The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Economics Economics Questions
, , , ,
201

The more I think about it, the more I feel that whole nationalism thing in the 19th century was just one giant academic pipe dream picked up by the ruling class for practical reasons and is treated way too respectfully today.

What defines a “nation”, after all? Kakugo put it very well when he called it an “artificial and increasingly decrepit identity concocted in the late XIX century”. It was keeping up with the Johnsons on a national basis. “France” now has a “nation”, so “we” need a “nation”, too, justified by some creative twisting of history and a sense of unity akin to the collective joy of a football match. And while liberal arts students today hear their professors talk about the virtue of self-sacrifice for society’s sake and put posters of Che on their wall, back then it was pulping regional differences for the nation’s sake, attractively depicted by revolutionary artists to appeal to Pietist university males:

485×463 82.5 KB

Mrs. Germania and Mrs. Italia, just in the proper age range to get married to the boldest college loudmouth.

Considering how much suffering the whole collective neurosis of nationalism has brought upon the world, I’m sickened by how positive and progressive this dangerous mirage is being displayed in public schools. Not “national unification”, but free trade and the division of labor pulled Europe from the dusty floor of history. Unfortunately, the latter is seen as a mere precursor for the “greater goal” of nationalism, just as inter-European trade was apparently seen as a justification for a single European state.

But I’m rambling. [:(]

202

That is not fair. Nationalism brought down the empires of old and made the old fashioned overt and direct imperialism for ever obsolete.

I would say there exist two distinct nationalisms. The nationalism of France and the nationalism of the Corsicans for example have nothing in common. And only one of them is nationalism. The other is pure statism grasping for legitimacy in taking on the mantle of an artificial state-created nation.

203

On LRC a fascinating writer, who’s name article completely escapes me, wrote something along these lines in reference to sacrificing for the greater good. Basically, everyone is told that everyone else suffers in “this” way as a means of justification for making people suffer. So, now under nationalist standards, everyone suffers where before nationalism no one really had to make such sacrifice. One shining example I guess would be disarming the people. On a national scale the idea is pushed as a greater good, so even if you feel that you have a right to defend yourself (which if you live you certainly do), you are not allowed to have a gun because if you have guns then criminals have guns. Further perpetuating the idea that by disarming honest citizens you disarm the criminals, which we all know is complete bull.

Now I’m rambling…

I guess, I mean to say, I really like your outlook on this subject. It makes perfect sense that everyone is just “keeping up with the Johnsons”, especially when the idea that all political bases movements seem to be taken from the same thought pattern as electing the high school prom queen and king. Nice insight.

204

My only issue here, and if I’m misreading please let me know, is the question of how you would separate true nationalism from statism pushing nationalism. I can’t personally think of a period in which they are separated, and it makes perfect sense to push nationalism as means of achieving statist goals. Take 9/11 ( I know it’s been used to death and I’m sorry for using it again). US National Pride was at an all time high after that, and the government could do no wrong. That is why we ended up in Iraq despite the fact that everyone is 99.9% sure that the reasons we were told we went were not the real reasons (read: oil). The state used nationalism as a weapon to attack another nation and drive us into a prolonged hopeless war, all the while taking away American Liberties one by one. Even now the so called tea party movements seems singly devoted to deposing the “liberals” so the “conservatives”(another funny joke) can run everything again.

Bah, I’m just talking now, I’ll end it there.

205

But this is not nationalism. What you are describing is just the “us and them” mechanic. The “us and them” is much older than nationalism. With this sort of thinking you can think of Lakers and Kings fans as Kings and Lakers nationalists.

206

OK, if we are not talking about the many definitions of nationalism I read, what is your definition of nationalism?

Some of the ones I have found, even on an immediate internet search include but are not limited to:

  • patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it
  • the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other
  • the aspiration for national independence felt by people under foreign domination
  • the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals
  • Nationalism is the sense of identity with a nation

What form of the word are you talking about exactly? I know a governmental body doesn’t define a culture, but a government body is defined (at least at first) by it’s peoples culture. Also, this is by no means any form of defense for government of any kind.

207

I guess, now that I put further thought into it, is the “us and them” mechanic not the largest part of nationalism? If I see my nations culture as the best, I am inherently assigning the discussion an “us and them” mechanic. If you define people as “other”, you are saying they are either subordinate or not fitting within a culture. So, when you have pride for a nation and the people therein, then all nations outside the one you feel national pride for becomes “other”. “Other” in this case inherently includes and “us and them” mechanic.

I hope I am not over reading this, and believe me, I am not trying to fight with anyone on this subject. I am inherently curious though, and I cannot apologize for that.

