Anarchism and Nationalism??

I consider myself somewhat of an anarchist, though a new one to say the least.  Up until a few weeks ago I was strongly minarchist.  But I'm also a devout nationalist.  On the one hand I strongly agree with anarcho-capitalist theory but on the other I strongly believe in a free and independent Texas -- a Republic of Texas.  Maybe not a republic but a free Texas anyway.  In your opinions is it possible to be both an anarchist and a nationalist?  Or can nationalism only exist so long as a person holds on to their minarchist beliefs? 

 

You can be both, I would be proud of the USA's lack of government and its culture, Texas the same thing. I would still see us as a "country", just one without government.

Hehe I'm a Randian in many ways, but I agree that any anarcho-capitalist (or generally, any anarchist) society would do well to have a good sense of community and civil society.

 Pardon me!

I am usually bashing nationalism as sickly need for collectivism. A desire to suckle off the common wheel. 

I usually don't see people trying it as a case for inependence. Looking at it in a state's rights take, thats neat. I am preferable to constructionism though. More folks should delve into the constitution. Is there a cliff's notes for cato's letters? I think the Federalists is a fun read, are there notes for those too? I'm not sure if the articles of confederation didn't vest too much power in the legislature.

I see constitutionalists as patriotic, and generally nationalists like federalists. Federalism; the idea of a voluntary union of states for national defense. Scary that federalists are folks like Hamilton, who was a monarchist, and a crank. The whigs liked nationalism, the scary kind of abject rule to the plutocrats. I just think nationalism tends to inspire the beleif in positive law for the lay.

Now I am learned that nationalism can be a way to describe federalism. 

Mises distinguished two forms of nationalism. The first is group determination to stand up to despotism. It leads to devolution and secession, and ever smaller units of government. This kind he talks about in Nation, State, and Economy, and he sees it as a force for liberty. Here the nationalism stands in opposition to statism of the centralized sort. An example would Ukranian nationalism as against Russian aggression, or Austrian nationalism as against German aggression. The "national pride" in this case demands that the nation be left alone. Mises further says that the devolutionist form of nationalism leads to the logical outcome of individual secession, which he says should be permitted if it were possible. 

 Instead of One Nation we get a Nation of One. Sounds good to me. 

The second type he writes about in Omnipotent Government: expansionist nationalism, based on the belief that a people's superiority grants the nation the right to rule others. The obvious case here is German under Hitler, or the Soviet Union, or the United States today (or, really, dating back to the Spanish American War).

Both stem from the same underlying sense of pride but their politics results are complete opposites. I would say that both forms are alive in Texas today, and in most states actually. 

I see them as being inherently contradictary. Nationalism can only stand for liberty relative to larger and hegemonic units. Relative to smaller units, it stands for a forced monocentrism to me. Insofar as nationalism supports secession from internationalist bodies, I can see it as beneficial. However, I see it as simultaneously supporting conglomeration and centralization of powers at the same time. Contemporary nationalism only supports secession from internationalist or global bodies. Within the national bodies however, centralization can theoretically be limitless. So there's an inconsistancy in that independance and secession is only supported up to a limited point. It goes nowhere close to solving the problem.

I feel similarly about state's rights, which is a sort of micro-nationalism. It stands for liberty relative to federal or national units. Relative to smaller units, it stands for a forced moncentrism. It is only beneficial insofar as it breaks up nations. But it does not remove the problem of coercive territorial monopoly, it only creates smaller coercive territorial monopolies. Within the states, congomleration and centralization of power can theoretically be limitless. So state's rights also is inconsistant. It is also important to consider that the American states are roughly the size (or larger) then a European nation, so state's rights really isn't that much of an improvement relative to a Europe in the absence of a United States of Europe.

Anarchism takes the principles to their logical conclusion: the secession of the individual. Nationalism significantly falls short of this. In my understanding, nationalism does not support the secession of the individual, only groups that are relatively large already. Nationalism is opposed to secession at smaller levels, secession from the national group itself. Hence, forced homogeneity and conglomeration exists within a nationalist framework. Anarchism has always stood for the sovereignty of the individual, not the false sovereignty of nations or states or cities or what have you. Nations and states have no legitimacy whatsoever. So this is why, yes, I consider nationalism and anarchism to be inherently contradictary.

