Conor here: Richard Murphy offers up a defense of nationalism based on a politics of care. He deals with the UK in the following piece, but mentions how the Left—or at least what passes as the Left—has long struggled with questions of nationalism. Stateside, this was evident recently when Bernie reiterated his long-standing position on borders, for which he has been getting beat up by online liberals. Here’s the comment:
BERNIE: “If you don’t have any borders, you don’t have a nation.”
“Trump did a better job. I don’t like Trump, but we should have a secure border. It ain’t that hard to do. Biden didn’t do it.”
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 23, 2025
There’s plenty to criticize Bernie about, but if you’re trying to build a political coalition around national class (as opposed to identity) it’s common sense that you can’t have an endless stream of immigrants for capital exploit. There are other ways to do that rather than building walls and unleashing masked agents to abduct and terrorize people. As has been pointed out frequently here at NC the easiest would be to simply ensure that businesses aren’t hiring undocumented. And the US could stop the decades of destabilizing governments south of the border, too. That’s obviously not the route the Trump administration is taking while it tries to build its brand of nationalism with little in the way of politics of care. Bernie’s comments on the Tim Dillon Show beyond the 20-second clip circulating online get to these points. From the transcript:
…none of those people should be faulted for coming here, okay. It should be we should start faulting people like Steve Wynn who run a billion dollar hotel on and exploit them right on illegal labor. And why aren’t we enforcing e-verify?… So you got these folks who came to this country the same reason my dad came to this country. He was grew up poor in Poland came for a better life and that’s why they dragged their kids you know from Mexico, Guatemala, thousands of miles …you know they have a better life they escape the violence and the poverty that they’re in. They’re here now. The truth of the matters and one of the things that i really, really dislike about Trump and what demagogues always do is this country, as we’ve discussed, has enormous problems. And what demagogues always do, instead of trying to deal with why we have those problems, what are the causes of the problem, what are the solutions? You blame a powerless minority.
Onto Murphy’s defense of nationalism.
By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future.
RobertJ asked a question on this blog yesterday that goes to the heart of how I believe that we should think about belonging, identity, and the politics of care. He asked whether nationalism is good or bad, or whether it all depends.
That is not an abstract question. In the UK and Ireland, nationalism has been a defining political force for centuries. From conquest and colonialism to Home Rule, devolution, and independence movements, nationalism has shaped who we are, who we think we are, and who we think others are not. In that case, the question deserves serious reflection, and I have given it a lot of thought, most especially as I write for The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper.
First, I do not view nationalism as a negative sentiment because I think its roots lie in care, whether that be for a people, a place, a language, or a culture. So, when Welsh speakers defend their language, or when Scots argue for self-government, or when Irish people remember centuries of suppression and demand dignity, that nationalism is not rooted in hate; it is rooted in love for a community and its identity, and care for its survival. It is about wanting the right to govern one’s own life and community. That form of nationalism is inclusive: it does not require an enemy. It is not built on exclusion, but on belonging.
Second, nationalism can also be a response to powerlessness. In that sense, it can be a progressive impulse. When Westminster dismisses Scottish votes or when London drains wealth from English regions, it is unsurprising that people turn to national identity to reclaim agency. Nationalism, then, can become a language of resistance and a way of saying ‘we matter too’.
Third, however, nationalism can curdle. When identity turns inward and begins to define itself by who is not included, it becomes toxic. When English nationalism defines “real” English people as white, or when Union Jacks become symbols of exclusion rather than community, nationalism becomes a politics of fear. The flags remain the same, but their meaning changes. The St. George’s Cross that decorates a local football ground in celebration of a win by a national team is not the same as the one wielded by a mob chanting about migrants.
So perhaps the question is not whether nationalism is good or bad, but what it is for, and that brings me to what I call the politics of care.
The politics of care, about which I have often written a lot of late, begins with recognising that all people have equal worth, wherever they are born and whoever they are now. Care in this context is inherently relational precisely because it ignores who a person is and affirms their worth, wherever and whatever they might be, or think they are. As such, it will always connect across boundaries. That means nationalism must always be held in tension with something larger, whether that be humanity, decency, or empathy.
A nationalism consistent with a politics of care would:
- defend self-determination but reject superiority;
- protect culture, but refuse exclusion;
- celebrate belonging but resist the myth of purity.
It would see nationhood not as a fortress but as a framework for democracy, solidarity, and mutual care.
In that sense, there is an ethical distinction to be made between what might be described as differing forms of nationalism. The nationalism of the oppressed, who are the colonised, the ignored, and the disrespected, can be emancipatory. The nationalism of the powerful, which is used to dominate or exclude, is reactionary.
That distinction is what allows us to celebrate Plaid Cymru’s recent victory in Caerphilly but fear a Reform UK government. The former seeks dignity within diversity; the latter demands obedience through division. The distinction is both real and essential.
