ations and Nationalism (journal)

From, the nation is not the cause, but the result of the state. It is the state t
hat creates the nation, not the nation the state. Every state is an artificial mec
hanism imposed upon [people] from above by some ruler, and it never pursues any
other ends but to defend and make secure the interests of privileged minorities
within society. Nationalism has never been anything but the political religion of
the modern state. [Nationalism and Culture, p. 200 and p. 201] It was created to
reinforce the state by providing it with the loyalty of a people of shared lingu
istic, ethnic, and cultural affinities. And if these shared affinities do not ex
ist, the state will create them by centralising education in its own hands, impo
sing an official language and attempting to crush cultural differences from the pe
oples within its borders.
This d in Spain for about 10 months, the Ukranian Free Territory for 3 years, an
d arguably the Paris Commune for 2 months.
What do you attribute Marxism's greater historical prevalence to? And to reitera
te the original question, why hasn't there been any long-term and large-scale an
archist society like there has communist? Thanks!
49 comments
all 49 comments
sorted by: best
[ ]ProfessorRansom 26 points 3 years ago
Every anarchist society has been destroyed by neighboring states. The Catalan re
volutionaries were crushed by Franco's Nationalists in the Spanish civil war. Th
e Paris Commune was pounded into rubble by the Prussians. Anarchist communities
in the Ukraine and elsewhere were exterminated by Bolsheviks. And on and on and
on.
permalinkembed
[ ]LeninLives[S] 5 points 3 years ago
Every anarchist society has been destroyed by neighboring states.
That's something that all revolutionaries have to deal with. The question is: ar
e your methods and organizational structure sufficient to defend the revolution?
Soviet Russia was invaded by 14 capitalist countries while it was already fight
ing a civil war that would last for 6 years against counterrevolutionaries that
were themselves aided and supplied by the invading capitalists. It was then bloc
kaded by sea. It was completely isolated and experienced on onslaught, but it su
rvived. So I'm not sure that "we had neighboring states tha
[ ]dmart444 1 point 3 years ago*
I disagree that Anarchy rejects a defined social structure. It rejects social st
ructures that are defined for us, not by us. Also, what lunatic would believe th
at there should be NO regulation on human interaction?! The Joker? No legitimate
Anarchist on earth believes in running around torturing and killing people beca
use "no rules man!" Anarchists generally believe in highly organized societies t
hat avoid hierarchy. This is not some feel-good rationalization for wanting to g
et away with anything we want on a whim, despite what its depiction in the media
and by 13yr.olds scribbling on bathroom stalls.
permalinkembedparent
[ ]johnsix 1 point 3 years ago*
Anarchy is, among its many definitions, absolute freedom of the individual. You
seem to be focused on the non-existence of a government. To say "we agreed on __
_____ so you must/should ____"is government, representative though it may be. Pa
rt of individual freedom is the freedom to change one's mind. If every individua
l is free to live as they please, without impinging the freedom to choose of oth
ers (to live for example), then collectivization is only a rational choice so fa
r as every person in the collective agrees on every point for which they stand.
As soon as you say, "I don't like ____, but I like the privileges/protections/be
nefits afforded me by remaining part of this society," then you are making a cho
ice to compromise your beliefs. I feel that once you accede to compromising your
self you are giving up your freedom. Once the individual gives up their freedom
you no longer have an anarchist.
I think it's a splendid ideal and one to strive for, but it limits itself by the
nature of its freedom. Collectives and societies are good. I just don't see how
a pure anarchy can exist for long as a society that encounters stress of any so
rt.
A question I would ask is, "In a hypothetical world where every individual is fr
ee to do as they please, provided that they do not reduce the freedom of other i
ndividuals, does the individual have rights? If t
so essentially it's arbitrary and fucking stupid then??
iskandergo
iskandergo1 year ago
did ya all see those people in the audience bothered by the bright light from th
e right, with their folders and papers shading off their faces LOL LOL how apt!!
think i even saw some leave cause of it, 2 ladies halfway chomskyi think..?
Spoo
Spoo1 year ago
What the fuck? Hitchens begins his speech by asking for money??
