Both are stupid, especially if you live in the USA, where your government will let you be rendered homeless and dead in the street if you can’t pay enough money into the capitalist machine.
What’s to be proud of?
National parks, innovation, highest level of freedom of speech (not anymore, lol, but ya know). Actually admitting to our racism and bigotry instead of pretending it doesn’t exist like European countries do, and instead trying to tackle the issues. Even if failing. A diverse population.
Life in Europe is much better than in the US for any ethnicity.
Europe is pretty racist too, it just manifests itself differently.
No kidding. Still funny when they pretend they’re not racist over there especially when Germany has an active nazi party just like the states does lol
As if the us doesn’t have neonazis. We don’t pretend anything, dear maga idiot. What you are spewing is what your propaganda taught you to think.
Huh? Did you miss the
just like the states
I put in there? Like no shit we have a nazi party. It’s the Republicans. Germany as well has one, the AFD, and it’s quite large too.
Eu absolutely love to get on a high horse pretending they’re not racist
Whatever helps you feel better.
Oh boy, this is exactly what I was talking about lol. Thanks for proving my point
*except Roma
Patriotism is being a Simp for a State that doesn’t give a fuck about you.
National Parks
Stolen indigenous land?
innovation
So… Unless you can define what this means, I have to assume it involves Chinese manufacturing.
freedom of speech
Unless you’re on the actual Left that Democrats want to suppress and Republicans want to execute.
actually admitting our racism and bigotry [ . . . ] even if failing
Yeah… Uh… Im going to have to disagree - I see empty gestures made out of a fetish for decorum, which is a holdover from an even older Conservatism. That’s several history doctorates of a rabbit hole to unpack.
a diverse population
Finally, something good! I can get there with “love your neighbor” instead. No State-simping necessary
In a democracy, the state is not a formless, uninfluenced entity. It’s the way it is because the people are horrible. The state cares as much as any human in it cares for you. So no, don’t love thy neighbor, they’re the cause of this lol. Diversity is strength and great food but don’t mistake that with it meaning they are necessarily good people worthy of love
Unless you’re on the actual Left that Democrats want to suppress and Republicans want to execute.
“Want to” is not when your freedom of speech ends man. No, the dems are not taking away your freedom of speech
Yeah… Uh… Im going to have to disagree - I see empty gestures made out of a fetish for decorum, which is a holdover from an even older Conservatism.
I live in an area that is putting actual money into balancing the scales but yeah sure it’s just a empty words ~~~
In a democracy, the state is not a formless, uninfluenced entity. It’s the way it is because the people are horrible.
No deference to the systems we grow up in? No ability to understand context?
The US is not a Democracy.
Congrats. We’re all shit. All of us. You and me too. GO TO THERAPY.
Want to" is not when your freedom of speech ends man. No, the dems are not taking away your freedom of speech
I didn’t realize all I had to do was “talk” to have my material needs met. To have my ideas as part of the political conversation.
Wait, I do that, to people, face to face. We still have ghost jobs polluting our employment statistics, and blackshirts on the streets abducting neighbors.
I live in an area that is putting actual money into balancing the scales but yeah sure it’s just a empty words ~
Congrats. How did you get there? I need you to understand that is a privilege not all of us have. And without further detail, I’m curious about how many of your neighbors face a different reality.
The US is not a Democracy
Technically correct in that it’s a Republic. Same thing applies
No deference to the systems we grow up in? No ability to understand context?
People who can soley understand the system they grew up and not improve it are the issue, yes
I didn’t realize all I had to do was “talk” to have my material needs met. To have my ideas as part of the political conversation.
Freedom of speech is quite literally about immaterial needs, not material ones. There is no right or reason to have a right to include all views in politics.
How did you get there? I need you to understand that is a privilege not all of us have.
By voting? People voted to spend government money to even harms done in the past. That’s not privilege; that’s a choice made when voting. Not sure what you mean by neighbors having a different reality, my neighbors are getting bettered by good governance because we voted for good politicians
Technically correct in that it’s a Republic
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
Nah. Actually, it does not represent you, what you care about, or anything about you. Quit simping for your own destruction.
By voting?
Oh. You’re not serious. Thanks for the notice to block you.
And you are, citing that? Lol
Patriotism is the little sibling of nationalism, and the boundaries are fluid. I will never understand why people are proud of other people’s accomplishments and make them their own. Or is it because people were shat on somewhere else in the world than everyone else? Makes absolutely no sense.
Is there anything missing from
“Or is it because people were shat on somewhere else in the world than everyone else?”
?
Patriotism is often equally bad.
Humanism ftw.
Neither are bad, there’s nothing wrong with someone who has sense of devotion for their country or someone who believe in the idea of a nation state. It’s only bad when these concepts are taken to the extreme.
Can I interest you in The Big A™ in these trying times?
