Links
- Aging Disgracefully
- Devas Folk
- Majid Zohari
- Nima Rashedan
- Becker-Posner Blog
- The Econ Review
- EconPhD
- Blank
Archives
My personal reflections on current issues, culture, and of course economics!
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Ethnocentric Nationalism and Democracy
Ethnic nationalism in 19th century grew from the right end of the political spectrum. Especially in Europe, it had an implicit anti-Ottoman/Christian undertone. The idea was to “liberate” Christians of the Eastern Europe and Balkans from Ottoman despotism. In early 20th century, due to political expediency, Lenin and later Stalin embraced colonial nationalist struggle as legitimate, working class struggle against imperial powers as symbols of the capitalist order.
The fact that nationalism can go “loco” and turn into fascism, was not lost to left leaning intellectuals. But since the target of this rage would be capitalist superstructure, their often explicit support was deemed justified. Ever since the Third International (1919-1943), support for the “rights” of “oppressed nations and peoples” has been bedrock of the left thought. Ever since the collapse of Soviet Union, there has been renewed urgency in this quest for “freedom for ethnic minorities”. Leftist intellectuals needed a rallying point and since the proletariat was not delivering the goodies, a mind boggling array of causes flourished. All indigenous people suddenly became hip, as well as any group of people who by some fluke of design or nature constituted less then 50% of any society. Think about it: in the US, as long as you are not a heterosexual (protestant) white male, you are assumed to be in one way or the other oppressed. I just find it hard to believe that rednecks of South Carolina in any way are oppressing the Asian scientists in California. More over, you are to support these causes whether you want it or not. Otherwise you are not PC enough in many circles.
A whole cottage industry grew to show different people on the face of the planet how they are being subjugated and oppressed. Many of the arguments are hastily "copied and pasted" ideas and phrases from US Civil Rights movement in 1960s. Very little intellectual innovation or critical thinking goes to this production process. But the rhetoric is fiery and rabble-rousing. Even those disasters in Rwanda and Yugoslavia did not shake the faith of ethnic liberators and their western supporters. These struggles are praise worthy and these activists are democratic heroes, and that'sn it!
There is just one catch: by definition, ethnic nationalism and ethnic activists can not be democratic. I elaborate. Nationalism means that you are putting primacy on a collective structure (nation) as opposed to the individual. Hence, individual rights and demands take the backseat. The main problem is that this road inevitably leads to some kind of dictatorship. The basis of democracy and liberty is individual’s choices and aspirations. Individual exists, while other structures such as family, community, ethnic group, race, faith, society and even nation, are just social conventions. A democracy works if it is based on the decisions of the majority, but constrained by a working legal system to ensure the rights of the minority. By categorizing people based on ethnic or racial background, and campaigning on such platforms, ethnic activists are not democratic. Based on Berlin’s argument, first there is the idea of an oppressed group, next will come the self-appointed “voices” of the oppressed. Then if they succeed, we will have dictatorship. These activists are either socialist/communist or more appropriately, they are fascists. And I don’t throw this word around in the cheap. I mean it.
Remember that fascism firmly has its roots in the left thought. More precisely, (for example read this article in Friesian) we may view fascism as a collectivist and totalitarian ideology. This is largely of Marxist inspiration, with political forms pioneered by Lenin and then copied with admiration by Mussolini and, especially, Hitler. The fascists themselves, like Mussolini (who coined the term), often came from a leftist and socialist political background -- Lenin wrote newspaper articles praising Mussolini in the days before World War I. Their new inspiration, however, was to “abandon the international struggle of the workers” and to “embrace nationalism”, especially a strongly racialistic and mystical nationalism. Elements of socialism remained. Private property might be left nominally in private hands, but its owners were expected to serve the Nation, and merely private purposes, let alone use for alien loyalties or ideology, was to be strongly condemned and suppressed. Hitler's Germany witnessed a social leveling unknown in earlier Germany: Where the Imperial Army had required noble blood for its officers; the Nazi Army was as much of a meritocracy as possible given its racial criteria (Mussolini was unable to go as far). Fascism thus assumed the character of a "Revolution from the Right," with a distinctive mixture of conservative and radical elements. Stalinist Russia itself began to take on some of these features, as Stalin found it expedient in wartime to begin appealing to Russian nationalism and even to the Orthodox Church, with increasing attacks on "rootless cosmopolitans" - which meant, not good Marxist internationalism, but, most precisely, the Jews.
These said, since the break up of the Soviet Union, ethnic nationalism has acquired boundless support among Western academics. But many of ethnic nationalist proponents are former lefties who now copy the ideas and even the words of their Nazi forbearers. Are we wise to support such people? How many Yugoslav civil wars or Rwandan or Armenian genocides do we need to realize all forms of nationalism are despicable?
I add one word of caution. Paying allegiance to your country, as a citizen who enjoys and exercises the privileges of citizenship and political participation is not only OK, but it is rational and natural. Belonging to a culture and historical awareness is rational and logical. But none of these should blind us to the fact that we are first and foremost free individuals, and as such we have inalienable, democratic rights. No one, under no pretext can deprive us of these rights.
