Society/Culture So what is so wrong with 'Nationalism'?

[Reynolds Number]

Nationalism will continue to have good popularity globally with tough economic times ahead and due to the effects of the worst global pandemic in over 100 years.

 

[juzz88]

But it is. Democratic Nationalism infers a 'tyranny of the majority' whereby if you dont conform to the majority view of nationalist or nativist ideals, ethnicity, cultural values and so forth, you're marginalised or persecuted.

See also: 'We grew here, you flew here' or 'fu** off we're full'.

I have no problem with an individual expressing a love for their country (patriotism). But that's a very different kettle of fish to nationalism, which presumes a certain cultural, racial or nativist norm for its expression to function, excludes others who don't fit that norm, and is State mandated (rather than an individual choice).

If you're willing to concede that Democratic Socialism is also a tyranny of the majority, I'm happy to agree that Democratic Nationalism is too. Democracy is a tyranny of the majority by definition. The whole point of having a constitution that limits the power of the government is to attempt to mitigate the risk of a tyrannical government emerging.

Having said that, the rest of your post completely ignores the latter half of my post. You're conflating nationalism with racism.

I'm not for enforcing ethnic or cultural "norms", I'm for giving people more power and the government less power.

More importantly, I'm for reducing the reach of government power, to ensure that the voices of one community aren't being drowned out by a larger community on the other side of the country. i.e. Melbournians have no right to tell Darwinians how to live. I don't expect, nor desire, a uniform "national identity". Perhaps that means I'm not a nationalist on a domestic scale.

However, on a global scale, nationalism starts to take on the more libertarian meaning that I'm referring to. It ensures that countries A and B can't enforce their will on C, which is why I used Brexit as an example. It reduces the reach and scope of power that entities like the EU or the UN have.

 

[Seeds]

If you're willing to concede that Democratic Socialism is also a tyranny of the majority, I'm happy to agree that Democratic Nationalism is too. Democracy is a tyranny of the majority by definition. The whole point of having a constitution that limits the power of the government is to attempt to mitigate the risk of a tyrannical government emerging.

Having said that, the rest of your post completely ignores the latter half of my post. You're conflating nationalism with racism.

I'm not for enforcing ethnic or cultural "norms", I'm for giving people more power and the government less power.

More importantly, I'm for reducing the reach of government power, to ensure that the voices of one community aren't being drowned out by a larger community on the other side of the country. i.e. Melbournians have no right to tell Darwinians how to live. I don't expect, nor desire, a uniform "national identity". Perhaps that means I'm not a nationalist on a domestic scale.

However, on a global scale, nationalism starts to take on the more libertarian meaning that I'm referring to. It ensures that countries A and B can't enforce their will on C, which is why I used Brexit as an example. It reduces the reach and scope of power that entities like the EU or the UN have.

It sounds like you not only dont want globalism you dont even want nationalism. i disagree but at least its not hypocritical.


i agreen thst nationalism isnt racism. However it is just as bad. Its still discriminating and dehumanising a group of people. Instead of by race nationalism does it by borders. Its just as bad.

 

[Scotland]

It sounds like you not only dont want globalism you dont even want nationalism. i disagree but at least its not hypocritical.


i agreen thst nationalism isnt racism. However it is just as bad. Its still discriminating and dehumanising a group of people. Instead of by race nationalism does it by borders. Its just as bad.

Where on planet Earth does one enjoy a high standard of living that isn't as a result of nationalism?

I mean the whole reason Australia is desirable is that only 25m people live here. You can complain about ethnic groups or languages or religion or whatever but everyone knows that if Australia just kept adding people it would get worse.

 

[Seeds]

Where on planet Earth does one enjoy a high standard of living that isn't as a result of nationalism?

I mean the whole reason Australia is desirable is that only 25m people live here. You can complain about ethnic groups or languages or religion or whatever but everyone knows that if Australia just kept adding people it would get worse.

That is an idiots argument as globalism doesnt exist. and the countries that were most global, like australia, are the ones with the highest standard of living. Australias wealth is built off trade ffs. Australia also has one of the highest immigration rates in the world. Not that immigration is necessarily a major driver of wealth per capita. But trade definately is.

 

[Gethelred]

Where on planet Earth does one enjoy a high standard of living that isn't as a result of nationalism?

I mean the whole reason Australia is desirable is that only 25m people live here. You can complain about ethnic groups or languages or religion or whatever but everyone knows that if Australia just kept adding people it would get worse.

This is a bit silly. D'you care to make your argument again, but better this time?