The circled A
And the brainwashing goes on and on…
The word “Republican”
actually comes fromis used today as a decolonial form of Nationalist movement, and they are usually Socialists. Elsewhere in the world, “Republican” still means something actually useful for human goddamn dignity. Since nobody sold out the premise like an American Colonizer party.You gonna tell an Irish Nationalist that they can’t celebrate or defend their people even as “Unionist” Pogroms ravage Catholic parts of Northern Ireland?
You gonna tell an Indigenous Nationalist that their people can’t have the land granted to them by treaties or stand for their people’s sovereign water supply?
You gonna tell a Jewish Nationalist that they can’t be Anti-Zionist, and build their idea of the Jewish Nation and its Diasporic people on standing up against oppression?
These illiterate, domesticated-ass liberals still think “nation = country = state”, like this is 2nd grade. The closest they get to reading is a twitter post, my essaying protects me from their eyes. And they want to talk about what Nationalism is.
Meanwhile Patriotism? Is bipartisan. And it is Stan-ing for a State even as it commits a Genocide. Fuck all of that, and fuck your state. May Trump’s incompetence burn the US’s ability to inflict violence upon the rest of the world.
The word “republic” comes from res publica. Public thing.
Indeed, the meaning has been fully distorted, like anything else in the US, and sold to people with no moral, voted by people with no moral.
Yeah, fair point.
The original use? Is not how any single Republican Party I can find actually started. Instead it explicitly Anti-Monarchist, even Socialist Decolonialism for former British Colonies. Even the US party began along these lines - but ya know, the whole selling out thing.
Tell an Irish Republican you voted for Trump. I dare you.
he word “Republican” actually comes from a decolonial form of Nationalist movement, and they are always the Left party. Elsewhere in the world, “Republican” still means something actually useful for human goddamn dignity. Since nobody sold out the premise.
It has nothing to do with that at all. They are called Republicans for historical reasons, but the name has long since lost all relevance to any specific policies, it is just a name for a
sportspolitical team. Other political parties in other places are called Republicans for other localised reasons.Republic stems from the Roman res publica, but in modern political science it just means a state where the office of head of state isn’t hereditary, ie. basically not a monarchy. This was a key factor in the 18th century, since most European (and globally as well) states were monarchies, so being a republic did mean a drastic change in political system compared to the norm. Not so much anymore, since most states in the world are republics, but they have very drastically different political systems, some are dictatorships others democracies.
Yeah, thanks for the correction. Modern Republicanism has a nice Wikipedia page that was worth a perusal.
The former British Colonies tend to use the word “Republican” in a specifically Anti-British-Monarchy way as that Nation sought independence. This does not apply to the US party.
Beginning as Socialist Parties is also a notable trend, though not entirely universal among this category. In this, the US party fits the trend well - but has abandoned that principle. Now they want a damn king too. Its disgusting.
deleted by creator
Nah, fuck that. Patriotism is just nationalism light.
I had a pledge that I would buy a Union-made American Flag and plant it firmly in my lawn if two things happened (1) Harris was elected President, and (2) Trump served any prison time.
Nationalism fuels fascism, but I think patriotism can be a healthy pride; sort of like how one distinguishes confidence from arrogance.
Ultimately patriotism is a neutral term and is decided upon whether you agree with your national identity in both where your nation is, and where it is heading. I naturally don’t agree with either at present, and so I’m not patriotic. Some are patriotic for the wrong reasons. If we get back to our roots, then I will perhaps one day have pride in being an American again.
if we get back to our roots
You mean racism, sexism, and exploitation? Because that’s what our roots are.
O, let America be America again— The land that never has been yet— And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
I think genuine patriotism is a bit more than what you describe. Your lack of pride in being an American is motivated by a desire for an America that is worthy of pride. To me that is still patriotism in essence even if outwardly it seems like the opposite.
I had a pledge that I would buy a Union-made American Flag and plant it firmly in my lawn if two things happened (1) Harris was elected President, and (2) Trump served any prison time.
This is so god damn funny. A hexbear tagline if I’ve ever seen one.
deleted by creator
Someone tried to wipe out the Jews, so nationalism for a Jewish state must be healthy too, right?
Or maybe nationalism is just a tool to manipulate people and make them ignorant of the problems in a government. Fatah is incredibly corrupt but you don’t seem to care about that because you believe in some nationalistic narrative. There would already be a Palestinian state if there was strong leadership. But using narratives about historical humiliation, misogyny, hatred of other ethnic groups, reclaiming a glorious past (all hallmarks of fascist manipulation) means people are less likely to demand better leadership and corrupt governments can persist.
I have to disagree. Without at least a little pride or the want to have pride in where we come from, what incentive is there to do things like cataloging history or preserving cultures and languages. I don’t think all cultures are objectively or subjectively good by any stretch, but their information, knowledge, and ritual is 100% worth cataloging and knowing, if anything just to preserve knowledge of what not to do.
