TERM REPORT ON

NATIONALSIM

SUBMITTED BY : KAUKAB ABID AZHAR (8805) SEC :

LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

April 9th, 2009 Dear Readers, I would first like to thank the Almighty Allah for giving me the strength and endowing me with the privilege of completing my International Relations report on the subject of Nationalism. I am also extremely thankful to my mentor and guide Dr. Sahib Khan Channa for his constant support, encouragement and guidance, without which i could not have successfully achieved my task.

Sincerely,
KAUKAB ABID AZHAR (8805) BBA (H) SECTION C.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/

NATIONALISM
The term nationalism is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individuals membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be

understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required. It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism. Nationalism involves the identification of an ethnic identity with a state. The subject can include the belief that one's nation is of primary importance. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a homogeneous national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass. Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture. However, some nationalists stress individualism as an important part of their own national identity. National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols. Deep emotions are aroused. Some scholars see the word "nationalism" as pejorative, standing in opposition to a more positive term, patriotism.

The Concept of a Nation

In its general form the issue of nationalism concerns the mapping between the ethno-cultural domain (featuring ethno-cultural groups or nations) and the domain of political organization. In breaking the issue into its components, we have mentioned the importance of the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity. This point raises two sorts of questions. (1) What is a nation and national identity? (2) What is it to belong to a nation? (3) What is the nature of pro-national attitudes?

(4) Is membership in a nation voluntary or non-voluntary? Second, the normative ones: (5) Is the attitude of caring about national identity always appropriate? (6) How much should one care? If one wants to enjoin people to struggle for the national interest, one must have some idea about what a nation is and what it is to belong to a nation. So, in order to formulate and ground their evaluations, claims and directives for action, pro-nationalist thinkers have been elaborating theories of ethnicity, culture, nation and state. Their opponents have in their turn challenged these elaborations. Now, some presuppositions about ethnic groups and nations are essential for the nationalist, others are theoretical elaborations designed to support the essential ones. The former concern the definition and status of the target or social group, the beneficiary of the nationalist program, variously called nation, ethnonation or ethnic-group. Since nationalism is particularly prominent with groups that do not yet have a state, a definition of nation and nationalism purely in terms of belonging to a state is a non-starter. Indeed, purely civic loyalties are often put into a separate category under the title patriotism, or constitutional patriotism . This leaves two extreme options and a lot of intermediate positions. The first extreme option has been put forward by a small but distinguished band of theorists, including E. Renan (1882) and M. Weber (1970); for a recent defense see Brubaker (2004). According to their purely voluntaristic definition, a nation is any group of people aspiring to a common political state-like organization. If such a group of people succeeds in forming a state, the loyalties of the group members might be civic (as opposed to ethnic) in nature. At the other extreme, and more typically, nationalist claims are focused upon the non-voluntary community of common origin, language, tradition and culture, so that in the classical view an ethno-nation is a community of origin and culture, including prominently a language and customs. The distinction is related (although not identical) to that drawn by older schools of social and political science between civic and ethnic nationalism, the former being allegedly Western European and the latter more Central and Eastern European originating in Germany (a very prominent proponent of the distinction is Hans Kohn 1965). Philosophical discussions of nationalism tend to concern its ethno-cultural variants only and this practice will be followed here. A group aspiring to nationhood on this basis will be called an ethno-nation in order to underscore its ethno-cultural rather than purely civic underpinnings. For the ethno-cultural nationalist it is one's ethnocultural background which determines one's membership in the community. One cannot chose to be a member; instead, membership depends on the accident of origin and early socialization. However, commonality of origin has turned out to be mythical for most contemporary candidate groups: ethnic groups have been mixing for millennia. Therefore, sophisticated pro-nationalists tend to stress cultural membership only and to speak of nationality, omitting the ethno- part (Miller 1992 and 2000, Tamir 1993, and Gans 2003). Michel Seymour in his proposal of a socio-cultural definition adds a political dimension to the purely cultural one. A nation is a cultural group, possibly but not necessarily united by common descent, endowed with civic ties (Seymour 2000). This is the kind of definition that would be accepted by most parties in the

debate today. So defined, nation is a somewhat mixed, both ethno-cultural and civic category, but still closer to the purely ethno-cultural than to the purely civic extreme. The wider descriptive underpinnings of nationalist claims have varied over the last two centuries. The early German elaborations talk about the spirit of a people, while somewhat later ones, mainly of French extraction, talk about collective mentality, ascribing to it specific and significant causal powers. A later descendent of this notion is the idea of a national character peculiar to each nation, which partly survives today under the guise of national forms of life and of feeling (Margalit 1997, see below). For almost a century, up to the end of the Second World War, it was customary to link nationalist views to organic metaphors of society. Isaiah Berlin, writing as late as the early seventies, proposed within his definition that nationalism consists of the conviction that people belong to a particular human group and that ...the characters of the individuals who compose the group are shaped by, and cannot be understood apart from, those of the group ... (first published in 1972, reprinted in Berlin 1979: 341). The nationalist claims, according to Berlin, that the pattern of life in a society is similar to that of a biological organism (ibid.) and that the needs of this organism determine the supreme goal for all of its members. Most contemporary defenders of nationalism, especially philosophers, avoid such language. The organic metaphor and talk about character have been replaced by one master metaphor: that of national identity. It is centered upon cultural membership and used both for the identity of a group and for the socially based identity of its members, e.g., the national identity of George in so far as he is English or British. Various authors unpack the metaphor in various ways: some stress involuntary membership in the community, others the strength with which one identifies with the community, yet others link it to the personal identity of each member of the community. Addressing these issues, the nationally minded philosophers, like Alasdair MacIntyre (1994), Charles Taylor (1989), M. Seymour and others have significantly contributed to establishing important topics such as community, membership, tradition and social identity within the contemporary philosophical debate. Let us now turn to the issue of the origin and authenticity of ethno-cultural groups or ethno-nations. In social and political science one usually distinguishes two kinds of views. The first can be called primordialist views. According to them, actual ethno-cultural nations have either existed since times immemorial (an extreme, somewhat caricaturistic version, corresponding to nineteenth century nationalist rhetoric), or at least for a long time during the pre-modern period . There is a very popular moderate version of this view championed by Anthony Smith (1991 and 2001) under the name ethnosymbolism. According to it, nations are like artichokes, in that they have a lot of unimportant leaves that can be chewed up one by one, but also have a heart, which remains after the leaves have been eaten (the metaphor stems from Stanley Hoffmann: for details and sources see a recent debate between Smith (2003) and zkirimli (2003)). The second are the modernist views, placing the origin of nations in modern times. They can be further classified according to their answer to a further question: how real is the ethno-cultural nation? The modernist realist view is that nations are real but distinctly modern creations, instrumental in the genesis of capitalism (Gellner 1983, Hobsbawn 1990, and Breuilly 2001). On the same side of the fence but more in a radical direction one finds anti-realist views. According to one such view nations are merely imagined but somehow still powerful entities; what is

meant is that belief in them holds sway over the believers (Anderson 1965). The extreme anti-realist view claims that they are pure constructions (see Walker 2001, for an overview and literature). These divergent views seem to support rather divergent moral claims about nations. For an overview of nationalism in political theory see Vincent (2001). Indeed, older authors from great thinkers like Herder and Otto Bauer, to the propagandists who followed their footsteps have been at great pains to ground normative claims upon firm ontological realism about nations: nations are real, bona fide entities. However, the contemporary moral debate has tried to diminish the importance of the imagined/real divide. Prominent contemporary philosophers have claimed that normative-evaluative nationalist claims are compatible with the imagined nature of a nation. (See, for instance, MacCormick 1982, Miller 1992 and 2000, and Tamir 1993.) They point out that common imaginings can tie people together and that actual interaction resulting from togetherness can engender important moral obligations. Let us now turn to question (3), the nature of pro-national attitudes. The explanatory issue that has interested political and social scientists concerns ethno-nationalist sentiment, the paradigm case of a pro-national attitude. Is it as irrational, romantic and indifferent to self-interest as it might seem on the surface? The issue has divided authors who see nationalism as basically irrational and those who try to explain it as being at least in some sense rational. Authors in the first camp who see it as irrational, propose various explanations of why people assent to irrational views. Some say, critically, that nationalism is based on false consciousness. But where does such false consciousness come from? The most simplistic view is that it is a result of direct manipulation of masses by elites. On the opposite side, the famous critic of nationalism, ElieKedourie (1960) sees this irrationality as being spontaneous. Michael Walzer(2002) has recently offered a sympathetic account of nationalist passion . Authors relying upon the Marxist tradition offer various deeper explanations. To mention one, the French structuralist tienne Balibar sees it as a result of production of ideology effectuated by mechanisms which have nothing to do with spontaneous credulity of individuals, but with impersonal, structural social factors (Balibar and Wallerstein 1992). Consider now the other camp, those who see nationalist sentiments as being rational, at least in a very wide sense. Some authors claim that it is often rational for individuals to become nationalists (Hardin 1985). Consider the two sides of the nationalist coin. First, identification and cohesion within a ethnonational group has to do with inter-group cooperation, and cooperation is easier for those who are part of the same ethno-national group. To take an example of ethnic ties in a multiethnic state, a Vietnamese newcomer to the States will do well to rely on his co-nationals: common language, customs and expectations might help him a lot in finding his way in new surroundings. Once the ties are established and he has become part of a network, it is rational to go on cooperating and ethnic sentiment does secure the trust and the firm bond needed for smooth cooperation. A further issue is when it is rational to switch sides; to stay with our example, when does it become profitable for our Vietnamese to develop an all-American patriotism? This has received a detailed elaboration in David Laitin (1998, summarized in 2001; applied to language rights in Laitin and Reich 2004), who uses material from the former Soviet Union. The other side of the nationalist coin has to do with conflict between various ethno-nations. It concerns non-cooperation with the outsiders, which can go very far indeed. Can one

