I submit to you, that you should accept a sense of nationalism in two respects. The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations—or move to a different one (if you can). The second, in the sense that, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism). — Bob Ross
For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. E.g., if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross
How do you impose democracy upon a people by force?
Should all nations think this way? Should all of them declare war upon all the others to impose their values upon other nations by force?
For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. — Bob Ross
That if doesn't bear scrutiny - in relation to more countries North Korea. That, too, is a good reason: consequences to the aggressor. What's the point of an empire of radioactive rubble and rotting corpses?if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences — Bob Ross
That's the inevitable destination: jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression and/or civil war.Now, I will end this OP by noting that I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical)
I suppose this is the thesis of the OP
One, would be the aspect of nationalism enabling negative consequences
I don't think this issue can be seen deontologically, with the baggage of human history in mind. The second question is whether if you don't accept the consequentialist assessment of the merits of nationalism
then on what merit do you asses its morality or goodness to a nation defined as nationalist?
The problem of imperialism is that it disconnects peoples from the traditional ways of their land and their context, which typically causes problems done the line for centuries to come no matter the intentions.
Partly because 'degeneracy' is far more evident in some western countries than in some you consider inferior; most western leaders and nearly all of their people lack the drive to conquer. Because 'democratic values' are not healthy enough in the west to survive transplanting.
But mostly because it can't be done. No western nation is powerful enough, no matter how many people it kills, cripples and displaces, no matter how much land it renders uninhabitable, how much of its resources are sacrificed, to attain, let alone maintain, such an empire.
That if doesn't bear scrutiny - in relation to more countries North Korea. That, too, is a good reason. What's the point of an empire of radioactive rubble and rotting corpses?
That's the inevitable destination: militancy, exceptionalism, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing, oppression.
That's partially fair; but I would note that imposing important and vital political systems is good. E.g., if you are against imperialism completely, then we wouldn't have any justification to take over North Korea, Talibanian Afghanistan, etc. Nations have a moral obligation to imperialize sometimes. — Bob Ross
Like the USSR appointed itself liberator of the world's exploited proletariat? It's not easy to see the log in one's own eye. Whenever economic parity is approached, the capitalist nations smother it in its cradle. No such country could survive a single generation, let alone grow powerful enough to threaten other regimes. Even if it wanted to, which fair and decent governments don't.I can foresee, as a possibility, a nation which comes up with a better economic system than capitalism; and if that happens then, yes, they should imperialize everyone else — Bob Ross
What I said:: there are always consequences. Consequences are inescapable. These days, consequences tend to come in the form of nuclear warheads, which several of your 'inferior' societies possess.What do you mean? — Bob Ross
No, I can't. And neither can a functional democracy. In order to have a government that's both arrogant and blind enough to try to impose itself on other sovereign nations, first, you need either absolute monarchy or a military-backed dictatorship.You can take over a country with the sole purpose of giving it the gift of democracy and then trying to salvage the culture as much as possible to keep the traditions. — Bob Ross
is the sequence of event leading to the prerequisite populist dictatorship. Let's see how Mexico and Canada fare in the next four years.jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression — Vera Mont
Oh, yes, I agree. All Columbus did was report back to the monarchy. You would do to the Natives pretty much what China, Rome and Britain did.If the West took over North Korea, e.g., we would not, in all probability, do anything remotely similar to what Columbus did to the Natives. Wouldn’t you agree? — Bob Ross
Most abstractly, based off of what is actually good. If you mean to ask what normative ethical theory I subscribe to, then it is a form of Virtue Ethics. — Bob Ross
For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. — Bob Ross
I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. — Bob Ross
I would say they only have a moral obligation to conquer other land if it's in their own vital security interests
But to the point of imposing political systems, would you say historical track records are good for these kind of projects?
Like the USSR appointed itself liberator of the world's exploited proletariat?
