Contemplations on Militarism, Nationalism, and Globalism
Ideas are tools that can be used for both good or bad
Nationalism and Patriotism in its earliest forms were synonymous with Militarism. Or to be clear, was easier expressed and often misinterpreted as Militarism. Even countries like ours [The Philippines] whose constitution predicated that it would never be a belligerent or an aggressor — nevertheless had its period where it fostered military buildup. Made palatable by calling it “defense”.
Every country out there did this. (The exception being Paraguay — but that’s for another time.) But their actions were defined by the situations of their era. “If you want to have peace, prepare for war” as the saying goes. It is brought about by the fact that there will always be a predatory nation out there. That it would be foolish to assume one can rely on the goodwill of their neighbors not to steal the property one leaves out in the open.
Nationalism and patriotism are thus tools. Used to justify an inclination for violence when the civility of a developed society has started to erase it. Because during the eras of predatory states, those that lack such drives were eventually conquered and assimilated; while those who developed them managed to put up a resistance increasing their chances of survival.
Nationalism and Patriotism became the flavors of the time after monarchies. There is no longer a regent telling you which soil to defend. And with the majority of civilian governments being democratic, capitalistic, and materialist — the state starts to lose its teeth. This is all well and good if all countries suddenly turned into democratic, capitalistic, materialist, and pacifistic. But history had its hodgepodge of early birds and late ones. Which meant that the earliest democracies had to contend with aging but formidable predatory states. It needed nationalism and patriotism to ensure its survival.
Nationalism and Patriotism had a side effect of making huge armies. As compared to hiring, paying, and forcibly conscripting soldiers in the old system, with patriotism you can inspire the masses to take up arms — often cheaply. Its most famous example being that of Revolutionary France. After which every nation started adopting mass conscription. And the old authoritarian states back then learned that to make conscription acceptable and bearable, they needed nationalism and patriotism. Those who failed to do so were swept by the tides of nations focused on total war. Those who did adopt nationalism, found themselves introducing a cancer that eventually led to the downfall of their authoritarian monarchies.
What of our modern times then? The two world wars have forever shocked the military adventurism and romantics out of the human psyche. Capitalism and materialism have ignited making bonds and networking between all nations. Fostered further by pacifism asking us to look for compromise rather than a win-lose scenario. Globalism is starting to instill a freedom of movement and communication between nations. Is there still a place for Nationalism or Patriotism?
One could argue that it is used to foster pride in one’s culture as opposed to being wiped out by the conformity of globalism. But cultural nationalism is a tricky slope, not necessarily a slippery slope, but nevertheless tricky — because it can convert into racism and bigotry. World War 2’s German Wermacht Aryanism and Japanese Imperialism are testaments to this. Even the United State’s foray into colonialism with Cuba and the Philippines started with an imposition of alleged superior cultures to inferior ones.
To state that Nationalism and Patriotism’s only purpose is to arm the people against foreign threats is misleading. It is not its only purpose, but during its early days it is its most used reason. Other facets of nationalism aim to foster a sense of belongingness and community. Itself an essential component of a growing society. It made it more appealing to work together towards a common good. An amplification of the sense of cooperation, making it easier to do larger projects. Which phrase would likely be followed? “Do this because I see it will do great things for us.” Or “Do this because our beloved nation will be a better place for all of us.”. The former posits that a better-informed person dictates what is good. The latter posits that what good to be done should be done for the betterment of society, not because someone just knows better. This latter framing is what nationalism provides. A sense of direction owing to the ego of the person’s good nature, rather than being belittled as inferior students. This has allowed the creation of monuments and coordinated societies. This has also allowed mass genocide and hate crimes.
In our modern times, where predatory states could no longer act without being stifled by “policing” predatory states — war between nations is somewhat unlikely. At the very least with developed and developing nations with cross stitched vested interests. I say this because in certain parts of the world [Africa] there exist micro states forced to live in antiquated belligerence. Kept backwards by a host of factors. In our modern times, what use is nationalism?
As a tool for the government to inspire action and cooperation within its populace it requires the confidence of its populace. If the government has lost the confidence of its people, it can use nationalism to shame said people into compliance. A dark, oppressive, and misused appeal. Those who oppose or criticize the government often resort to nationalism to shame the government back. A to-and-fro argument. This tool is used to muster the collective will of the people to defend a foreign threat. But what if there is no threat?
