Jeremy Shearmur, 'The Political thought of Karl Popper'.
Popper on Nationalism
“There is one additional and related theme in Popper's work which deserves to be brought out explicitly, and this is his critique of nationalism, and his clear but critical preference for multinational regimes. Popper saw nationalism as related to a wish to return to a community of a kind which was called into question by population growth, and the development of commerce and an open society. In Popper's view, the aim is misconceived. For what people are reacting against is a necessary and unavoidable feature of an open society. Further, their chosen vehicle is hopeless, in the sense that, given the intermingling of actual populations, the ideal of a nation state is unrealizable, and the attempt to realize it a source of disaster.
In the light of the attention paid, today, to the supposedly moral principle of national self-determination, and in the light of the revival of nationalism in Eastern Europe and what were Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, Popper's criticism seems to me, alas, highly topical, and very much to the point. While the idea of nationalism may seem appealing, the fact that virtually any nation state will contain minorities, and that any definition of nationality will rest on arbitrary decisions, its adoption will lead to a multiplication of problems. For the fact that the nation state is supposed to give particular recognition to the nation in question – and thus to its language, religion, culture, and so on – produces genuine grounds for resentment on the part of those who end up living within it but are not members of the nation in question, on the grounds that their language, culture and so on will be treated worse than, say, would be possible within a multi-national state.
Those who are not nationals, under the favoured definition of nationality, are typically treated as second-class citizens, if they are accorded citizenship at all. The emphasis placed, by nationalists, on the idea of national self-determination conjures up a totally spurious picture of emotional satisfactions to be obtained from life in a Volksgemeinschaft. While it is also somehow suggested that if we govern ourselves – by which is actually meant that we are governed by people who share with us some distinguishing characteristic – the result should be satisfactory, which is a complete red herring with regard to all the real problems of good government.
Popper's own approach is worth considering, just because of its contrast with what is, today, customary.”
Jeremy Shearmur, 'The Political thought of Karl Popper'.
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The Media has been using terms like ’Far Right’ as though it’s a bad thing when in fact it’s the opposite. It’s democracy in action- people and parties speaking out on things that matter to them that the elite Left politically correct politicians ignore. Mass immigration is weighing heavy on people's mind as is radical Islam that is pushing it's way into our system. The ‘Left’ advocates for more mass immigration and ignores Islamic/ culture clashes, Left align with WOKISM and cancel culture. Biden just announced that he is going to allow illegals that have been in America for a few years an opportunity to bring in their families. What he's doing is sending a message that will bring in even more migrants. Rewarding people for illegally entering the US is not in our best interest.
Here is an important YouTube Video that is worth investing your time in:
Earthling50
Level 7
June 18, 2024
1
It is not a good thing. It is the first step on a road to fascism
Ryo1:
Thanks for sharing this. I've just finished watching it. Goodwin's analysis, from his academic point of view, is very interesting. He is very good at clarification.
It is interesting that more and more young people are supporting populism.
It is interesting that how pushing for globalisation brought adverse effects, rather than good effects, on to British society and economy in the 80s and 90s.
It is interesting that how elite politicians actually hate their countries, yet they try to control their nations while they keep failing to relate themselves to their voters.
And it is interesting that while populism can represent right-wing ideas, it can also sit comfortably with left-wing views. Goodwin says 'right populism focuses on "culture" while left populism focuses on "class"'.
Incidentally, if I heard the media misusing the term 'far right' (deliberately of course), one more time, I would scream.
It seems that the post discusses only a narrow definition of nationalism that accords a lot of importance to a homogenous setup (possibly ethno-nationalism?). There are different types of nationalism including 'civic nationalism' (or sometimes called 'liberal nationalism' or 'democratic nationalism' ) which I find is a reasonable ideology. Incidentally, the definition of 'nation' also needs to be clarified before discussing nationalism.
The following video explains what civic nationalism is.
Ryo1
Level 8
June 18, 2024
0
Ryo1:
Civic Nationalism | Definition, Types & Examples
[study.com]
Civil nationalism is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights, and is not based on ethnocentrism.
@Ryo1 from the study WebsiteWhat is a simple definition of nationalism?
Nationalism has several meanings. One is an idea that each nation should control an independent sovereign state. The other is strong attachment to the nation and a desire to further the nation's interest, sometimes to the detriment of other nations.