That said, the left has often struggled with this. Internationalism, which is the belief in solidarity across borders, was heavily associated with early socialist and social democratic thinking, in particular, and can be made to sound as if it denies the importance of national identity. It can be used to argue that class matters more than any other identity, and that there is a reach beyond borders on that basis, and of course, that can be true: it is entirely possible to have more than one identity, and I have always found it hard to work out why some have so much difficulty with that idea.
Having empathy for others in different communities on the basis of similar social circumstances does not, and should not, however, prevent anyone from appreciating the culture, customs, community, and patterns of communication (often represented by language) closely associated with the place where they come from, live, or have moved to. Holding both these things in mind simultaneously is, I suggest, vital. If we all have material, emotional and intellectual needs which lead us on a quest for meaning in life which may (and might not) lead us to spiritual exploration, then to appreciate both where we are and what matters to others is a sign not of abandoning principles, traditions and differing identities, but of upholding them, whilst reserving the right to criticise if they are abusive of those in any community. A healthy internationalism does, then, depend on self-confident nations that can cooperate, and not on loyalty to a single homogenised global state or ideal.
The same might be said of faith traditions. These might have their own visions, but the challenge is to reconcile those visions with the moral value of belonging somewhere in particular, and respecting that the person of one faith is exploring just as much as the adherent of any other faith, and none might be.
Why does this matter? It does because nationalism is again shaping the political landscape, whether that be in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, perhaps most dangerously, in England. How each form of nationalism expresses itself will tell us a great deal about the kind of political and moral imagination that exists in the UK. The vital thing will be to understand the key point I am making, which is that not all nationalisms are alike. Nationalism can be used to unite or divide, to justify exclusion or to promote justice. It can be used to express love and care or for all in a community, or to induce fear and the ostracisation of some within it. Those approaches could not be more different.
My own answer to whether nationalism is good or bad is that it is good when it is an act of care, and bad when it is an act of domination, whilst it is only necessary when it gives voice to those who might otherwise be ignored. The test of any nationalism should be simple and is does it expand empathy, or does it shrink it? That is the ethical line that separates the politics of care from the politics of hate.
If we remember that, nationalism can be embraced as something of value, whilst being aware that if we forget it, nationalism can destroy us. But perhaps what is most important is to understand that, at its empathetic best, nationalism might help us rediscover who we are together.
Great piece with lots to ponder!
I have a small American flag displayed in the living room. Bought it during the height of the Iraq War from a homeless veteran selling them in Grand Central Station. That kinda sums up my mixed feelings on my country and why I don’t consider myself a nationalist – or even patriotic. Yet, I’m very much a product of this place, have enjoyed many opportunities and the vast beauty of its nature, its menagerie of cultures, and the rich life I’ve been afforded here. So, maybe I’m a hypocrite? I appreciate what I’ve been given being a citizen but loath the cost others have paid for me to have this life.
Brings to mind two of my favorite quotes I’ve often pondered when grappling with these mixed feelings. One is from one of those old socialists you referred to, Erich Fromm, who said, “Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ‘Patriotism’ is its cult…Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”
Too often nationalism (and patriotism) are gawdy displays of blind worship but I see your point that it can also be a way of showing pride for the people in our wide national community and all we are able to experience in this place. Which brings me to the other quote from the amazing author Jeanette Winterson:
“In a system that generates masses, individualism is the only way out. But then what happens to community — to society?”
That’s the quandary. I want to think of myself as an individual clean of the negatives associated with my nation but without it I’d not have the society I get to be a part of and community I so enjoy. Tough dilemma for my stubborn ego.
Thanks for the Jeanette Winterson tip; I hadn’t heard of her but am very intrigued. Was the quote you provided from “Why be happy when you could be normal?”
Yes. That’s her memoir and it’s a wonderful read. Have read all of her books and find her earlier work the most compelling with “Why Be Happy” being a great cap on it all.
Her style is similar to Salman Rushdie in its poetic stylings and mixing of myth and folklore into sort of magical realism but I find her writing to be much more emotional. As a friend once said after reading one of her books: “I’ve never felt an emotional as powerful as Jeanette can write them!”
In the real world, you cannot create and sustain universal healthcare systems, like the NHS in the UK, without a large scale community of care, otherwise known as a nation.
In the real world, you cannot enforce a state of social order and welfare—see that word ‘state’?—in which ‘ALL workers (are) paid well, protected’ without a large scale community of care, otherwise known as a nation.
In the real world, it is 2025 and mindless rote recitations about how 19th and 20th traditional leftist stances mean being internationalist and condemning borders (see below) only make those reciting them into de facto accomplices of actually-existing 21st century neoliberal capitalism and imperialism, which indeed rejects borders—just like them—and favors globalization and the continual importation of cheap immigrant labour.