The fact that nationalism can go “loco” and turn into fascism, was not lost to left leaning intellectuals. But since the target of this rage would be capitalist superstructure, their often explicit support was deemed justified. Ever since the Third International (1919-1943), support for the “rights” of “oppressed nations and peoples” has been bedrock of the left thought. Ever since the collapse of Soviet Union, there has been renewed urgency in this quest for “freedom for ethnic minorities”. Leftist intellectuals needed a rallying point and since the proletariat was not delivering the goodies, a mind boggling array of causes flourished. All indigenous people suddenly became hip, as well as any group of people who by some fluke of design or nature constituted less then 50% of any society. Think about it: in the US, as long as you are not a heterosexual (protestant) white male, you are assumed to be in one way or the other oppressed. I just find it hard to believe that rednecks of South Carolina in any way are oppressing the Asian scientists in California. More over, you are to support these causes whether you want it or not. Otherwise you are not PC enough in many circles.
A whole cottage industry grew to show different people on the face of the planet how they are being subjugated and oppressed. Many of the arguments are hastily "copied and pasted" ideas and phrases from US Civil Rights movement in 1960s. Very little intellectual innovation or critical thinking goes to this production process. But the rhetoric is fiery and rabble-rousing. Even those disasters in Rwanda and Yugoslavia did not shake the faith of ethnic liberators and their western supporters. These struggles are praise worthy and these activists are democratic heroes, and that'sn it!
There is just one catch: by definition, ethnic nationalism and ethnic activists can not be democratic. I elaborate. Nationalism means that you are putting primacy on a collective structure (nation) as opposed to the individual. Hence, individual rights and demands take the backseat. The main problem is that this road inevitably leads to some kind of dictatorship. The basis of democracy and liberty is individual’s choices and aspirations. Individual exists, while other structures such as family, community, ethnic group, race, faith, society and even nation, are just social conventions. A democracy works if it is based on the decisions of the majority, but constrained by a working legal system to ensure the rights of the minority. By categorizing people based on ethnic or racial background, and campaigning on such platforms, ethnic activists are not democratic. Based on Berlin’s argument, first there is the idea of an oppressed group, next will come the self-appointed “voices” of the oppressed. Then if they succeed, we will have dictatorship. These activists are either socialist/communist or more appropriately, they are fascists. And I don’t throw this word around in the cheap. I mean it.
Remember that fascism firmly has its roots in the left thought. More precisely, (for example read this article in Friesian) we may view fascism as a collectivist and totalitarian ideology. This is largely of Marxist inspiration, with political forms pioneered by Lenin and then copied with admiration by Mussolini and, especially, Hitler. The fascists themselves, like Mussolini (who coined the term), often came from a leftist and socialist political background -- Lenin wrote newspaper articles praising Mussolini in the days before World War I. Their new inspiration, however, was to “abandon the international struggle of the workers” and to “embrace nationalism”, especially a strongly racialistic and mystical nationalism. Elements of socialism remained. Private property might be left nominally in private hands, but its owners were expected to serve the Nation, and merely private purposes, let alone use for alien loyalties or ideology, was to be strongly condemned and suppressed. Hitler's Germany witnessed a social leveling unknown in earlier Germany: Where the Imperial Army had required noble blood for its officers; the Nazi Army was as much of a meritocracy as possible given its racial criteria (Mussolini was unable to go as far). Fascism thus assumed the character of a "Revolution from the Right," with a distinctive mixture of conservative and radical elements. Stalinist Russia itself began to take on some of these features, as Stalin found it expedient in wartime to begin appealing to Russian nationalism and even to the Orthodox Church, with increasing attacks on "rootless cosmopolitans" - which meant, not good Marxist internationalism, but, most precisely, the Jews.
These said, since the break up of the Soviet Union, ethnic nationalism has acquired boundless support among Western academics. But many of ethnic nationalist proponents are former lefties who now copy the ideas and even the words of their Nazi forbearers. Are we wise to support such people? How many Yugoslav civil wars or Rwandan or Armenian genocides do we need to realize all forms of nationalism are despicable?
I add one word of caution. Paying allegiance to your country, as a citizen who enjoys and exercises the privileges of citizenship and political participation is not only OK, but it is rational and natural. Belonging to a culture and historical awareness is rational and logical. But none of these should blind us to the fact that we are first and foremost free individuals, and as such we have inalienable, democratic rights. No one, under no pretext can deprive us of these rights.
Comments:
<< Home
Agahyeh Mohammed, it seems to me you are to close to other two most disgusting Iranian individuals, Nima Rashedan (a male prostitute in Switzerland) and Majid Zohari (Canadian welfare recipient). I suggest that you three stooges should get together so that you can have threesome every night and even to pick up the three stooges movies where it was left.
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 11:46 PM
: 11:46 PM<< Home