Really it has only One meaning and the attempts to qualify it just confuse the central idea which is "I will only put my country first" Anything put in front of nationalism is an attempt to distract and of curse to ignore other countries. Many wicked leaders have done foul things in the name of the supremacy of THEIR country
GLOBALISM is also "Of the people' , 'For the people', By the people . It also has things like democracy and liberty which are becoming universal and are certainly ideals common to UK and US
The fact that at one time only 14% of Americans had passports speaks volumes .Travel broadens the mind.
Thought " Was Empire Formation by UK and others a form of Globalisation?
Ryo1:
@Mcfluwster
>>>From the study
Sigh...Such a black & white, shallow view of nationalism and globaslism, plus an attempt to ascribe the fact that many Americans not having passports to (ethno-) nationalism is almost embarrassing...
@Ryo1 I am a reductionist i.e I get to the basics . Others can spin threads around the basic meaning which are only about their own country. What is wrong or embarrassing about broadening your mind to include all the people of the world? . I come from a small island, a UK protectorate and these Manx People have travelled all over the world for centuries. I am not going to say that America is not great in many respects but you have been lucky in many respects . When weaponry reaches targeting all around the world , you might realize that you have to open all your eyes in other ways to the rest of the world in many more ways that are NON military
Given the human tendency to migrate, nationalism does seem at odds with reality, unless what nationalists aspire to is a two or more tiered society, with the nationalists of one persuasion occupying the top tier and everyone else beneath them in economic, political, and cultural status. It's a ridiculous proposition, antithetical to meritocracy, and thus destined to fail. I think most white nationalists would agree that capitalism demands that each individual rise according to his/her grit, ingenuity, hard work, etc., and that the system works, and that everybody in the marketplace benefits from it precisely because it is, at its root, based in meritocracy. But then they want to turn around and say, "Ah, but so and so is inherently inferior because of the color of his/her skin, native language, religion (or the lack thereof), or preferred spices in their food. Well it doesn't wash, because in every population there is a diverse range of talents and abilities, and no one group has a legitimate claim to superiority. It's laughable, or it would be if were not so goddamn stupid.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
June 18, 2024
1
Is meritocracy good or bad then ?. Of course people should be rewarded for hard work and special gifts or abilities, but like anything if taken to extremes it is harmful. Musk being paid $500 million is obscene particularly when Tesla sales and the share price are falling.
Capitalism and the industrial revolution gave us the standard of living we now have in the West. The rise of trade unions tempered the greed of business owners but it appears that the pendulum is swinging the other way again with ineequality much more prevalent.
I would call myself a socilaist which is a dirty word in the US as many confuse it with communism.
I am a member of the Scottish National Party although I would not call myself a nationalist. I just want to see self determination for my country of birth and out of a union which is harmful for the country and it's people.
@Moravian Meritocracy is good as long as the country doesn't forget that nobody does it alone; that the cultural, educational, economic, and physical infrastructure that the society collectively built allows individuals to realize potentials that they would not otherwise.
Patriotism and Nationalism is not good for anyone.
Jolanta
Level 9
June 17, 2024
1
Patriotism is fine if you are a real patriot and not some Fascist SOB who just borrowed the word.
There is nothing wrong with patriotism if the country is one characterized by egalitarian multiculturalism, rule of law, free speech, freedom of religion (or the lack of it)...all of the best things the USA aspires to be.
@Flyingsaucesir Reply to Flyingsaucesir When you have NOT reached those ideal conditions you need a word that covers that situation meaning we are doing the best. What is wrong with "globalist"? .Then you are trying your best for everyone on the planet.
@Fernapple Could Patriotism be elitism rather than love in certain circumstances
@Mcfluwster It's pretty clear that the USA has not reached a state of perfection. Far from it. But we continue to lurch forward, in the right direction, haltingly, spasmodically, sometimes only after going down every dead end side alley. This country has great potential. And a (slim) majority of its people are invested in realizing that potential. That's worth celebrating. That's what feeds my patriotism.
@Flyingsaucesir To be sure of progress you must check thoroughly with as many others countries in every single respect and America is high on " Blinkerism" or Uni-directinalism . Sorry to introduce new isms without full definition. King George the THIRD was said to have founded or permitted America to learn from their mistakes [Only by me actually]
You posted this four times, probably by accident. Might want to delete the extras.
TomMcGiverin
Level 8
June 17, 2024
2
Reply to Tom Whom are you addressing?
Ryo1:
Never mind, mate.
@Mcfluwster I'm addressing you, the OP. Delete your extra copies of your post..
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.