Right Wing’s Surge in Europe Has the Establishment Rattled
123 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Explosions;42829076]This is not how representative democracies work.[/QUOTE]
I know that but I still feel that they should try to listen to the minorities? Instead of saying that oh we have to stop this party. Lets ignore them! That has to be the worst way possible of representing your own ideals.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42814011]no it isn't. nationalism is nazism, fascism, and what you call "ultranationalism"
you are talking about nationality which is a different thing.
there is no such thing as a moderate nationalist. a moderate nationalist is just a neo-nazi who hasn't "come out" yet.[/QUOTE]
you have no idea what you're talking about do you
[editline]11th November 2013[/editline]
you realize nationalism predates fascism by like a hundred years
It's kind of painful personally to watch anyone be this adamant about something.
I know, I'm not really contributing to the discussion and I apologize, but really, if even textbook definitions are against something you say and even then you persist on saying "no, it's like this" then it only tells about your own ignorance. I'm directing this towards yawmwen, just to avoid confusion here.
Personally I see patriotism as near identical to nationalism. However where they differ as far as I know things to be is that nationalism is something where you recognize your country to be superior to other countries by being what it currently is. This often leads to looking down at other countries. Patriotism is another kind of "love" for your own country where it might or might not be superior to other countries, but you'll do all you can to make it better than it is now. I mean let's face it, there's always room for improvement.
To me, a nationalist is the guy yelling "Immigrants are ruining our glorious country, fuck them!"
And to me, a patriot is the guy working to get paid and pay taxes while the nationalist is wasting his time yelling his lungs out. A patriot is the guy that votes every year even if he's disappointed in decisions done by last year's parliament. A patriot is the guy that participates actively in politics and tries to see the best outcome for the country even if it takes him out of his comfort zone. It's more unselfish and humble than nationalism and in that regard, I'd rather everyone were patriots than nationalists. American "patriots" are to me just nationalists claiming to be something they aren't.
Now, I've really been looking hard for a definite, rock-solid answer as to what the "true" difference between patriotism and nationalism is but I've either gotten completely contradictory answers from all sources.
[QUOTE=catchall;42829121]
you realize nationalism predates fascism by like a hundred years[/QUOTE]
Thousands of years, possibly even millions of years.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42829662]Thousands of years, possibly even millions of years.[/QUOTE]
how the fuck can nationalism exist even before the concept of the nation-state you blithering pleb
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42829662]Thousands of years, possibly even millions of years.[/QUOTE]
no, nationalism got started around the late 18th century and matured in the 19th
there have been thedes since the dawn of man but nationalism refers to a specific type of thede
[QUOTE=DooHoop;42829060]First off, the party I was referring to (SD) does not want to dismantle the cornerstone of a democratic state as you say, they are not a nazi party. Rather it's the other more established parties who are undermining the democratic system when they ignore the opinions of so many people.
I don't see how it could ever be a good idea to ignore them since you wont persuade the people by ignoring, you have to explain why their ideology is bad.[/QUOTE]
A racist ideology is an attempt at dismantling a cornerstone of a democratic state. At least as far as European states are concerned.
SO if they have a strong racist|discriminatory immigration policy, we're talking about an anti-systematic party.
They just aren't extreme enough to get banned.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42829683]how the fuck can nationalism exist even before the concept of the nation-state you blithering pleb[/QUOTE]
Nationalism existed before nation states existed. The austrian hegemony had pretty strong nationalism a good century before it's dissolution and nationalism was present in some form a good few centuries prior to the first larger revolutions and nation state demands. There's a reason why it was called the prison of nations.
Hell one can look at scottish independance attempts as an early form of nationalism as well.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42829788]Nationalism existed before nation states existed. The austrian hegemony had pretty strong nationalism a good century before it's dissolution and nationalism was present in some form a good few centuries prior to the first larger revolutions and nation state demands. There's a reason why it was called the prison of nations.