For example, the confederate south. Is it worth keeping up monuments and statues honoring the traitors? Absolutely not. Is it worth keeping knowledge of what happened so that we might not repeat it? Absolutely. Without a healthy amount of patriotism, in this case the hope that where we come from can improve, why wouldn’t we just wipe away that history and pretend it didn’t happen? That’s a major line where it switches from patriotism to nationalism.
But mostly it’s just the want to improve where you’re from that’s why I believe you should have a healthy amount of patriotism. Without it, why bother doing anything at all, from protesting to
riotingviolent encouragement to do something different.Anyways, hope that what my overly caffeinated brain wrote down makes sense
I really don’t get your point. I consider myself to be an anarcho-communist and will start a volunteer year at an archaeoligical institution to see if I want to study it at a university.
You don’t need to love your country to learn about it.
You do not need to love your nation-state to want to preserve history or learn from the past.
That is such warped logic.
Why pride if interest is more than enough? A nation is inherently an invention. It creates a story why it came to be and why all the different cultures in it’s territory are now “the people”. I don’t think you need that to be happy about where you live and/or to improve. It is also not needed to document history.
Exactly. It’s the gateway drug to fascism.
Fuck it all.
Is there anything that you don’t think is a gateway drug to fascism?
Interesting. Color me skeptical, but I’ve been around for a minute, and that smacks of bait.
It’s not bait, it’s criticism
No, it simply is not.
It’s a loaded, low-effort question that puts the onus on your target and required nothing from you at all.
That said, if it wasn’t in bad faith, I welcome you to try again. Otherwise, I can easily find better things to do than waste more time on trolls, friendo.
You can dance in circles all you want, it’s not going to change anything. You’re taking concepts that have nothing to do with fascism and attributing them to it regardless. Saying patriotism a gateway drug to fascism is like saying “community is a gateway drug to cults.” Just because both involve belonging and loyalty doesn’t mean one inevitably leads to the other. It’s the distortion, not the foundation, that creates danger.
Trying to twist something that’s normal, healthy, and even necessary like patriotism or community into something toxic, shows that you’re disingenuous, which is ironic considering your spiel here. Just because you say something is poisonous that doesn’t that it is.
Oh, you silly frothy fuckwit. I simply called out your bullshit “question”, and was clearly accurate in presuming it was, in fact, bait.
Your attempts to weaponize the word salad sloshing around in that soggy head aren’t doing you any favors, so how about this:
Read a fucking book that isn’t Mein Kampf.
Don’t forget to breathe. (optional)
Bye, Felisha.
BTW, for those playing along at home, “community” is essential. “Patriotism” is not. Don’t suffer these idiots. Call them out, every time. You are not alone, friends. We got this. ✊🏼
So I can’t be proud of being from my country? City? Neighborhood? I don’t think it’s so black and white unless you have another term to describe being happy about where you’re from.
Just be happy about where you are from.
How do you appropriately label that feeling of being happy you are where you are from?
I describe the Feeling as “happiness” or “fondness”, never proudness. The place I identify with differs depending on the context. It is mostly my city, the part of my country or the part of Europe, I live in.
And nationalism is bad, because? Nationalism when taken to the extreme can be bad because it’s extreme, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with nationalism.
Nationalism when taken to the extreme can be bad because it’s extreme, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with nationalism.
What you just described, this “mild nationalism?” There’s a word for that: patriotism. Nationalism is extreme patriotism.
Nationalism: an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities, or supranational groups
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary
And when nationalism becomes even more extreme, it becomes chauvinism or jingoism.
Chauvinism: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged; excessive or blind patriotism; an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex
Jingoism: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
When Hitler promised to build a wall around Germany to keep immigrants from diluting German culture during his campaign, that was nationalism. American isolationists were/are nationalists.
The Republican Party in the 90s and 2000s was a nationalist party bordering on chauvinism. The party of Trump is a jingoist party that hits every definition of chauvinism at the same time.
What you just described, this “mild nationalism?” There’s a word for that: patriotism. Nationalism is extreme patriotism
This is just false. Nationalism is just the idea that a nation should be sovereign. The Meriam Webster definition you cited is just a contemporary definition, the original definition is the second one listed here:
: support for and promotion of the political independence or self-determination of a nation or people
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
Nationalism isn’t a more extreme version of patriotism. Nationalism describes an ideology while patriotism describes a particular set of emotions. The two could overlap, but they’re not the same thing at different points of a spectrum.
there’s nothing inherently wrong with fascism
Can I ask what your definition of “fascism” is?
That was a typo, I meant to say nationalism. There’s definitely a lot inherently wrong with fascism
Hell of a typo, but fair enough.
I was thinking about another comment I wanted to reply to while typing that one and my brain just mixed the two.
Removed by mod
A Kurd wanting their people to have self determination and independence is a Kurdish nationalist. Calling someone like that a loser is demonstration of your ignorance.