 

[Frank Bunn]

That is an idiots argument as globalism doesnt exist. and the countries that were most global, like australia, are the ones with the highest standard of living. Australias wealth is built off trade ffs. Australia also has one of the highest immigration rates in the world. Not that immigration is necessarily a major driver of wealth per capita. But trade definately is.

Immigration is always supported by Federal and most State governments. Because it's a lazy way to improve GDP that they can crow about.

Meanwhile GDP per capita ie real wage growth, has declined, apart from Victoria's public service.

 

[Seeds]

Immigration is always supported by Federal and most State governments. Because it's a lazy way to improve GDP that they can crow about.

Meanwhile GDP per capita ie real wage growth, has declined, apart from Victoria's public service.

Gdp per capita has not declined. it continues to grow. Where do you get such false information from?

A well targeted immigration system fill gaps in skills that presents prices from rising (thus making our wages more valuable) and helps us become leaders in certain industries.

immigration also tends to make birth citizens richer on average because they tend to own property whilst immigrants come without property And build/buy property further on the outskirts of town making birth citizens property more valuable as its now relative closer to the city.

immigrants from different cultures also bring parts of their cultures with them making life more cosmopolitan and less bland. And yes i am aware there are negatives from culture mixing as well.

your views on immigration is classic post hoc rationalistion used to justify our intuitive irrational fears of immigrants.

 

[Present Not Past]

In the last two decades there's been 'noise' around this apparent evil called 'nationalism'.

In other threads I've skimmed over there seems to be some sort of fear of having pride in the nation you and your descendants were born in.

Why is that? What is this evil in having pride in your nation?

I'm fascinated by those who passionately oppose national pride and would like to know why these types are so averse to national pride, what is this poison to society that is caused by nationalism? Why is it so dangerous?

There are plenty on these boards that have immense pride (that I can gauge by some of the posts) in opposing nationalism.

I think it is more noise than an actual problem, but for those who are vehemently in opposition to having pride in your nation? What is the actual threat of nationalism?

This should make for an interesting debate, and will show us who has pride and who has a problem with it.

I don't think nationalism in and of itself is necessarily bad. It only becomes bad when politicians use the words nationalism and patriotism as a cover for something completely different.

 

[Seeds]

The fact this thread exists shows that we dont teach enough history in our schools.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The fact this thread exists shows that we dont teach enough history in our schools.

Do they teach the difference between then/than?

 

[Seeds]

Do they teach the difference between then/than?

Smart people never complain about grammer except when you cant understand what is being explained. than/then and there/their arent such situations.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Smart people never complain about grammer except when you cant understand what is being explained. than/then and there/their arent such situations.

It's not grammar. It's basic English. You confuse two words regularly. And you're complaining about other people being insufficiently educated.

 

[Scotland]

That is an idiots argument as globalism doesnt exist. and the countries that were most global, like australia, are the ones with the highest standard of living. Australias wealth is built off trade ffs. Australia also has one of the highest immigration rates in the world. Not that immigration is necessarily a major driver of wealth per capita. But trade definately is.

Australia (nation) has wealth because of trade. And a high standard of living. Great. So if we had 50m people or 100m people or 500m people we'd just trade more and have more wealth and everyone's standard of living would improve? Why doesn't the whole world have a high standard of living?

It's almost like being born on an island that's home to 25m people with a lot of wealth is a real head start in life.

This is a bit silly. D'you care to make your argument again, but better this time?

Compelling.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Gdp per capita has not declined. it continues to grow. Where do you get such false information from?

From the ABS. Even before Covid, private sector wages had stagnated whereas the Victorian public service was giving themselves pay rises above inflation.

A well targeted immigration system fill gaps in skills that presents prices from rising (thus making our wages more valuable) and helps us become leaders in certain industries.

immigration also tends to make birth citizens richer on average because they tend to own property whilst immigrations come without property And build/buy property further on the outskirts of town making birth citizens property more valuable as its now relative closer to the city.

immigrants from different cultures also bring parts of their cultures with them making life more cosmopolitan and less bland. And yes i am aware there are negatives from culture mixing as well.

your views on immigration is classic post hoc rationalistion used to justify our intuitive irrational fears of immigrants.

I'm not against immigration and the different cultural influences. I'm talking about the high immigration strategy that is always supported by Federal and most State governments because it's a lazy way to increase GDP.

