What is a nation and nation-state?

[Joe McCarthy]

This is a continuation of the 'artificial state' thread. Some definition of the concept of nation and nation-state would seem to be in order.

[Felix the Cat]

I offered a definition of nationality here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=671172)
A people of common descent ("race"), common loyalty, and common wealth (such as a piece of land)

[Lord Nengwen]

Nation = Organic out-growth of a tribe or Race into a Socio-Political Entity.

Nation/ State = A State comes into existence to help maintain the polity, however a State can be easily corrupted and become maladaptive to The Nation.

Country = A State which has come to rule over several different tribes or Races and must maintain Submission of some of them.

[Tellurocrat]

I disagree with most Romantics on their definition of "nation".

Yes, a nation is an outgrowth of a tribe or family.

But historically, a State, a Prince, has always preceded a Nation. National unity, such as a common tongue, was always imposed from above on several large families, tribes, communities that had no common tongue.

Seeing as the idea of nation is (Judeo-)European, you can see the above working in almost all the nation-models.

Also, I believe that nationalism was an early "leftist" (in a spiritual sense) democratist model to destroy organic communities and aristocratic families. True, when it eventually saw that nationalism had in it something else that opposed "leftism", nationalism became solely a "rightist" conservative vanguard, and the left went for "beyond-nationalism", but again the model is the same. Most of us oppose a global state which imposes the same identity on everyone - but this is what's happening, and that is also what happened to create the European nations.

I worry solely for that right-wing element, passing for conservatism usually, which seems to be historically forgetful and which defends solely the now, the latest ruins, the status quo.

[Lord Nengwen]

But historically, a State, a Prince, has always preceded a Nation. National unity, such as a common tongue, was always imposed from above on several large families, tribes, communities that had no common tongue.

Seeing as the idea of nation is (Judeo-)European, you can see the above working in almost all the nation-models.

This becomes sort of a 'chicken or the egg first' kind of arguement.

Italian Fascists (believed The State defined The People) and German National Socialists (State is there to defend The People) are recent examples of two Rightist groups that managed to hold opposing views on this matter but still managed to work together despite some theoritical differences.

An example to look up to!

Also, I believe that nationalism was an early "leftist" (in a spiritual sense) democratist model to destroy organic communities and aristocratic families. True, when it eventually saw that nationalism had in it something else that opposed "leftism", nationalism became solely a "rightist" conservative vanguard, and the left went for "beyond-nationalism", but again the model is the same. Most of us oppose a global state which imposes the same identity on everyone - but this is what's happening, and that is also what happened to create the European nations.


I worry solely for that right-wing element, passing for conservatism usually, which seems to be historically forgetful and which defends solely the now, the latest ruins, the status quo.

Yeah Alain de Benoist has transfered over from his Nationalist 'Europe of a Hundred Flags' Stance to a more (what I would describe as ) Radical Localist Stance that is probably akin to the past Organic Communities you are talking about. (basicly he wants French people to have their own French Cities and muslim in France can have their own separate muslim cities).

Also at my local university they had a meeting about 'ethnic micro-communities' I think they called it which is basicly a Leftie-minority version of this and could in fact be compatible in a Separatist Frame-work.

There are some theoriticians out there worried about this though so do not despair, but certainly if one looked to typical 'american conservatives' then that is a total dead end and one needs to broaden their horizons so to speak.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Tellurocrat
I disagree with most Romantics on their definition of "nation".

Yes, a nation is an outgrowth of a tribe or family.

But historically, a State, a Prince, has always preceded a Nation. National unity, such as a common tongue, was always imposed from above on several large families, tribes, communities that had no common tongue.

Strictly speaking I think Romantics like Herder would even agree with this as the concept of the state was rooted in pre-national frameworks, most notably empires. Herder saw it as the purpose of princes to cultivate national feeling and sought to do it himself through songs and poetry. To paraphrase his foe Voltaire, 'We must cultivate our garden.' Still, the concept of folk, or Volksgeist is essentially an organic concept preceding empire and arguably even the state, and certainly its more modern conception. Herder saw the origins of national feeling in the micro in German tribal communities and he was always something of a localist anyway.

