You could say that's good, and it is!! but if it goes to extremes it's not so good  .
I remember that the US for example is a fine place to sue big companies for millions because of futile reasons. Ok, the mob doesn't really control everything, but these sort of evolutions in which the mob abuses its (limited) power are simply a bad thing... they can ruin companies! (not that i'm a capitalist (far from it) of course but you know what I mean)
What's more important than the nation is of course relative...
I would say basic needs in order to live such as a heated home, and enough food (that's what most people in this world think is most important). History has proven that people don't really care whether an ******* rules the country (such as Sharon, Bush, Saddam, Berlusconi etc etc...), they won't do uprisings and stuff...
Now when the population is starving due to bad harvests or other extremities such as oppression (Palestine...) they will revolt... i reckon that says it all about human behaviour... Hell wasn't it so that before the French Revolution there was a bad harvest? what a coincidence! (Of course I'm not saying that was the reason of the revolution but it heated up the peasants a bit I believe )
Of course, that's not always the cause of a bad harvest, the population has to be able to stand up of course... it is simply a very important detail whether ppl have food and shelter from whatever danger (cold, floods, oppression...) or not! Especially in earlier cultures this was the primary objective (In Mesopotamia, the ground was easily salted (don't know English word for it), due to overirrigation so the ground was worth ****... It sometimes cause entire populations to build new settlements).
All the rest (although maybe important for us) is secondary
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2003 04:41
)
|