As Lenin rightly noted, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, marked by the dominance of monopolies, finance capital, and the drive to continually bring new resources, markets, and populations under its sway. Here in the 21st century, the highest form of actually-existing capitalism is neoliberalism. Since any form of capitalism must necessarily draw new resources and populations under its control to survive, it behooves us to ask: what sort of imperialism does neoliberalism practice?
Neoliberalism practices an imperialism that mirrors the system of social control it operates in its homelands. ‘Inverted totalitarianism’ is the most apt formulation to describe that system.
https://encyclopedia.uia.org/problem/inverted-totalitarianism
And thus neoliberalism similiarly operates a system of inverted imperialism.
Under this system of inverted imperialism, a constant supply of poorer people from the rest of planet are injected into the neoliberal homeland populations at the auspices of elites. This serves not only to reduce wages and living conditions for the working classes there, but perhaps even more importantly it reproduces classic imperialism’s strategy of creating division and factionalism among subject populations as they compete for resources—and hence creates a consequent inability to resist control by capitalist elites.
Under classic imperialism, for one example, the British imported East Indian immigrants to Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa, as subaltern populations performing roles such as clerks, railway workers, merchants, and civil service intermediaries as a deliberate strategy to prevent united populations resisting British imperial rule. Likewise, in their suppression of anti-colonial insurgencies in Malaya (1948-1960) and Kenya, the British relocated rural populations in those countries into fortified, government-controlled zones—called ‘New Villages’ in Malaya and ‘Villagization’ in Kenya—to sever insurgents from civilian support, food, and recruits, while running intelligence and hearts-and-minds programs to create compliance in the subject populations within those zones.
Neoliberal inverted imperialism reproduces classic imperialism’s strategies of divide-and-rule by importing disparate immigrant populations into the neoliberal homelands. For the purpose of recreating Villagization and New Villages, therefore, all the better if those populations are drawn from different continents, don’t speak the language of the larger population surrounding them, or are even culturally inimicable to integration with that larger population.
Similarly, the re-education programs of British imperial Villagization are recreated by inverted imperialism by means of policies and re-education programs aimed at creating factionalism and division through identitarianism wherever possible. For merely one example, in the US effort can thereby be endlessly diverted into ever more exacting critiques of how Latina lesbians may face different workplace challenges than white heterosexual women and mainstream feminists thus privilege white, middle-class women, even as in 2024 US police shot dead approximately 1,173 people poor and working-class people of all ethnicities to maintain capitalist control, making it the deadliest year for US police shootings in over a decade.
https://policeviolencereport.org/2024/
Under neoliberal inverted imperialism’s Villagization, self-proclaimed activists compete to defend unlimited immigration by proclaiming sentiments like ‘the idea that immigration automatically reduce wages/living conditions for the working class is a capitulation to neoliberal market logic’ while conspicuously ignoring the fact that in the real world more people competing for the same resources inevitably means less for all. Period. Full stop.
In the real world, national communities are the only functioning large-scale structures we currently have capable of providing welfare and healthcare to the majority of the human population. A so-called left that denies that factual reality is therefore derelict from its duties, and self-proclaimed individual leftists who deny it are either utterly and supremely confused or simply corrupt.
Either way, such a left is no kind of left at all and it stinks to high heaven.
Well-argued. Thank you.
Culture war serves imperialism. Thanks, Michaelmas. Reading the UIA description of Inverted Totalitarianism was uncanny, like something I might have written but better.
Words have actual meanings, and here a discussion on the origins of nationalism, and the distinction between nationalism and patriotism, would have been helpful.
Nationalism is an ideology that ultimately rests on the concept of superiority:
“: an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities, or supranational groups.”
Whereas patriotism rests on the love of a place, or a people.
Napoleon was the first to use nationalism to great effect, after all, how could the French have had such a glorious revolution unless they were better than other Humans. The Germanic nations, after watching successive empire building French armies criss-cross their lands, were soon to follow.
Removing the idea of superiority from nationalism is a confusing redefinition of the term, made worse because of the already poor understanding of what nationalism represents as an ideology and its origins.
The author would have been better served by the use of the word Patriotism, whose definition does not necessarily include the concepts of superiority, exclusion, and purity. Loving a people is already conducive to a politics of care, or at least it should be.
Everyone should oppose nationalism, which is premised on the idea that some people are better than others, not muddy the waters with new interpretations.
Let’s just use a different word.
I think I understand your point, but I think Saml Johnson’s definition of patriotism antedates yours.
Johnson’s quip is a comment on scoundrels, not a definition of patriotism. When a scoundrel’s every argument has been refuted, he/she will then appeal to patriotism as a final or ultimate defence. Patriotism is not, by Johnson, the philosophy of scoundrels.