208

Being a Lakers fan does not make you a Lakers nationalist, because being a Lakers fan tells nothing of your view of the state. This is the same reason a feminist is not called a female nationalist and a punk rocker is not called a punk nationalist. In all cases we are talking about strong group identities, about what we could call nationalist sentiment. But nationalism is more than a sentiment, it is an ideology albeit filled with sentimentalism and not at all a concise one.

I would make a claim there are two different nationalisms, both built on similar sentimentalism but very different in their view of the state.

Civic nationalism or court nationalism is older and generally charecteristic of Western Europe. It was built from the European order of 1648. It postulates the soverignity of the state. It denies there is any distinction between the nation and the state (actually between the nation and the body of the subjects of the state). It arose in order to justify whatever already centuries old state it was employed by and to make it more energetic by socialy engineering a national conscience among people who had nothing in common other than they were subjects of one and the same king, often by forcefully destroying existing ethnic and linguistic diversity. Robespierre is a good example of a civic nationalist. Today it is the accepted, the politicaly correct form of nationalism. It is what is understood as nationalism in the Anglo-Saxon world where nationality is synonymous with citizenship.

Ethnic nationalism or popular nationalism is younger and generally characteristic of Central and Eastern Europe. It was born in 1848, the year known as the Spring of Nations. It postulates the soverignity of the nation (actually a better word would be of the ethnic people). It understands there is a distinction between the nation and the state. It arose by awakening already ethnicaly distinct peoples to the importance of their shared origin and language wherever those peoples were found regardless of any state borders or wishes of the state to then declare most existing princely states and empires arbitrary and completely illegitimate and rising up against them for the sake of the ethnic people and its rights. Malcolm X is a good example of an ethnic nationalist. Today it is the prosecuted, the politicaly incorrect form of nationalism. It is what is understood as nationalism in Eastern Europe where nationality is synonymous with ethnicity.

Ethnic nationalism is misguided but it is not evil. It is misguided because it is collectivist beliving that a nation rather than just its members can have rights. But, it is not evil, it does not equate the nation with the state, the state with the nation. On the contrary it is very much aware of the distinction.

I would dare say ethnic nationalism is in one way similar to liberalism. Liberals will experience almost every possible state as arbitrary and nothing but violence. The only stae they will grant legitimacy is one that seeks to protect the rights of the induvidual. Ethnic nationalists will alike experience almost every possible state as arbitrary and nothing but violence granting legitimacy only to the state that seeks to protect the rights of the nation to autonomous development in all its ethnic lands. Both are internally inconsistent because they grant any legitimacy to the state at all. Neither an induvidual nor a nation can be free with the state aparatus set above them. But in a sense it is harder to forgive this error to liberalism because the rights that the ethnic nationalists are concerned about are bogus, while those that concern the liberals are not.

But this is why libertarianism is built on liberalism. Ethnic nationalism on the other hand has a long lasting, queer connection and influence on collectivist forms of anarchism.

209

I see what your saying, thanks for explaining that so thoroughly. I can agree, going with your explanation, that there definitely seems to be two separate identities of nationalism itself. I need to learn to be equally as detailed in my posts.

From what your saying, the politically corrected form of nationalism is directly tied to the state:

So, your arguing more on behalf of ethnic nationalism because it has led up the advent of libertarianism?

210

It is not connected to libertarianism. But it did lead to many liberal consequences. What it did is pull some ground from undearneath the state. It said unles this and this and this is true, then the state has no right to exist. Whereas before just about any state could be seen as legitimate.

The aspect of the states most affected by this was the instinct to expand geographicaly into any direction it can. It has made it unpractical. Should one state today try to annex its neighbour it will have to deal with the populace in the newly aquired region that refuses to grant the new authority legitimacy no matter what the policy of the center. This was not true in pre-modern times before national awakenings. Back then while resistance could occur it had to do with economic exploitation and class and was therefore not assured. Today your power will be resisted for simply flying the wrong flag. That is already grounds enough to prevent you from establishing any semblance of legitimacy .

I would also say that the reason most de-colonialisation movements in the latter half of 20th century were Marxist-Leninst was because of the concessions to ethnic nationalism that Lenin wrote into Marxism. He took an ideology that glorified imperialism by capitalist states and turned it into one that was opposed to imperialism and spoke of national self-determinaton and the right of ethnic nations for autonomous cultural development and therefore made it acceptable to the colonialised world. Without this spread of some of the principles of popular nationalism through Marxism-Leninism decolonialisation probably would not have occured in the decades it did but only later. Eg, at the end of the day the was mayority of Vietnamese joined the Vietminh because they felt the French had no right to rule over them, not because they read Das Kapital.

