"Patriotism and Government" by Leo Tolstoy
"I have already several times expressed the thought that in our day the feeling of patriotism is an unnatural, irrational, and harmful feeling, and a cause of a great part of the ills from which mankind is suffering, and that, consequently, this feeling--should not be cultivated, as is now being done, but should, on the contrary, be suppressed and eradicated by all means available to rational men. Yet, strange to say--though it is undeniable that the universal armaments and destructive wars which are ruining the peoples result from that one feeling--all my arguments showing the backwardness, anachronism, and harmfulness of patriotism have been met, and are still met, either by silence, by intentional misinterpretation, or by a strange unvarying reply to the effect that only bad patriotism (Jingoism or Chauvinism) is evil, but that real good patriotism is a very elevated moral feeling, to condemn which is not only irrational but wicked.
What this real, good patriotism consists in, we are never told; or,if anything is said about it, instead of explanation we get declamatory, inflated phrases, or, finally, some other conception is substituted for patriotism-- something which has nothing in common with the patriotism we all know, and from the results of which we all suffer so severely."
(from "Patriotism and Government" by Leo Tolstoy)
The rest of the article can be found here
Comments
If everyone acted according to the Golden Rule all the time, then this would be a perfect world...except for the need to eat and the presence of disease and the occurrence of natural disasters. It is impossible to ensure compliance with the Golden Rule without some form of gov't, and support for the same gov't. This would become patriotism, as those who disagreed with the perfect form of gov't would be threats to the established order and would be dealt with. There can never be a perfect world. It is beyond us to repair the damage of Original Sin. In the meantime all we can do is offer each other a cheap fraction of the love God has for us. We will fail, because of our fallen human nature, to do even that with much success.
I do agree that patriotism is dangerous and often misguided. I also agree that love of country comes behind love of God. I just don't think that Tolstoy offers a reasonable alternative. It's almost as if he's saying, "Embrace anarchy and just have the Golden Rule."
I don't know, perhaps I missed the point.
I would say that I agree with him 95% on most points and 100% on his analysis of the idea of patriotism. Patriotism is not the cause of evil, of course, but it is one of the many causes of the problems we are facing in the modern society.
As for the general society and governement. Here is the summary of my personal philosophy from my profile. I hope it will help you to understand where I am coming from:
I believe in the intelligence of “the human being,” but also in the complete stupidity of the people as a group, and that the more people there are - the easier they are to control. My belief is that the modern society is overall better than many societies of the past; however, the path humanity chose to follow thousands of years ago when it chose agriculture over hunting-and-gathering is a dead-end that will cause the complete collapse of the modern society upon itself. Humanity became an unnatural phenomenon, a cancerous tumor, if you wish. The industrial civilization, we are a part of, is destroying the Earth and is destroying itself. The collapse of this civilization is eminent and unavoidable. In fact, I believe that this collapse should be welcomed as it is the only way for the humanity to go back to the situation it faced thousands of years ago and hopefully make a better choice this time around. I believe that Earth is a living breathing organism and I believe that it can survive the cancerous tumor of humanity, I believe that Global Warming we experience is a natural reaction of this planets immune system to alien organisms we have become. To me the Global Warming is a planetary equivalent of physiological fever, fever that is signifies the presence of a disease, but that is also a natural reaction of this planet, ultimately, though indirectly, aimed at destroying as many of us as possible. And it’s a good thing really. The Earth will survive and it will recover. And if ecological catastrophe doesn’t kill us, then complete economical collapse that will follow should finish the job. If no more than 1% of us survive, we have a very good shot at building a wonderful, liberal, and peaceful society that can once again become a healthy part of Earth ecosystem. That is if ANY of us survive the mess we got ourselves into, of course. The logical question is – if I don’t believe that this civilization can be changed for the better, then why do I get involved in ecological and liberal activism? I have asked myself this question many times around and the answers I came up with are:
1) I simply cannot be indifferent when something that is preposterously wrong is done to this civilization, and even more importantly – this planet.
2) Slight hope that maybe things can actually be improved in a more subtle way than global ecological-economical apocalypse. ...and finally:
3) If I don’t do anything to help this civilization and this planet then I am no different than those I criticize. And when the excrements of this civilization will finally hit the righteous fan of global apocalypse, I want to be able to say that I did all I could to prevent this... This thought will at least make me feel better as I die horribly in the hands of post-apocalyptic mutants.
I agree that the world in its current state cannot unite unless there was an outside something to help us with that. Cultural identity is primarily built on negatives and unless we dicover aliens and thus will be able to identify ourselves as not-aliens, world unification is hardly possible. However, it does not mean that I need la patria to help me with my personal identity. I identify with my friends based on shared interests, with nerds based on common love of Star Trek, with people that like independent music etc. All of that helps me to identify myseld as opposed to the others. My friends and I can even quitely dispise the people who like sports, people who listen to mainstream music, etc. But I am not going to kill anyone based on this...