If you cannot see, why the ideology that brought us both World Wars, Russias war against Ukraine and so many more modern conflicts, was the base of colonialism and neo-colonialism, imperialism, 20th century slavery, fascism, zionism and that let us buold borders where thousands die every year, you are lost.
This is just a piss poor understanding of history, nationalism, and geopolitics.
Let’s take the Ukraine war as an example. Russia is not a nation state, it’s an empire. Empires are usually multiethnic, hierarchical, and expansionist, ruling over diverse peoples through centralized authority and often unequal legal or political status. Ukraine, on the other hand, is a nation state because it’s organized around a shared national identity that is defined by common language, culture, or ethnicity, and it treats all of its citizens as equals under the law. This war is basically between Russian imperialists who want to expand the empire and Ukrainian nationalists who want to defend their nation.
Using your flawed logic, Ukrainians are bad people because they believe in and are actively defending an ideology that you falsely attribute to everything bad to has ever happened in the world and in history. That’s just nonsense.
Your example is very bad, to be honest. Both Russia and Ukraine are states. All states today claim to be nations. Every nation is a social construct, made by inventing or at least warping history to explain the creation of a nation. States tend to equalize the people living on it’s territory by introducing things like law, language, traditions or education. And they are actively trying to tell this story of “the people” to legitimate themselves. But the people are not the same. Look at your own country, wherever you live. There are always vast differences between places in different cardinal directions or at the borders vs. inland, between richer and poorer regions or between urban and rural areas. In Russia, that becomes very obvious, but it is the same everywhere.
Nationalism is the root of everything, I described. Nothing of that would have existed without a strong nationalist movement. Sure, there can be more or less extreme forms of nationalism, but this ideoligy is always dividing territory and people into the inside and outside.
Every Ukrainian fighting against Russian imperialism is fine. But at the end, I hope there are more people left to rebuilt the country, who fought for their freedom and not for some fucking glorious Father/Motherland.
Every nation is a social construct
2014 tumblr called, they want their arguments back. Calling something a social construct does NOT mean it’s bad, fake, or invalid. Math is a social construct, time is a social construct, language is a social construct… yet these are all good things that describe things that are very real, and their existence is very much valid. The idea of a nation state falls under this category.
States tend to equalize the people living on it’s territory by introducing things like law, language, traditions or education. And they are actively trying to tell this story of “the people” to legitimate themselves.
And this is a bad thing, because? I don’t see an issue with a state trying to unite people through their commonalities. If you want a large group of people to be involved and coordinated then you have to make them feel included, and this is the way to do it.
But the people are not the same. Look at your own country, wherever you live. There are always vast differences between places in different cardinal directions or at the borders vs. inland, between richer and poorer regions or between urban and rural areas.
So? There is always going to be a degree of diversity among people, geography, and economies. That doesn’t mean that nations don’t exist. A Chinese person is Chinese regardless of whether or not they’re rich or poor, live near the border or not, or live in the city or a farm. They’re Chinese by ancestry, by language, and by culture. You could make an argument that some states occupy other nations, and that’s a bad thing, and I would agree with you. China is a good example of that as they occupy Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia… however, the Chinese nation still exists and it deserves it’s own state even if the borders need to redrawn.
In Russia, that becomes very obvious, but it is the same everywhere.
The reason why I called Russia an empire is because it is one by definition. It checks every single check mark required to consider it an empire and then some. They can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn’t mean anything in reality. It’s like North Korea calling itself a democracy when it’s clearly not. Unlike Russia, Ukraine is a true nation state, or at least a lot closer to one than Russia is.
Nationalism is the root of everything, I described. Nothing of that would have existed without a strong nationalist movement.
That’s such a myopic view of history that it’s actually ignorant. If you unironically think that you can boil down most of history down to an ideology a concept you barely understand and then consider this singular ideology to be the root cause of everything bad in history then you simply don’t understand history.
Sure, there can be more or less extreme forms of nationalism, but this ideoligy is always dividing territory and people into the inside and outside.
But have you ever thought about why nations and states exist in the first place? From the start of civilization 10,000 years ago to today, countries and border have always existed regardless of culture, geography, or era. What makes so persistent throughout history? Could it be that because it’s an essential part of civilization and it’s an inherently useful concept even if it’s not perfect? The answer is yes.
Every Ukrainian fighting against Russian imperialism is fine. But at the end, I hope there are more people left to rebuilt the country, who fought for their freedom and not for some fucking glorious Father/Motherland.
These two things are intertwined. They’re fighting for their father/motherland, aka their nation, against imperialist conquest because it’s where their roots are. The nation is where their families are, where their culture is, where the history of their people took place, and where their freedoms and rights are.
Also, people like you annoy me because you complain without providing any alternatives. You hate nationalism as a concept? Fine, what do you propose as an alternative? If you have a realistic, practical option then let’s hear it. Otherwise, if you have nothing other than vague ideological complaints then you critiques don’t hold as much weight.