Citizenship is a something that does no exist without a state. Ethnicity however is something that exists independently of the state.

Civic nationalism is presented as being policialy correct because it is “inclusive” and accepting of “diversity”. But this is bogus. Civic nationalism historicaly sought to do away with any diversity and still does albeit not as overtly. Not as a goal in itself, but in order to tie this new powerful force of nationalist sentiment to a state category, rather than to an anthropological category.

In France which has always been the most extreme example there it was until a decade or two ago illegal to give children Breton or other non-French names. 200 years ago, only 45-50% of its people were ethnicaly French. In reality this “inclusivness” is tyranny because there is no choice. Anybody who holds French citizenship ie, is the subject of the French state is required to identify as a Frenchman. Whereas in Slovakia for example it is perfectly understood that not all citizens of Slovak Republic are of Slovak nationality and are permitted to declare themselves as a part of whichever nation they feel themselves a part of.

211

Oh, ok, I see. Awesome, thanks for the fantastic explanation.

212

Marko,

I disagree somewhat. If I remember it correctly it was not Lenin that changed Marxism into national socialism, socialism in one state, it was Stalin. Stalinism is one nation Marxism spread from one nation to another at a time. Lenin as well as Marx was true internationalists, global socialists/communists.

I also disagree with the premises that Stalinism was the main cause behind the de-colonization movement. It gave it the ideology but it got its legitimacy from Woodrow Wilson, the US WWI president and the father of the United Nations (UN) as well as Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Wilsionian Democrat, he believed in the self-determination of nations. (Not in the Marxist sense, the self-determination of the masses/collective/nation but the self-determination of individuals.) Roosevelt demanded of Winston Churchill and the other Allies that they would after the war (WWII) allow for the self-determination of any people, otherwise the US would not support the Allies. Without this and the subsequent support of the US none o the de-colonization would have taken place. You have to remember the Suez crises as the turning point. France and the UK sent troops to occupy the Suez/Egypt. The US blackmailed UK/France to retreat by telling them that all economic support and the Marshall plan would be abandoned if the French and the British didn’t retreat, pull their troops back home. This was the signal for every (Marxist) “liberation” movement. The US could not interfere in the self-determination of local “liberation” movements without losing face and international credibility. Too late the US understood that the de-colonization movement was a Trojan horse for authoritarian and totalitarian socialism.

213

I have no time of day to give to imperialist nostalgia.

214

Marko,

I did not state an opinion as regards to de-colonialization, I stated facts. I believe as did Wilson and Roosevelt that individual self-determination is of outmost importance but I reject the idea of self-determination based for ethnic and/or religious (collective) purposes. I also am a pragmatist and do not see the point in self determination where history has become a facts on the ground. I have very little tolerance for the Corsican, Basque, Tyroler, Northern Ireland, etc separatist movements. No tolerance whatsoever for extra legal violence in liberal democratic states.

Self governance yes but separation no. Sweden and Finland was the first two countries that resolved these issues without war. In 1920 Sweden and Finland had a dispute as regards to an island in the Baltic Sea, Aland. The island was close to Finland so geopolitically it was Finnish but all of the population was ethnic Swedes. The issue was resolved by arbitration by the UN (at that time the precursor to it the League of Nations). It was resolved that Aland belong to Finland and that it was to be an autonomous region, self governed as regards to tax and local issues. Aland had veto power as regards to international treaties.

To get back to the issue at hand. Without the US there would not have been any de-colonization in the 20th century. If de-colonization is a good or bad thing the scholars will quibble. From a theoretical point it was an outmost necessity but the outcome so far has been disastrous in Africa and in the former Yugoslav republics. It has so far led to totalitarian regimes, war, famine and poverty. I have hope for the former Yugoslav republic but am very pessimistic about most of Africa. South Africa which I had great hopes for is fast going in a way that points to Zimbabwean future. I hope I’m wrong.

I am not so naive that I believe that de-colonization is always good but not so cynical as to believe that it is better for the Russian and Chinese people to live under a severely authoritarian rule just to keep the lid on.

I believe as did Wilson and Roosevelt that individual self-determination is of outmost importance but I reject the idea of self-determination based for ethnic and/or religious purposes. I also am a pragmatist and do not see the point in self determination where history has become a facts on the ground. I have very little tolerance for the Corsican, Basque, Tyroler, Northern Ireland, etc. separatist movements. No tolerance whatsoever for extra legal violence in liberal democratic states as in the Basque region, in Corsica and Northern Ireland.

