Most over-rated modern-day dogma

[PDH]

How does one disprove something that is self-evident?

I thought gnosticism and rationalism didn't work well together.

[grumbler]

We need to get rid of "us versus them" and we need to repeal the law of gravity.  I'd say repealing the law of gravity is easier and more important, so let's focus on the priority issue.

[Eddie Teach]

So it if it existed before and there is a notion in place that helps perpetuate it, we call it a draw?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I was taking issue with Maximus's statement, not Tyr's. A world with nationalism was pretty clearly preferable to one without up until the Enlightenment at the earliest.

[The Minsky Moment]

Marx worked in economics something I'm a bit more wary at, but there is some math in that and some things can be proven false.  Most of his predictions didn't come to pass (obviously).  Someone who knows more about economics could answer that one better.

Certain aspects of Marx have help up pretty well - the idea that historical change is driven significantly by fundamental changes in modes and relations of material production; the notion of ideology as superstructure which purports ground politics in moral theory but in fact primarily flows from and serves to justify the underlying mode of economic production.  In its crudest form, the concept is no longer au courant, but Marx's theory is the origin point of the still influential annales school approach to history among others, and indeed much of contemporary economic and institutional history in general.

Marx's specific predictions about the inevitable staganation of the capitalism and the accompanying immiseration of the proletariat were wrong, and based on the application of an erroneous model of economic growth and development.  This was already clear to intelligent observers in the socialist camp by the late 19th century and led to the articulation of "evolutionary socialism" and the mixed economy.

[garbon]

We need to get rid of "us versus them" and we need to repeal the law of gravity.  I'd say repealing the law of gravity is easier and more important, so let's focus on the priority issue.

I love straw!

[Berkut]

Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.

It was silly in any world.

I don't agree at all.

I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.

It kind of sucked in that it meant that the set of "us" got big enough along with technology that we could *really* start inflicting some serious damage on the "thems", but it was probably inevitable anyway.

[Berkut]

Saying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.

Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.

At least, hopefully.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't agree at all.

I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.

It kind of sucked in that it meant that the set of "us" got big enough along with technology that we could *really* start inflicting some serious damage on the "thems", but it was probably inevitable anyway.

They say diversity+proximity=war. And of course excellent food.

[grumbler]

Saying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.

Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.

At least, hopefully.

I don't think it is a matter of what is "hopefully" true, I think it is a matter of historical evidence.  When you look at the issue of identity (i.e. how you tell the difference between "us" and "them") it is clear that, to a large extent, bigger is better.  The medieval organizing principal was a personal one; "us" was everyone who was a vassal of our liege, and "them" was everyone else.  This broke down when the common liege got too distant from the persons involved, or when lieges decided that they didn't want to be vassals of their own liege (for their own reasons or because their liege turned out to be a dick), and there was more than a bit of combat caused by the inadequacies of the feudal identity system.   National identify didn't require the same kind of personal relationships as feudal identity, and so could unite larger groups. 

The problem was that the concept of "nation" was not uniform, and so some states (Austria-Hungary, famously) eschewed nationalism in favor of dynasticism/feudal identity.  That worked for a while, but it was constantly under strain and the system was adjusted many times, which made nationalists believe they could get it adjusted even more - and when they couldn't, the system collapsed.

I think you see nationalism dying out today more because of mobility than because people decided that it was somehow a bad idea... though I think Europeans did consciously reject romantic nationalism after the world wars.

[grumbler]

I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.

Just a quick question on this comment; are you saying that there are "natural" constructs of "us" and "them," or that the notions of "us" and "them" are artificial constructs?

[Maximus]

A world with nationalism was pretty clearly preferable to one without up until the Enlightenment at the earliest.

I agree, but it was a step back from what we were heading toward in the earlier enlightenment.

Now I haven't studied this period as closely as some here, probably, so I will welcome cogent arguments to the contrary. We will always have "us vs them", but it seems to me that the movement in the American Revolution and the early French Revolution, was toward citizenship that was based on what you were willing to work (and fight) for, not on birth, religion, or what language you spoke. Nationalism was a move to subvert this concept into one of blind loyalty to the nation-state.

[Norgy]

Saying nationalism is bad is kind of like saying don't ask don't tell is bad.

Yeah, when looked at in isolation it is kind of stupid maybe, but when seen as a point in a changing shift in attitudes, it makes perfect sense, and is actually an improvement over what came before.

At least, hopefully.

I think in the historical context, nationalism, in the sense of unity under a shared sense of history, common language and sometimes institutions brought together isolated communities in what became modern societies as much as ideas like liberalism did. Of course, history and tradition were in many cases invented or at the very least engineered to convey the right sort of values. That's really not the point. Membership in a nation became a way to have some pride and value as a person.

And there were and are different types of nationalism focusing on rather different things. French nationalism has had much less to do with ethnicity than for instance Serbian.
In areas where national identity/ethnicity coincided with other faultlines like economic disadvantage or political inequality, it became a more potent force for radical solutions as seen for instance after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the Turko-Greek conflict.

Nationalism is a discredited ideology today, mostly associated with a past most will want to forget. That's not really a fair verdict. Yes, there were millions of dead. But nationalism along with liberalism and humanism also brought progress. Of course, it's much easier to extend civil liberties and humane treatment to people who're "the same as we".

[Josquius]

Nationalism.
In today's world its just silly.

You think nationalism is a modern day dogma noone challenges? 

Yes. Most people just accept it wholesale.

[grumbler]

Now I haven't studied this period as closely as some here, probably, so I will welcome cogent arguments to the contrary. We will always have "us vs them", but it seems to me that the movement in the American Revolution and the early French Revolution, was toward citizenship that was based on what you were willing to work (and fight) for, not on birth, religion, or what language you spoke. Nationalism was a move to subvert this concept into one of blind loyalty to the nation-state.

Nationalism way preceded the Enlightenment - most historians date it to the last third of the Hundred Years War or so.  Romantic Nationalism (the idea that the individual was subordinate to the nation and its destiny) really dates to the post-Revolutions of 1848 period, when the conservatives in places like Germany, France, and Russia needed some hook to hold the loyalties of the increasingly numerous middle and working classes.  That type of nationalism, I agree, was entirely pernicious, because it was anti-intellectual and subject to bursts of mob rule.  It also led to the First World War, in my opinion.

[Berkut]

I see much of human cultural history as an expansion of the set of what defines "us" and "them". Nationalism was/is a painful progression of enlarging the set of "us" as we move towards getting rid of the artificial constructs of "us" and "them" entirely.

Just a quick question on this comment; are you saying that there are "natural" constructs of "us" and "them," or that the notions of "us" and "them" are artificial constructs?

Hmmm, not sure I understand the question.

I think humans have a natural tendency to divide their world up into their tribe and the other tribe(s). I think these constructs are generally pretty artificial - if your question is do I believe that there exists some "natural" construct that exists outside what humans create, certainly not. But I suspect maybe that isn't really what you are asking....?