rationally explain the extremes of ethno-national conflict? Authors like Russell Hardin propose to do it in terms of a general view of when hostile behavior is rational: most typically, if you have no reason to trust someone, it is reasonable to take precautions against him. If both sides take precautions, however, each will tend to see the other as being seriously inimical. It then becomes rational to start treating the other as an enemy. Mere suspicion can thus lead by small, individually rational steps, to a situation of conflict. (Such negative development is often presented as a variant of the so-called Prisoners Dilemma.) Now, it is relatively easy to spot the circumstances in which this general pattern applies to national solidarities and conflicts. The line of thought just sketched is often called rational choice approach. It has enabled the application of conceptual tools from game-theoretic and economic theories of cooperative and non-cooperative behavior to an explanation of ethno-nationalism. It is worth mentioning, however, that the individualist rational-choice approach, centered upon personal rationality, has serious competitors. A tradition in social psychology, initiated by Henri Tajfel (1981), shows that individuals may identify with a randomly selected group, even when membership in the group brings no tangible rewards. Does rationality of any kind underlie this tendency to identification? Some authors (Sober and Wilson 1998) answer in the affirmative. They propose that it is a non-personal, evolutionary rationality: individuals who develop a sentiment of identification and sense of belonging end up better off in the evolutionary race; hence we have inherited such propensities. The initial sentiments were reserved for one's own kin, thus supporting the spreading of ones own genes. Cultural evolution has taken over the mechanisms of identification that initially developed within biological evolution. As a result, we project the sentiment originally reserved for kinship to our cultural group. Further, detailed explanations from such socio-biological perspective differ greatly among themselves and constitute a wide and rather promising research program (see an overview in Goetze 2001). Finally, as for question (4), the nation is typically seen as essentially a non-voluntary community to which one belongs by birth and early nurture through which the belonging is somehow enhanced and perhaps taken to a higher level, becoming more conscious and more complete by one's own endorsement. AvishaiMargalit and Joseph Raz express the common view when they write about belonging to a nation: Qualification for membership is usually determined by non-voluntary criteria. One cannot choose to belong. One belongs because of who one is (Margalit and Raz 1990: 447). And of course, this belonging brings crucial benefits: Belonging to a national form of life means being within a frame that offers meaning to people's choice between alternatives, thus enabling them to acquire an identity (Margalit 1997: 83). Why is national belonging taken to be involuntary? Very often it is described starting from linguistic belonging: a child does not decide which language will become her or his mother tongue, and it is often pointed out that one's mother tongue is the most important depository of concepts, knowledge, social and cultural significance. All these are embedded in the language and do not exist without it. Early socialization is seen as socialization into a specific culture, and very often the culture is just assumed to be a national one. There are people who express themselves Frenchly, while others have forms of life that are expressed Koreanly or Icelandicly, writes Margalit (1997: 80). The resulting belonging is then to a large extent non-voluntary. (There are exceptions to this basically non-voluntaristic view, for instance, theoretical nationalists who accept voluntary changes of nationality.

History
Early Developments
Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history. The first roots of nationalism are probably to be found in the ancient Hebrews, who conceived of themselves as both a chosen people, that is, a people as a whole superior to all other peoples, and a people with a common cultural history. The ancient Greeks also felt superior to all other peoples and moreover felt a sense of great loyalty to the political community. These feelings of cultural superiority (ethnocentrism), which are similar to nationalism, gave way to much more universal identifications under the Roman Empire and with the Christian Church through its teaching of the oneness of humanity. As strong centralized monarchies were built from petty feudal states, as regional languages and art forms were evolved, and as local economies widened, popular identification with these developments became increasingly strong. In areas such as Italy, which were not yet single nations, recurring invasions led such thinkers as NiccolMachiavelli to advocate national political federation. The religious wars of the Reformation set nation against nation, though the strongest loyalty continued to adhere to the sovereign. In the 16th and 17th cent.the nationalistic economic doctrine of mercantilism appeared. The growth of the middle classes, their desire for political power, and the consequent development of democratic political theory were closely connected with the emergence of modern nationalism. The theorists of the French Revolution held that people should establish governments of equality and liberty for everyone. To them the nation was inseparable from the people, and for the first time in history a people could create a government in accordance with the nation's general will. Although their aims were universal, they glorified the nation that would establish their aims, and nationalism found its first political expression.

The Nineteenth Century

It was in the 19th cent. that nationalism became a widespread and powerful force. During this time nationalism expressed itself in many areas as a drive for national unification or independence. The spirit of nationalism took an especially strong hold in Germany, where thinkers such as Johann Gottfried von Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte had developed the idea of Volk. However, the nationalism that inspired the German people to rise against the empire of Napoleon I was conservative, tradition-bound, and narrow rather than liberal, progressive, and universal. And when the fragmented Germany was finally unified as the German Empire in 1871, it was a highly authoritarian and militarist state. After many years of fighting, Italy also achieved national unification and freedom from foreign domination, but certain areas inhabited by Italians (e.g., Trieste) were not included in the new state, and this gave rise to the problem of irredentism. In the United States, where nationalism had evinced itself in the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, national unity was maintained at the cost of the Civil War. In the latter half of the 19th cent., there were strong nationalist movements among the peoples subject to the supranational Austrian and Ottoman empires, as there were in Ireland under British rule, and in

Poland under Russian rule. At the same time, however, with the emergence in Europe of strong, integrated nation-states, nationalism became increasingly a sentiment of conservatives. It was turned against such international movements as socialism, and it found outlet in pursuit of glory and empire (see imperialism). Nationalist conflicts had much to do with bringing on World War I.

The Twentieth Century

The early 20th cent., with the breakup of Austria-Hungary and of the Ottoman Empire, saw the establishment of many independent nations, especially through the peace treaties ending World War I. The Paris Peace Conference established the principle of national self-determination, upheld by the League of Nations and later by the United Nations. While self-determination is a nationalist principle, it also recognizes the basic equality of all nations, large or small, and therefore transcends a narrow nationalism that claims superiority for itself. It was exactly this latter type of nationalism, however, that arose in Nazi Germany, preaching the superiority of the so-called Aryan race and the need for the extermination of the Jews and the enslavement of Slavic peoples in their living space (see National Socialism). Italian fascism was in a similar manner based on extreme nationalist sentiments. At the same time, Asian and African colonial territories, seeking to cast off imperial bonds, were developing nationalist movements. Perhaps the most famous of these was the Indian National Congress, which struggled for Indian independence for over 60 years. After World War II nationalism in Asia and Africa spread at such a fast pace that dozens of new nations were created from former colonial territorial holdings. Although interdependence and global communications interconnected all nations by the 1990s, nationalism appears to have grown more extreme with the breakup of the Soviet empire, the growth of Muslim fundamentalism, and the collapse of Yugoslavia. Xenophobic, separatist movements are not necessarily confined to newly independent states; they appear in many European nations and Canada, as well as India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and many others. International organizations, such as the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the Organization for African Unity, represent attempts to curb extreme nationalism, stressing cooperation among nations.

VARIETIES
Classical nationalism
is the political program that sees creation and maintenance of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group (people or nation) as a primary duty of each member of the group. Starting from the assumption that the appropriate (or natural) unit of culture is the ethno-nation, it claims that

a primary duty of each member is to abide in cultural matters by one's recognizably ethno-national culture. Classical nationalists are usually vigilant about the kind of culture they protect and promote and about the kind of attitude people have to their nation-state. This watchful attitude carries some potential dangers: many elements of a given culture that are universalist or simply not recognizably national might, and will sometimes, fall prey to such nationalist enthusiasms. Classical nationalism in everyday life puts various additional demands on individuals, from buying more expensive domestically produced goods in preference to the cheaper imported ones, to procreating as many future members of the nation as one can manage. (See Yuval-Davies 1997.)

National purity
Some nationalists exclude certain groups. They view people who are, in fact, citizens of their nation, as being not really citizens, in some sense, and therefore not protected by the rights afforded "real" citizens. For example, George H. W. Bush said, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.

Ethnocentrism
Nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, but some people believe that some so-called nationalists support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy. Studies have yielded evidence that such behaviour may be derived from innate preferences in humans from infancy. In the USA for example, non-indigenous ethnocentric nationalist movements exist for both black and white peoples. These forms of "nationalism" often promote or glorify foreign nations that they believe can serve as an example for their own nation, see Anglophilia or Afrocentrism. Explicit biological race theory was influential from the end of the 19th century. Nationalist and Fascist movements in the first half of the 20th century often appealed to these theories. The National Socialist ideology was amongst the most comprehensively "racial" ideologies: the concept of "race" influenced aspects of policy in Nazi Germany. In the 21st century the term "race" is no longer regarded by many people as a meaningful term to describe the range of human phenotype clusters; the term ethnocentrism is a more accurate and meaningful term. Ethnic cleansing is often seen as both a nationalist and ethnocentrist phenomenon. It is part of nationalist logic that the state is reserved for one nation, but not all nationalist nation-states expel their minorities.

Ethnic nationalism

is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations and the implied claim of ethnic essentialism, i.e. the understanding of ethnicity as an essence that remains unchanged over time. The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "...nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry." It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language; however it is different from purely cultural definitions of "the nation" (which allow people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation) and a purely linguistic definitions (which see "the nation" as all speakers of a specific language).

Ideology
The central political tenet of ethnic nationalism is that ethnic groups can be identified unambiguously, and that each such group is entitled to self-determination. The outcome of this right to self-determination may vary, from calls for self-regulated administrative bodies within an already-established society, to an autonomous entity separate from that society, to a sovereign state removed from that society. In international relations, it also leads to policies and movements for irredentism to claim a common nation based upon ethnicity. In scholarly literature, ethnic nationalism is usually contrasted with civic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism bases membership of the nation on descent or heredityoften articulated in terms of common blood or kinshiprather than on political membership. Hence, nation-states with strong traditions of ethnic nationalism tend to define nationality or citizenship by jus sanguinis (the law of blood, descent from a person of that nationality) while countries with strong traditions of civic nationalism tend to define nationality or citizenship by jus soli (the law of soil, birth within the nation-state). Ethnic nationalism is therefore seen as exclusive, while civic nationalism tends to be inclusive. Rather than allegiance to common civic ideals and cultural traditions, then, ethnic nationalism tends to emphasise narratives of common descent. The theorist Anthony D. Smith uses the term 'ethnic nationalism' for non-Western concepts of nationalism as opposed to Western views of a nation defined by its geographical territory. Diaspora studies scholars extend this non-geographically bound concept of "nation" among diasporic communities, at times using the term ethnonation or ethnonationalism to describe a conceptual collective of dispersed ethnics. There are also subtle forms of ethnic nationalism present in immigration policies. States such as Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Romania, Serbia, and Turkey provide automatic or rapid citizenship to members of diasporas of their own dominant ethnic group, if desired. For example, Israel's Law of Return, grants every Jew the right to settle in Israel and automatically acquire citizenship. In Germany, citizenship is open to "ethnic Germans" (e.g. descendents of Germans living in the former Soviet Union).

In the USA, identity politics involves the construction of a "national" identity not necessarily building on ethnicity, but on other attributes such as race (Black nationalism, White nationalism), religion (Christian nationalism, Hindu nationalism) or gender or sexual orientation. A nation-state for the ethnic group derives political legitimacy from its status as homeland of that ethnic group, from its protective function against colonization, persecution or racism, and from its claim to facilitate the shared cultural and social life, which may not have been possible under the ethnic group's previous status as an ethnic minority.

Expansionist nationalism
Expansionist nationalism promotes expansion into new territories, usually with the claim that the existing territory is too small or is not able to physically or economically sustain the nation's population. One example of this is Adolf Hitler's territorial demands.