High immigration also suppresses wages. Student visas are a proxy for low paid delivery and taxi drivers to work here. Many thousands of IT workers have been allowed to enter the country under 'scarce skills' categories when at the same time big companies here were laying off experienced IT staff. Another common rort is jobs being outsourced overseas then those overseas staff being brought onshore - at considerably less cost than local workers.

 

[Seeds]

From the ABS. Even before Covid, private sector wages had stagnated whereas the Victorian public service was giving themselves pay rises above inflation.



I'm not against immigration and the different cultural influences. I'm talking about the high immigration strategy that is always supported by Federal and most State governments because it's a lazy way to increase GDP.

High immigration also suppresses wages. Student visas are a proxy for low paid delivery and taxi drivers to work here. Many thousands of IT workers have been allowed to enter the country under 'scarce skills' categories when at the same time big companies here were laying off experienced IT staff. Another common rort is jobs being outsourced overseas then those overseas staff being brought onshore - at considerably less cost than local workers.

Gdp per capita and wages is not the same thing. Gdp also includes capital rents and most people earn capital rents even if its just through their super.

plus real wages have not fallen anyway. Their growth has slowed definately but it has still been growing. You are misreading the reports.

immigration may lower wages in certain sectors but it also lowers prices which increases the purchasing power of real wages in other sectors. More immigrants also increases the returns to capital leading to higher investment and in the end we have the same capital to labour ratio regardless of the amount of immigration. I.e. Immigration doesnt lower wages, it only shifts them around. if we stopped immigration then outsourcing would increase even futher in certain sectors and there is nothing wrong with that. People overseas are just as deserving to earn a living as an australian. In fact this results in world gdp per person to rise through efficiency gained from economies of scale in prodcution.

a couple of point I do agree with. high immigration rates makes gdp a worthless measure. We need to focus on gdp per capita instead And stop recording gdp in the news. A sudden unexpected burst in high immigration can cause temporary problems to real wages as it takes time for the capital to labour ratio to catch up. But this is only an issue if the immigration rate rises or is unexpected. As long high immigration rates are constant and expected then immigratiom shouldnt be a problem. The third problem is government. Governments need to be expanding infrastructure and housing land releases to provide for the high population growth. This is very easy to do (as immigrants will pay for this themselves in the future through the work they will do and taxes they pay) but alas governments are stupid and may not plan ahead even though they all know the immigrants are coming. The problems that immigrants appear to make are not problems of immigration but are problems of poor government planning.

 

[Seeds]

Australia (nation) has wealth because of trade. And a high standard of living. Great. So if we had 50m people or 100m people or 500m people we'd just trade more and have more wealth and everyone's standard of living would improve? Why doesn't the whole world have a high standard of living?

It's almost like being born on an island that's home to 25m people with a lot of wealth is a real head start in life.



Compelling.

There are many poor countries because of nationalism combined with illiberal insitutional frameworks that disincentivize investment and technology change. With more global order wealth will be much more shared. And if the global order is based on liberal values then the average global wealth per capita will be much much higher. The dramatic rise in the living standards of asia in the past 40 years has been driven by rising globalism based on liberal values.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The dramatic rise in the living standards of asia in the past 40 years has been driven by rising globalism based on liberal values.

There's no shortage of nationalism in Asia. Has China's expanded wealth been based on "liberal values"?

 

[twotooto]

Smart people never complain about grammer except when you cant understand what is being explained. than/then and there/their arent such situations.

grammer
grammar

 

[Frank Bunn]

Gdp per capita and wages is not the same thing. Gdp also includes capital rents and most people earn capital rents even if its just through their super.

plus real wages have not fallen anyway. Their growth has slowed definately but it has still been growing. You are misreading the reports.

a couple of point I do agree with. high immigration rates makes gdp a worthless measure. We need to focus on gdp per capita instead And stop recording gdp in the news. A sudden unexpected burst in high immigration can cause temporary problems to real wages as it takes time for the capital to labour ratio to catch up. But this is only an issue if the immigration rate rises or is unexpected. As long high immigration rates are constant and expected then immigratiom shouldnt be a problem. The third problem is government. Governments need to be expanding infrastructure and housing land releases to provide for the high population growth. This is very easy to do (as immigrants will pay for this themselves in the future through the work they will do and taxes they pay) but alas governments are stupid and may not plan ahead even though they all know the immigrants are coming. The problems that immigrants appear to make are not problems of immigration but are problems of poor government planning.

I think you (and Federal and State governments) have things the wrong way round. We should have an open discussion on our immigration policies and their effect on employment, wages, social, infrastructure education etc.

