Why is nationalism (putting your group first) good in itself?

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Note: nationalism is very tricky to define. I define it as having ethnic/racial consciousness, much like class consciousness. It's often defined as putting the interests of your group first. For expediency I will use the more common latter definition.

A common argument against nationalism is that, by putting your group's interests first, you are harming other groups and that's bad because it makes people more unhappy and more poor. Of course, this argument only works if you believe the world is a zero-sum game, which it isn't. If the interest of your group is to make more people become doctors and engineers you aren't taking away from other groups and at the same time you are benefitting your group. Or, at least that's my idea, correct me if I'm wrong.

HOWEVER, we want everyone to become more happy and more wealthy. If intergroup cooperation like the European Union benefits everyone then nationalism is bad because if, for example, the Germans said "screw the rest of Europe, we're going oldschool" then everybody suffers. The argument one may use against that is "Europeans want to cooperate and build a better future for their countries, if the Europeans weren't exclusionary to Muslims, who want to kill every non-Muslim, then Europe would cease to exist as a civilization." But that argument only works so long as there is an outside group that wants to kill you and therefore you have to exclude. We can imagine a hypothetical where there is a world where everybody wants to cooperate. What's the point of nationalism in that world? If the Muslims are suddenly like "ok, we don't want to kill you anymore, our two cultures can peacefully exist in a new Afro-Eurasian union," why not cooperate with the Muslims if cooperation does benefit everyone.

The problem with the aforementioned argument is that it accepts the premise of nationalism being a zero-sum game. The only logical argument for nationalism is therefore we can increase the quality of the individuals in our group without hurting everyone else. But you also have to say "inter-group cooperation is bad." So, essentially, you have just become a protectionist. There are lots and LOTS of arguments between protectionists and free trade people, I don't want to talk about that.

I don't feel comfortable with the only argument in favour of nationalism being an economic one. Enlighten me on this issue, tell me why I'm a moron and these are 100 non economic reasons why nationalism is good, or even make arguments against nationalism.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Why does nationalism have to be ethnic? Why can't it just be... national? I believe in Americans putting America first, because why shouldn't we? Why should it be our job to spend the money being world policeman and propping up random "refugees" when everybody is going to hate us anyway?

But I honestly don't give a fuck what your melanin content is.

 

[Not Really Here]

It's neither good or bad, it's simply how monkeys are, they group up into bands.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

Why does nationalism have to be ethnic? Why can't it just be... national? I believe in Americans putting America first, because why shouldn't we? Why should it be our job to spend the money being world policeman and propping up random "refugees" when everybody is going to hate us anyway?

But I honestly don't give a fuck what your melanin content is.

sure, it doesn't have to ethnic or racial. For this there just needs to be an in group and out group

It's neither good or bad, it's simply how monkeys are, they group up into bands.

yeah, but all monkeys would benefit if they cooperated to farm bananas and get fat and live in peace. the argument is that humans can get together farm all the bananas in an international union type thing

 

[SIGSEGV]

"Why is putting your own interests first good?"
You're fucking retarded and I wish you would stop posting not just on this forum, but on the internet as a whole. Please find the nearest tall building, go to the roof, and do a flip off of the edge.

 

[Bland Crumbs]

Putting your group before other groups accepts the reality that other groups are doing the same. Anything else is naive.

 

[SIGSEGV]

yeah, but all monkeys would benefit if they cooperated to farm bananas and get fat and live in peace. the argument is that humans can get together farm all the bananas in an international union type thing

If they could do that, then they already would have done so. Once again, you are retarded.

 

[draggs]

"Why is putting your own interests first good?"
You're fucking retarded and I wish you would stop posting not just on this forum, but on the internet as a whole. Please find the nearest tall building, go to the roof, and do a flip off of the edge.

I'm so torn between mati and winner

@Austrian Conscript 1915 commie class globohomo is as gay and stupid as any kind of globohomo or commienism

Nazis and commies move past losing already god damn

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

If they could do that, then they already would have done so.

they did, sort of. that is what humans did and we won. Isn't the next stage of evolution bringing together a whole world union so we can take over the universe?

"Why is putting your own interests first good?"

And wouldn't your interests be becoming more wealthy, and to become the most wealthy you need the most inter group cooperation?

I'm not a globohomo type but if you keep posting dumb shit I might go full globohomo

 

[COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST]

Note: nationalism is very tricky to define. I define it as having ethnic/racial consciousness, much like class consciousness.

That's not a very good definition. The simplest way to summarize a nation is "a community of people who obey a particular set of laws enforced by an overarching body of governance." Multi-ethnic or multi-racial nations have existed for as long as human beings have.