I never tried to boil down most of history to anything. I just laid down the fact, that this shitty idea of the nation state, that came into fashion in the 19th century laid the ideological groundwork to many of the astrocities in the following two centuries. This is common knowledge.
A nation is not a thing that exists. There are different forms of cultures that can develop together or go in different directions, depending on who is in power and who draws the borders. If you where really interested in history, you could know that. The whole of Europe is a great example, or the Koreas.
But to be honest, I have no interest to doscuss any further with you since you constantly talked down to me and behaved like an asshole. It is just not worth the effort. So fuck that, believe what you want.
I just laid down the fact, that this shitty idea of the nation state, that came into fashion in the 19th century laid the ideological groundwork to many of the astrocities in the following two centuries. This is common knowledge.
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy, not evidence.
A nation is not a thing that exists. There are different forms of cultures that can develop together or go in different directions
Yes, they do. They’re not eternal as they do get created, killed, and changed all the time. However, nations, as a concept, do represent a real phenomenon.
depending on who is in power and who draws the borders.
States and nations aren’t interchangeable terms. Japan is a nation state, my home country of Iraq is very much not.
But to be honest, I have no interest to doscuss any further with you since you constantly talked down to me and behaved like an asshole. It is just not worth the effort. So fuck that, believe what you want.
I went out of my way to make sure that my comment didn’t have any personal insults. My comment had so much substance that directly responded to your points, and it’s interesting that you responded to none of it. My comment contained a grand total of 3 criticisms, all of which were directed towards your statements.
If this is all it takes for you to get this sort of reaction then there are two possibilities. Either you’re really this sensitive and somebody saying one of your arguments is from 2014 tumblr is enough to send you over the edge or, and I think is much more likely, is that you actually have nothing of value to say and this was just a convenient cop out. Either way, I don’t care, I’ve made my points and they stand on their own. Whether you reply or not makes no difference.
Office meme, they’re the same picture. The world no longer needs people who are willing to die for, or equally kill for, their country
Yes if you can convince everyone in the world of this simultaneously, we’ll end all wars.
Do you think Vladimir Putin will agree with your sentiment?
I feel like all those traits from patriotism are on a venn with something else like internationalism/antipatriotism, like they can indeed be found in patriotism but are not at the heart of what it is. Like, technically, german, italian or japanese patriots fought alongside nazis. You can say your country can do better regardless of whether you support its existence or not. It’s not necessary to learn from history to be a patriot, etc.
Patriotism is a subjective concept. There are patriots who completely disagree with each other but still have a similar level of devotion for their country. People supporting their countries is not exactly radical. In fact, it’s very common everywhere but Lemmy because this place is filled with tankies.
People supporting their countries is not exactly radical.
Well from an anti-state perspective, supporting a country that commits radical acts such as monopoly of violence is by extension radical, but i think you meant that patriotism is widely spread, and that is relatively true, at least most people have patriotic “instincts” (even though in my experience, discussing and questioning their patriotism often reveals that they are patriotic by default and could have a different position if they reflected upon it).
it’s very common everywhere but Lemmy because this place is filled with tankies.
I’d say tankies are also patriotic, just not for USA. Fatherland is a quite important concept in post-leninism forms of authoritarian communism. From my experience, it’s much more common to find anti-patriotism in libertarian communism / anarchism than in despotic communism.
Well from an anti-state perspective, supporting a country that commits radical acts such as monopoly of violence is by extension radical
This view is flawed because it mislabels the state’s monopoly on violence as inherently radical. In reality, this monopoly exists to prevent chaos by centralizing and regulating force. Calling it radical ignores the distinction between structured authority and unregulated violence. Supporting a state doesn’t mean endorsing oppression, it can mean recognizing the need for order over anarchy. The reason why humans have evolved to favor order over anarchy is because order provides stability, and this allows people to built up complex societies in relative safety.
I’d say tankies are also patriotic, just not for USA. Fatherland is a quite important concept in post-leninism forms of authoritarian communism. From my experience, it’s much more common to find anti-patriotism in libertarian communism / anarchism than in despotic communism.
Patriotism at it’s core is just a sense of pride, and that’s a universal emotion that everybody has. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something greater. It gives us a feeling of nobility. All people share a feeling similar to patriotism, even if it’s labeled as something else… even anarchists.
Removed by mod
order over anarchy
There is a lexical error/approximation here. Anarchy does not oppose to order, anomy is. Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
mislabels the state’s monopoly on violence as inherently radical
I disagree with this being a mislabeling (though i understand that it remains an opinion and you disagree with it). It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and i’ve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying “Violence is never a solution”. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence. On another note, i’ll add that organized violence can be undoubtedly far worse than disorganized one at times of war and massacre. Also, evolution from anarchydisorder to “order” is not that simple. From what we currently know, humanity lived far longer without structured power, and when those came with sedentarization, came wars and massacres too.
that’s a universal emotion that everybody has
Labeling something as “universal” without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity. Everyone is unique, you’ll find some people without any patriotism (way more than you think) and even without pride.