Also, I believe that nationalism was an early "leftist" (in a spiritual sense) democratist model to destroy organic communities and aristocratic families.

Relative to empires nationalism was certainly leftist, but I'm unsure how these empires, especially the Austrian polyglot that Herder assailed, could be deemed 'organic'. Moreover, though I detest his overall sentiment, Voltaire demonstrated well the lack of common or 'organic' feeling found in the House of Bourbon.

Most of us oppose a global state which imposes the same identity on everyone - but this is what's happening, and that is also what happened to create the European nations.

I take the opposite view with a couple of exceptions. Nationalism had the effect of deconstructing inernationalist oriented empires, particularly in the case of Austria-Hungary. I know that the French and Italians imposed language on disparate communities, but theirs was a civic nationalism that few right-wing nationalists care for.

[Tellurocrat]

Strictly speaking I think Romantics like Herder would even agree with this as the concept of the state was rooted in pre-national frameworks, most notably empires. Herder saw it as the purpose of princes to cultivate national feeling and sought to do it himself through songs and poetry. To paraphrase his foe Voltaire, 'We must cultivate our garden.' Still, the concept of folk, or Volksgeist is essentially an organic concept preceding empire and arguably even the state, and certainly its more modern conception. Herder saw the origins of national feeling in the micro in German tribal communities and he was always something of a localist anyway.
I don't understand then. If an author, a writer, can cultivate national feeling, how is this national feeling seen as organic? Also, if it is seen as developing from the simple power of the state or empire, doesn't that bely the organic nature of nationality? I thought also that Romantics saw nationhood as eternal, but again fail to understand this, since clearly nations emerged historically and within context.

Relative to empires nationalism was certainly leftist, but I'm unsure how these empires, especially the Austrian polyglot that Herder assailed, could be deemed 'organic'. Moreover, though I detest his overall sentiment, Voltaire demonstrated well the lack of common or 'organic' feeling found in the House of Bourbon.
Not relative to empires - nationalism in its action was a leftist impulse to destroy the aristocracy. Being a racialist yourself, perhaps you know that there were a number of racialist theorists at this time in Europe, particularly in France, who were die-hard anti-nationalists. Because they perceived races as co-terminous - the aristocracy was the invading "Aryan" race whereas the peasants were the native race, and nationalism was a move against this. In any case, nationalism introduced some of the first leftist ideas (even though it didn't live up to them exactly), such as equality and "freedom". FYI, it was nationalist champions who gave Jews their greater freedom in Europe, whereas before they lived under the Church's yoke.

I take the opposite view with a couple of exceptions. Nationalism had the effect of deconstructing inernationalist oriented empires, particularly in the case of Austria-Hungary. I know that the French and Italians imposed language on disparate communities, but theirs was a civic nationalism that few right-wing nationalists care for.
A state can be created by either of two things - power and identity. Either a people has such a strong identity that eventually they produce a strong state (as the Hebrews did, and not coincidentally produced the seeds of nationalist ideology). Or a warrior tribe arises, unites the tribes and families of the area and by the very same action of bringing them together creates a new identity (as many states did, such as the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Qin Chinese).

Now, if you don't consider power as an organic emergence of a state, then you'd have to define most states in world history as inorganic. Obviously, simply by putting into doubt the legitimacy of the Austrian state because it was multinational, you're just taking the nationalist perspective a priori, and saying that the Austrian Empire doesn't fit nationalist standards, which is a moot point.

Personally, I have more taste for the State built on an idealized power, such as say the Teutonic/Prussian State or the Venetian Republic, but I'm very much influenced by Evolian traditionalism. Have you read any Evola?

[Tellurocrat]

This becomes sort of a 'chicken or the egg first' kind of arguement.

Italian Fascists (believed The State defined The People) and German National Socialists (State is there to defend The People) are recent examples of two Rightist groups that managed to hold opposing views on this matter but still managed to work together despite some theoritical differences.

An example to look up to!
Obviously nationalism today is an anti-leftist tool and should be used as such. I'm talking from a theoretical right-wing basis.

