There's nothing inherently good and a whole lot that's very much not good about people being politically organised into ethno-cultural nation states that control the resources those ethnocultural groups have managed to seize. The idea that they should be is a) kinda fashy ("ethnocultural" is often one hell of a dog whistle) b) not great from an individual or human rights standpoint, why should the location of your birth determine what laws you live under or what resources you have a right to? and c) if followed would lead to an unjust and uncommunist world even if each of those nation states were internally communist because among nation states resources would still be distributed arbitrarily and unequally, instead of on a from-each to each basis.
I never used the world "ethno-cultural," and I never would. I agree, that term is pretty fashy.
Like someone else in this thread said, no one likes missionaries with guns. Do you not think it's a fairly natural human impulse to not want to be ruled by a group of people who live far away, speak a different language, know little to nothing about you or your community, and make ruling decisions without listening to you? This is less of an issue with resource management and central planning of the economy, because I think you're very correct that access to resources should not depend on geography of birth, but in practice, socialist states have influenced more than just production and distribution through their policies.
In China, for example, same-sex marriage is still illegal and same-sex couples cannot adopt children, although there are limited civil unions. Would you want to be made to live under these laws in your own country? Answering "no" is not nationalism.
Glad we're on the same page with nation states. Sorry for assuming.
Agree that consent of the governed is important but strong disagree that what people can and can't do should be divided along geographic/"cultural" lines.
I think saying that non cis/straight people born in, or despite not being born in having gone through a great amount of effort to live in China shouldn't be allowed to adopt or get married but people born in/having gone to a great amount of effort to live in not China should be allowed to adopt or get married is definitely nationalism.
I'm a little opposed to the idea that different communities of people should enforce by violence different sets of laws (why should any same-sex couples not be allowed to adopt?) and very opposed to the idea that membership in those communities should be arbitrarily geographically distributed.
I'm definitely NOT trying to say that non-cishet people in China *shouldn't* be allowed to adopt or get married and should have a different standard than people elsewhere. People should be allowed to marry and adopt regardless of where they live, period.
Ideally these kinds of laws shouldn't be determined by geography, we agree on that. However, it's an unfortunate reality that change of attitudes does not happen uniformly across geographic or "cultural" lines. If an important social change (like accepting LGBT people and challenging cisheteronormativity) starts taking hold in a region with no power over its own laws governing the issue, this is an impediment to pushing change forward. Especially when the power to enforce these social standards is highly concentrated, it can be hard for a movement to get off the ground and make gains before getting stomped out from above.
That sounds like nationalist brainworms.
There's nothing inherently good and a whole lot that's very much not good about people being politically organised into ethno-cultural nation states that control the resources those ethnocultural groups have managed to seize. The idea that they should be is a) kinda fashy ("ethnocultural" is often one hell of a dog whistle) b) not great from an individual or human rights standpoint, why should the location of your birth determine what laws you live under or what resources you have a right to? and c) if followed would lead to an unjust and uncommunist world even if each of those nation states were internally communist because among nation states resources would still be distributed arbitrarily and unequally, instead of on a from-each to each basis.
I never used the world "ethno-cultural," and I never would. I agree, that term is pretty fashy.
Like someone else in this thread said, no one likes missionaries with guns. Do you not think it's a fairly natural human impulse to not want to be ruled by a group of people who live far away, speak a different language, know little to nothing about you or your community, and make ruling decisions without listening to you? This is less of an issue with resource management and central planning of the economy, because I think you're very correct that access to resources should not depend on geography of birth, but in practice, socialist states have influenced more than just production and distribution through their policies.
In China, for example, same-sex marriage is still illegal and same-sex couples cannot adopt children, although there are limited civil unions. Would you want to be made to live under these laws in your own country? Answering "no" is not nationalism.
Glad we're on the same page with nation states. Sorry for assuming.
Agree that consent of the governed is important but strong disagree that what people can and can't do should be divided along geographic/"cultural" lines.
I think saying that non cis/straight people born in, or despite not being born in having gone through a great amount of effort to live in China shouldn't be allowed to adopt or get married but people born in/having gone to a great amount of effort to live in not China should be allowed to adopt or get married is definitely nationalism.
I'm a little opposed to the idea that different communities of people should enforce by violence different sets of laws (why should any same-sex couples not be allowed to adopt?) and very opposed to the idea that membership in those communities should be arbitrarily geographically distributed.
Do you think differently?
I'm definitely NOT trying to say that non-cishet people in China *shouldn't* be allowed to adopt or get married and should have a different standard than people elsewhere. People should be allowed to marry and adopt regardless of where they live, period.
Ideally these kinds of laws shouldn't be determined by geography, we agree on that. However, it's an unfortunate reality that change of attitudes does not happen uniformly across geographic or "cultural" lines. If an important social change (like accepting LGBT people and challenging cisheteronormativity) starts taking hold in a region with no power over its own laws governing the issue, this is an impediment to pushing change forward. Especially when the power to enforce these social standards is highly concentrated, it can be hard for a movement to get off the ground and make gains before getting stomped out from above.