Self governance yes but separation no. Sweden and Finland was the first two countries that resolved these issues without war. In 1920 Sweden and Finland had a dispute as regards to an island in the Baltic Sea, Aland. War was close at hand. The island was close to Finland so geopolitically it was Finnish but all of the population was ethnic Swedes. The issue was resolved by arbitration by the UN (at that time the precursor to it the League of Nations). It was resolved that Aland belong to Finland and that it was to be an autonomous region, self governed as regards to tax and local issues. Aland had veto power as regards to international treaties.

To get back to the issue at hand. Without the US there would not have been any de-colonization in the 20th century. If de-colonization is a always a good thing the scholars will quibble. From theoretical point it was an outmost necessity but the outcome so far has been disastrous in Africa and in the former Yugoslav republics. It led to totalitarian regimes, war, ethnic and religious cleansing as well as economic stagnation and failed states.

I am not so naive that I believe that de-colonization is always good but not so cynical as to believe that it is better for the Russian and Chinese people to live under a severely authoritarian rule just to keep the lid on.

215

Read your post… need to go throw up now.

216

Marko,

thanks for your very enlightening statements on the subject. Ethnic nationalism certainly contributed to weakening the imperialist empires of Europe, and I was too vague when I lumped in what you call civic nationalism with its more beneficial brother. I’m sorry for that.

Nevertheless, before nationalism succeeded in Germany, it was not an imperial power - whereas the new ultra-nationalist sentiment that arose with the founding of the Reich in 1871 led to the acquisition of several parts of Africa. And this was not 17th century civic nationalism, but a Prussian-dominated, top-to-bottom kind of nationalism fueled by a very popular nationalist sentiment, especially among intellectuals and the bourgeois.

Bottom line, the German states should’ve stopped with their tariff union. Trade yes, politics no.

Justin,

yes, LRC is one of the few sources where you can have pro-market and anti-nationalist sentiment at the same time. It’s refreshing.

As for the greater good mentality, it’s quite disturbing how there seems to be the automatic assumption that it’s moral to suffer for a collective of millions, most of whom you don’t even know, as long as they live in the same arbitrarily defined area. But it also goes to show how thin the line between state-left and state-right really is, when even Michael Moore invokes the coziness of nationalization during WWII to make green central planning attractive for his readership. Oh well.

217

Good… you need some heavy cleansing so that you can get ethno-nationalism out of your system!

My personal opinion is that ethnic and/or religous based nationalism are the worst of -ism:s..

218

Sphairon,

you correct. The problem is that you show me an ethnic nationalist and I will show you a hypocrite. And in nine cases out of ten I will be right. There has hardly been an ethnic national state that was not imperialist. Greece was imperialist in relation to Macedonians as was Serbia, Poland in relation to Ukrainians…

The ideology of ethnic nationalism is so removed from real understanding of rights and so sentimental that it lends itself well to a slide into a completely preferences based outlook. There have been many ethnic national states that pursued assimilatory policies in regard to their ethnic minorities. This should be contrary to everything they were purportedly built on, but there you have it. (Albeit there was a qualitative difference here. Such states worked to fool and pressure the minorities into switching their ethnicity. They did not arbitrarily declare state jurisdiction as trumphing ethnic self-identification as a basis for nationality.)

Yes, but you are a moral relativist so your views are not actually based on anything other than your tastes.

219

Marko,

I am not a moral relativist. A moral relativist believes that all values are equal value, I abhor moral relativist especially post-structural and post-colonial ideologues such as Foucault, Edward Said et al.

I believe that there are economic and political systems that have a higher standing, preference before others systems such as liberal democracy and free market economy (aka Capitalism). Therefore I am of the opinion that the US constitution is the highest form of government yet achieved and Anglo Saxon capitalism is the best form of economic order. As being a consequentialist libertarian, alongside Milton Freidman and FA Hayek, I am of the opinion that these two systems give the most individual freedom and most prosperity for all. It is not a matter of taste but a matter of historic fact.

However I am a value nihilist i.e. metaphysical and/or objective moral does not exist. All values have a historic and cultural (evolutionary) context. Ayn Rands Objectivism is no different from the Roman Catholic Churches orthodoxy. Absolute morals both and both are full of bull as well as being impossible to prove the existence of. They have to be taken on faith.

220

Sure, of course as someone who knows values have a historic and cultural context you must understand that to someone grounded in the concept of rights such as myself, a consequentialist is just another abhorrent relativist.

BTW, there is Anglo Saxon capitalism? Is that something like Jewish physics?