And yes, I identify a lot with the Italian Fascists and with Classical Republicanism in general, of which the Fascists were an extreme example, almost idolising the State.

[Joe McCarthy]

Though this is a worthy discussion, it seems to be getting sidetracked from what defines a nation to whether historical nationalism was desirable. Nevertheless, it's interesting enough that I'll go with it.

Here's Tell:

I don't understand then. If an author, a writer, can cultivate national feeling, how is this national feeling seen as organic?

I borrowed Voltaire's garden metaphor for a reason. A garden, though organic, requires cultivation.

Also, if it is seen as developing from the simple power of the state or empire, doesn't that bely the organic nature of nationality?

Well, the nation-state developing out of empire as a modern outgrowth is a fact, but academic treatments of nationalism make the mistake of conflating the development of nation-states with national, tribal, or communal feeling itself, which as I stated, Herder held to have existed from the time of Tacitus and before.

I thought also that Romantics saw nationhood as eternal, but again fail to understand this, since clearly nations emerged historically and within context.

Again, I can see the confusion IF one equates the growth of national states with national or communal feeling. Herder's view is simply glossed over in academic treatments of nationalism.

Not relative to empires - nationalism in its action was a leftist impulse to destroy the aristocracy.

Yes, but you're defining this in civic nationalist and primarily French terms. I don't adhere to that framework. My nationalism is mostly Herderian and I even take exception to some of what he thought. Moreover, though Herder too opposed aristocracy, he still saw the need for hierarchy, he just envisioned a unified state, minus the aristocratic-rabble disjunction that existed in empires. To suggest nationalism was 'leftist' also implies that it would be comfortable in today's leftist political atmosphere. It's instructive that the modern left has deemed La Marseillaise overly-jingoistic and chauvinistic.

Being a racialist yourself, perhaps you know that there were a number of racialist theorists at this time in Europe, particularly in France, who were die-hard anti-nationalists.

I'm unsure which time you're referring to. Gobineau was the first racial theorist, and he didn't come along until decades after the French Revolution.

Because they perceived races as co-terminous - the aristocracy was the invading "Aryan" race whereas the peasants were the native race, and nationalism was a move against this.

Both Gobineau and Nietzsche held to this, though I don't recall either of them attacking nationalism by name in discussing the anti-Aryan tendencies of modern politics. Nietzsche himself even favored the French Revolution due to its essentially consequentialist effect of producing Napoleon, though he did bash nationalism in another context.

FYI, it was nationalist champions who gave Jews their greater freedom in Europe, whereas before they lived under the Church's yoke.

This is true, though again this was a product of liberal or civic French nationalism. I'm an opponent of the French Revolution, so asking me to take responsibility for this strikes me as something akin to asking Trotsky to answer for Stalin. Herder himself viewed Jews as a parasitic influence on Europe and was a sort of proto-Zionist in supporting their return to Palestine.

Obviously, simply by putting into doubt the legitimacy of the Austrian state because it was multinational, you're just taking the nationalist perspective a priori, and saying that the Austrian Empire doesn't fit nationalist standards, which is a moot point.

I personally see modern nationalism as historically in the same anti-cosmopolitian posture as it was in Herder's time. In those days Herder assailed both Austria as 'a monstrosity not a state body' and also railed against the 'cultural imperialism' of the French. This satirical comment from Herder could very easily be applied to modern opposition to primarily America driven standardizaion in the here and now, just with a change in wording:

All national characters, thank God, have become extinct; we all love one another ,or, rather no one feels the need of loving anyone else. We all associate with one another, all are completely equal -- cultured, polite, very happy; we have, it is true no fatherland, no one for whom we live; but we are philanthropists and citizens of the world. most of the rulers already speak French, and soon we all shall do so. And then -- bliss! The golden era is dawning again when all the world has one tongue and one language; there shall be one flock and one shepherd!

Though it isn't wholly analogous, I'd say that to favor the empires of old is akin to favoring the 'cultural imperialism' of America now, and I say that as someone not given to wanton America bashing.

[Felix the Cat]

"A collection of people living together for the purpose of making money"

Discuss.