I think you have it backwards, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Nationalism is an identity, patriotism is a state of mind.
As the author makes clear, “nationalism” can be a force for good or evil, inclusion or exclusion (defining ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is also tricky of course; one person’s “terrorist” being another’s “freedom fighter,” etc.) But in my personal experience, it is “patriotism” that has been misused, over and over, in the US to manipulate citizens into blind support for repression and global domination. We use “patriotic” displays to rally the “people” ’round the troops – and the B-2s flying over football games – as they “defend our country” and our “freedoms” by destroying Afghanistan or Iraq or other nations. After 9/11 there was truly a sense of “national” unity for a brief moment. What we did with it was stoke maximum fear (and use an anthrax attack) to pass The “Patriot” Act and launch our forever wars. In this endeavor your were either with us or “with the terrorists.”
I’m old enough to have witnessed such “patriotism” during the Cold War days of the early 1960s, its weakening during the Vietnam war, and its comeback as we started throwing little countries like Grenada and Panama up against the wall again, “defeated” the USSR, and invaded Iraq and conquered our “Vietnam syndrome” once and for all. We were back, baby! Start waving those flags.
I don’t think all nations are equal, and that’s pretty easy to see using any metric you choose. GDP, food production, freedom, beauty, culture, etc. Of course those rankings depend on how you value those things and change and nations rise and fall.
I’d say that it was nationalism that drove the U.S. race to the moon, and that this was good. It is nationalism that is driving China forward now, and that this is good for them as well.
It is a double-edged sword. The lack of a shared coherent vision for what it is to be an American and the inherent nationalism generated by that is a source of domestic strife in the U.S. But in recreating one, or the attempt at recreating one, will potentially create even more problems at this point.
Hans Kohn between the world wars & A.D. Smith in post modern times saw nationalism in Elizabethan England. Some scholars posit incipient nationalism in the Greek city states, others in the Israel of the kings. For Elie Kedourie, and Hobsbawm, and Perry Anderson nationalism is strictly a European enlightenment philosophy transported to the world at large through conquest and colonisation. This view is criticised by post colonial & feminist scholars as Eurocentric & masculinist.
“Nationalism is an ideology that ultimately rests on the concept of superiority.”
I would tend to argue the opposite.
I see nationalism as a cultural framework of modern society. It seems to embody two important principles–the fundamental equality of membership and popular sovereignty–the nation, in other words, defined as a community of equals and as sovereign.
Looked at in somewhat broader terms, one can view nationalism as a form of consciousness, an essentially secular view of reality, whose socio-political component rests on the principles of fundamental equality of membership in a community and popular sovereignty.
I would also agree with Richard Murphy that not all nationalisms are alike.
See Leah Greenfeld “Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity.”
Here a little more awareness of the history of socialist thought could be in order. Lenin posited an ‘aristrocracy of labor’ in Europe and the US that sold out to capital and sold out its brothers and sisters in the rest of the world. It’s an aristocracy of WHITE labor–the poor white labor that did the bloody work OF the capitalist class in killing natives and disciplining enslaved Africans (reason it clings to its gun rights) and wants those rights to impunity back that we are looking at now. Bernie, who has gone through at least three phases in his fumbling attempts to get immigration right, risks playing into the hands of those nativist elements with his comments. Praising Trump for doing anything right is at best ham-handed, at worst a kind of pandering that gets him nowhere anyway. Yes, the question of how we look at borders and the question of nationalism is critical. But it’s liberals who have no answer on immigration. The traditional left stance is internationalist, and condemns borders. ‘Politics of care’ is a current crap cliche that I see liberals using, not the left. But insistience that ALL workers be paid well, protected. . . not so hard to conjure. If you fail to denounce the ugly, the ethnic cleansing and surgical racism that propels Trump’s politics here, as Bernie did. . . . he deserved the criticism.
This is it. The idea that immigration automatically reduce wages/living conditions for the working class is a capitulation to neoliberal market logic. Immigrants don’t come into the country with a desire to accept lower wages, abusive bosses looking for maximum profits by evading labor laws protecting workers with citizenship are responsible for setting those sub minimum wages. That’s why this campaign against immigrants is, from the billionaire perspective, not about their actual complete removal, but terrorizing them into not organizing for better conditions. This is proven out by the intentional targeting of labor organizers in Chicago, Washington, and Upstate New York.
An actual Left policy on immigration would be to welcome those coming to help build the country’s economy by enforcing universal labor standards regardless of country of origin. Strong minimum wage and overtime protections without loopholes, along with access to collective bargaining for all and policies like rent control and universal social benefits funded by taxing corporate profits, with harsh enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance would eliminate the ability of bosses to super exploit migrant labor and put everyone on the same playing field. This would also greatly cut into the ability of bosses to divide the working class against itself on the basis of nationality, instead encouraging workers to organize together for their common benefit.
