[dextralt]

"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form. The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions--racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war--which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms,and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action."

George Orwell, "Wells, Hitler, And The World State", 1941.

I also can't help but notice that you fail to mention that Orwell's definition of nationalism in "Notes On Nationalism" is somewhat different than the definition used today:

"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

Orwell, had he lived today, would be unironically branded as a nazi. And as for his views on communism, oh boy, if he had a twitter account, he'd have a horde of blue checkmarks at his throat every time he had anything to say.

[thundergolfer]

You're right his definition is a bit idiosyncratic but it's still very much relatable to a modern definition of Nationalism.

> Orwell, had he lived today, would be unironically branded as a nazi.

Ahh what? By who, some nobody on Twitter? Why are you even bringing this up?

[squiggleblaz]

Ah what? Idiosyncratic? I've never read him before and it's the very definition of nationalism and patriotism I have. Patriotism is love of country; nationalism is love of nation-state.

Patrotism is a natural consequence of birth in a place - most of us live in a place with a culture. Many people migrate to another land and grow roots and become a patriot of that place. It is no crazier to be patriotic than it is to love your family.

Nationalism is more like being an Apple fanboi. Someone with slack branding convinced you that your survival depends on throwing your wealth and strength into their service. Normally we call them thugs.

[mistermann]

I suppose it depends how one defines nationalism, wikipedia says:

"Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people)[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty)."

I totally agree so far.

"It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements. It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism. Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example."

Mostly agree, but perhaps not necessarily with shared religion or "cultural revivals", depending on what that means.

Orwell's opinion (and unless I'm wrong, it's just that, although it seems to be popularly considered fact nowadays):

"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

I disagree pretty strongly with this. Personally, I'm not terribly patriotic, and I certainly don't consider my country the best in the world, not even close. But But politically, I consider myself a pretty hardcore nationalist. I believe in sovereignty of all nations, I believe a wide variety of approaches to life and organizing society is (or could be...it's a shame more countries don't seem to learn from each other) very beneficial to mankind, and it concerns me that no one seems to worry about whether we're losing some valuable things with the ongoing cultural homogenization of the planet.

[PavlovsCat]

> it concerns me that no one seems to worry about whether we're losing some valuable things with the ongoing cultural homogenization of the planet.

This quote is for you then.

> From a philosophical viewpoint, the danger inherent in the new reality of mankind seems to be that this unity, based on the technical means of communication and violence, destroys all national traditions and buries the authentic origins of all human existence. This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations. Its result would be a shallowness that would transform man, as we have known him in five thousand years of recorded history, beyond recognition. It would be more than mere superficiality; it would be as though the whole dimension of depth, without which human thought, even on the mere level of technical invention, could not exist, would simply disappear. This leveling down would be much more radical than the leveling to the lowest common denominator; it would ultimately arrive at a denominator of which we have hardly any notion today.

> As long as one conceives of truth as separate and distinct from its expression, as something which by itself is uncommunicative and neither communicates itself to reason nor appeals to "existential" experience, it is almost impossible not to believe that this destructive process will inevitably be triggered off by the sheer automatism of technology which made the world one and, in a sense, united mankind. It looks as though the historical pasts of the-nations, in their utter diversity and disparity, in their confusing variety and bewildering strangeness for each other, are nothing but obstacles on the road to a horridly shallow unity. This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive. Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.

-- Hannah Arendt, "Men in Dark Times"

She also said nobody has the right to obey, and I agree with that, so we'd still have plenty to disagree about, but here you pointed to something that also worries me greatly. I'm not a nationalist in the ideological sense, but I also think souvereign nations are a great unit of organization, I don't believe in "smashing borders" anymore than I believe in smashing cell borders. So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.

[squiggleblaz]

You can have sovereign states with relatively free flowing immigration. And you can also have non-sovereign states with restricted immigration. And you can even have states with internally imposed restrictions to resettlement.

Ideally, I think most policy should be made at a lower level than the sovereign state in a democratic society. Administration from remote cities seems to create distrust. Best also to keep the army at a different level from the level that needs to respond most effectively to economic upset. This is the opposite direction than we have been trending in for the last several decades but I think it can change quickly.

[mistermann]

Some interesting ideas, worthy of consideration but not blind acceptance (they're ideas after all, not facts).

> This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations.

It can be considered a pre-requisite, but it can also be not considered that. The fact of the matter is, no one knows what path may yield greater harmony. There could be many that will do the trick, or none.

> This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive.

I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.

> Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.

I very much prefer this approach, it would be nice to at least try it and see what happens.

> So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.

I suspect most people have much more common ground than it appears, that this isn't apparent may be due to the major shortcomings in our modes of thinking and communication.

[PavlovsCat]

> I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.

The way I interpret it is that if you remove everything but the lowest common denominator, to achieve the "ultimate unity" of everybody being the same, picking their ideas from small selection on the same shelves, if you will, we'll be faced with ever growing problems we don't have the means to handle, not even the language to adequately describe. We won't physically die, of course, but what makes human agency and spontaneity possible, very well might.

But I can't speak for her, I found the passage interesting but nothing before or after it elaborates on it, and so far I haven't read any other elaboration by her on that (or I did but didn't realize it was connected).