Left-wing nationalism
Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism) refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism. Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. AntirevisionistMarxist-Leninism is closely tied with this ideology, and practical examples include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and his Socialism in One Country edict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions. Other examples of left-wing nationalism include Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution ousting the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Ireland's Sinn Fein, Labor Zionism in Israel and the African National Congress in South Africa. Left-wing nationalism describes a form of nationalism officially based upon equality, popular sovereignty, and national self-determination.Left-wing nationalism has its origins in Jacobinism of the French Revolution. Left-wing nationalism typically espouses anti-imperialism. Left-wing nationalism stands in contrast to right-wing nationalism, and has often rejected racist nationalism and fascism. However forms of left-wing nationalism have included intolerance and racial prejudice. Notable libertarian left-wing nationalist movements in history have included the Indian National Congress that under Mohandas Gandhi promoted independence of India from the British Empire and the African National Congress of South Africa under Nelson Mandela that challenged apartheid. Left-wing nationalism has appeared in authoritarian forms. A totalitarian form existed under Stalinism in the Soviet Union. The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Syria and formerly Iraq has promoted pan-Arab nationalism and state socialism. Josip Broz Tito as leader of Yugoslavia and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia promoted left-wing nationalism.

Marxism and nationalism

Marxism identifies the nation as a socioeconomic construction created after the collapse of the feudal system, which was utilized to create the capitalist economic system.Classical Marxists have unanimously claimed that nationalism is a bourgeois phenomenon that is not associated with Marxism. However certain interpretations of the works of Karl Marx have claimed that although Marx rejected nationalism as a final outcome of international class struggle, he tacitly supported proletarian nationalism as a stage to achieve proletarian rule over a nation, then allowing succeeding stages of international proletarian revolution. Marxism in certain instances has supported certain nationalist movements for utilitarian purposes if they are in the interest of class struggle, but rejects other nationalist movements that were deemed to be distracting workers from their necessary goal of defeating the bourgeoisie. Marxists have evaluated certain nations to be "progressive" and other nations to be "reactionary". Joseph Stalin supported interpretations of Marx tolerating the use of proletarian nationalism that promoted class struggle.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels interpreted issues concerning nationality on a social evolutionary and class reductionist basis. Marx and Engels claim that the creation of the modern nation state is the result of the replacement of feudalism with the capitalist mode of production. With the replacement of feudalism with capitalism, capitalists sought to unify and centralize populations' culture and language within states in order to create conditions conducive to a market economy in terms of having a common language to coordinate the economy; to contain a large enough population in the state to insure an internal division of labour; and to contain a large enough territory for a state to maintain a viable economy. Though Marx and Engels saw the origins of the nation state and national identity as bourgeois in nature, both believed that the creation of the centralized state as a result of the collapse of feudalism and creation of capitalism had created positive social conditions to stimulate class struggle. Marx followed Georg Hegel's view that the creation of individual-centredcivil society by states as a positive development, in that it dismantled previous religious-based society and freed individual conscience. In The German Ideology, Marx claims that although civil society is a capitalist creation and represents bourgeois class rule, it is beneficial to the proletariat because it is unstable in that neither states nor the bourgeoisie can control a civil society. Marx described this in detail in The German Ideology, saying: Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage, and, insofar, transcends the state and the nation, though on the other hand, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality and inwardly must organize itself as a state. Marx and Engels evaluated progressive nationalism as involving the destruction of feudalism, and believed that it was a beneficial step, but evaluated nationalism detrimental to the evolution of international class struggle as reactionary and necessary to be destroyed. Marx and Engels believed that

certain nations that could not consolidate viable nation-states should be assimilated into other nations that were more viable and further in Marxian evolutionary economic progress. On the issue of nations and the proletariat, the Communist Manifesto says: In the sense that the proletariat must first conquer political rule for itself, raise itself to the status of a national class, constitute itself as [the] nation, it is itself still national, although not at all in the sense of the bourgeoisie. Already with the development of the bourgeoisie the national boundaries and conflicts among the peoples vanish more and more The rule of the proletariat will make them vanish even more. In general, Marx preferred internationalism and interaction between nations in class struggle, saying in Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that "one nation can and should learn from others". Engels expressed a number of highly racist and genocidal statements against peoples deemed to be unfit for revolution. Engels denounced Slavs in response to attempts by Croats and Czechs to gain independence from Austria-Hungary by attempting to gain support from the Tsar of Russia, whom Engels counted as an enemy of communism. Engels called Slavs along with Gaels, Bretons and Basques "national refuse" and claimed that they deserved "to perish in the universal revolutionary storm". In response to these events, Marx and Engels joined in calling for Germany to wage war on Russia to force basic civilization upon Russia. Engels perceived most Slavic nations as being backward and uncivilized, but he along with Marx believed that certain Slavs were more civilized than others, such as Poles over Russians, and Russians over Bashikirs and Tartars. Both Marx and Engels perceived Germany to be a nation of greater civilization than other nations, and was further in progress towards communism than other nations. While racist traits have been identified in the works of Marx and Engels, both Marx and Engels opposed the exploitative racism, such as in the case of slavery in the United States. Marx and Engels claimed that slavery of blacks in the United States was detrimental to the workers' rights of whites, saying: In the United States of America every independent movement of the workers was paralysed as long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. Similarly, though Marx and Engels criticized Irish unrest for delaying a worker's revolution in England, both Marx and Engels believed that Ireland was oppressed by Great Britain but believed that the Irish people would better serve their own interests by joining proponents of class struggle in Europe, as Marx and Engels claimed that the socialist workers of Europe were the natural allies of Ireland. Also, Marx and Engels believed that it was in England's best interest to let Ireland go, as the Ireland issue was being used by elites to unite the English working class with the elites against the Irish.

Stalinism and "revolutionary patriotism"

Joseph Stalin promoted a civic patriotic concept called "revolutionary patriotism" in the Soviet Union. As a youth, Stalin had been active in the Georgian nationalist movement and was influenced by Georgian nationalist Ilia Chavchavadze who promoted cultural nationalism, material development of the Georgian people, statist economy and education systems. When Stalin joined Georgian Marxists, the Marxism in Georgia was heavily influenced by NoeZhordania, who evoked Georgian patriotic themes and opposition to Russian imperial control of Georgia. Zhordania claimed that communal bonds existed between peoples that created the plural sense of "I" of countries, and went further to say that the Georgian sense of identity pre-existed capitalism and the capitalist conception of nationhood. After Stalin became a Bolshevik in the 1900s, he became fervently opposed to national culture, denouncing the concept of contemporary nationality as bourgeois in origin and accused nationality of causing retention of "harmful habits and institutions". However Stalin did believe that cultural communities did exist where people lived common lives, and were united by holistic bonds, these, Stalin claimed were "real nations", while others that did not fit these traits were "paper nations". Stalin defined the nation as being "neither racial nor tribal, but a historically formed community of people". Stalin believed that the assimilation of "primitive" nationalities like Abkhazians and Tartars into the Georgian and Russian nations was beneficial. Stalin claimed that all nations were assimilating foreign values and that the nationality as a community was diluting under the pressures of capitalism and with rising rational universality. In 1913 Stalin rejected the concept of national identity entirely and advocated in favour of a universal cosmopolitan modernity. Stalin identified Russian culture as having greater universalist identity than that of other nations. Stalin's view of vanguard and progressive nations such as Russia, Germany, and Hungary in contrast to nations he deemed primitive is related to Friedrich Engels' similar views.

Titoism and left-wing nationalism in the former Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia under the rule of Josip Broz Tito and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, promoted both communism and left-wing Yugoslav nationalism. Tito's Yugoslavia was overtly nationalistic in its attempts to promote unity between the Yugoslav nations within Yugoslavia and asserting Yugoslavia's independence. To unify the Yugoslav nations, the government promoted the concept of "Brotherhood and Unity", where the Yugoslav nations would overcome their cultural and linguistic differences through promoting fraternal relations between the nations. This Yugoslav nationalism was opposed to cultural assimilation, as had been carried out by the previous Yugoslav monarchy, but was instead based upon multiculturalism. While promoting a Yugoslav nationalism, the Yugoslav government was staunchly opposed to any factional ethnic nationalism or domination by the existing nationalities, as Tito denounced ethnic nationalism in general as being based on hatred and was the cause of war. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia blamed the factional division and conflict between the Yugoslav nations on foreign imperialism. Tito build strong relations with states that had strong socialist and nationalist governments in power, such as Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and India under Jawaharlal Nehru.

In spite of these attempts to create a left-wing Yugoslav national identity, factional divisions between Yugoslav nationalities remained strong and it was largely the power of the League of Communists and popularity of Tito that held the country together. A Serb backlash arose within the League of Communists of Yugoslavia against the decentralized Yugoslav multiculuralism, beginning in the 1960s. Serb communist officials, such as DobricaDosid claimed that such a decentralized multicultural policy was not creating the Yugoslav nationality that was promised, but encouraging factionalism. At the time Dosid refuted accusations that he was a Greater Serbian nationalist, and claimed that he was in favour of a united Yugoslavia with republics within it on a temporary basis, until a united Yugoslav nationality could be formed. Slovenian critic DuanPirjevec accused Dosid of desiring a forced unitarism where Greater Serbian domination would flourish. Dosid's criticisms of Yugoslav cultural policy grew more intense and more in line with Serb nationalism than with Yugoslav nationalism. In 1968, Dosid condemned the Yugoslav government's policies in Kosovo that he claimed favoured the ethnic Albanian population while ignoring the persecution and forced emigration of Serbs and Montenegrins by ethnic Albanians that he claimed was taking place there. Serb nationalism escalated following the death of Tito in 1980. Serbian intellectuals broke a number of taboos, such as BrankoPetranovic, who identified DraaMihailovid, the Chetnik rival of Tito during World War II as being an important "anti-fascist". DobricaDosid joined other Serb political writers in writing the highly controversial Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts of 1986. The Memorandum claimed to promote solutions to restore Yugoslav unity, but it focused on fiercely condemning Titoist Yugoslavia of having economically subjugated Serbia to Croatia and Slovenia and accused ethnic Albanians of committing genocide against Serbs in Kosovo. The Memorandum was harshly condemned by the League of Communists of Yugoslavia as well as the government of Serbia led by Ivan Stambolid. Members who would later support Serb nationalism maintained followed the status quo in Yugoslavia by denouncing the Memorandum. Serbian communist official Slobodan Miloevid at the time of the release of the Memorandum maintained public silence on the issue, but in a meeting with members of secret police he formally endorsed the official government denouncement of the Memorandum, stating: The appearance of the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences represents nothing else but the darkest nationalism. It means the liquidation of the current socialist system of our country, that is the disintegration after which there is no survival for any nation or nationality. Titos policy of brotherhood and unity is the only basis on which Yugoslavias survival can be secured. However, amidst the rising nationalist sentiment in Serbia, Miloevid joined the Serb nationalists in 1987 as their major spokesperson in the communist establishment. Miloevid supported the premises of the Memorandum that included promoting centralization of power in the federal Yugoslav government to decrease the powers of the republics and autonomous provinces and a nationalist motto of "strong Serbia, strong Yugoslavia". Miloevid and the Serbian government supported a tricamerallegislature, that would include a Chamber of Citizens to represent the population of Yugoslavia, a system that would give Serbs a majority; a Chamber of Provinces and Republics to represent regional affairs; and a Chamber of Associated Labour. Serbia's specific endorsement of a Chamber of Citizens and a Chamber

of Associated Labour faced opposition from the republics of Croatia and Slovenia as they saw the proposals as increasing Serbia's power and federal state control over the economy, which was the opposite of their intention to decrease federal state control over the economy. Slovenia staunchly opposed the Miloevid government's plans and promoted its own reforms that would make Yugoslavia a decentralized confederation.