Anarchy just says that order must not emerge from authority but from solidarity. You can disagree, but saying that anarchy is disorder by definition is a mislabeling.
This is just a semantic deflection. You’re appealing to a niche theoretical definition of anarchy while ignoring how the term functions in political discourse. The phrase “order over anarchy” reflects a real world tension between structured authority and the absence of it. You can argue that anarchist theory envisions a different kind of order, but that’s an ideal, not a demonstrated reality. In practice, large scale societies without centralized authority have consistently struggled to maintain stability. So no, it’s not a mislabeling, it’s a recognition of the risks that come with power vacuums.
It is common to see any form of violence as radical, and i’ve seen this logic used by tenants of authority themselves under the saying “Violence is never a solution”. Adding distinction of organized/disorganized violence is an arbitrary choice, and there is no logical imperative of doing so : holding all types of violence accountable, no matter their positive potential, is not a mislabel, it is a take on violence.
You’re collapsing moral judgment with structural analysis. Calling all violence “radical” might feel principled, but it flattens critical distinctions. The difference between a lynch mob and a court ordered arrest isn’t arbitrary, it’s the difference between chaos and legitimacy. The state’s monopoly on violence isn’t radical, it’s foundational to modern governance. You can critique how that power is used, but denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy. And yes, pre-state societies existed, but they weren’t peaceful utopias. Sedentarization brought war, but it also brought law, infrastructure, and medicine. Romanticizing statelessness doesn’t make it viable
Labeling something as “universal” without involuntary hyperbole is blatantly false. Humanity is made from diversity, and there are very few affirmations outside of physics that can correctly be applied to all of humanity.
You’re nitpicking language. “Universal” in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature of pride and belonging, not a literal claim about every human being. Patriotism taps into those emotions, which is why it’s so politically potent. The fact that some people reject patriotism doesn’t disprove its cultural force, it proves that it’s significant enough to be worth rejecting. If you want to critique patriotism, start by acknowledging its emotional appeal, not pretending it’s some fringe anomaly.
a niche theoretical definition of anarchy
I’m just refering to anarchy as it is defined in politics, not in common talk. Anarchy as disorder is not politics, it’s something wider (a chaotic room could be called anarchy in that sense). Anarchy as politics is a system minimizing authority. You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
that’s an ideal, not a demonstrated reality
Anarchist societies of modern times are short lived indeed, but if you take a close look at them it’s always because of states intervention (Paris commune, Ukrainian revolution, Spain libertarian communists, and nowadays Chiapas and Rojava).
it flattens critical distinction. […] isn’t arbitrary.
Distinction is arbitrary in essence. You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. You can differentiate violences based on their organization, on their legitimacy, on their targets, on their respect of any arbitrary moral values, etc.
The state’s monopoly on violence isn’t radical, it’s foundational to modern governance.
Governance is a monopoly on violence. You can precisely not govern without enforcing it through monopoly of violence. It’s like saying “X is not radical, because it’s necessary for X”.
denying the distinction between regulated and unregulated force is intellectually lazy.
I’m not as much denying the distinction as denying its actual positive impact. If you want another way to put it than “all violence is bad”, see it this way : organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. I’m not denying their difference, i’m saying in the end the amount of violence is the same, so the difference does not matter here.
pre-state societies existed, but they weren’t peaceful utopias.
Neither are states. My goal is not to romanticize either past stateless societies or current states, it’s to get the best of both. I don’t like the “All we’ve known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?” argument.
“Universal” in this context clearly refers to the widespread nature
Well mb, you were actually making a involuntary hyperbole. Just to be clear, “universal” is used to mean “literally all”. You also used expressions “that everybody has” and “All people share” which makes me think that you are of bad faith here, and were clearly meaning to encapsulate everyone, but anyway, let’s say that’s not the case.
I then stand by my take : most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in “pride to belong to a nation”, and more generally as in “pride to belong to something greater”. I certainly do not. I can not say much more since your claim is both vague (assimilating patriotism to simple pride makes it even less definable) and not verifiable (you cannot point out every people feeling patriotism, and i can only say i know people that do not feel patriotism but you can always say that’s exceptions).
Anyway, this discussion is beginning to be very splitted in subdiscussions, and i see that you engaged in a similar fashion with other people, so i’d guess it would be useful to sum up. I think all our points can be moved under those respective banners : it seems that your more important value is stability of a civilization, from which you conclude that current states are good, and therefore patriotism, monopoly of violence are too. You also seem to deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are the only good option, and therefore anarchism and anti-state theories necessary leads to disorder. My take is to start from solidarity rather than stability, making monopoly of violence and by extension patriotism bad, and therefore current states too. I deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are a dangerous form of organization for anything else, and therefore state theories, from fascism to authoritarian socialism along with bourgeois oligarchies, necessary leads to violence.
