Sure, except all of those define a culture, and not a nation. For instance, France, the very first national state no less, contains multiple such cultures. Italy as well, became a thing only when the Napoleon came. Despite having cultural and linguistic differences, italians still somehow consider themself italians.
The definition of a nation really is an ambiguous one, and there’s no wonder. It initially was invented to overthrow the monarchic regime, while retaining all the territories of said monarchy. Ambiguity arises as soon as you try to draw a border between cultures, dividing them into separate nations. You see, everything culture-related comes in gradients, rather than distinct islands. How’d you distinguish eastern ukrainian from western russian? How’d you distinguish Western slovak from eastern czech? Because even linguistic and genetic analysis won’t be a guarantee there.
And the way the modern society is, with all the globalism, all the relocations, diasporas and etcetera, the idea of a national state completely loses its purpose, other than to separate the local resources, regime and economy, of course.
Separation of a culture can lead to enhancement of individual life quality, but so does the adjustment of inner politics. “Liberation” as you call it, does not change the economic potential of any given region, yet introduces migration-related beuraucracy complications, devoiding people of possible social lifts, while allowing for third party influence that might lead to conflict, you know, like it was with Ukraine:).
Also, local authorities might exploit their compatriots just the same the occupants did.
In other words, “liberation” is a step into the void, that doesn’t guarantee anything, and nationalism is nothing more than a way for manipulation and indoctrination to instill further segregation, that, as i said, is neither necessary nor relevant in the modern day.
That’s why we should fight both nationalism, and imperialism and unite based of political views rather than cultural heritage. And it’s not like nobody had done anything similar before, USA was exactly about that before it became the world exploitating hegemony we know today. That’s what USSR was about at its inception as well.
Stop thinking about the world apparatus the way people did in 19th century, the world had quite changed since then, and to change further and do so for the better, rather than for worse, we should think with our heads rather than dogmatically follow the theories of those who never tried them on practice, while having far less information about their world than we do.
Anyway, how did the liberation of Vietnam affect the common people? And were the positive changes the effects of liberation, or just a result of the regime change for the more progressive one, as well as the result of the war finally ending? What modern Vietnam represents as a sovereign economic unit, and could the common people be wealthier and happier if the country would’ve been a part of a larger state?
You’re arguing against a strawman. Fanon was a resistance fighter that successfully helped Algeria overthrow the French in a progressive nationalist movement against colonialism, not a simple theoretician that never engaged with practice. For Vietnam, the effects of liberating from France and adopting socialism as the mode of production both contributed to their success. The era of national divisions eroding is something for after the end of imperialism, in the meantime a people should be able to chart their own course free from the domination of the west.
You’re jumping to conclusions. I see where you’re coming from, I might’ve been more explicit about what exactly I was talking about, so my bad ig. I wasn’t talking about Fanon in the first place. More over, I wasn’t talking about any book author/philosopher in particular. My logic still applies even to Fanon tho, as, first, he had unique circumstances on his hands, second, our world had changed quite a bit since then too, fyi.
I can’t but notice how vague your answer about the Vietnam is. I never asked about Vietnam’s success as a sovereign political structure, I was asking about the ordinary people and how all of the events affected their lives. I believe I’ve made this much clear the first time around.
The era of national divisions eroding is something for after the end of imperialism, in the meantime a people should be able to chart their own course free from the domination of the west.
And what’s the reasoning behind that statement? I’ve already provided my stance and reasoning on why nationalism should go ASAP. You, on the other hand, fail to point out why deimperialization is of such high priority in your worldview.
You seem to think on the geopolitical level, while being just a person, microscopic, compared to a political structure. In modern society, any drastic geopolitical change affects individual well-being only negatively, potentially yielding positive changes in this aspect only decades later, if does so at all. Modern day imperialism is nothing compared to what it was in the past, thus deimperialization is none of our concern, as it won’t give any marginal positive change on personal level.
Imperialism is what keeps the global north from aligning with the interests of the global south, and is what keeps the global south underdeveloped and overexploited. Your arguments about imperialism not being impactful in the modern day are hollow, considering its the driving force behind every major war and geopolitical issue, it’s the primary contradiction. An argument against nations on moral grounds, without questioning why and how they form, doesn’t actually explain how we end them.