Europe
In Europe, a number of left-wing nationalist movements exist, and have a long tradition. Nationalism itself was placed on the left during the French Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars. The original left-wing nationalists endorsed civic nationalism which defined the nation as a "daily plebiscite" and as formed by the subjective "will to live together." Related to "revanchism," the belligerent will to take revenge against Germany and retake control of Alsace-Lorraine, nationalism could then be sometimes opposed to imperialism. Left-wing nationalists have historically led the separatist movements in the Basque Country, Catalonia, and Northern Ireland, for example.

Australia
During the 1940s and 1950s radical intellectuals, most of whom joined the Communist Party of Australia, combined their philosophical internationalism with a "radical nationalist" commitment to Australian national culture. This type of cultural nationalism was possible among radicals in Australia at the time, in part because of the CPA's patriotic turn in line with Comintern policy from 1941, and in part because the most common understanding of what it meant to be "patriotic" at the time was a kind of pro-Empire Anglo-Australian "race patriotism". To promote an anti-British nationalism was, until the late 1960s, a "radical" activity. At the same time, this "radical nationalism" dovetailed with a growing respect for Australian cultural output among intellectuals, which was itself a product of the break in cultural supply chains - lead actors and scripts had always come from Britain and the United States - occasioned by the war. The post-war radical nationalists promoted a type of national culture which had been canonised during the 1890s by writers including Henry Lawson, Joseph Furphy and Banjo Paterson. This culture was informed by the "bushman" myth, which held that Australians were naturally egalitarian and "practical" and anti-authoritarian. All this was represented in the "outback" working-class tradition of "mateship". The post-war radical nationalists interpreted this myth, or tradition, as having implicitly or inherently radical qualities: they believed it meant that working-class Australians were "naturally" democratic or even socialist. The apotheosis of this line of thought was in Russel Ward's book The Australian Legend (Melbourne, 1958), which sought to trace the development of this ethos from its convict origins, through bushranging, the Victorian gold rush, the spread of agriculture, the industrial strife of the early 1890s and its literary canonisation. Other significant radical nationalists included the historians Ian Turner, Lloyd Churchward, Bob Gollan, Geoffrey Serle and Brian Fitzpatrick, whom Ward described as the "spiritual father of all the radical nationalist historians in Australia", and the writers Stephen MurraySmith, Judah Waten, Dorothy Hewett and Frank Hardy.

The radical-nationalist tradition did not survive the 1960s, as the New Left came to interpret much of Australian history - particularly labour history - as fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic and militarist. The bushman myth, however, has survived the modernisation of Australian culture and its economy. Having informed a significant amount of cultural output during the period of the new nationalism, the "Australian Legend" was "raided" by the third-time Liberal Party leader John Howard for the conservative political Right during the 1990s.

Canada
In Canada the term used by S. H. Milner and H. Milner in order to describe political developments in 1960s and 1970s Quebec which they saw as unique in North America. While the liberals of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec had opposed Quebec nationalism which had been right-wing and reactionary, nationalists in Quebec now found that they could only maintain their cultural identity by ridding themselves of foreign elites, which was achieved by adopting radicalism and socialism. Similar movements were seen to have occurred in the "Third World": China, Algeria, Cuba and Viet Nam, although ethnicity and class consciousness were seen as having been combined in parts of the United States, where blacks and other ethnic groups had experienced greater oppression under capitalism. This ideology was seen in contrast to historic socialism, which was internationalist and considered the working class to have no homeland. The 1960s in Canada saw the rise of a movement in favour of the independence of Quebec. Among the proponents of this constitutional option for Quebec were militants of an independent and socialist Quebec. Prior to the 1960s, nationalism in Quebec had taken various forms. First, a radical liberal nationalism emerged and was a dominant voice in the political discourse of Lower Canada from the early 1800s to the 1830s. The 1830s saw the more vocal expression of a liberal and republican nationalism which was abruptly silenced with the rebellions of 1837 and 1838. In the 1840s, in a forcibly annexed Lower Canada, a moderately liberal expression of nationalism succeeded the old one, which subsisted but was confined to political marginality afterwards. In parallel to this, a new catholic and ultramontane nationalism emerged. Antagonism between the two incompatible expressions of nationalism lasted until the 1950s. According to political scientist Henry Milner, the manifestation of a third kind of nationalism became significant when intellectuals raised the issue of the economic colonization of Quebec, something the established nationalists elites had neglected to do. Milner identifies three distinct clusters of factors in the evolution of Quebec toward left-wing nationalism: the first cluster relates to the national consciousness of Quebecers (Qubcois), the second to changes in technology, industrial organization, and patterns of communication and education, the third related to "the part played by the intellectuals in the face of changes in the first two factors".

Liberal nationalism
is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. Ernest

Renan and John Stuart Mill are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly. Liberal nationalism, also known as civic nationalism or civil nationalism, is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), from the degree to which it represents the "general will". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract. Civic nationalism defines the nation as an association of people with equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures. According to the principles of civic nationalism the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity, whose core is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "Where is the nation?" where he defined the nation as a "daily plebiscite dependent on the will of its people to continue living together". Civic nationalism (or civil nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, from the degree to which it represents the "will of the people". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract. Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France.

Liberal nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's classical definition of the nation as a "daily plebiscite" characterized by the "will to live together".Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789). States in which civic forms of nationalism predominate are often (but not always) ex-settler colonies such as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, in which ethnic nationalism is difficult to construct on account of the diversity of ethnicities within the state. A notable exception is India, an ex-plantation colony, where civic nationalism has predominated due to the country's unparalleled linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity. Civic-nationalist states are often characterized by adoption of the jus soli (law of the soil) for granting citizenship in the country, deeming all persons born within the integral territory of the state citizens and members of the nation, regardless of their parents' origin. This serves to link national identity not with a people but rather with the territory and its history, and the

history of previous occupants of the territory unconnected to the current occupants are often appropriated for national myths. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru in the United Kingdom rarely refer to ethnicity in their nationalism. This is in contrast to ethnic nationalist political parties found elsewhere in Europe. The SNP and Plaid Cymru were the first political parties to field elected candidates of an ethnic minority background in the devolved institutions of their respective nations - Bashir Ahmad in the Scottish Parliament, Mohammad Asghar in the Welsh Assembly (however, he has since defected to the Welsh Conservatives, and declared his support for British Unionism); both are Muslims of Pakistani origin.

Territorial nationalism
Territorial nationalist assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth of adoption. A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes. Citizenship is idealised by territorial nationalist A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population.

Ultra-nationalism
Ultra-nationalism often leads to conflict within a state, as well as between states, and in its extreme form leads to war, secession, or genocide. Fascism is a form of authoritarian ultra-nationalism which promotes national revolution, national collectivism, a totalitarian state, and irredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists often promote ethnic nationalism but have at times promoted cultural nationalism, including cultural assimilation of people outside a specific ethnic group. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state, and the need to absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.

Corporate nationalism
is a phrase that is used to convey various meanings, including: A political culture, in which members believe the basic unit of society and the primary concern of the state is the corporate group rather than the individual, and that the interests of the corporate group are the same as the interest of the nation. Corporations should work mainly for the national good, rather than the good of their owners

Corporations should be protected from foreign ownership Corporations should (may) be nationalized The state is biased towards corporate interests

State should deal with corporations rather than individuals

"Corporate Nationalism" may be used to describe a political philosophy and economic theory whose adherents are corporatists and believe that the basic unit of the society, be it the family or other corporate groups, has the same interests as the nation. Some therefore believe that the state should deal primarily with "corporations", which may include companies, worker's cooperatives, unions and so on, and allow these units to organize themselves to serve their members as they feel fit.

Corporations should work mainly for the national good

A related use of the term "Corporate nationalism" is to describe a philosophy that private enterprise should work mainly for the national good rather than for the good of the investors. In exchange, legislators will favor large corporations and involve them in drafting legislation. The Christian Falangist Party of America espouses this view. They do not reject the right of investors to make profit, but believe they do not have the right to take actions such as moving factories to other countries and thus endangering American workers. Also in the USA, the left-wing New Alliance Party is said to have described Zionism as "Jewish corporate nationalism", although the exact meaning of this presumed slur is not clear.

National corporations should be protected from foreign ownership

In Britain, the presidents of Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, the largest aerospace and defencefirms, are reserved for British citizens. Norway has a history of successful state campaigns to block foreign companies from taking over major Norwegian firms. In 2005, PepsiCo was rumored to be planning a bid to take over French food group Danone, arousing popular outcry. A former boss of Danone said. "Danone is like Chartres cathedral, and one does not buy the cathedral of Chartres."

Corporations should (may) be nationalized

The phrase may be used to describe national intervention in corporations, including outright nationalization where the state assumes ownership of the corporation. Some see recent US government interventions in the Financial industry, including the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are seen as a form of corporate nationalism.

The state is biased towards corporate interests

Some libertarians in the USA consider that the end of slavery coincided with the start of a regime "tainted" by aggressive corporate nationalism, or government intervention into the economy.[10] In this view, the destruction of chattel slavery preserved and perpetuated "bourgeois" slavery.

Economic nationalism
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which emphasize on domestic control of the economy, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital. It is in opposition to globalization in many cases, or at least it questions the benefits of unrestricted free trade. Economic nationalism may include such doctrines as protectionism and import substitution. Examples of this include Henry Clay's American System, French Dirigisme, Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. Instances became more visible from 2005 after several governments intervened to prevent takeovers of domestic firms by foreign companies. Some cases include: Proposed takeover of Arcelor (France and Luxembourg) by Mittal (India). French governmental listing of Danone (France) as a 'strategic industry' to pre-empt a potential takeover bid by PepsiCo (USA). Blocked takeover of Autostrade, an Italian toll-road operator by the Spanish company Abertis. Proposed takeover of Endesa (Spain) by E.ON (Germany), and the counter-bid by Gas Natural (Spain). Proposed takeover of Suez (France) by Enel (Italy), and the counter-bid by Gaz de France (France). United States Congressional opposition to the takeover bid for Unocal (USA) by CNOOC (PR China), and the subsequent takeover by Chevron (USA). Political opposition in 2006 to sell port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports to a company DP World based in the United Arab Emirates Case of new draft legislation at the beginning of 2007 restricting foreign companies' access to Russia's natural-resource wealth and select Russian industries The New Zealand Government veto of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board's bid for a majority stake in Auckland Airport in 2008.