If i’m not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after. I’d propose to stop there if we cannot bring anything useful other than “there are multiple opinions here”.
You cannot say in good faith that disorder is the concept of political anarchy, it is (in your opinion) a consequence of it.
So your argument here isn’t about the actual application of anarchy, it’s just that on meaninglessly theoretical version of political anarchy, it is technically not defined as disorder, right? If so, then yeah, sure I guess, but like I said that’s quite meaningless since it doesn’t reflect reality.
Anarchist societies of modern times are short lived indeed, but if you take a close look at them it’s always because of states intervention (Paris commune, Ukrainian revolution, Spain libertarian communists, and nowadays Chiapas and Rojava).
They’re short lived because anarchy is flawed as an ideology and it always collapses in on itself. The world doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The rest of the world is not going coddle some anarchist ideologues so they can play with their political anarchist fantasies in practice. We live in a world where people want stability and order, where states exist out of necessity for self defense, where resources are scarce and competition for them can get violent, where evil actors who pry on the weak do exist. This is our reality, any ideology that ignores it is not one to be taken seriously.
You choose on which axis to operate the distinction. You can differentiate violences based on their organization, on their legitimacy, on their targets, on their respect of any arbitrary moral values, etc.
The critical difference is the source where all of these things are derived from. A normal state derives these things from society as collective while in anarchy they’re derived from individuals. In a normal society, violence is monopolized, streamlined, and it’s application is utilized to make sure society is stable and orderly enough to be functional. In an anarchist society, there is no such monopoly or centralization as there is no government. Thus, without a central authority things like crime, fairness, and safety are up to individuals to come up with and enforce. This will inevitably end up in bloodshed, disorder, and injustice as different people with different opinions are going to be acting on their own and competing with each other to enforce different standards. That’s an incredibly stupid idea that will result in a lot of unnecessary violence and dysfunction. You can’t leave things like justice in the hands of individuals, it never works.
You can precisely not govern without enforcing it through monopoly of violence. It’s like saying “X is not radical, because it’s necessary for X”.
Yes, that’s the point. It’s not radical because it’s necessary for something essential and always has been. For something to be radical it has to be extreme and a drastic shift from the ordinary. Governance through monopolized violence is the norm. Simply labeling as radical anyway doesn’t make it bad or any less necessary.
organized violence is easier to hold back but far worse when unleashed, disorganized is the opposite. I’m not denying their difference, i’m saying in the end the amount of violence is the same, so the difference does not matter here.
This is just false. The amount of violence is not the same because you never get stability or order at any point in an anarchist society. Self righteous individuals and bad actors will always be fighting each other and amongst themselves because they want to take advantage of the chaos and take matter into their own hands. There’s a reason why through 10,000 years of human civilization, anarchy has never come out on top even once. Keep in mind, you’re not arguing against tyranny here, you’re arguing against the monopolization of violence as a means to govern in general. Well, as history shows us, anarchy is just as bad tyranny.
My goal is not to romanticize either past stateless societies or current states, it’s to get the best of both. I don’t like the “All we’ve known was bad one way or another so why bother making something better ?” argument.
Anarchy isn’t a better solution. It’s one of the bad ways that we collectively moved past as a species. As it turns out, there IS something better than complete anarchy or complete tyranny, it’s called liberal democracy. Checks and balances in the government, direct citizen participation in governance, establishing liberal values such as freedom of speech as rights, a society gets to enjoy both structure AND liberty.
Just to be clear, “universal” is used to mean “literally all”
Oh come on, don’t be pedantic and argue semantics. You knew exactly what I meant. My statement was painfully obvious, true, and straightforward. If you’re actually willing to sit here and tell me that humans as a collective lack pride as an emotion, then you’re just engaging in bad faith.
most anarchists i know do not feel patriotism, especially as in “pride to belong to a nation”, and more generally as in “pride to belong to something greater”. I certainly do not.
This is anecdotal though. Humans feel pride in being a part of a greater collective, we’re tribal creatures. Just because you have a negative view of patriotism as a label, that doesn’t mean that you don’t feel this emotion under a different one.
I can not say much more since your claim is both vague (assimilating patriotism to simple pride makes it even less definable) and not verifiable (you cannot point out every people feeling patriotism, and i can only say i know people that do not feel patriotism but you can always say that’s exceptions).
Well, how would you define patriotism if not taking pride in your nation? You’re right that patriotism is vague and hard to verify because it’s an inherently subjective concept. The only thing that’s objective about is the underlying emotions. Things like a desire to see your group do better, pride in belonging to something greater, and a sense of responsibility to your people.
it seems that your more important value is stability of a civilization, from which you conclude that current states are good, and therefore patriotism, monopoly of violence are too.
