|
Not at all; the concept of the constitutional democracy is a form of civic nationalism. Nationalism is just the ideology of nations; the United States, France, etc., are nations. Unfortunately ethnic conflict and separatist movements are pretty much inevitable wherever you have nations, unless they're a perfect civic nation, which many argue is impossible--and those problems are known as nationalist problems. Thus the vernacular use of nationalism, with its attendant connotations of ethnic conflict. You're conflating ethnic nationalism with nationalism. See the references, etc. Look up "social contract". A democratic world government would be the ultimate civic nation. In some sense it could also be thought of as the ultimate ethnic nation as well (where the common ethnicity is the human race). --TheCunctator |
|
Not at all; the concept of the constitutional democracy is a form of civic nationalism. Nationalism is just the ideology of nations; the United States, France, etc., are nations. Unfortunately ethnic conflict and separatist movements are pretty much inevitable wherever you have nations, unless they're a perfect civic nation, which many argue is impossible--and those problems are known as nationalist problems. Thus the vernacular use of nationalism, with its attendant connotations of ethnic conflict. You're conflating ethnic nationalism with nationalism. See the references, etc. Look up "social contract". A democratic world government would be the ultimate civic nation. In some sense it could also be thought of as the ultimate ethnic nation as well (where the common ethnicity is the human race). --TheCunctator Yes, I was conflating ethnic nationalism and civil nationalism. I was not aware of civil nationalism before. But I think a world government still wouldn't even be civil nationalism. To quote from the Internet Modern History Sourcebook: :the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states". A world state would entail no boundaries, be they civic or ethnic. There would be no non-citizens. As you say, "nationalism is just the ideology of nations", but a world state would be the end to nations as an independent existence. Hence I still say that the article is wrong where it says "Nationalism is a political ideology developed in the 18th and 19th centuries that in which the state derives political legitimacy in some way from its population, as opposed to [divine right]?, for example" -- a democratic world state would fit that definition, but it would not be nationalist. -- Simon J Kissane Internationalism? :-) |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)