NATIONALIST OR INTERNATIONALIST?

Are we on a cusp of history between nationalism and internationalism? The idea of a nation-state rests upon a community of cultural and racial identity among the people occupying a defined piece of land under a single governmental/bureaucratic administration. In its ideal form, therefore, it relies upon a close connection between geographical, cultural, ethnic and administrative circumstances. However, in the modern world there are very few countries that do not now have substantial ethnic or cultural minorities. There has also been fragmentation of core cultures on the one hand and internationalisation of many cultural elements on the other. Countries are more cosmopolitan and adjacent countries and the people in them are nowadays often less distinct then they used to be. Government and administration also increasingly rely upon international cooperation of one sort or another. Also, survival in the modern world depends upon alliances - if you leave one you may well have to join another so that true independence is becoming more and more a fantasy. The question is, has this process gone so far as to make the nation state idea redundant or not? This is currently a red hot topic.

Last night there was the culminating debate on TV of the French presidential election. This final debate is now a well established French institution, occurring a few days before the final vote. The two second round candidates debate face to face. This one was fierce, between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. Both parties put up robust performances and enunciated the two different visions that they have clearly as well as trading insults and attempting to ridicule each other's positions. These are, however, not just possible visions for France, they apply to much of the world at the moment.

It is possible to be passionately dedicated to either side and many people are. They represent different visions and each vision has its own compelling coherence.

Nationalist: Give us back control over our own land, our own boundaries, our own future.

Internationalist: Don't be so narrow-minded, old fashioned and selfish, people are people and we want a more open world.

Nationalist: You are just over-privileged intellectuals with fancy ideas, serving the interests of the social elite, out of touch with real ordinary people.

Internationalist:We are in touch with the most oppressed people in the world who you want to shut out and condemn simply because they are not of your race.

and so it goes on.

The general opinion of observers is that Macron "won" this exchange by showing that one can be just as passionate about internationalism as Le Pen is about nationalism. Of course, if he wins the election too, which he probably will, he then has to somehow deliver on his ideas. In USA and UK recently it seems to have been the nationalist vision that has got the upper hand, though only just. The strength of feeling involved is intense and the peoples in most Western countries seem fairly equally divided.

It can seem that the internationalist trend is the voice of the future. At the moment, broadly speaking, the younger one is, the better educated one is, and the more travelled one is, the more likely one is to vote for the internationalist option. However, it is not so long ago that it was this same group that was staging major demonstrations against globalisation. As at other times of major cultural transition in history, there are many paradoxes, confusions and vacillations. Where will it all end?

You need to be a member of David Brazier at La Ville au Roi (Eleusis) to add comments!

Join David Brazier at La Ville au Roi (Eleusis)

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • I really enjoy Kropotkin: his foundation of Anarchist-Communism was very influential in my youth.

    Thank you for the kind replies.

    Namo Amida Bu

  • Money does not bring happiness, but it is rather useful. Much easier than bartering. However, all good things have a downside and one of the downsides of money is that it can accumulate into ridiculous concentrations so that some people have so much of it they lose all sense and others have so little they can't function.

    There are some very good ideas within anarchism. Kropotkin, especially, seemed to approach the matter intelligently.

  • That would be hard to say, and I'm very fool and utopian to dare say that, and my anarchist background doesn't help...  Anyway, I think that money is the problem. As Marx said, the social struggle is always an economical struggle. Take my country as an example. We have the most corrupt of all the EU governments, with 35% of the population in poverty. And our greedy politician continue to steal us, and we continue voting us, because we are afraid of other options, to be out of the mainstream.

    I don't know. I've just guess the world would be a better place if we finally understand that money doesn't bring happiness. But, hey, I'm a dreamer :)

  • If both are wrong, what would be better?

  • Good morning, David. Thank you for posting this great reflection.

    In my opinion, both currents are almost the same at the end. Internationalism could sound better, but at the end it cares more about IBEX than people. Liberalization is a matter of markets not humans. One just needs to take a look about what "liberals" have done to the world. On the other side, the pathetic discourse of Le Pen touches the most basic feelings of uncultured people, in a populist and dangerous speech which reminds of Trump, Stalin, Chávez, Thatcher or Hitler. She knows well how to move the masses and deviate the focus into the always issues of immigration and national "identity", whatever that means.

    So, for me at the end, what we can see in France and many other countries is a combat between neo-capitalists and neo-fascists, fighting again in order to possess the crumbs of this dying Europe.

This reply was deleted.