2
Dr. Dhoom
Dr. Dhoom10 months ago
+Spoo o why do you have a little Asian girl as your profile pic??
Jonathan CF
Jonathan CF9 months ago
+Spoo o If you're not related to that little girl, that should be illegal.?
Grandfather_Din_Racket
Grandfather_Din_Racket1 year ago (edited)
The grotesque export of murderous prohibitionism has polluted the entire world,
and is in direct contradiction to America's stated core principles of individual
property rights, and the common law. The drug war exported to Mexico alone has
resulted in greater than 20,000 deaths prior to 2010. The Drug War jails 2.3 mil
lion innocent Americans (who have committed no injury and no intent, or "mala in
se" corpus delicti.) The Drug War has corrupted the legal systems of Singapore,
Thailand, China, and the Philippines, resulting in murdering regimes.?
d0101d
d0101d1 year ago
Hitchens certainly changed his tone..?
Last_Money
Last_Money1 year ago
Jeez, a whole lotta Chomsky sycophants in this comment thread.?
Int Er
Int Er10 months ago
Chomsky just your typical democrat who hates the US. Anyone who never criticizes
Islam but participates in debates like these is a fucking liar and a con artist
.?
HitchensImmortal
HitchensImmortal5 months ago
He's a country mile left of any actual democrat including 'temporary Democrats f
or party funds' like Sanders.?
Brett Perry
Brett Perry1 year ago
I'll never understand peoples fascination with Chomsky.
Don't get me wrong I certainly recognize his brilliance, but for me it's oversh
adowed by the naive way he sees the world as black and white while showing compl
ete disregard for all of the shades of gray in between. And while that's all wel
l and good philosophically, it has no practical applications to the real world w
here the black and the white simply don't exist. ?
3
rd264
rd2641 year ago
+Brett Perry I personally dont think there are "shades of gray" in this area hav
ing spent my career working in state and federal government offices at a fairly
high level]. Ive read a few of Noam's books and they all are well supported, f
ootnoted, and go into great close detail in support of his claims.?
5
Jonathan CF
Jonathan CF9 months ago
+Brett Perry It really is mind-boggling how someone so brilliant in linguistics
can talk about a subject he really has no expertise in and is clearly out of hi
s depth. The complexities of international relations turns foreign policy debate
s into a breeding ground for conspiracy theorists.?
Red Fag
Red Fag1 year ago (edited)
The people screaming at 3:00 are an example of ableism.?
14
Matt Silva
Matt Silva1 year ago
+Black Flag Proletarian What a bunch of whiny fucks.?
Red Fag
Red Fag1 year ago
+Matt Silva tru?
Nat Brown
Nat Brown1 year ago
The problem I have with Chomsky, that speaking form my point of view, he seems t
o offer, that the United States should not have done anything against the Sovjet
Union or against the spreading of communism, since it did not really effect the
US.
But I am a European and I am very happy about the fact, that US troops remained
in Europe, because without those troops, the Sovjets with have just taken over E
urope, which was actually their goal and what Stalin actually intended to do, bu
t he could not, because to the US foreign policy.
So I think criticism is okay, but stll, one should not just leave out the Sovjet
Union and communist China all the time as if they did not play an important rol
e.?
4
Seamus McKnight
Seamus McKnight9 months ago
+Nat Brown exactly, it takes two to tango.?
Autoplay
Up next
Chomsky explains why Hitchens and Horowitz reversed everything they believed
Noam Chomsky Videos 371,922 views
12:39
 Dershowitz vs Chomsky debate Israel at Harvard Charles Ewing Smith 704,819 v
iews
1:26:16
Noam Chomsky on Trump and the decline of the American Superpower History and Pol
itics Hub 444,769 views
54:32
Christopher Hitchens - In Depth hitch archive 239,974 views
2:58:03
Christopher Hitchens and William F Buckley Jr on Firing Line James V 315,756 vie
ws
56:46
Christopher Hitchens vs Michael Parenti - Iraq and the future of US foreign poli
cy [2005] CaNANDian 88,200 views
1:57:02
???? 'The Hitch' A Christopher Hitchens Documentary AlienAmerican 255,797 views
1:15:09
Noam Chomsky vs Angry No