 

[SIGSEGV]

And wouldn't your interests be becoming more wealthy, and to become the most wealthy you need the most inter group cooperation?

>expecting everyone to just be nice and put the interests of the group above their own personal interests
I get that you're extremely autistic, but surely you realize that people won't do that, right?

 

[draggs]

they did, sort of. that is what humans did and we won. Isn't the next stage of evolution bringing together a whole world union so we can take over the universe?

No and no and no

And wouldn't your interests be becoming more wealthy, and to become the most wealthy you need the most inter group cooperation?

Not necessarily and no

I'm not a globohomo type but if you keep posting dumb shit I might go full globohomo

Shut up commie

 

[COME ON OUT YOU RAPIST]

>expecting everyone to just be nice and put the interests of the group above their own personal interests
I get that you're extremely autistic, but surely you realize that people won't do that, right?

This is correct. Even societies that consider themselves collectivist are rife with self-centered people. The most obvious example of what I'm describing is present day China.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

>expecting everyone to just be nice and put the interests of the group above their own personal interests
I get that you're extremely autistic, but surely you realize that people won't do that, right?

the EU did that, and if we suppose that everyone are as smart as the Europeans then that should happen in due time

No and no and no

so you're telling me that every village in medieval Europe was a self contained tribe? we see the process of groups becoming more interconnected and then doing greater stuff. Like German states unifying to destroy Europe in 2 world wars. Great stuff

Not necessarily and no

if you believe free trade benefits everyone then necessarily yes

 

[SIGSEGV]

the EU did that, and if we suppose that everyone are as smart as the Europeans then that should happen in due time

Nobody gives a shit about Europe retard.

 

[FEETLOAF]

If there isn't food in my belly, I'm effected.
If there isn't food in your belly, I'm not effected.
Self-interest is self-evident.
Nationalism is just self-interest at scale.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

If there isn't food in my belly, I'm effected.
If there isn't food in your belly, I'm not effected.
Self-interest is self-evident.
Nationalism is just self-interest at scale.

the point is that you can get the most food, and the most food in the most bellies, by cooperating with other groups at a big scale

 

[Autopsy]

If there isn't food in my belly, I'm effected.
If there isn't food in your belly, I'm not effected.
Self-interest is self-evident.
Nationalism is just self-interest at scale.

Building on this, self-interest can be served at many scales and in many different ways. Nationalism is a very straightforward way of professing self-interest at the largest unit, the nation state. Globalists also profess self-interest, but they imagine that with the nation erased, some smaller group will serve their interests, i.e. the corporation (or "the syndicate").
Nationalism is strategically effective so long as you are rich in resources, because you wish to protect those resources. It is a dangerous goal if you are poor in resources, because it will drive a need for war.
Unsurprisingly, countries that are anti-National tend to be smaller ones who want a piece of nationalist governments' pie, while people who are anti-National view their corporation (their "working group") as uniquely competitive regardless of national status. These experts, uniquely competitive among their peers, also understand that there are foreign experts, and do not wish to compete with them unless they will be treated like kings in their new homes.

This draws a neat little box:

#1 Worker/Producer in a developed country: wants Nationalism to encourage domestic product and wealth creation.	#2 Worker/Producer in an underdeveloped country: opposes Nationalism to encourage undercutting of foreign product & wealth redistribution (not always creation).
#3 Expert in a developed country: opposes Nationalism to encourage emphasis on global meritocracy and snatch spots in less developed countries with fewer experts.	#4 Expert in an underdeveloped country: wants Nationalism to avoid competition from overly qualified foreign peers.

Nationalism is technically bad for me, because though I would be in category #3, I don't like the idea of people I know who aren't uniquely competitive suffering as their resources are drained by #2. Additionally, the above game only works if no one cheats, and you have to assume all humans are alike to play the game at-all. This is not the case.
Cheating defined: Underdeveloped countries can "double dip" by opposing foreign Nationalism, increasing their ability to undercut foreigners, while crafting domestic Nationalism, which allows them to outcompete #3 despite being shittier at their jobs. China has made an art of this. Rules for thee, not for me.
Developed countries have no way of retaliating, other than total subversion of client states. I don't mean to say it hasn't happened, it's just harder to do. Worse, it merely reduces (not eliminates) wealth redistribution. This is why countries in South East Asia & India are still slowly becoming richer, even as they're "exploited" thanks to their corrupt governments.
The game is inherently skewed in this regard, and it only takes one cheater...

