"Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests." -Encyclopedia Britannica "Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." -English Oxford Dictionary "loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of nationalconsciousness (see consciousness sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" -Merriam Websters Dictionary Is it 'nationalist' to militarily or covertly impliment regime change in foreign nations? It seems to me to be more of a globalist strategy- 'make them more like us', not ideologically dissimilar from actually invading them for the same result. However I suppose making it easier to engage other nations economically by making them more politically similar could be seen as 'promotion of its culture and interests'... but I think thats a stretch. Nationalism imo necessarily involves competition between nations. From a capitalist perspective, that competition should be honest, open and voluntary. But since its open to subjective interpretation, what say you?
"Is forcefully spreading democracy 'nationalist'?" First of all, "forcefully" spreading anything is neither democratic nor nationalist. The word you are looking for is not "democracy" but "FASCIST". In any case, you are using the term "nationalist" incorrectly.
Pretty much agree. How so? Have I misunderstood the definition of the word, or are the definitions I cited incorrect?
I just mean that a "Nationalist" is someone who 'jada-jada-jada' for the nation in which he presumably lives. The people he subjugates (forces) by Fascist tactics (it can't be Democratic under the circumstances) are not volunteers so it's difficult to see them as Nationalists. And I don't see how the Fascist can be a Nationalist either if he keeps unwilling citizens in his country. 1. He is not an example of Democratic principles for sure. 2. He being a Nationalist is questionable. 3. "Forcing Democracy" is a contradiction in terms like me beating someone for not agreeing to join my pacifist movement.
It isn’t nationalist in and of itself but it can often be done with underlying nationalist motives, such as taking control of natural resources or establishing regional political and military influence to further extend control over other nations. Regardless of the underlying motivations, international relationships, diplomacy and conflict are typically much more complex and multi-faceted than many people realise and the long term aims of the countless individuals and groups involved are rarely as clear as we’d like them to be.
What do you think of civic nationalism, and why do you equate nationalism with fascism? " Civic nationalism also known as liberal nationalism is a form of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in an inclusive form of nationalism that adheres with traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights." -Wikipedia
I have the same problem with nationalism (any sort) as I do with religion (any sort). That is to say that I don't have a problem with either. However, I do have a problem when Nationalists wave the flag no matter what the nation has done and I have an additional problem when they expect me to do the same and think I should be punished if I don't. That brings us to your next question > > > I don't. The application of any philosophy CAN be Fascist if it is implemented in a Fascist manner ... as in the OP example of being "forced". But where is "Democracy" in that definition? Note also that the term "inclusive" is ambiguous. It can be used in a "good way" or in a "bad way". Do you equate "inclusive" with "force" or with Democratic choice to be included?
I can't think of any example where "forced" democracy has worked. It has to be organic to the ethos of a country.
I agree. But more than that is the notion of what Democracy is. There are people who want nothing to do with it. Strange, huh? No, not strange. Some think that the population needs to be strictly governed and that too many choices cause confusion on a population of the uneducated. Particularly those who have witnessed false Democracy would prefer to crush it. Look at Irak. The U.S. lied about WMD's, illegally invaded, raped, tortured, and murdered. The United Nations (a Democratic entity) forbade the U.S. (a founding member of this Democratic entity) from invading Irak, but the U.S. did so anyway, committing a score of war crimes on top of all the other crimes it committed, including the Geneva Convention Rules. And did the Democratic world punish those responsible? Not in the least and yet the U.S. continues to call itself a beacon of Democracy. What would I think of Democracy if I were an Iraki?
every definition of liberalism (especially classical liberalism, which the definition of civic nationalism seems to be referring to) that I've ever seen includes a valuation of democracy in its meaning. If civic nationalism values liberalism and liberalism values democracy, then civic nationalism values democracy. given that civic nationalism values traditional liberalism, which values legal equality, it would in fact mean that ethnocentric nationalists could not also be civic nationalists (at least not in the US), as ethnocentric nationalism would be unconstitutional in its implimentation.
I don't think people know what "fascism" actually means or they are trying to appropriate the word for their own political reasons. But, by some of the definitions listed I would be a nationalist and I think we should leave other countries alone.
This was a tough one for me to decide, and I won't go into all the intricacies of why it was. Simply put, if some other country has a government of any (ANY) kind that threatens the United States, or our vital interests, then, yes, I support measures to remove that foreign country as a threat, or, "clear and present danger". So far, I'm the only person who has voted that way in your poll. I know, I know... it's a very 'slippery-slope', amid all this residual rhetoric of "What gives the U. S. the right to ___________ ? (fill in the blank)" .... A lot of things can go badly wrong when we intervene in stupid, short-sighted, blundering initiatives -- and Vietnam comes IMMEDIATELY to mind! Another more recent example that continues to have a large effect on Europe and Africa was the decision of the Obama administration to use American air power to effectively overthrow the legitimate government of Libya in 2011, a government with which we had been completely at PEACE for many years, and which was not threatening the United States AT ALL! It got so bad afterward that we not only had the "Benghazi" assaults one year later, we had to shut down our American Embassy in Tripoly in July 2014, and we've never been able to reopen it since because of the ongoing Libyan civil war.... But, Iran? Now, THERE is "a clear and present danger", to the United States, to our allies, and anybody else using the nearby international waterways. If we removed the radical Islamo-priests who run the Iranian theocracy, I wouldn't object... and most of the Iranian people (especially those under 40 years old) would probably be very grateful....
Using the cold war as an example. Attempting to keep countries from having communism imposed on them was a good thing.. No government has the right to impose communism on its people.