[youtube:64PDojl2N8o]

If you don't believe your nation ought to be bound to the land that international borders established, you have to be a nationalist anarchist. 

Stranger:

If you don't believe your nation ought to be bound to the land that international borders established, you have to be a nationalist anarchist. 

I don't believe I actually own any entity called a "nation" in the first place. I never signed any contract with such an entity and I have yet to be shown its objective existance as a clearly and legitimately defined territory. In my understanding, the only "borders" that could be said to exist in a market anarchist society are private property. The entire contemporary concept of nations is not based on private property. You are free to call a territory of private property in an anarchy a "nation" if you like, but I wouldn't consider it one. In the absence of any kind of large-scale homesteading of previously unused/unowned land, or the essentially impossible scenario of large communities of people voluntarily selling off their land in mass to the same person or body, I fail to see how it is possible to have a legitimate private property title over such a large territory to begin with.

 A nation is a group of people first, not a property title. It could follow that some properties would be limited to only members of the group, such as cities or estates. All that would be necessary to acquire this property title would be to demand it in exchange for being part of the group.

"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any [*10] of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both."

Spooner - No Treason.

Spooner seems to be referring to the nation as a political entity, e.g. the State. I think what others here mean is a collective of individuals who seek to identify themselves by certain common characteristics and share a sentiment of unity. If this isn't recognized, there will be much talking past each other without getting anywhere. The word nation, though, has been typically used to refer to political entities, so some disambiguation should take place before its use is even contemplated in conjunction with anarchism.

I don't think there's talking past each other. The 'state', of with Spooner is indeed talking about, is based on the metaphysical concept of 'nation'. In my opinion, individualism and nationalism, any sort of nationalism, are antagonical terms. But that's just me...

Well when you're offering tracts aimed against coerced political forms of nationalism, I really must wonder whether you aren't talking past each other. Personally I think the term nationalism is awkward and ill-suited for the purposes Byzantine is using it. Nonetheless, his argument does not pertain to political forms of nationalism, at least as he has presented it, but rather is focused on the fact that civil society and a certain sense of community are necessary to an anarchist community's maintenance. If he means more than that then he may correct me.

Can we know what a really free society would look like ? Are you assuming that it would be like a small town where everybody sticks to 'traditional values' ? What's meant by 'community' ? Isn't the aim of libertarianism the free movement of people and goods ?

No, but we can speculate as to what form it would take and what might be necessary for its maintenance. Before the State's heavy intrusion, civil institutions were relatively strong. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a sense of affiliation to one's community, e.g. the wealthy being encouraged (or even motivated of their own good will) to build a library or a park, or even institute charitable foundations. It's a bit odd for anarchists to put so much emphasis on things like boycotting and the like, and at the same time try to fit this in with some form of atomism. People in fact often do take pride in their communities. I think it's excessive to call this nationalism, and that it's a perfectly natural phenomenon, so long as one doesn't make the leap from this to compelling obedience to some floating abstraction such as the 'nation'. That doesn't mean alternative modes of organization are not possible, far from it.

The nation is a shared culture-derived ethnicity. It is expressed tbrough the practice of cultural customs and a shared historical myth, transmitted primarily through a common language. This may not make any sense to a lot of people today given that globalized anglo-culture and multiculturalism has all but destroyed differences in lifestyles, but some small nations cling desperately to their specificity, most notably Israel, and some keep trying to invent themselves into a nation, most notably Quebec.

That is in no way incompatible with individualism. Specific individuals join and leave Israel quite frequently, for example.

The phenomenon of nationalism is a reaction against the use of political power against the means of acculturation, most obviously the education of children. It was believed by political theorists of the early 20th century that there would not be peace until each nation had its own nation-state where it could exercise political power for its own ends. That ran into some large problems in the Habsburg and Ottoman empires where nations were spread out and overlapped in the same territories.