Hell one can look at scottish independance attempts as an early form of nationalism as well.[/QUOTE]
well considering the austro-hungarian empire dissolved in 1918, it's not surprising there was nationalism a century before that
before those times people were loyal to their religion and to their local lord, not to their ethnicity. the only exception I can think of is dutch revolt
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42829788]Nationalism existed before nation states existed. The austrian hegemony had pretty strong nationalism a good century before it's dissolution and nationalism was present in some form a good few centuries prior to the first larger revolutions and nation state demands. There's a reason why it was called the prison of nations.
Hell one can look at scottish independance attempts as an early form of nationalism as well.[/QUOTE]
You're talking about points in time where the concept of nations already existed.
Not millions of years ago pre-civilization like Rangergxi suggested.
the spartans sometimes talked about defending the "greek race" against the persians but idk whether that's just a limitation of translation
point is people didn't think of themselves as members of nations
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42829838]You're talking about points in time where the concept of nations already existed.
Not millions of years ago pre-civilization like Rangergxi suggested.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah :P You had tribalism at best before hand. Which does stem from the same base I guess.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42829865]Well yeah :P You had tribalism at best before hand. Which does stem from the same base I guess.[/QUOTE]
But tribalism is more akin to feudalism, such as loyalty to smaller family units, individual villages and towns rather than nationalism.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42829683]how the fuck can nationalism exist even before the concept of the nation-state you blithering pleb[/QUOTE]
Nation States have existed for thousands of years. The 19th century is when that idea basically returned to Europe and strengthened around the world because of Imperialism.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42829923]Nation States have existed for thousands of years.[/QUOTE]
no they didn't
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42829923]Nation States have existed for thousands of years. The 19th century is when that idea basically returned to Europe and strengthened around the world because of Imperialism.[/QUOTE]
Definitely not. Nationalism in the sense of one nation controlling one area exclusively is a very modern concept.
In the past you had more of a personal approach actually. Multiple nations, all with different laws living in close proximity and in some ways existing as foreign entities in the same space.
A great example are the leges romanae barbarorum.
The concept of a nation existed but not of a nation state
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42829923]Nation States have existed for thousands of years. The 19th century is when that idea basically returned to Europe and strengthened around the world because of Imperialism.[/QUOTE]
Retake history pls
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42829899]But tribalism is more akin to feudalism, such as loyalty to smaller family units, individual villages and towns rather than nationalism.[/QUOTE]
actually there's an important distinction between tribalism and feudalism
tribalism is affinity for a clan - basically a large extended family. members are more closely related to each other than they are to the rest of the population (but not so related that you get awful inbreeding)
feudalism enforced prohibitions on things like cousin marriages and weakened kin ties in favor of fealty to the local lord. I'm not sure about japan, but we can detect the echoes of this in western europe with genetic studies. populations that had the most feudalism tend to be more outbred
Of course there is a distinction between tribalism and feudalism
that is why two separate words exist
I was just saying that tribalism is so far removed from nationalism
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42829788]A racist ideology is an attempt at dismantling a cornerstone of a democratic state. At least as far as European states are concerned.
SO if they have a strong racist|discriminatory immigration policy, we're talking about an anti-systematic party.
They just aren't extreme enough to get banned.[/QUOTE]
Yeah well theres the problem, they don't have a racist ideology in my opinion.
It's so easy to be called a racist today, if you criticize immigration in the slightest everyone shouts racist at you instead of actually listening to what you are saying.
[QUOTE=DooHoop;42830095]Yeah well theres the problem, they don't have a racist ideology in my opinion.
It's so easy to be called a racist today, if you criticize immigration in the slightest everyone shouts racist at you instead of actually listening to what you are saying.[/QUOTE]
what is the criticism of immigration btw?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42830175]what is the criticism of immigration btw?[/QUOTE]
Well for one the amount. In 2009 102.000 immigrated to Sweden with a net increase of 84.000. For reference the city I live in have about 110.000 inhabitants so basically we have a new city immigrating every year, that's crazy.