Now one can argue “that sort of reform would never pass in the US because of the power of the ownership class,” but that’s no less true for NC’s advocated policy of criminalizing the hiring of undocumented labor.
There’s a plethora of research done in Europe showing that if a country has half decent unions, minimum wages and maybe even collective bargaining, migrants actually can’t compete on the labor market and remain mostly unemployed.
The right wing talking point in the EU is no so much that foreigners are taking the jobs, but that they are all living on the dole and that the lack of assimilation threatens the (presumably) good old way of living.
Referring to Scottish and Irish nationalism, the article says “That form of nationalism is inclusive: it does not require an enemy”. I’d argue that these are clear examples of nationalisms which require the British in order to construct an identity by schismogenesis. This is a feature of national identity in general. Drawing a line around something, defining it, also defines what it is not, a necessarily exclusive thing.
In an ideal world, we’d all have what William James called “cosmic patriotism”, that is, a species-pride, a collective identity as humanity. I think its understandable and natural that we fall short of that most of the time and instead withdraw to some more manageable in-group.
The sort of laissez faire inter-nationalism the author calls “healthy” we could criticize in two ways: first, that such idealized cooperation doesn’t exist in the world; and second, that in the form that it does exist, it leads to world wars.
The article could use a lot more history, economics, and linguistics, but I’m probably biased as a helpless cosmopolitan.
These Murphy essays, which are all good IMO, are aspirational so yes the realities of human behavior have to be accounted for. In that sense a nation can be seen as a group of people banding together to defend themselves from other nations. The ones who misuse nationalism that Murphy talks about may even have to invent an external threat to get people to do that. Perhaps these are the scoundrels for whom patriotism is the last refuge.
I’ve never been much of a flag waver but I do think of myself as so very much an American and when overseas missed the place, warts and all. Country and culture are also your parents in a sense even when at the moment our prez is very much the bad dad.
The Scots, the Irish underwent cultural genocide (and even partial genocide and ethnic cleansing in the case of the Irish) at the hands of the Brits. The Celtic Scots and Irish were evidently distinct from the English, no need to create an immaginary barier. The existing demarcation line has deep historical roots over people that know speak the same language.
Watching The Outlander TV series, especially prior to the Culloden event, shows how different the Scots were from the English.
Nature draws lines around economies. Five hundred (plus!) years of Euro-American colonialism has attempted to erase those lines, and the results, culminating in the WTO, Donald Trump, and his European poodles have been a less than edifying celebration of cosmopolitanism. I’m with Messrs Murphy and Sanders on this one.
Agreed. I’m with Bernie on this too, for both labor and cultural concerns.
I’m of two minds about the arbitrary borders on a map. They were drawn by Western colonizers who thought there ought to be an Italy for Italian speakers, a Germany for German ones, etc. Those lines have done a lot of harm in the ensuing 200 or so years, creating divisions where none existed naturally.
However, if you look at history before national borders, masses of people on the move for whatever reason is going to create problems. Then people don’t gradually assimilate into an existing culture, learning the language and mores, they instead disrupt it. Change that comes too fast causes frictions. National borders can alleviate that somewhat, if done correctly. For that, there needs to be international respect of other nations and a desire to cooperate rather than conquer. We clearly don’t have that in the US. But I think we could. If we did, immigration would be gradual and a boon, keeping society from stagnating.
Maybe it’s inevitable, but I don’t want to live in the kind of homogeneous world that our current crop of globalists aspires to. I want to visit China and have some dim sum, eat some pierogis in Poland, etc. I do not want to travel the world just to eat at Taco Bell bell outlets at Disney- [insert country name here]. And I sure as hell don’t want it to be crony capitalism everywhere, there is no alternative, in every single nation.
Vive la difference!
The most prevalent form of Nationalism is in the idea that we all have separate money named after archaic things such as a Pound of silver, or in Italy a Lira if you will.
I’m not sure why we haven’t gone to a unicurrency aside from losing control over everything in our fee fi fo fiefdoms.
Since I brought it up, I suggest we call the new worldwide currency the ‘Wuk’
This is a useful reminder of both the beautiful and ugly uses towards which the forces of nationalism can be bent.
I get the impression that the historical association between socialism and international solidarity stems primarily from the emergence of the former into a world dominated by jingoistic dynastic empires which misused national feeling for their own purposes on behalf of capital at the expense of working people everywhere. Murphy reminds us that it doesn’t have to be this way.
The question of nationalism is on my mind as someone partaking of Italian culture and as an Italian citizen with the right to vote. I also have U.S. citizenship as a birthright — a defining characteristic of Americans.