The reason for a policy of economic protectionism in the cases above varied from bid to bid, In the case of Mittal's bid for Arcelor, the primary concerns involved job security for the Arcelor employees based in France and Luxembourg. The cases of French Suez and Spanish Endesa involved the desire for respective European governments to create a 'national champion' capable of competing at both a European and global level. Both the French and US government used national security as the reason for opposing takeovers of Danone, Unocal and the bid by DP World for 6 US ports. It should be noted that in none of the examples given above was the original bid deemed to be against the interests of competition. In many cases the shareholders supported the foreign bid. For instance in France after the bid for Suez by Enel was counteracted by the French public energy and gas company Gaz De France the shareholders of Suez complained and the unions of Gaz De France were in an uproar because of the privatization of their jobs.

Economic patriotism
Economic patriotism is the coordinated and promoted behaviour of consumers or companies (both private and public) that consists of favoring the goods or services produced in their country or in their group of countries. Economic patriotism can be practiced either through demand stimulation (encouraging consumers to purchase the goods and services of their own country) or through supply protection, the shielding of the domestic market from foreign competition through tariffs or quotas (protectionism). A recently emerging form of economic patriotism is financial protectionism, the hostility against acquisitions by foreign groups by companies considered of "strategic value" for the economy of the country.

Objectives
The objective is to support economic activity and promote social cohesion. The supporters of economic patriotism describe it as a kind of self-defence of local economic interests (national or European in case of the countries of the European Union). Some manifestations of economic patriotism are attempts to block foreign competition or acquisitions of domestic companies. An often cited example is France, where economic patriotism was the main rationale used in the Pepsico-Danone, Mittal-Arcelor, and GDF-Suez affairs. In the United States, an example of economic patriotism would be the numerous bumper stickers: "Be American, Buy American".

Criticisms
Consumer preference for local goods give local producers more market power and allows local producers to lift prices to extract greater profits. This occurs because firms that produce locallyproduced goods can charge a premium for that good. Consumers who favor products by local producers may end up being exploited by profit-maximizing local producers. For example, protectionist policy in America that placed tariffs on foreign cars gave local producers Ford and GM market power that allowed them to raise prices of cars, which negatively affected American consumers who faced fewer choices

and higher prices. However, in most cases where no cartel is formed, the market forces will create competition for local products, and cause prices to drop. Because locally-produced goods can attract a premium if consumers show a preference towards it, a firm has an incentive to pass foreign goods off as local goods if foreign goods have cheaper costs of production than local goods. They are able to do this because the line between foreign-made and locally-made is blurry. This brings up the issue of the definition of local goods. For example, while a particular car may be assembled in America its engine may be made in another country, say, China. Furthermore, while the engine may be made in China, the engine's components may be made in several other countries, e.g. the pistons may come from Germany and the spark plugs may come from Mexico. The components that make up the spark plugs and pistons may come from different countries and so on.

Banal nationalism
Banal nationalism refers to the everyday representations of the nation which build an imagined sense of national solidarity and belonging amongst humans. The term is derived from Michael Billig's 1995 book of the same name. Today the term is used primarily in academic discussion of identity formation and geopolitics. Examples of banal nationalism include the use of flags in everyday contexts, sporting events, national songs, symbols on money, popular expressions and turns of phrase, patriotic clubs, the use of implied togetherness in the national press, for example, the use of terms such as the prime minister, the weather, our team, and divisions into "domestic" and "international" news, etc... Many of these symbols are most effective because of their constant repetition, and almost subliminal nature. Michael Billig's primary purpose in coining the term was to clearly differentiate every-day, endemic nationalism from extremist variants. He argued that the academic and journalistic focus on extreme nationalists, separatist movements, and xenophobes in the 1980s and 90s obscured the modern strength of nationalism, by implying that it was a fringe ideology. He noted the almost unspoken assumption of the utmost importance of the nation in political discourse of the time, for example in the calls to protect Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War, or the Falkland Islands in 1982. He argues that the "hidden" nature of modern nationalism makes it a very powerful ideology, partially because it remains largely unexamined and unchallenged, yet remains the basis for powerful political movements, and most political violence in the world today. However, in earlier times calls to the "nation" were not as important, when religion, loyalty, or family might have been invoked more successfully to mobilize action. He also uses the concept to dispute post-modernist claims that the nation-state is in decline, noting particularly the continued hegemonic power of American nationalism.

Cultural nationalism
is a form of nationalism in which the nation is defined by a shared (inherited) culture, as opposed to, for instance, its ethnicity or its institutions.

Cultural nationalism has been described as a variety of nationalism that is neither purely civic nor purely ethnic.

By country
In Europe
The nationalism of Flanders has been variously described as ethnic or as cultural. However, cultural nationalism has also been described as a sort of nationalism with emphasis on culture and language, especially in a European context.

Hindutva
Hindutva, the ideology of many Hindu organisations is also referred to as cultural nationalism. They believe that the natives of India share a common culture, history and ancestry. M. S. Golwalkar, one of the main proponents of Hindutva believed that India's diversity in terms of customs, traditions and ways of worship was its uniqueness and that this diversity was not without the strong underlying cultural basis which was essentially native. He believed that the Hindu natives with all their diversity, shared among other things "the same philosophy of life", "the same values" and "the same aspirations" which formed a strong cultural and a civilizational basis for a nation. RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh, one of the main votaries of Hindutva has stated that it believes in a cultural connotation of the term Hindu. "The term Hindu in the conviction as well as in the constitution of the RSS is a cultural and civilizational concept and not a political or religious dogma. The term as a cultural concept will include and did always include all including Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims, Christians and Parsis. The cultural nationality of India, in the conviction of the RSS, is Hindu and it was inclusive of all who are born and who have adopted Bharat as their Motherland, including Muslims, Christians and Parsis. The answering association submit that it is not just a matter of RSS conviction, but a fact borne out by history that the Muslims, Christians and Parsis too are Hindus by culture although as religions they are not so."

Zionism
Zionism (Jewish nationalism), which is mostly developed around the shared culture of the Jewish diaspora rather than strictly-ethnic (as non-Jewish-descended converts to Judaism, while not being considered as part of the Jewish diaspora proper, are also eligible for migration to Israel) or strictlyreligious (as many people of Jewish ancestry or ethnicity are not religiously Jewish, including Jewish atheists) backgrounds, can also be defined as a form of cultural nationalism. Such manifestations as Religious Zionism (religious) have developed only more recently in history, and have conflicted with Labor Zionism (ethnic) along the political spectrum, but are primarily joined together by a promotion of Jewish culture both in Israel and in the diaspora communities; in the diaspora, Zionism is often promoted by both religious and secular Jewish organizations, although the promotion of Aliyah by the

secular organizations may fall far under the frequency of promotion by religious Jewish organizations, and may focus more on the building of cultural and international links between the diaspora communities, their respective national governments, and Israel. Cultural Zionism, in particular, takes a squarely cultural-nationalistic view by focusing on lingual and historical roots, and has had a historic influence on the relationship between Israel and the Jewish diaspora.

US Counterculture Movements of the Sixties and Early Seventies

Counterculture movements viewed capitalism as an economic system fundamentally structured to defraud their members and others in order to support a wealthy and politically powerful upper-class. They described its various institutions, such as marriage, law enforcement, public education, the judicial system, and military as fundamentally flawed and designed to benefit an elite minority. The movements broke from these conventions and defined their cultural identity by opposing them and offering alternatives. These alternatives were offered to those who experienced oppression and shared their cultural values, not a particular ethnic group or civic ideal. The Black Panthers described these institutions as being built by oppressive white culture to influence control and degradation of African Americans. Unlike the Civil Rights movement, the Black Panthers did not want to work within US society but rather establish its own separate and autonomous culture and national identity. The Black Panthers advocated this separation for all African-Americans, not based on their ethnicity but their on the shared experience of oppression at the hands of the American white majority. The Diggers, based in San Francisco were a subset of the largest countercultural group of the 1960s, the Hippies. They identified themselves as a separate culture within a culture, and implemented the concept of a free city which existed within an urban environment but had communal medical care, armed defense, media, housing, banking system, small business, and schooling. The group used its own vernacular English and advocated unique forms and expressions of art and music as methods of establishing a new and unique culture. Their purpose was to expose the flaws of the mainstream society and promote revolution across the western world by setting an example of communal living that benefitted all. The group welcomed into their cultural utopia anyone willing to work hard for their cause and did not bar members based on race, gender or religion. The counterculture movements in the United States during the 1960s and early 1970s used cultural nationalism to distinguish themselves from mainstream culture that surrounded and oppressed them. Cultural nationalism was used to advocate and inspire dramatic splits from the social institutions of their time.

Postnationalism
describes the process or trend by which nation states and national identities lose their importance relative to supranational and global entities. Although postnationalism is not strictly the antonym of nationalism, the two terms and their associated assumptions are antithetic.

There are several factors that contribute to aspects of postnationalism, including economic, political, and cultural elements. Increasing globalization of economic factors, such as the expansion of international trade with raw materials, manufactured goods, and services, and the importance of multinational corporations and internationalization of financial markets, have shifted emphasis from national economies to global ones. At the same time, political power is partially transferred from national authorities to supernational entities, such as the United Nations, the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or NATO. In addition, media and entertainment industries are becoming increasingly global and facilitate the formation of trends and opinions on a supranational scale. Migration of individuals or groups between countries contributes to the formation of postnational identities and beliefs, even though attachment to citizenship and national identities often remains important.

Postnationalism and Human Rights

In the scholarly literature, postnationalism is linked to the expansion of international human rights law and norms. International human rights norms are reflected in a growing stress on the rights of individuals in terms of their "personhood," not just their citizenship. International human rights law does not recognize the right of entry to any state by non-citizens, but demands that individuals should be judged increasingly on universal criteria not particularistic criteria (such as blood descent in ethnicity, or favoring a particular sex). This has impacted citizenship and immigration law, especially in western countries. Germany, for example, has felt pressure to, and has diluted (if not eradicated), citizenship based on ethnic descent, which had caused German-born Turks, for example, to be excluded from German citizenship. Scholars identified with this argument include YaseminSoysal, David Jacobson, and SaskiaSassen.

In the European Union

The European integration has created a system of supranational entities and is often discussed in relationship to the concept of postnationalism.

In the media
Catherine Frost, professor of political science at McMaster University, argues that while the internet and online social relations forge social and political bonds across national borders, they do not have "the commitment or cohesiveness needed to underpin a demanding new mode of social and political relations".[

In sports
Postnational trends have been evident in professional sports. Simon Kuper called the 2008 European soccer championship (UEFA Euro 2008) "the first postnational" European Championship. He argues that

during the tournament both for players and fans sportmanship and enjoyment of the event were more important than national rivalries or even winning.