Sure, except all of those define a culture, and not a nation. For instance, France, the very first national state no less, contains multiple such cultures. Italy as well, became a thing only when the Napoleon came. Despite having cultural and linguistic differences, italians still somehow consider themself italians.
The definition of a nation really is an ambiguous one, and there’s no wonder. It initially was invented to overthrow the monarchic regime, while retaining all the territories of said monarchy. Ambiguity arises as soon as you try to draw a border between cultures, dividing them into separate nations. You see, everything culture-related comes in gradients, rather than distinct islands. How’d you distinguish eastern ukrainian from western russian? How’d you distinguish Western slovak from eastern czech? Because even linguistic and genetic analysis won’t be a guarantee there.
And the way the modern society is, with all the globalism, all the relocations, diasporas and etcetera, the idea of a national state completely loses its purpose, other than to separate the local resources, regime and economy, of course.
Separation of a culture can lead to enhancement of individual life quality, but so does the adjustment of inner politics. “Liberation” as you call it, does not change the economic potential of any given region, yet introduces migration-related beuraucracy complications, devoiding people of possible social lifts, while allowing for third party influence that might lead to conflict, you know, like it was with Ukraine:).
Also, local authorities might exploit their compatriots just the same the occupants did.
In other words, “liberation” is a step into the void, that doesn’t guarantee anything, and nationalism is nothing more than a way for manipulation and indoctrination to instill further segregation, that, as i said, is neither necessary nor relevant in the modern day.
That’s why we should fight both nationalism, and imperialism and unite based of political views rather than cultural heritage. And it’s not like nobody had done anything similar before, USA was exactly about that before it became the world exploitating hegemony we know today. That’s what USSR was about at its inception as well.
Stop thinking about the world apparatus the way people did in 19th century, the world had quite changed since then, and to change further and do so for the better, rather than for worse, we should think with our heads rather than dogmatically follow the theories of those who never tried them on practice, while having far less information about their world than we do.
Anyway, how did the liberation of Vietnam affect the common people? And were the positive changes the effects of liberation, or just a result of the regime change for the more progressive one, as well as the result of the war finally ending? What modern Vietnam represents as a sovereign economic unit, and could the common people be wealthier and happier if the country would’ve been a part of a larger state?
You’re arguing against a strawman. Fanon was a resistance fighter that successfully helped Algeria overthrow the French in a progressive nationalist movement against colonialism, not a simple theoretician that never engaged with practice. For Vietnam, the effects of liberating from France and adopting socialism as the mode of production both contributed to their success. The era of national divisions eroding is something for after the end of imperialism, in the meantime a people should be able to chart their own course free from the domination of the west.
You’re jumping to conclusions. I see where you’re coming from, I might’ve been more explicit about what exactly I was talking about, so my bad ig. I wasn’t talking about Fanon in the first place. More over, I wasn’t talking about any book author/philosopher in particular. My logic still applies even to Fanon tho, as, first, he had unique circumstances on his hands, second, our world had changed quite a bit since then too, fyi.
I can’t but notice how vague your answer about the Vietnam is. I never asked about Vietnam’s success as a sovereign political structure, I was asking about the ordinary people and how all of the events affected their lives. I believe I’ve made this much clear the first time around.
And what’s the reasoning behind that statement? I’ve already provided my stance and reasoning on why nationalism should go ASAP. You, on the other hand, fail to point out why deimperialization is of such high priority in your worldview.
You seem to think on the geopolitical level, while being just a person, microscopic, compared to a political structure. In modern society, any drastic geopolitical change affects individual well-being only negatively, potentially yielding positive changes in this aspect only decades later, if does so at all. Modern day imperialism is nothing compared to what it was in the past, thus deimperialization is none of our concern, as it won’t give any marginal positive change on personal level.
Imperialism is what keeps the global north from aligning with the interests of the global south, and is what keeps the global south underdeveloped and overexploited. Your arguments about imperialism not being impactful in the modern day are hollow, considering its the driving force behind every major war and geopolitical issue, it’s the primary contradiction. An argument against nations on moral grounds, without questioning why and how they form, doesn’t actually explain how we end them.