Where are they supposed to live? work? so on. We've already seen the consequences with ghettos where ambulances and firefighters refuse to enter without police protection, and police being attacked when they enter those areas.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42830175]what is the criticism of immigration btw?[/QUOTE]
there's economic and social
economic basically says that when you let in a lot of migrants, it depresses wages and gives undue bargaining power to employers. on the "giving" country's end, you have labor shortages and brain drain, which harms that country's economic growth, which further incentivizes people to leave, creating a vicious cycle.
social is that foreigners have different cultural values to us, and that by letting them in it will irrevocably change the way society operates. also, people of different ethnicities and religions living together harms social cohesion.
then there's right of association - people should not be forced to live around people they don't like, even if you don't like the reasons.
is any of this substantiated?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42830338]is any of this substantiated?[/QUOTE]
If you are asking for sources then yes, I took my facts from scb which is a government funded statistics Bureau.
I've also read one study where they found that asylum seekers in most cases actually were a cost to society, which is fine though of course but one country can't save the whole world by allowing everyone to move there. The money just don't exist.
I also believe that it's more cost effective to help people where they are instead of moving them somewhere better. You can help far more in their own country than by moving them to another.
[QUOTE=DooHoop;42830406]If you are asking for sources then yes, I took my facts from scb which is a government funded statistics Bureau.
I've also read one study where they found that asylum seekers in most cases actually were a cost to society, which is fine though of course but one country can't save the whole world by allowing everyone to move there. The money just don't exist.
I also believe that it's more cost effective to help people where they are instead of moving them somewhere better. You can help far more in their own country than by moving them to another.[/QUOTE]
Of course it is true that one country cannot take on all the asylum seekers in the world, but it's not like Sweden is the only one accepting them. Besides, it's only natural that asylum seekers in general would gravitate towards more prosperous countries when possible.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42830338]is any of this substantiated?[/QUOTE]
some is some isn't
the economic one is tough - flooding a market with migrants probably will depress wages at least in the short term. say, if you let in a hundred thousand migrants over whatever period of time, and then stopped the influx dead. wages would probably decrease in this time, but then as the migrants adjust and start generating more wealth, the economy will adjust to the new demand by creating more jobs for people, which should let wages rise again. however, the political aspect is inextricably linked. once the migrants start getting voting rights, they're unlikely to vote for restricting immigration because they (for example) have family back home who want to migrate also. i'm not saying all migrants would do this, but if you asked which demographic is most likely to be in favor of more migration, all other things equal it'd be recent migrants. with this situation you have politicians who keep this cycle running for their own benefit, regardless of the actual costs and benefits.
brain drain is a reasonably well-established phenomenon, and sociocultural change in any direction is pretty self evident. as for harming social cohesion, robert putnam did a [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/pdf"]large review of the literature[/URL] and came to this conclusion.
Its just that every economic study I've read about migration in europe has proved that it directly benefits the host countries economy, both in money made and jobs created.
I mean, I've never read anything that suggested that migration actually hurts economically which nationalists claim.
I'm also reading that paper, he never once suggests that immigration numbers are the problem and in fact he's just saying that you need to work more closely with immigration and that people need to be more comfortable with having different people in your country. Basically he's saying that nationalists damage social cohesion, not migrants.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42830512]I'm also reading that paper, he never once suggests that immigration numbers are the problem and in fact he's just saying that you need to work more closely with immigration and that people need to be more comfortable with having different people in your country. Basically he's saying that nationalists damage social cohesion, not migrants.[/QUOTE]
but most people aren't gonna do that
you can't force people to like each other
(also i pretty much agree that economically migrants are probably good. it's just that nationalist arguments are about more than just economics)
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42830512]Its just that every economic study I've read about migration in europe has proved that it directly benefits the host countries economy, both in money made and jobs created.
I mean, I've never read anything that suggested that migration actually hurts economically which nationalists claim.
I'm also reading that paper, he never once suggests that immigration numbers are the problem and in fact he's just saying that you need to work more closely with immigration and that people need to be more comfortable with having different people in your country. Basically he's saying that nationalists damage social cohesion, not migrants.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.eso.expertgrupp.se/Uploads/Documents/ESO%20rapport%203.pdf[/url]
This study finds that the annual cost was 1.5-2 % of GDP in 2006.
I can't read that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.