National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism)

is a synthesis of neo-vlkischtribalism and green anarchism, that was developed in Europe during the 1990s by former Third Positionists to promote a radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist agenda of autonomous ecovillages within a decentralized, pan-nationalist framework. National-anarchists denounce the centralized state, capitalism, globalization, and new world order, which they believe will inevitably collapse. In their place, national-anarchists seek to establish politically meritocratic, economically secessionist, and ecologically sustainable village-communities, which practice racial, ethnic, religious and sexual separatism as a means to achieve "authentic cultural diversity". National-anarchism has ideological roots primarily in the theories of intellectuals within the Conservative Revolutionary movement, Traditionalist School, Third Positionism, Nouvelle Droite, and green anarchism. It claims anarchist pioneers Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy and Max Stirner among its influences. In its current usage, the term was coined more or less contemporaneously by Troy Southgate in England, Peter Tpfer in Germany, and Hans Cany in France, and was used by a British far-rightgroupuscule, the National Revolutionary Faction, to describe its ideology. Post-anarchistSpencer Sunshine argues that national-anarchism represents what many anti-fascists see as the potential new face of fascism. He asserts that national-anarchism is a form of crypto-fascism which hopes to avoid the stigma of traditional fascism by appropriating symbols, slogans and stances of the left-wing anarchist movement, while injecting core fascist values into the anti-globalization and environmental movements. Sunshine further argues that national-anarchists hope to draw members away from traditional white nationalist groups to their own synthesis of ideas, which they claim are "neither left nor right".

History
The term national anarchist dates back as far as the 1920s, when Helmut Franke, a German writer involved with the Conservative Revolutionary movement, used it to describe his political outlook. In the United Kingdom during the early 1980s, the Black Ram group promulgated ideas which it described as national anarchist and anarcho-nationalist. However, the present usage derives from the French national-anarchist Hans Cany, who first used this term in the early 1990s, along with the related terms national-libertarian and anarcho-identitarian. Around the same time, British editor Richard Hunt left the editorial board of Green Anarchist magazine, due to a disagreement over political strategies, and formed his own journal, Alternative Green. Due to Alternative Green's policy of publishing articles from across the political spectrum, the remaining Green Anarchist staff constantly accused Hunt of supporting

fascism, while British left-wing writer-activist Stewart Home accused both Alternative Green and Green Anarchist of supporting ecofascism. In the mid-1990s, Troy Southgate, a Strasserite former member of the British National Front and International Third Position, began to move towards Hunt's primitivist form of green anarchism, and fused it with neo-vlkischtribalism and racial separatism (which Hunt did not support) to create a newer form of national-anarchism. For a period, he was a member of Alternative Green's editorial board. In 1998 Southgate formed the National Revolutionary Faction (NRF), officiating as its national secretary. He claims that the NRF took part in anti-vivisection protests in August 2000 alongside hunt saboteurs and the Animal Liberation Front by following a strategy of entryism, but its only known public action under the "national-anarchist" name was to hold an Anarchist Heretics Fair in October 2000, in which a number of fringe groups participated. However, after a coalition of green anarchists and anti-fascists blocked a second fair from being held in 2001, Southgate and the NRF abandoned this strategy and retreated to purely disseminating their ideas in Internet forums. Later, Southgate disavowed the concept of a clandestine cell system for leaderless resistance as an insurrectionary anarchist strategy to achieve his aims, and in 2003 the NRF disbanded, shortly after he and other NRF associates had become involved with a UK-based countercultural forum, the Cercle de la Rose Noire, of which Southgate is president. Southgate is also an organizer for New Right, a pan-European conservative revolutionary study group in the UK which is inspired by the French New Right movement, Nouvelle Droite. The national-anarchist meme has spread around the world over the Internet. The United States hosts only a few web sites, but there has been a trend towards a steady increase. Although nationalanarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals, led by Andrew Yeoman, in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a couple of other groups in northern California and Idaho, organizations based on national-anarchist ideology have gained a foothold in Russia and sown turmoil in the environmental movement in Germany. There are enthusiasts in England, Spain and Australia, among other nations. On 8 September 2007 in Sydney, Australia, the anti-globalization movement mobilized against neoliberal economic policies by opposing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. During the street protests, national-anarchists infiltrated the leftanarchist black bloc but the police had to protect them from being expelled by irate activists. Since then, national-anarchists have joined other marches in Australia and in the U.S.; in April 2008, they protested on behalf of the Tibetan independence movement against the Chinese government during the Olympic torch relay in both Canberra, Australia, and San Francisco. Now, national-anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in the U.S..

Views

The conservative revolutionary concept of the Anarch, as articulated by German writer Ernst Jnger, is central to national-anarchism. National-anarchists see the artificial hierarchies inherent in government and capitalism as systematically oppressive and environmentally destructive. They distance themselves from fascism and communism as statist and totalitarian, and reject Nazism as the discredited ideology of a failed dictatorship. National-anarchists see modernity, liberalism, immigration and multiculturalism as the primary causes of the social decline of nations and cultural identity. They stress a strategic and ideological alliance of racial separatists in the Western world, neo-Eurasianists in Russia, Islamists in the Muslim world, and autonomist and secessionist movements in the least developed countries to denounce "globalization as an instrument of Zionism and American imperialism" inevitably leading to global economic collapse and ecological collapse. National-anarchists advocate collective action organized along the lines of identity and tribe, and aim towards a decentralized social order where like-minded individuals maintain a distinct villagecommunity, as an organic unity, which is politically meritocratic, economically secessionist, and ecologically sustainable. National-anarchism echoes most strains of anarchism by expressing a desire to reorganize human relationships, with an emphasis on replacing the hierarchical structures of government and capitalism with local, community decision-making. Southgate has stated: We believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities." On certain battleground issues in the "culture wars", Southgate's national-anarchist views differ drastically from those of left-wing anarchists due to his strong antifeminist, heterosexist and pro-life stance. Appealing to nature, he has stated: The most important thing for us is the Natural Order. It is natural for men and women to procreate. Anything which threatens the harmony of Nature must be opposed. Feminism is dangerous and unnatural ... because it ignores the complimentary relationship between the sexes and encourages women to rebel against their inherent feminine instincts ... Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Order because sodomy is quite undeniably an unnatural act. Groups such as Outrage are not campaigning for love between males - which has always existed in a brotherly or fatherly form - but have created a vast cult which has led to a rise in cottaging, male-rape and child sex attacks. Nature is about life and health, not death and AIDS. But we are not trying to stop homosexuals engaging in this kind of activity like the Christian moralists or bigoted denizens of censorship are doing, on the contrary, as long as this behaviour does not affect the forthcoming National-Anarchist communities then we have no interest in what people get up to elsewhere ... As far as abortion is concerned, this process violates the sanctity of life and once again the killing of an unborn child is flying in the face of Nature. National-anarchists are ethnopluralists and racial separatists, who oppose miscegenation, but they do not seek to impose their racialist views on others because they reject universalism and embrace particularism. National-anarchists advocate a model of society in which communities that practice racial,

ethnic, religious or sexual nepotism and separatism are able to coexist alongside mixed or integrated communities without requiring force. They claim that "National Autonomous Zones" could exist with their own rules for permanent residence without the strict ethnic divisions and violence advocated by other forms of "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism. National-anarchists argue that areas without significant human development and borderlands would be maintained collectively, and that free zones allowing trade and sharing between communities would be established with the agreement of all parties involved. Influenced by the perennial philosophy of ItalianesotericistJulius Evola and the Traditionalist School, many national-anarchists defensively affirm their ethnic identity against modernity, reject JudeoChristianity as a slave morality and embrace various ethnocentric and ecocentric currents of neopaganism or occultism as an antidote to the socially alienating effects of Americanizedconsumer culture. According to American pan-secessionist Keith Preston, national-anarchism and classical American ideals are reconcilable, despite the anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity of European national-anarchists and the patriotism and Christianity of American paleoconservatives, because of their common values: regionalism, localism, agrarianism, and traditionalism.

Expansionist nationalism
is an aggressive and radical form of nationalism that incorporates autonomous, patriotic sentiments with a belief in expansionism. The term was coined during the late nineteenth century as European powers indulged in the 'Scramble for Africa' in the name of national glory, but has been most associated with militarist governments during the 20th century including Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire. The American notion of Manifest Destiny is also oft-cited as an example.

Ideology
What distinguishes expansionist nationalism from liberal nationalism is its acceptance of chauvinism, a belief in superiority or dominance. Nations are thus not thought to be equal to their right to selfdetermination; rather some nations are believed to possess characteristics or qualities that make them superior to others. Expansionist nationalism therefore asserts the state's right to increase its borders at the expense of its neighbours.

Pan-nationalism is a form of nationalism distinguished by the large scale of the claimed national territory, and because it often defines the nation on the basis of a cluster of cultures and ethnic groups. It shares the general nationalist ideology, that the nation is a fundamental unit of human social life, that it is the only legitimate basis for the state. Some pan-nationalisms, such as pan-Germanism, were mono-ethnic, like standard nationalism. The prefix pan- was used, because the ethnic Germans were dispersed over much of Central Europe. In other cases pannationalists speak of the peoples (for instance the Turkic peoples), whereas classic nationstates have one ethnicity, culture and language.

Pan-nationalism implies that the national group is dispersed over several existing states. It is not identical to irredentism - nationalist claims on adjoining territories on the grounds that they from part of the national homeland. Scale is a factor here, however. Greater Albania, even in the largest version, would still be a small country. An irredentist Greater Germany, even if it is limited to contiguous German-speaking regions, would have about 100 million inhabitants. Such a state would probably be called pan-German. Pan-nationalism is not the same as diaspora nationalism, such as Zionism, which implies the concentration of a dispersed group on an ancestral homeland. Colonies (other than settler colonies) fall outside most definitions of a nation, since both coloniser and colonised recognise that they share no ethnicity, culture, and language. Nationalist movements in large nations, such as the German and Russian nations, are therefore difficult to distinguish from pan-nationalist movements, and often there are explicitly pannationalist elements. Aside from these cases, however, most pan-nationalist movements failed. Specifically pan-national states are rare. Yugoslavia attempted to unify a category of South Slavs, the prefix jugo means south. After 1945, it did recognise separate internal nations, with their own governments. That probably accelerated its disintegration in the 1990s. Other large states are difficult to classify as pan-national. Around 1942 Nazi Germany controlled a vast collection of annexed territories, German-administered civilian entities, puppet states, collaborationist states, and front-line areas run by the military. The conquests were partly inspired by the idea of Lebensraum, but that is not in itself a pan-nationalist concept. The Soviet Union had a Soviet identity, but no Soviet ethnicity, culture, or language. It was influenced by pan-Russian ideas, but also by other geopolitical ideals which implied a large territory. China has a long tradition of cultural and administrative unity. (The fact that both China and India annexed territories, does not necessarily make the state pan-national in character). The general failure of the pan-nationalist movements is illustrated by several examples, which had a clear idea of their ideal state, but never got anywhere near achieving it. Modern Turkey is the former core area of the Ottoman Empire. The present state is closely modelled on the classic European nation state, and was a deliberate break with that empire. Beside the very strong Turkish nationalism there are three pan-nationalisms. In ascending order of scale: pan-Turkism, a sometimes distinct pan-Turkic ideology referring to the Turkic peoples, and pan-Turanism, which covers most of central Asia and even Finland and Hungary. As in Turkey, pan-nationalist movements often operate on the margin of a more limited standard-nationalist movement, in the existing core area of the claimed mega-state. Pan-Slavism is another notable example of an influential ideal that never resulted in the corresponding mega-state - if Russian territory was included, it would extend from the Baltic to the Pacific (west to east) and right down to central asia and the caucasus/black sea/Mediterranean in the south.