The problem of nationalism was recently brought forward in my mind. A Fbook “friend” is a well-established journalist who fancies himself an analyst of events. Recently, he bought an apartment in Umbria (poor Umbria) and has started to apply those journalistic skills to Italy, even though he can’t read Italian. Hmmm. This is part of a phenomenon…
Recently, he posted in a U.S. journal of some importance an article about the Italian right and Giorgia Meloni. He described her party’s slogan as God, Country, Family. In fact, the slogan of Fratelli d’Italia is Dio, Patria, e Famiglia. His mistranslation and misunderstanding point to Murphy’s ideas.
Patria is the Italian word for fatherland. Like fatherland in English, it is somewhat loaded. The Italian right also likes to refer to Italy as La Nazione, which in their view means more a people that one is born into (natio) than a geographically defined state.
Most Italians, and the so-called center-left, call Italy Il Paese. The country.
Murphy points out, and I tend to agree:
A nationalism consistent with a politics of care would: defend self-determination but reject superiority; protect culture, but refuse exclusion; and celebrate belonging but resist the myth of purity.
Use of the word nazione implies some pureblooded race of Italians, which makes Italians start laughing.
Yet “Italianness” (l’italianetà is another stumbl-y word) is recognized as a concept: What shared characteristics set Italians apart.
The central issue of nationalism has to be that all human beings have human rights that must be respected. Contrariwise, the idea that a “nation” (as we see with Israel as well as in the continuing U.S. Monroe Doctrine messes) has a “right” to defend itself is bunk.
Being Italian is about culture. Italian culture is complicated by layers of history, by its artistic and literary and culinary inheritance, and by the play of the Italian language and its dialects with other languages spoken here. There is also the tradition of campanilismo, local boosterism, the local specialties, the local saint, the festivals of the local asparagus or leeks or sweet peppers… Meanwhile, Italianness is an emanation of Rome and Roman Catholicism, just as Roman Catholicism is an emanation of Italian culture.
So I tend to agree with Murphy. What has soured U.S. nationalism is the religiously inspired exceptionalism (the divine right of Manifest Destiny) as well as the structural racism (which has also had religious approval). Two hundred fifty years of slavery followed by more than a hundred years of segregation have damaged the country — and any assertions about the benevolence of U.S. nationalism.
In other countries, nationalism is a different phenomenon. For instance, Scotland and Ireland, as Murphy describes…
Nationalism is something that needs to be destroyed and suppressed – or so say the Globalists. Why so? I would say that each nation is a potential roadblock to their plans. At it’s heart, a nation is about identity and it is the society of that nation that provides the glue to hold it together. Nations can be organized around a people, religion, a common culture, a way of thinking or any other number of elements. It is really about a whole people having a common consensus about their identity which is the basis of a nation. And if you think that nations should be eliminated to make things better, I would suggest a thought experiment. Take the United States for example. There is a balance of power between the Feds and the States. Now imagine that through a “reform” that States were eliminated. You would then have about 3,350 Counties and nothing between them and the Federal government. How well do you think that this would work out for average Americans. Now scale it up to the International stage. If the Globalist get there way and make the concept of nationhood go away, how helpless would people be against them then.
“Nationalism is something that needs to be destroyed and suppressed – or so say the Globalists.”
Indeed!
The best example I have for this is the EU treatment of Moldova. There is talk of ascension to EU. All the while Moldova can just re-unite with Romania (the historical region of Moldova in Romania has twice the number of Moldovans that R of Moldova has citizens, plus already half of R of Moldova population already has Romanian passports). But that would mean increasing the sense of nationalism, which is a big No, No for the EU. And that plays exactly as Moscow wishes.
Facts bro
The question of whether you can be a nationalist and still be virtuous and a nice, polite human being is a preoccupation of discourse on the left, but unfortunately that question of virtue sidesteps the truly political question nationalism is proposed to answer: how can large numbers of people be organized to act together to hold capitalists to account?
I do not know why the U.K. has been unable to restrain immigration over many years. I don’t know what the Biden Administration was doing in facilitating mass immigration in the way it did. No one knows apparently, because the policy was never debated or enacted in a regular way as law. The consequences were that millions of people were exposed to jeopardy and Trump has had this opportunity to mobilize a massive police force suddenly and without precaution about procedure. This is a hell of a way to debate policy.
A theory of politics has to contain a theory of power. The virtuous left seems to want to limit its theory of power to a theory of consciousness, without the bother of deliberation or coalition, let alone populist appeals to the unwashed. Nationalism points to various ways large numbers of people can be organized and induced to loyalty and some concept of a shared, common or public interest by myth, ritual and pride. We know how to root for a football team, but apparently to apply any of that knowledge to politics is icky.
Up against the new feudalism of the billionaires, that attitude does not seem serious.