The conflicts of the future no longer exist in the battlefield. Outsiders do not invade land anymore. Outsiders invade opportunity. Businesses, and industry. If there’s one place left where nationalism can still be used, it is in the civilian aspect — of commerce, business, science, and education.
Nations who desired joining the world stage have the opportunity of playing catch-up with the developed world. They lack the resource and the time to build themselves up fast. Hence the usual solution is to invite foreign stimulation. Outsiders investing in the local industries, or actually inviting foreign companies to setup shop. It is a faster solution in developing the country as opposed to organically taking the century long steps that developed nations did to grow their economies. This opens up borders and allow people to migrate and move. Oftentimes people seeking opportunity would move from developing nations towards developed nations. Taking with them their expertise and promise of expertise.
Globalism, where a portion of wealth and development is redistributed towards the many, while a portion of expertise is redistributed to the few. Is it a bad thing that the brains of a developing nation are drained towards that of an already developed nation? One could argue that these intelligentsia are looking for more stimulating places to grow themselves, and that infrastructure often exists in developed nations. And with such stimulation leads to a chance that they would help advance the sciences for the whole of humanity. A nation loses, while the whole world wins.
The brain drain often means the widowed country has to make do with a less skilled workforce. Fewer geniuses to make a breakthrough. But one could also argue that if these promising people stay, would they achieve the same if the educational infrastructure and opportunity are limited? There are developing nations out there that not only have limited infrastructure, but have educational and political systems that stifle the growth of geniuses. Globalism offers a promise of opportunity. Nationalism is often used to inspire or shame people not to leave, or to inspire or shame people to return to the land of their birth. Which is right, which is wrong? Which has virtue?
Perhaps the answer varies depending on the stage of a country’s development. At the early stages of developing, where there is barely any educational infrastructure — people could go abroad to study, and return to enact progress. It will continue up to a point until the educational infrastructure has become adequate and people stop leaving. Then there will come a point where opportunities start to dwindle, as those who came first entrench themselves, and start to block the entry of new players — herein people start to move away again. At one point this form of business entrenchment, and political entrenchment will stifle any fresh attempts for change, that frustrated people eventually leave for more progressive areas. In all of these stages the notions of nationalism clash with that of freedom and globalism.
Is it not a universal good if by getting people to places where they could flourish, they can contribute best to the world? Perhaps, but at some point, widowed countries left with incompetence will breed incompetent leadership. And said incompetent leadership often leads to a slide back towards backward governance. And this leads to stagnation or worse, a devolution of the living standards of a particular nation. This has the unfortunate side effect of a feedback loop wherein it inspires more promising people to leave, frustrated as they are.
Perhaps globalism leads to a better world, only at a certain hemisphere. Beneficial at the outset of a nation’s first steps to development. But on the later stages, if not managed carefully it’ll foster a preference towards the foreign instead of a preference towards the local. A preference towards supplying material and workforce in international enterprises instead of supplying material and workforce to budding local businesses. But with the former, jobs and opportunities of a certain stability are provided, while of the latter — instability of change, of grasping at mistakes and successes. From a perspective of a developing nation, a foreigner-first economy will lead to investors and menial work, but it is often immediate, and fast growing. A locals-first economy will lead to entrepreneurs and inventors, it is often slow, and uncertain.
A foreigner-first economy will bring wealth to many, often allowing the rise of middle class and can lead to a progressive society, but if not handled properly it can also lead to elitism and capitalist concentration to the few. A locals-first economy will also bring wealth, slowly but steadily, and it can lead to a rise of the middle class too. Unlike the foreigner-first though, locals-first economy has fewer risks of foreign businesses usurping local interests by entrenching their own supporters or puppets.
Nationalism and Globalism are ideological tools. Applied by nations at different points in their history. What worked on one country during its early years might not necessarily work for it in its later years. And the thing with ideological tools is they tend to stick long in people’s psyches even when its usefulness has come to past. The question lies on when its best to use them, or when its best to stop, or change. The “why” and “when” might be within our grasp. The “how” is another thing entirely.
This essay was originally written 10 April 2020.