Pan-Americanism as an ideal was influential around the time of the independence movements in Latin America. However, the new nation-states soon diverged in policy and interests, and no federation emerged. The term acquired another meaning, namely U.S.-led co-operation among the separate nation-states, with a connotation of U.S. hegemony. That is why there is a pan-latinamericanism which proposes inter-americanism with the United States. An important exponent of this philosophy is Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre, from Peru, while Bolivarianism represents a current variation on the theme. Romantic nationalism (also national romanticism, organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. This includes, depending on the particular manner of practice, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the "nation" in its primal sense of those who were "born" within its culture. This form of nationalism arose in reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the "top down", emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence. Such downwardradiating power might ultimately derive from a god or gods (see the divine right of kings and the Mandate of Heaven). Among the key themes of Romanticism, and its most enduring legacy, the cultural assertions of romantic nationalism have also been central in post-Enlightenment art and political philosophy. From its earliest stirrings, with their focus on the development of national languages and folklore, and the spiritual value of local customs and traditions, to the movements that would redraw the map of Europe and lead to calls for "self-determination" of nationalities, nationalism was one of the key issues in Romanticism, determining its roles, expressions and meanings.

Brief history
Early Romantic nationalism in Europe was strongly inspired by Rousseau, and by the ideas of Johann Gottfried von Herder, who in 1784 argued that geography formed the natural economy of a people, and that their customs and society would develop along the lines that their basic environment favored. From its beginnings in the late 18th century, romantic nationalism has relied upon the existence of a historical ethnic culture which meets the romantic ideal; folklore developed as a romantic nationalist concept. The Brothers Grimm were inspired by Herder's writings to create an idealized collection of tales, which they labeled as authentically German. The concept of an inherited cultural patrimony from a common origin rapidly became central to a divisive question within romantic nationalism: specifically, is a nation unified because it comes from the same genetic source, that is because of race, or is the participation in the organic nature of the "folk" culture self-fulfilling? This issue lies at the heart of disagreements which rage to this day. Romantic nationalism formed a key strand in the philosophy of Hegel, who argued that there was a "spirit of the age" or zeitgeist that inhabited a particular people at a particular time, and that,

when that people became the active determiner of history, it was simply because their cultural and political moment had come. Because of its role in the Protestant Reformation, Hegel, being a Lutheran, argued that his historical moment had seen the Zeitgeist settle on the German-speaking peoples. In continental Europe, Romantics had embraced the French Revolution in its beginnings, then found themselves fighting the counter-Revolution in the trans-national Imperial system of Napoleon. The sense of self-determination and national consciousness that had enabled Revolutionary forces to defeat aristocratic regimes in battle became rallying points for resistance against the French Empire. In Prussia, the development of spiritual renewal as a means to engage in the struggle against Napoleon was argued by, among others, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a disciple of Kant. The word Volkstum, or "folkhood", was coined in Germany as part of this resistance to French hegemony. Fichte expressed the unity of language and nation in his thirteenth address "To the German Nation" in 1806:
The first, original, and truly natural boundaries of states are beyond doubt their internal boundaries. Those who speak the same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature herself, long before any human art begins; they understand each other and have the power of continuing to make themselves understood more and more clearly; they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole. (Kelly, 1968, pp. 190-91) Only when each people, left to itself, develops and forms itself in accordance with its own peculiar quality, and only when in every people each individual develops himself in accordance with that common quality, as well as in accordance with his own peculiar quality-then, and then only, does the manifestation of divinity appear in its true mirror as it ought to be; and only a man who either entirely lacks the notion of the rule of law and divine order, or else is an obdurate enemy thereto, could take upon himself to want to interfere with that law, which is the highest law in the spiritual world! (Kelly, 1968, pp. 197-98) [edit] Nationalism and revolution

In Greece, Romantic views of a connection with classical Greece[1] infused the Greek War of Independence in which Lord Byron died of a fever. Rossini's opera William Tell (1829) marked the onset of the Romantic Opera, using the central national myth unifying Switzerland, and in Brussels, a riot after an opera that set a doomed romance against a background of foreign oppression (Auber's La Muette de Portici) sparked the Belgian Revolution, the first successful revolution in the model of Romantic nationalism. Verdi's opera choruses of an oppressed people inspired two generations of patriots in Italy, especially with "Va pensiero" (Nabucco, 1842). Under the influence of romantic nationalism, among economic and political forces, both Germany and Italy found political unity, and movements to create nations similarly based upon ethnic groups would flower in the Balkans (see for example, the Carinthian Plebiscite, 1920), along the Baltic Sea, and in the interior of Central Europe, where in the eventual outcome, the

Habsburgs succumbed to the surge of Romantic nationalism. Earlier, there was a strong romantic nationalist element mixed with Enlightenment rationalism in the rhetoric used in British North America, in the colonists' Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution of 1787, as well as the rhetoric in the wave of revolts, inspired by new senses of localized identities, which swept the American colonies of Spain, one after the other, from 1811.
Language

Romantic nationalism inspired the processes whereby folk epics, retold legends and even fairy tales, published in existing dialects, were combined with a modern syntax to create a "revived" version of a language. Patriots, it was expected, would then learn that language and raise their children speaking that language, as part of a general program to establish a unique identity. "Landsml", which is the foundation of modern Norwegian, was the first language to follow this program, and it was joined by modern Czech, Slovak, Finnish and later by Hebrew as nationalizing languages. The early 19th century creation of Katharevousa, a refined artificial Greek dialect consciously drew on archaising terms from Ancient Greek, the unifying cultural root, to unify a new nation of Hellenes; just as consciously Katharevousa excluded "non-Greek" vocabulary drawn from Italian and Turkish. Romantic nationalism is inherently exclusionary, and that, in the 20th century, proved to be a tragic flaw. The linguistic processes of romantic nationalism demanded linguistic culture models. Romantic historiography was centered on biographies and produced culture heroes. The modern Italian of Risorgimento patriots like Alessandro Manzoni was based on the Tuscan dialects sanctified by Dante and Petrarch. In English, Shakespeare became an iconic figure, though not a modern linguistic model: an Englishman who formed a complete, artistically unassailable whole of surpassing excellence.
Folk culture

Romantic nationalism inspired the collection of folklore by such people as the Brothers Grimm. The view that fairy tales, unless contaminated from outside literary sources, were preserved in the same form over thousands of years, was not exclusive to Romantic Nationalists, but it fit in well with their views that such tales expressed the primordial nature of a people. The Brothers Grimm were criticized because their first edition was insufficiently German, and they followed the advice. They rejected many tales they collected because of their similarity to tales by Charles Perrault, which they thought proved they were not truly German tales; Sleeping Beauty survived in their collection because the tale of Brynhildr convinced them that the figure of the sleeping princess was authentically German. They also altered the language used, changing each "Fee" (fairy) to an enchantress or wise woman, every "prince" to a "king's son", every "princess" to a "king's daughter".[2] Discussing these views in their third editions, they particularly singled out Giambattista Basile's Pentamerone as the first national collection of fairy tales, and as capturing Neapolitan voice.[3]

The work of the Brothers Grimm influenced other collectors, both inspiring them to collect tales and leading them to similarly believe that the fairy tales of a country were particularly representative of it, to the neglect of cross-cultural influence. Among those influenced were the Russian Alexander Afanasyev, the Norwegians Peter Christen Asbjrnsen and Jrgen Moe, and the Englishman Joseph Jacobs.[4] Later folklore studies have not borne out this belief in the preservation of folktales from time immemorial. Many artists and writers also drew on their native countries folklore and folktunes for their own work to express their nationalism.
National epics

The concept of a "national epic," an extensively mythologized legendary work of poetry of defining importance to a certain nation, is another product of Romantic nationalism. The "discovery" of Beowulf in a single manuscript, first transcribed in 1818, came under the impetus of Romantic nationalism, after the manuscript had lain as an ignored curiosity in scholars' collections for two centuries. Beowulf was felt to provide people self-identified as "AngloSaxon" with their missing "national epic",[5] just when the need for it was first being felt: the fact that Beowulf himself was a Geat was easily overlooked. The pseudo-Gaelic literary forgeries of "Ossian" had failed, finally, to fill the need for the first Romantic generation. The unseen and unheard Song of Roland had become a dim memory, until the antiquary Francisque Michel transcribed a worn copy in the Bodleian Library and put it into print in 1837; it was timely: French interest in the national epic revived among the Romantic generation. In Greece, the Iliad and Odyssey took on new urgency during the Greek War of Independence. Many other "national epics," epic poetry considered to reflect the national spirit, were produced or revived under the influence of Romantic nationalism: particularly in the Russian Empire, national minorities seeking to assert their own identities in the face of Russification produced new national poetry either out of whole cloth, or from cobbling together folk poetry, or by resurrecting older narrative poetry. Examples include the Estonian Kalevipoeg, Finnish Kalevala, Polish Pan Tadeusz, Latvian Lplsis, Armenian Sasuntzi Davit by Hovhannes Tumanyan, and Georgian The Knight in the Panther's Skin. The epic poetry of Hungarian Jnos Arany presents the legendary past of his nation. The Death of King Buda (1864), the first part of a projected Hun trilogy, is a prime example of this genre in Hungarian literature. The other parts of the trilogy (Ildiko, and Prince Csaba) are unfinished. Other examples of epics that have been enlisted since as "national" include Popol Vuh (Mayans), Mahabharata (India), and the Journey to the West (China).