The UK joined the EU. Any workers from non-EU countries, pre-Brexit, were not considered migrants even though those numbers wound up being much larger. For instance, it was the UK that pushed EU expansion to dilute the power of France and Germany in the bloc. The expert estimated that only 50,000 Poles would come to work in the UK. They instead got 500,000 in IIRC the first six months, at most the first year.
When the UK Brexited, it had to replace all those low-wage workers, so non-EU migration rose.
The EU-driven immigration is only recent. The postcolonial immigration from the commonwealth is arguably as – or more – important because, being largely non-white, it created a very visible cohort of foreigners (who were in fact non-foreigners, being British subjects, and entitled absolutely to UK residence).
This was all politely ignored until Enoch Powell, shooting his political career in the face, made his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. At that point, the nascent PMC Liberals made all-out war on Powell, and his nationalism, but the British, especially English, supporters were a HUGE majority, and that is when nationalism began to be demonized.
It’s still an open sore in UK politics, and is subject to misrepresentation and lies even now, but there are some very good treatments.
Simon Heffer’s Powell biography, ‘Like the Roman’ gives what I believe is a balanced and fair treatment, with all the details normally elided from most discussions.
Incidentally, Powell was a truly fascinating individual – Professor of Classics at 25, rose from Private to Brigadier General in WWII, aspired to Viceroyship of India – which he might very well have attained – and realist enough to support drastic changes in policy once it was clear the Empire was going tits-up.
Your claim is inaccurate. Non-EU migration was higher than EU inflows even before Brexit; we had charts to that effect during the Brexit negotiations.
Here is a more recent rebuttal. It is easy to read this chart incorrectly, since pre-Brexit, EU entrants were NOT immigrants. Note that post-Brexit some EU citizens have been given a special visa status, mainly medical personnel (5% of NHS doctors and 10% of nurses were from the EU).
The point is that the orange line, pre-Brexit, was markedly higher than the green line, which is EU net arrivals.
Yves: “The expert estimated that only 50,000 Poles would come to work in the UK. They instead got 500,000 in IIRC the first six months, at most the first year.”
So where are the 500,000 Polish plumbers in your chart? Are you saying they were not counted at all? So what’s the green line?
It is net EU migration, not gross, so you can’t compare the two.
I was talking about IMPACT not numbers. Since there had been very few non-white faces prior to the Caribbean and Indian/Pakistani inflows, followed by Bangladesh, Ugandan Asians, etc., the impact was higher. When EU inflows started, everyone in the UK was familiar with reggae, Chinese and Indian (actually mainly Bangladeshi) restaurants, all over the country. The non-English faces were known to everyone. There were sitcoms about it – Love Thy Neighbour and others.
The cultural impact drove nationalism, entirely separately from and economic impact. I lived through it and I know how jarring it was.
I also lived through the ” No Blacks, No Irish, no dogs” era of signs in rental flat windows, and totally refute the point that there was a huge majority in favour of Powell’s stance on migration.
English nationalism had its manifestations in the late 60s and early 70s, often demonstrated in football, such as in the throwing of bananas on to pitches, and casual racism still exists, especially when rabble roused by populists, but was in no way a huge majority – even within the Tory party.
Mjy defense of Nationalism rests on the need to contain and control corporations.
I would consider this to be one of the best reasons to be a nationalist. But as a US citizen I can say it hasn’t been the case, even a little.
Proposal, echoing comment sentiments above.
Don’t compound troubles by opening borders on the basis of an idea, as the effects echo for years. Integration and assimilation are hard, especially with large cohorts in short periods.
Don’t lie to the public about millions of immigrants when the confessed intent is to import a new voting base. That disenfranchisement of existing citizens is criminal and is being revealed. That won’t end well for the promoters, or anyone for that matter.
It all depends on how you define words.
I was brought up with the definitions that patriotism is the love of one’s own country while nationalism is the hatred of other countries. But others no doubt have different ideas.
Murphy’s connection with Scottish nationalism is his weekly column in the National, a very small newspaper with a small audience, but the only print/online media here that actually does support independence.
There is a huge difference between ‘blood and soil’ nationalism and what the SNP title ‘civic’ nationalism, as do Plaid Cymru in Wales, and which is based on national independence providing self determination and autonomy, representing local community, national pride and identity.
In Welsh – so the ‘Land of My Fathers’ – there is a word “hiraeth” which doesn’t really have an English translation. It means longing and love for your homeland, almost melancholic at times, also loss, but pride in that identity.
I think hiraeth is definitely there in the spirit of Welsh nationalism.
That Celtic, almost romantic, nationalism has its Irish and Scots equivalents, and some regional English cultures also express it to a degree – Yorkshire being “God’s Own Country” with its rivalry with Lancashire, and then there are the Geordies in Newcastle and the North East who still have a very strong local identity and a dialect that reinforces that, but also a lingering sense of being regarded as second class by dominant London and the South east.