But what is actually happening is that high immigration is never an election issue but is supported by the Federal and State governments because they can claim 'growth'. Then there's the inevitable catch up with infrastructure as our cities become more overcrowded and shitty places to live.

immigration may lower wages in certain sectors but it also lowers prices which increases the purchasing power of real wages in other sectors. More immigrants also increases the returns to capital leading to higher investment and in the end we have the same capital to labour ratio regardless of the amount of immigration. I.e. Immigration doesnt lower wages, it only shifts them around. if we stopped immigration then outsourcing would increase even futher in certain sectors and there is nothing wrong with that. People overseas are just as deserving to earn a living as an australian. In fact this results in world gdp per person to rise through efficiency gained from economies of scale in prodcution.

When it comes to the priorities of those we elect to government, people overseas are not just as deserving to earn a living as an Australian. They do not vote here or pay taxes. And why should we care about 'world gdp'?

 

[Malifice]

Where on planet Earth does one enjoy a high standard of living that isn't as a result of nationalism?

Umm... everywhere. The cause for the high standard of living in Western liberal democracies is liberalism (and liberal capitalist economics), not nationalism. The two ideologies are fundamentally opposed. Liberalism is the notion that the individual comes before the State; with nationalism it's the exact opposite.

The only thing Nationalism ever did for liberal capitalist nations when it got out of hand, is catapult them into war and destruction.

Here is what happened to Berlin when it embraced nationalism fully:

 

[Malifice]

There's no shortage of nationalism in Asia.

And there has been no shortage of wars there either. In fact surging Indian or more likely Chinese Nationalism will likely kick off the next war in this region, much like Japanese Nationalism kicked off the last one here.

Has China's expanded wealth been based on "liberal values"?

To an extent, yes it has. The PRC backed down from hard line Communism to allow more private investment and Capitalist liberal economics to flourish.

Unfortunately despite the economic reforms in China, there have been very little in the way of political reforms.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

And there has been no shortage of wars there either.

You miss the point. It would be wide of the mark to attribute "the dramatic rise in the living standards of Asia in the past 40 years" to the decline of nationalism when there's still plenty of that to go around.

And frankly, people paint with too broad a brush when it comes to Asia. There are significant differences depending which part people are discussing. When people say such and such happened "in Asia" I always wonder where precisely they mean. It all happened the same way from Pakistan to Japan down to Indonesia and everywhere in between? I doubt it.

In fact surging Indian or more likely Chinese Nationalism will likely kick off the next war in this region, much like Japanese Nationalism kicked off the last one here.

What was "the last war" in Asia?

To an extent, yes it has. The PRC backed down from hard line Communism to allow more private investment and Capitalist liberal economics to flourish.

Unfortunately despite the economic reforms in China, there have been very little in the way of political reforms.

It's more complicated than that. I wouldn't be chalking up China as a win for liberal values any time soon.

 

[Malifice]

You miss the point. It would be wide of the mark to attribute "the dramatic rise in the living standards of Asia in the past 40 years" to the decline of nationalism when there's still plenty of that to go around.

I dont attribute it to that fact.

I attribute the dramatic rise in living standards in Asia over the past 40 years to an embrace of liberal capitalism, and the resulting surging middle classes rising people out of poverty.

What was "the last war" in Asia?

Barring a few border skirmishes here or there, and internal disputes and nationalist movements (Tamils etc) I'd probably say India v Pakistan.

I wouldn't be chalking up China as a win for liberal values any time soon.

I'm not. They've gone backwards, starting with this sliding doors moment of Liberalism v Nationalism:

Liberals (and Neo-Cons) were hoping Perestroika would see an open Russia, and Chinese economic reforms would see similar in China.

Despite embracing economic liberalism to some extent, both nations have gotten worse with political liberalism, and are following scarily similar trajectories with 'presidents for life', rising nationalism, territorial claims and extreme sabre rattling.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I dont attribute it to that fact.

Did you see the post I was replying to?

I attribute the dramatic rise in living standards in Asia over the past 40 years to an embrace of liberal capitalism, and the resulting surging middle classes rising people out of poverty.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that indicates the suspension of nationalism overall, which was my point, as you can see above.

Barring a few border skirmishes here or there, and internal disputes and nationalist movements (Tamils etc) I'd probably say India v Pakistan.

So not Japanese nationalism.

I'm not. They've gone backwards, starting with this sliding doors moment of Liberalism v Nationalism

Not sure that door was ever going to slide far enough towards a version of liberalism to deem it a "sliding doors moment".