Claims of primacy or superiority

At the same time, linguistic and cultural nationality, colored with pre-genetic concepts of race, were employed for two rhetorical claims consistently associated with romantic nationalism to

this day: claims of primacy and claims of superiority. Primacy is the urrecht of a culturally and racially defined people to a geographical terrain, a "heartland" (a vivid expression) or homeland. The polemics of racial superiority became inexorably intertwined with romantic nationalism. Richard Wagner notoriously argued that those who were ethnically different could not comprehend the artistic and cultural meaning inherent in national culture. Identifying "Jewishness" even in musical style,[6] he specifically attacked the Jews as being unwilling to assimilate into German culture, and thus unable to truly comprehend the mysteries of its music and language. Sometimes "national epics" such as the Nibelunglied have had a galvanizing effect on social politics.
Arts

After the 1870s "national romanticism", as it is more usually called, became a familiar movement in the arts. Romantic musical nationalism is exemplified by the work of Bedich Smetana, especially the symphonic poem "Vltava". In Scandinavia and the Slavic parts of Europe especially, "national romanticism" provided a series of answers to the 19th-century search for styles that would be culturally meaningful and evocative, yet not merely historicist. When a church was built over the spot in St Petersburg where Tsar Alexander II of Russia had been assassinated, the "Church of the Savior on Blood," the natural style to use was one that best evoked traditional Russian features (illustration, left). In Finland, the reassembly of the national epic, the Kalevala, inspired paintings and murals in the National Romantic style that substituted there for the international Art Nouveau styles. The foremost proponent in Finland was Akseli Gallen-Kallela (illustration, below right). By the turn of the century, ethnic self-determination had become an assumption held as being progressive and liberal. There were romantic nationalist movements for separation in Finland, the Kingdom of Bavaria held apart from a united Germany, and Czech and Serb nationalism continued to trouble Imperial politics. The flowering of arts which drew inspiration from national epics and song continued unabated. The Zionist movement revived Hebrew, and began immigration to Eretz Yisrael, and Welsh and Irish tongues also experienced a poetic revival.
[edit] Twentieth century political developments

In the first two decades of the 20th century, Romantic Nationalism as an idea was to have crucial influence on political events. The belief among European powers was that nation-states forming around unities of language, culture and ethnicity were "natural" in some sense. For this reason President Woodrow Wilson would argue for the creation of self-determining states in the wake of the "Great War". However, the belief in romantic nationalism would be honored in the breach. In redrawing the map of Europe, Yugoslavia was created as an intentional coalition state among competing, and often mutually hostile, southern Slavic peoples, and the League of Nations' mandates were often drawn, not to unify ethnic groups, but to divide them. To take one example, the nation now known as Iraq intentionally joined together three Ottoman vilayets, uniting Kurds in the north, Sunni Arabs in the center, and Shia Arabs in the south, in an effort to present a

strong national buffer state between Turkey and Persia: over these was placed a foreign king from the Hashemite dynasty native to the Hijaz. After the First World War, a darker version of romantic nationalism was taking hold in Germany, to some extent modelling itself on British Imperialism and "the White Man's Burden". The idea was that Germans should "naturally" rule over the lesser peoples. Romantic nationalism, which had begun as a revolt against "foreign" kings and overlords, had come full circle, and was being used to make the case for a "Greater Germany" which would rule over Europe. Because of the broad range of expressions of romantic nationalism, it is listed as a contributing factor from everything from the creation of independent states in Europe, to the rise of Nazi Germany. As an idea, if not a specific movement, it is present as an assumption in debates over nationality and nationhood even today, and many of the world's nations were created from principles drawn from romantic nationalism as their source of legitimacy. Modern romantic nationalism in the United States, characterized by the myth of the frontier, the assertion of natural dominance over North and South America (Monroe Doctrine), and the belief that U.S.style democracy should prevail over other cultures (e.g. Project for the New American Century), has strongly influenced American foreign policy and is influencing global conflicts, and religious, ethnic and nationalist alignments. Irredentism (from Italian irredento, "unredeemed") is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. Some of these movements are also called pan-nationalist movements. It is a feature of identity politics and cultural and political geography. Because most borders have been moved and redrawn over time, a great many countries could theoretically present irredentist claims to their neighbors. Czechoslovakia's annexation of the Sudetenland post-World War I, Poland's annexation of East Prussia and Silesia in the same time period, and Germany's Anschluss of Austria and annexation of German-speaking Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia in 1938 are perhaps some of the most widely known historical examples of this idea in practice. However, some states are the subject of potential irredentism from their inception. Post-World War I Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Near East had borders carved out by the Allies that left many of the new states in that region unsatisfied due to minority populations and conflicting historical claims. Many of Africa's borders were artificially imposed by European colonial powers. The result split ethnic groups between different countries, such as the Yoruba who are divided among Nigeria and Benin. In some cases, the irredentist arguing continued well past the Second World War and on to the present day. An area that may be subjected to a potential claim is therefore sometimes called an irredenta. Not all irredentas are involved in actual irredentism.

SPREAD OF NATIONALISM :
Soon after the French and American revolutions had put liberal philosophies of democracy and free market capitalism into real-world governments, nationalist and socialist theorists formulated alternatives to free market capitalism that were quite popular among the politically active in the 19th and early 20th century. While it is sometimes as difficult to make a distinction between regulated capitalism and moderate socialism as it is between radicaland normal nationalism, these alternative ideas were, at least in the abstract, solutions to what their inventors saw as the problems with capitalism. Theories of radical nationalism and socialism became popular in the 19th century because it was at that time that the Industrial Revolution had first started to really change things in Europe and in other Western countries. Although society had changed a great deal during the 18th century, it was changing more quickly and more completely by the 19th century. This created enormous social tensions and dissatisfaction among many Not everyone was pleased with these changes. Some felt that their countries were not liberalizing quickly enough. When the growing middle and working classes felt that society was not giving them enough, they were apt to rebel and take what they wanted. Workers, realizing that the wealthy had the most to gain from free market capitalism, turned to other ways of modernization including communism and socialism. They wanted a bigger "piece of the pie" and these ideologies, if implemented, were ways of getting it. Those who believed that they could achieve what they wanted by gradual reform of the existing political structure were socialists while those who believed that the old order needed to be completely replaced by force were communists. Others rejected the socialist emphasis on international class politics and proposed nationalism as a another alternative to individualistic capitalism. Unlike socialists or communists, nationalists believed that there was nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. They just thought it should be regulated and made to benefit the nation as a whole in addition to the few individuals who owned the means of production. The extreme form of this nationalism was fascism. In either case, political philosophies that emphasized nation and class were responses to a changing world that had uprooted old social beliefs. The Industrial Revolution had destroyed old social values with an emphasis on community and had substituted a new emphasis on

individuality. This did not appeal to everyone, so class and nation were new concepts in collectivist identity that the dissatisfied could accept. Many willingly accepted these alternatives though they lost their individual voices to them.

Criticism
Main article: Anti-nationalism Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a 'nation', or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide. Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity". Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights differences between peoples, emphasising an individual's identification with their own nation. The idea is also potentially oppressive because it submerges individual identity within a national whole, and gives elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate or control the masses. Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state. At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analyses that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central and eastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Lenin (a communist) to JzefPisudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination). Most sociological theories of nationalism date from after the Second World War. In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of nationalism as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations conflicts. Such examples include The Great War and World War Two, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective (see collectivism). The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past

wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism of diminishing individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy. William Blum has said this in other words: "If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses.Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind." The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others. This view emphasises the chauvinism and xenophobia that have often resulted from nationalist sentiment. Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide, including the Armenian Genocide, the Nazi Holocaust, the deportation of Chechens and Crimean Tartars under Stalin, the expulsion of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia at the end of the Second World War, and the ethnic cleansing during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the socialdemocratic and socialist movements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities. Anarchism has developed a critique of nationalism that focuses on its role in justifying and consolidating state power and domination. Through its unifiying goal it strives for centralization both in specific terrotories and in a ruling elite of individuals while it prepares a population for capitalist exploitation. Within anarchism this subject has been trated extensively by Rudolf Rocker in Nationalism and Culture and by the works of Fredy Perlman such as Against His-Story, Against Leviathan and "The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism". In the Western world the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures. While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations, proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, most

(but not all) anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race. National-anarchism has critics on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Both left- and rightwing critics find it difficult to digest hearing white nationalists promoting Third Positionist, Islamist, communist, and anarchist thinkers. Left-wing critics argue that the danger national-anarchists represent is not in their marginal political strength, but in their potential to show an innovative way that neo-fascist groups can rebrand themselves and reset their project on a new footing. Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt leftwing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on naturalistic fallacy, racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists. Far-right critics argue that neo-Nazis joining the national-anarchist movement will lead to their "antiZionist" struggle being co-opted by left-wing anarchists. They further argue that national-anarchists want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists while avoiding the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim, such as the link with 19th-century Jewish anarchists who engaged in propaganda of the deed.

ANTI-NATIONALISM
Anti-nationalism is the idea that nationalism is undesirable or dangerous. Some anti-nationalists are humanitarians or humanists who pursue an idealist form of world community, and self-identify as world citizens. They reject chauvinism, jingoism and militarism, and want humans to live in peace rather than perpetual conflict. They do not necessarily oppose the concepts of countries, nation states, national boundaries, cultural preservation or identity politics. Some anti-nationalists oppose all types of nationalism, even ethnic nationalism among oppressed minority groups. This strain of anti-nationalism typically advocates the elimination of national boundaries. Variations on this theme are often seen in Marxist theory, especially among Trotskyists. More recently, certain groups descended from the Maoist tradition of Marxism have moved towards this fiercely anti-nationalist stance in a different way than Trotskyists, saying that although it may be a painful and unpopular position to hear, ultimately opposing all nationalism strengthens proletarian internationalism. Many Trotskyists, however, such as Chris Harman, were critical of nationalism while advocating support for what they saw as progressive national struggles. Anarchism has developed a critique of nationalism that focuses on nationalism's role in justifying and consolidating state power and domination. Through its unifying goal, nationalism strives for centralization, both in specific territories and in a ruling elite of individuals, while it prepares a population for capitalist exploitation. Within anarchism, this subject has been treated extensively by

Rudolf Rocker in Nationalism and Culture and by the works of Fredy Perlman, such as Against His-Story, Against Leviathan and "The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism". In his "Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life", Arthur Schopenhauer rejected nationalism, seeing it as an abandonment of personal identity. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can also be seen as opposing all forms of nationalism, although he opposed virtually every other form of social movement and ideology as well. Somebelieve that racism and nationalism in the Middle East were abolished and outlawed when Muhammad took political power with Islam. Later the Caliphs developed a form of Islamic equality with the expanding transnational Caliphate state. Anti-nationalist movements within Islam are based upon dictates of the Quran and Muhammad's speech (Hadith). Muhammad is known to have made many references to the ills of nationalism, such as: "People should give up their pride in nations because this is a coal from the coals of hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah will consider them lower than a lowly dung worm which pushes itself through feces." In his last sermon to his people at Mount Arafat on 632CE (10 AH), he stated: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a nonArab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action." However, many Muslims have warred with each other over tribe or nation, and critics believe that religious nationalism is the same as ethnic nationalism.