Civic nationalism is actually quite difficult to define but is probably best considered as strong national pride, mostly expressed as devotion to and support for one’s country and which includes a feeling of shared community.
Murphy’s piece does pick up some elements, but he ignores ‘blood and soil’ ethnic type nationalism.
Even in our 2014 Scottish Indyref campaign we had plenty of Cybernats (who really do despise the English and still feel oppressed by them) as well as those Yoons (Unionists) whose overwhelming commitment to English hegemony demonstrated their own sense of Anglo Saxon superiority.
That really did require badging Scots as “too wee, too puir and too stupid” to be able to self govern, uniquely amongst those nations which had been part of the British Empire.
“Blood and Soil” nationalism involves that sense of national, racial, moral and cultural superiority.
This was definitely present in the old British Empire mentality.
It is what annoyed those ‘colonists’ over the pond, more than 200 years ago.
In its most extreme ethnic nationalistic forms it requires “othering” those unfortunates whose territory and culture is then to be forfeit and commandeered through Lebensraum, Eretz Israel or equivalent and who are seen as lesser beings or even sub human – so Netanyahu’s “human animals” fit only to be expelled or exterminated.
Sadly, Nazism never really went away in Europe, but was sub-surface, and Revisionist Zionism is very much alive and well.
This is seemingly being replicated in a US version that increasingly “others” selected groups of immigrants as the scapegoat sector and is also re-emerging very strongly in American white Christian nationalism.
Deciding what might be regarded as positive nationalism, and what is evidently oppressive and negative is becoming increasingly difficult. In the UK Reform are determined to mimic Trump’s regime, so we are in for a very tough period too, as the British Union of Fascists has been reborn. Murphy’s piece doesn’t link fascism and nationalism but they can be, and often are, inextricably linked.
I certainly agree with Richard Murphy’s statement of nationhood, “as a framework for democracy, solidarity, and mutual care.
Yet, I’m surprised that so far there is little reaction to the not insignificant and politically active nationalism within the US.
This lifted straight from a Google search. “Christian nationalism is a political ideology that fuses Christian identity with a nation, believing the country was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed by Christian values. It advocates for integrating a specific form of Christianity into public life and government, sometimes including a belief that the government should promote Christian dominance and enforce a particular set of social and cultural norms. This can lead to policies that favor Christians and may threaten religious freedom and other civil liberties for non-Christians, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others.”
Charley Kirk, for example, was basically a CN.
And from Wikipedia, “American Christian nationalism is based on a worldview that America is superior to other countries, and that such superiority is divinely established. It posits that only Christians are ‘true Americans’”. “Christian nationalists believe that the US is meant to be a Christian nation, and that it was founded as a Christian nation, and want to “take back” the US for God.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism#External_links
Nationalism is a bourgeois ideology. If you live in poverty, your country’s great history and traditions won’t help you.
Yeah. “Bourgeois scholar has no problem with Bourgeois ideology.” Big surprises in this article.
I like Benedict Anderson’s definition of nationalism the best — an “imagined community:”
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/399136.Imagined_Communities
I agree about the importance of community, belonging, mutual care, shared customs and a sense of place. As a matter of fact I would consider these things essential to human survival and flourishing. But I don’t think nationalism, a relatively recent development in human history, is a necessary component of these things. That’s why I think Anderson was on to something when he called a nation an “imagined community.” In an idealistic sense it’s a community that extends far beyond local, lived experience, and enables what I guess you could call economies of scale. But in practice it tends to be a lot more superficial, something that mostly papers over the gulfs that divide those who happen to live inside some funny lines on a map. In other words, instead of cooperation and belonging we mostly get competition and exclusion.
But then again my personal experience is limited to the US.
Nationalism is necessary to guarantee human rights. International bodies have proven toothless for over a century.
My emphasis:
In the example of Israel, it was a zero sum game. The Palestinians, who had no relationship whatsoever to the Jews loss of national rights, or human rights in Christendom, have suffered their own incalculable losses in both regards. I wonder what Hannah Arendt would say today, as the last sentence clearly still applies.
Nationalism has always been reactionary and “toxic” and there’s no saving it. The working class has no country nor nation.
What can I add? The divergence of language to convey that message? There has been a gross distension of primitive communism through subsequent amalgamations. What language can reinvent the understanding worldwide that humanity’s material reality must be equalized. And remorsefully, that earlier humanity had (has, in those few un-contacted still) a better understanding that humanity is only one species amongst a living world of fellow traveling life, to which we all depend.
“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”
vs
“Dulce et decorum est pro supranational entity mori”
the EU was best as a confederation of sovereign nations, it will never displace the nation state in the hearts & minds of the European peoples, imho.
Murica
🇺🇸
Gotta meet the Working Class where they are, and they all love America.
American Unity 2028!
LEFT & RIGHT POPULISTS UNITE!