Not quite.
- I’m not saying I personally value stability, I’m saying that this is what humanity favors given our history and the trajectory it has led us to. 2 I don’t think current states are good, I’m saying that having a state in general is necessary.
- I’m saying that patriotism is a reflection of human nature, it’s not an entirely artificial concept.
You also seem to deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are the only good option, and therefore anarchism and anti-state theories necessary leads to disorder.
Can this even be considered an opinion? I see it as an observation of something objective in human history.
My take is to start from solidarity rather than stability, making monopoly of violence and by extension patriotism bad, and therefore current states too. I deduce from lack of stable alternatives that current states are a dangerous form of organization for anything else, and therefore state theories, from fascism to authoritarian socialism along with bourgeois oligarchies, necessary leads to violence.
Let me ask you a simple question. If you’re not up to replying to everything else, you can skip it all and just reply to this. I’ll bold so you’ll find it easier.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US government has collapsed in favor anarchy. In this scenario, you have the country in it’s current state but just without the US government (federal, state, and local) or any of the American state apparatus. So that means no military, no federal reserve, no public schools, no police, no FDA, no CDC, no NOAA, nothing. The state has completely collapsed.** How would an anarchist society take place and how would it function in practice in this situation? **
Walk me through your logic step by step. For example, what “solidarity means”? How a society can function without a government? How would justice be enforced? How would you deal with people who reject this idea and want to reestablish a central authority? How would the economy function (as in, how would people get their new smartphones)?
If i’m not mistaken on your position, since we start from different values, we will always disagree on what comes after.
Of course we have different values, why else would be arguing? I’m not here to change your mind nor do I expect you to change mine. I’m having this discussion with you because I see value in talking to people who see things differently than I do. Challenging the views of others and having yours challenged is what makes to debates fun imo.
If you don’t learn from history, you’re destined to repeat it.
Repeating history being entirely compatible with patriotism, right ?
If your whole identity is based on the fact you where born at some location on this planet, you really need some self reflection and deprogramming
I was within these borders while I crawled out of a vagina. it’s one of my greatest achievements and I’ll base my personality on that
But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.
That’s just wrong, patriotism is subjective. The word means having a sense of pride, support, or devotion to your country. However, this concept can interpreted in wildly different ways by different people. One person could think that patriotism means standing by your country right or wrong, but another person could think that patriotism means criticizing your country when it’s done wrong. Both of these are valid forms of patriotism, it’s just that one is more extreme than the other.
Don’t argue with me. Argue with Patrick O’Brien
I mean you quoted him, you clearly endorse his view.
I mean, yeah, but that’s because I read all of his books
You should do that.
Good for you I guess, my criticism of the quote still stands though
I think one interpretation of the quote that includes the possibility of a patriotism that does not exclude criticizing wrongdoing of your country is that “my country, right or wrong” does not mean “i support everything my country does”, but rather “even if i don’t support some things my country does, i’ll support my country generally”.
Precisely, the quote takes into account the existence of a patriotism able to recognize that a country can be wrong.
This is bullshit.
Even if the technical definition of “patriotism” is all of these good things, it doesn’t matter because everyone thinks it means all of those bad things.
Yeah, people try to push this patrotism = good, nationalism = bad thing, but it is meaningless, because patriotism has long since become what Reinhart Koselleck would call a “Grundbegriffe”, basically a universal term which everybody has accepted is good, but which everybody interprets and uses in a variety of different (and clashing) interpretations. It is a term you use to invoke that you are on the right side, regardless of what side you are on, because it just means “good”.
Additionally, overt patriotism is usually nationalism.
Looking at this meme in the first panel, pride in who you are eventually becomes pride in who you aren’t if you feel it strongly enough.
fuck either of them.
no loyalty to any state.
Strange semi related old person story – back in highschool, one of our teachers had the class write essays on whether nationalism was good or bad. We were then given an option to either present our papers, or do a debate exercise with a kind of round robin pro or con. So you’d partner with 1 other person, debate if it was good or bad, then groups of 4 doing the same, until it was the whole class. In my paper and in my discussions, I had used a similar approach as this comic – basically just establishing what nationalism was vs patriotism, and drawing nazi’s in as an example too. No one in those discussions contested that Nazi’s were nationalists – but they still argued in favour of it.
By the end, I was the only person who thought nationalism was overall ‘bad’. The tide had turned in the groups of 8 stage. Because a hot girl had declared her support for nationalism. That’s all it took for people to like/excuse nazis, even back in the early 2000s. An excuse.
#JustEvolvedChimpanzeeThings
I will add that ethnicity, religious identification or lack thereof, or nationality doesn’t exempt anyone. USA and Christianity aren’t the first, only, or last to reinvent and suppress the parts of history we don’t like, but we’re certainly going full throttle, along with some other states and religions.