Tolstoy's point is that there are people (known as the governments and aslo including business elite) that profit from patriotism. From uniting people against the others. From threatening others and being threatened by the others. And in this they help each other. Ahmadinejad and Bush need each other. Without Bush Ahmadinejad would not be able to opress his people to such an extent, because there would be no enemy to unite Iranians against.
Some of my ideas are rather libertarian, and although with the current over-population the governments are a necessary evil, I strongly believe that their power needs to be significantly deminished. What differs me from most libertarians is the role that such limited government should play in the society. Most libertarians think that the main role of the government is to defend the people against outside invasions. But, I (in agreence with Tolstoy) think that such role used to make sence in the past, by nowadays the fear of outside pseudo-Mongol horde taking over say the United States is just a myth. The governments use this myth to continue having a significant power over its subjects, breeding hatred towards the others, and thus validating its own omni-potent existence. If patriotism was to become something shameful the power of the government would be significantly undermined and it would become that what it should have always been - a tool needed to help people to live together in ridiculously huge numbers. Such government would (and should) be limited to guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms to the population, while the rest of the power would lay with the local governments established by the people. If we use the US model - the federal government should simply guarantee individual freedoms - it should simply make sure that local governemnts do not pass regulations which go against the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
My logic is to NEVER think what I can do for my country and always to think what my country can do for me. Government is the tool of the people, not vicaversa.
It aslo makes sense to me that a federal government shold be the one responsible for establishing some kind of social security system (irony?) that would protect its citizens from starvation, desease, and mal-education. Why? Because it serves comon good - helping to built a better and safer society for all. I am not saying that the concept of class could be eliminated - but it could be significantly diminished. In a better world there should be no people dying of hunger and easily prevented deaseases. Especially since it's really not that hard to achieve.
Basic welfare for the poor is not unlike fire fighter brigades and police. In theory we could leave it to people as well - why do we need police and fire brigades. Let people built their own freaking water pumps and guns and do whatever they want. But when confronted with millions of people living on the terrirtory of just a few square miles we need some service - where we all pay some money and establish a centralized system that helps us to co-exist. That's what I call government. And if some of us cannot pay for it because they are piss poor, then the rich should pay for them. Why? If I were cynical about it and simply ignore the ethical aprt - then simply because a fire that starts in the poor house can spread to the whole neighborhood, uneducated youth that has to feed his mother will steal, a sick person will spread the desease to us all. But, frankly, I cannot ignore the ethical part - I want to help the poor simly becasue it's a right thing to do.
How can you think that humanity is a cancer on the Earth? How can you seriously claim that a 99% reduction in population would be good? I can think of a number of logistical problems with this. Firstly, and most important, who buries the bodies? That 1% won't last long with diseased corpses everywhere.
Our ecological footprint is so small compared with the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. If we all died today, in 1000 years there would be nary a trace of us. Nuclear waste and the remnants of large piles of styrofoam, perhaps. Our structures would crumble, our bones turn to dust, our vehicles rust. To think that we as humans are going to destroy the world with our pathetic output is hubris. Utter, complete hubris. A volcanic eruption puts the best polluters to shame.
I don't know about your point on agriculture versus hunting and gathering, but for most of the planet's existence the goal of a species was to reproduce and grow their numbers. Biological imperative and what all. I'll take farming over following the herd any epoch.
That is my conclusion of multiple logical chains.
I don't think 99% reduction is the best thing. I am tirelessly working on trying to avoid this. However, I am realist and a world wide law requiring no more than 1 child per family for a few centuries is not realistic. Apocalyptic future in my opinion is unavoidable as the population grows, while the gap between haves and have-nots continues to increase, and the global warming adds to this mess making its impact even more horrific. You see clash of civilizations - I see a future clash between the rich and the poor for food and water and progressively scarce natural resources (something that already happens in many parts of the world.) You like zombie movies right? Well - I see something similar to "Land of the Dead"
I am not going to go into Agriculture vs. Hunting and Gathering stuff right now. Let's just say that's the conclusion I came to when I was trying to figure out when and why the mistake was made that took us in this direction.
...the goal of a species was to reproduce and grow their numbers...
So is the goal of cancer cells. Growing numbers is part of the natural goal, but a mutant cell has other priorities. Uncontrollable growth of mutant cells that ultimately destroys the organism also wants to grow its numbers and yet that's what cancer is.
If we all died today, in 1000 years there would be nary a trace of us.
Agree. That's what I mean when I say that Earth will recover.
I'll take farming over following the herd any epoch.
And choose shorter life span, less leisure time, more deseases, etc. Hunting and Gathering has a really bad rep for no reason.
As for 1% survivors - that' just a hope... a dream so to speak... quite possibly nobody will survive. I'm just saying that if 25% survive than the same crap will restart and lead to the same results in a few centuries. If 1% survivies there is a chance to go a completley different evolutionary path.
But once again - I am not just waiting for this crap to happen. I believe I try to do many things attempting to prevent this... I do not think it will be wonderful or anything like that. This is just an attempt to look at the evolution of our species from a larger perspective.