Political Theory

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

JimS — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:45:22 GMT

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 :-)

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Stranger — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:17:27 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

allixpeeke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:09:04 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

allixpeeke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:51:35 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

allixpeeke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:45:28 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Juan — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:47:04 GMT

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 ?

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Stranger — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:18:28 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Inquisitor — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:31:50 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Juan — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:05:36 GMT

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 ?

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Inquisitor — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:44:45 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Juan — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:38:16 GMT

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...

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Inquisitor — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:26:24 GMT

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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Juan — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:06:20 GMT

"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.

Re: Anarchism and Nationalism??

Stranger — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:23:00 GMT

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.