Frollein wrote:That's your circular argument, not mine. People are guided by self-interest, which extends to their in-group. That will be their blood relatives first, and after them, any group they identify with. Logically, that will be the group that a) secures the fulfilment of their needs and interests and b) allows them to participate by helping to further the groups interests (and thereby implicitly their individual interests). That's of course a constant process of compromise, a dynamic of sacrificing some of one's own narrow interests to the "greater good" of the group vs manipulating the group consensus to one's own favour (or that of one's clan, a nested group-within-the-group).
Nonsense. People are guided by biological urges and cultural brainwashing. People act in self-interest all the time (some argue that no action is selfless), but as far as people's identifications go, it has much more to do with cultural brainwashing than anything else. For instance, Catholics identify with the church before they identify as anything else because that is how they are raised. Protestants identify more with their congregation and their family because that's how they are raised. Atheists have a different set of identifications altogether. Many grow up and despise their parents and blood relatives. Don't confuse your own personal preferences and beliefs with "natural" inclinations. There are none except to eat, to hydrate, and to procreate. Other than that, when we talk social structures they are confined to the realm of culture. As far as "the greater good" it only exists in the minds of people that believe in goodness as a quality that people can have. It is a contradictory notion to that of "self-interest", which states that no greater good exists to individuals, only that which benefits the individual.
The question is which is the greatest group the individual is able to identify with. The family, certainly; the clan (extended family), the tribe (related clans). After that, blood relations become too extended to really create an emotinal bond. So other common characteristics need to stand in that make up a common identity. A common language is one, for the very practical reason that it enables smooth communication. Common customs ("culture") is another one, because it makes up a lot of subliminal language, the "right" way of "how things are done". Voila, you have the ingredients of a nation: language and culture.
Ah yes, common language and customs. Things that have only existed for a few centuries. Things that were gotten at gun-point (or sword-point). A concept that had to be invented in order to keep the peasants in line and give more power to the absolute monarchs. That's what you're talking about, right?
What does a European worker have in common with an African or Asian worker except the fact that he is working for someone? Nothing. And the fact that the majority of people are slaves is not enough to inspire emotional identification. Because that has been true for the majority of people for most of history. So what? Why would an English worker care about the conditions of a Korean worker? They have no impact on his life. That's why your communist revolution needs to be constantly promoted, why workers need to be "educated": because it's nothing that's self evident to them and nothing they'd lift a finger for.
At one point in time magic was self-evident. Marxists do not concern themselves with self-evident truths. As far as what the European worker and the Asian worker have in common, it's simple: without either the work would not get done. With proper organization they would be able to do everything the capitalists and the banks supposedly are responsible for without the constant leaching of capital and the constant false-scarcity that the system is predicated on in order to improve the material conditions of a select few.
Also I laugh at the idea that people who know what it means to do an honest day's work don't identify with hard workers all over the world. The resentment burns like a fire through the working class towards anyone who doesn't know an honest day's labor. The problem is that they are easily tricked by cultures and nations into believing that the ruling class has their best interest in mind just because they speak the same language. Nor do the poor always identify with other poor, because the proletariat's hate for the lumpen can be greater than their hate for their masters. After all, the lumpen has never had an honest day's work or contribute much of any value to society. Nor further does someone fighting to survive identify with anyone, as hunger is its own passion.
Dream on. All these "realizations" don't change anything about the power structures which have formed over the centuries. Have you ever asked yourself why they have formed the way they are and not like the communists dream them? It's in the way humans self-organize and that hasn't changed because humans are hierarchical beings, just like all social animals.
Don't be ridiculous. You're the one that's dreaming if you think capitalism has anything at all to do with human nature. It's an economic system. People are born into it. That's why this whole idea of self-organization is in itself complete fabrication. Self-organization is a bourgeoisie phrase that means organize the way that society tells you or we will kill you or imprison you with no questions asked. Society is the rule of warfare. Every peaceful society does not last because one day an ambitious society comes along, swallows them up, rapes their women, re-names the country, changes the language, and then pretends that nothing ever happened. I bet as you read that sentence you thought of at least five different societies that applies to (including my own). So please, spare me the romantic Enlightenment notions about the ways humans self-organize. Violence is the way anything gets done in this world. That's why these realizations never happen, because if they do you get fired and then you learn your place. It is the capitalist's "right" to throw you out on the streets and ignore all the work that they have earned so much money on. What is the worker's right? To sell his labor on the marketplace. Oh my what a just system we self-established. Sure the worker agreed to that one.
You're conflating nationalism and imperialism. Not every nation is engaged in imperialism, though America most certainly is. But you are mistaken if you think that those militant religious groups will lay down their weapons and join your communist utopia once you have "educated" them. They know all about socialism in the Middle East. They just don't give a shit. Their tribal allegiances are much more important to them.
I thought Germans didn't have a sense of humor? Guess you must be an exception.
Try to understand this: nation-states have been around for
maybe four hundred years. In that time the only action they have ever been good at is expansion. Since organization into countries there have been not just countless colonial wars but various empires and states that if you so choose you could look into a history book, pick one, and name off dozens of wars that they have engaged in. Even the implementation of language was met with resistance and had to be imposed through violence. Portugal, France, the Germanic states (which have been in constant warfare!), Spain, the Dutch, the Frankish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British, the Mughal Empire, the Russians... in the 19th century the Europeans literally had a conference where they divvied up the whole world. Americans systematically purged the natives, the Spanish did the same thing in South America, the French did so in Africa, entire tomes have been written about this. It wasn't even a hundred years ago that this all was going on, and now you want to pretend that you had no benefit from that? Bullshit. Sorry the Americans are doing it better than anyone else ever did but lets be real here, nation-states have been responsible for lots of human misery and lots of human progress at the same time.
As far as them knowing about socialism in the middle east, please. They haven't even mastered the idea of the nation-state. They are glorified petro-states that keep the ruling class in power via social control and constant threats of violence, all empowered by Western companies and powers that just want the sweet economic lubrication of crude oil. That's essentially the only way that the map stays the same, constant violence and oil. We all know that the way those states are organized has nothing to do with unified tribes and everything to do with how the maps were drawn in the first place. Why do you think they are hotbeds of violence?
Of course the nation-state is inclusive of its members, but what makes you think that blacks were regarded as members of the nation? They were not white, they didn't speak the language when they were brought here from Africa and they certainly didn't share the culture (and by the way, they were captured and sold by African tribes who profited a lot from this business). Neither did the English see the Scots as members of their nation, etc. And why would they? If I view all humans as members of my nation, it's not nationalism anymore.
So to summarize: the nation is inclusive of everyone except most of the people on the planet and a large percentage of people that live inside the boarders of the nation-state. You know, everyone.