What I said:: there are always consequences. Consequences are inescapable. These days, consequences tend to come in the form of nuclear warheads, which several of your 'inferior' societies possess
No, I can't. And neither can a functional democracy. In order to have a government that's both arrogant and blind enough to try to impose itself on other sovereign nations, first, you need either absolute monarchy or a military-backed dictatorship
is the sequence of event leading to the prerequisite populist dictatorship
Oh, yes, I agree. All Columbus did was report back to the monarchy.
The fact that you would name countries like Iran, China and India in this list betrays an ignorance that is hard to explain in mere words. — Tzeentch
the last spasms of a morally bankrupt empire whose outdated propaganda apparently still holds some unfortunate souls in its grasp — Tzeentch
are you claiming that nationalism and fascism are the same? — Bob Ross
The fact that you would name countries like Iran, China and India in this list betrays an ignorance that is hard to explain in mere words.
has a well-documented track record of genocide running throughout its history.
Meanwhile, the US is aiding and abetting genocide in Palestine as we speak
China has concentration camps — Bob Ross
We weren't even able to "forcibly impose" our values on rinky-dink third world countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua even though we killed millions of people, mostly civilians, trying to do it. Generally, our interference has made things worse, e.g. our party in Iraq ended up sending millions of refugees into Europe. Just running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time overtaxed our armed forces.
By the way, the keyboard warrior over here is supporting imperialism, but they have no empire. All they have is falling apart Hollywood for spreading sodomy and georgefloydism worldwide and a pitiful army that got kicked in the ass by divided rice farmers and desert sheep herders. I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. It would be great humiliation.
Your political and social elites have several pedophile rings, buddy.
They're not willy-nilly, they're at bad guys. Every imperial aspiration is fed by some self-perceived need, threat, imperative or benevolent wrapping on a greed motive. Your moral justification isn't mine; America's is not Britain's or Russia's. There is no 'objective' realism.Not at all. I am evaluating the justifiability of imperialism via a moral realist theory: I am not saying that every country should just take each other over for any willy-nilly reasons. — Bob Ross
No country did; most wouldn't even take in refugees. It wasn't until after they themselves felt threatened that the allies confronted Germany. No country is stepping in to stop Russia or Israel today. And stopping a genocide is not equivalent to imposing one's own political system on a non-belligerent nation.For example, if the Nazis stayed in Germany (in the sense of not invading other countries), then would you say that no country should have invaded Germany to stop the Holocaust? — Bob Ross
Who "we"? Under what mandate? The UN is a legitimate international organization that is poorly supported by its western members; "we" could only be vigilantes.It wouldn’t be blind: it would be operating under policy guidelines; just like the Geneva convention or how the UN tries to enforce universal rights—instead, though, we would actually do something about it when it happens. — Bob Ross
You read this in history, or tea leaves? How else do you get the majority of a people to volunteer for extreme hardship and danger, for the purpose of imposing one government's will on another? If you can manipulate people into believing their own country is in danger, yes; otherwise, you have to coerce them. As in Korea and Viet Nam.Imperialism does not presuppose a dictatorship. It never has and never will. — Bob Ross
He wasn't alone; the regime was brutal. He reported to Ferdinand II and had the use of soldiers, administrators, overseers and priests sent by the monarch. Is there any record of the common people of Spain or Portugal clamouring to bring civilization to the Americas? D you truly believe they would have voted for the conquests on moral grounds?The dude was brutal. — Bob Ross
If I take your argument seriously, then we should stop the Nazis if they were to stay in their own country; we shouldn’t stop North Korea from literally torturing their own people; etc. — Bob Ross
I'm not exactly looking forward to that. In the case of Canada, they probably don't need to invade; they're imposing their 'values' on us through money, propaganda, infiltration and appeals to the meanest, dumbest factions. But at least we get the best of their defectors.I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. — Lionino
So, if the Nazis would have stayed in Germany, then you think no one would be warranted in stopping them? — Bob Ross
However, that’s because countries were taking each other over for bad reasons. — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.