 

[Knight of the Rope]

Of course, this argument only works if you believe the world is a zero-sum game, which it isn't.

How is it not?

If I'm eating food, then by definition that's food that you yourself can't eat because I'm eating it. If you're lucky, then there's other food that you can eat instead. If you're not lucky, then there's not. In either case, it's not my problem.

If I own land, then by definition that's land that you yourself can't own because it's mine. You get to find land somewhere else (or not, as the case may be). Similarly, if I own property, then by definition that's property that you can't own because it's mine and hippity-hoppity.

If I've married a woman to start a family, then by definition that's a woman you yourself can't marry because fuck you that's my woman and my family. You have to go find some other chick to marry (or not: incels are always going to be a thing, simply because there aren't enough partners for everybody and there never will be).

If I become distinguished in my profession, then by definition that's a job that you can't have because it's my job (at least until I'm dead). Reality itself dictates that not everybody gets to be the owner of the business/the CEO/the star programmer/the academic professor/etc.

This world is absolutely a zero-sum game, and we're all competing for slices of the same pie. Of course there are going to be winners and losers. What the fuck are you talking about?

(inb4 communist globohomo double-down)

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

How is it not?

If I'm eating food, then by definition that's food that you yourself can't eat because I'm eating it. If you're lucky, then there's other food that you can eat instead. If you're not lucky, then there's not. In either case, it's not my problem.

If I own land, then by definition that's land that you yourself can't own because it's mine. You get to find land somewhere else (or not, as the case may be). Similarly, if I own property, then by definition that's property that you can't own because it's mine and hippity-hoppity.

If I've married a woman to start a family, then by definition that's a woman you yourself can't marry because fuck you that's my woman and my family. You have to go find some other chick to marry (or not: incels are always going to be a thing, simply because there aren't enough partners for everybody and there never will be).

If I become distinguished in my profession, then by definition that's a job that you can't have because it's my job (at least until I'm dead). Reality itself dictates that not everybody gets to be the owner of the business/the CEO/the star programmer/the academic professor/etc.

This world is absolutely a zero-sum game, and we're all competing for slices of the same pie. Of course there are going to be winners and losers. What the fuck are you talking about?

(inb4 communist globohomo double-down)

you are only talking about finite resources. I gave the example of education which is not a finite resource. So I guess you're right, some things are zero sum gains, others are not.

Building on this, self-interest can be served at many scales and in many different ways. Nationalism is a very straightforward way of professing self-interest at the largest unit, the nation state. Globalists also profess self-interest, but they imagine that with the nation erased, some smaller group will serve their interests, i.e. the corporation (or "the syndicate").
Nationalism is strategically effective so long as you are rich in resources, because you wish to protect those resources. It is a dangerous goal if you are poor in resources, because it will drive a need for war.
Unsurprisingly, countries that are anti-National tend to be smaller ones who want a piece of nationalist governments' pie, while people who are anti-National view their corporation (their "working group") as uniquely competitive regardless of national status. These experts, uniquely competitive among their peers, also understand that there are foreign experts, and do not wish to compete with them unless they will be treated like kings in their new homes.

This draws a neat little box:

#1 Worker/Producer in a developed country: wants Nationalism to encourage domestic product and wealth creation.	#2 Worker/Producer in an underdeveloped country: opposes Nationalism to encourage undercutting of foreign product & wealth redistribution (not always creation).
#3 Expert in a developed country: opposes Nationalism to encourage emphasis on global meritocracy and snatch spots in less developed countries with fewer experts.	#4 Expert in an underdeveloped country: wants Nationalism to avoid competition from overly qualified foreign peers.

Nationalism is technically bad for me, because though I would be in category #3, I don't like the idea of people I know who aren't uniquely competitive suffering as their resources are drained by #2. Additionally, the above game only works if no one cheats, and you have to assume all humans are alike to play the game at-all. This is not the case.
Cheating defined: Underdeveloped countries can "double dip" by opposing foreign Nationalism, increasing their ability to undercut foreigners, while crafting domestic Nationalism, which allows them to outcompete #3 despite being shittier at their jobs. China has made an art of this. Rules for thee, not for me.
Developed countries have no way of retaliating, other than total subversion of client states. I don't mean to say it hasn't happened, it's just harder to do. Worse, it merely reduces (not eliminates) wealth redistribution. This is why countries in South East Asia & India are still slowly becoming richer, even as they're "exploited" thanks to their corrupt governments.
The game is inherently skewed in this regard, and it only takes one cheater...

that is essentially the argument that I made, but a lot longer. Your argument is totally economic in nature. I'm looking for something which is not economic