Inquisitor, I agree that if people were free to interact voluntary we would see some of them associate by 'language' or color of the skin or...myths as Stranger puts it. However the key question is how will these people deal with dissenters within their own 'communities' ?

Stranger, when you say 'Israel' are you talking about the socialistic, militaristic and theocratic nation-state of Israel ? Or are you refering to some sort of Jewish tradition ?

I don't believe that one can be a nationalist and an anarchist, or at least one cannot be a nationalist and an individualist anarchist.  Nationalism is inherently collectivist.

But, you can be an anarchist and still hold that Texas should be permitted to secede from the Union.  I would like to see every state secede from the union, and every county secede from every state, and every community secede from every county, and every household secede from the local government.  So, although I'm not a nationalist, I agree with nationalist groups insofar as they advocate secessionism.

ChaseCola:

You can be both, I would be proud of the USA's lack of government and its culture, Texas the same thing. I would still see us as a "country", just one without government.

That's patriotism, not nationalism.  And I would agree that one can be a patriotic anarchist, evn a patriotic individualist anarchist.  I would love my country even more were it to have no government.  But nationalism is different, and in my opinion, repugnant: it's based on myths and collectivism; it's also blind and usually anti-intellectual.

Byzantine:

In fact, you would see more "collectivism" under anarcho-capitalism

You would see a highly-collected society, a dense web of interactions, and a variety of institutions constituting voluntary "collectivism" under individualist anarchism.  But this is not what one typically refers to when one mentions "collectivism"; usually, the speaker means to refer to involuntary or coercive collectivism.  The patriotism of a stateless society, i.e., the love of a person for his or her stateless country, certainly does not constitute coercive collectivism in any way.  It does not even entail a collectivist mindset!

Let us compare nationalism to racism.  Obviously, in a free society, nobody would be punished for being a racist or a nationalist, as long as the racists and nationalists abide by the non-aggression axiom.  But both ideologies require a collectivist mindset, both require that judgements be made not based on individual character but rather on irrelevant characteristics (e.g. skin colour, place of birth).

I will say that one can be a collectivist anarchist (e.g. a voluntaryist anarcho-communist), and not be punished for it in a free society.  (As long as the communist is a voluntaryist, as long as he/she never uses aggression to get others to join him or her, we individualist anarchists have no problem with him/her starting a commune, or sharing his or her possessions with others.)  So, in that sense, one can be a voluntary collectivist and be an anarchist.  Thus, one can be a racist, a nationalist, or a communist and still be an anarchist, as long as the person agrees with the non-aggression axiom.

However, anarcho-capitalism is a strictly individualist anarchism, and one cannot be a racist, a nationalist, or a communist and still be an individualist.  All three ideologies require a collectivist mindset, and by holding them, one ceases to be an individualist, and ergo also ceases to be an anarcho-capitalist.

Juan:

Stranger, when you say 'Israel' are you talking about the socialistic, militaristic and theocratic nation-state of Israel ? Or are you refering to some sort of Jewish tradition ?

 

I am talking about the Israel that speaks hebrew. 

Byzantine:

The National Football League, the Franciscans, Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, your family, etc., are all examples of collectives.  In fact, you would see more "collectivism" under anarcho-capitalism because it is the secular state that displaces the pre-state institutions of organic society.

National Foodball League franchises can routinely be bought and sold . . . try  that with your citizenship.

Franciscans have no power over any member's life or property, nowadays anyway.  When religious orders had the power to beat and murder their members, yes that was collectivism.

Liberty Mutual membership is a contractual shareholding . . . which again can be bought and sold.

Family?  If the law requires sons to pay parents' debt without ever co-signature, and if an adult son commits a crime and the parents are punishable by death, then yes the system would be collectivist.

See a common theme there?  Collectivism is not just a voluntary membership.  The litmus test for collectivism is whether each individual member has the right to exit and have no more liablity imposed if he chooses no longer be such a club.   For example, if you live in a cul-de-sac with three houses, having a weekend barbecue together is not collectivism; however, if your decline to participate results in the other two family at the barbecue to take a vote and kick you out of your own house, now, that would be collectivism in action :-)