HOME PAGE

All Articles

Cool Graphics

Comments

Books

Who Rules America?

Revolution

Is vs. Ought

Current World Events

The So-called "War on Terror"

9/11

Palestine & Israel

Culture & Values

Education

Work

Health Care

Science:

Global Climate Change

World Population

Peak Oil?

HIV/AIDS

----------

Contact or Donate to Us

New Democracy's Core Beliefs

Speakers

 

printer-friendly version

www.NewDemocracyWorld.org

Nationalism: Good or Bad?

by John Spritzler

October 25, 2016

International bankers such as the Rockefellers and the likes of Goldman-Sachs have contempt for national sovereignty. These bankers want, and use, global instruments of control such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and supra-state governments such as the European Union's government in Brussels. The so-called "free trade" agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Trans Pacific Partership Agreement (TPPA), are really not so much about free trade, but rather about giving the global elites freedom to impose their will on nations with sharp restrictions on what laws national governments can enact and enforce. Laws that might protect ordinary citizens from unsafe and unscrupulous corporate practices are increasingly "illegal" for nations to enact, much to the benefit of the multinational corporations and banks.

Because the rights and welfare of ordinary people are being attacked by global (internationalist) forces that have contempt for national sovereignty, good people have rallied against these oppressive and anti-democratic forces under the banner of nationalism. The idea is simple: the people in a nation, not some international organization such as the WTO, should have the final say about what laws are enacted and enforced in that nation. Perfectly true!

But does that mean nationalism is a good thing? No, it does not. Why not?

Let's start by identifying what exactly is wrong with an organization such as the WTO having the power to tell a national government what laws it can or cannot enact. The wrongness lies in the fact that it violates a morally right principle. That principle is this:

People in a local community who value equality (in the sense of no rich and no poor and "from each according to ability, to each according to need") and mutual aid (helping one another rather than being pitted against against others in competition to be made more controllable)--i.e., egalitarians, who happen to be the vast majority of people--should only be obliged to obey laws that are written in their local community assembly at which they, and only they, are welcome to participate as equals.

The way this principle--called "voluntary federation of egalitarians"--makes it possible to achieve social order on a large (even global, if desired for certain things) scale without class inequality is described here.

Nationalism is the contrary idea that as long as a national government is composed only of individuals of the correct nationality (who may even be anti-egalitarians who want class inequality) and as long as it is "legitimate" in some sense that may vary from one nation to another (such as being voted in or being a Marxist party or being a religious elite), then the individuals who constitute that government have a right to write laws that all egalitarians in the nation must obey even though they never had a chance to participate in the writing of those laws (never mind as equals with all the other law-writers). Nationalism is thus an example of the application of the morally wrong Authoritarian Principle, which says that one must obey the highest body of government no matter what.

The Authoritarian Principle is used by billionaires to control hundreds of millions of people just by gaining control over a relative handful of individuals in a central national government by using their billions of dollars to influence these individuals.

The ideology of nationalism says that the most important aspect of a person is his/her nationality, not whether he/she aims to shape society by egalitarian or anti-egalitarian values. Nationalism is used by oppressive elites to make people think an oppressive central (national) government must be obeyed because it consists of people with the right nationality and claims to represent "the nation."

To the extent that one is influenced by nationalism, then to that same extent one is focused on the nationality of the authorities, and not on the truly important thing: whether authorities are shaping society by egalitarian or anti-egalitarian values, whether they are working to end or defend class inequality. Nationalism says that if you know a person's nationality then you know the most important thing about him/her. In truth, knowing a person's nationality doesn't tell one anything about the most important thing about him/her, which is whether he/she is for or against class inequality.

The egalitarian way to oppose the internationalist bankers and their global instruments of social control is to explicitly advocate and fight for voluntary federation of egalitarians, not to fall into the trap of nationalism, which the billionaires are very skillful in using to control us and to impose class inequality on us.

 

Comments

www.NewDemocracyWorld.org

This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.

 

 

 

READ THE BOOKS IN THE "NO RICH AND NO POOR" SERIES

 

Articles by Dave Stratman

Articles by John Spritzler

Turn the World Upside Down (John Spritzler's blog #1)

End Class Inequality (John Spritzler's blog #2)

 

Books

We Can Change the World: The Real Meaning of Everyday Life by Dave Stratman

The People as Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II by John Spritzler

NO RICH AND NOPOOR: The Populist Goal We CAN and Must Win

DIVIDE AND RULE: The "Left vs. Right" Trap