So what are the origins of the nation state? Why this form proved

>>527029
Westphalia.

The ability to marshal capitalism.

Transnational capitalist and proletarian institutions.

>>527029

>nation state
>most successful

it organizes you to stop people from stealing your crops, it quickly gets out of hamd

>>527029
Nation State 18th century was brought to you by enlightenment intellectuals

Nationalism is the way to achieve it a nation state

>>527071
That's not really a nation state. Nation state, as the name indicates, is the idea that each nationality has their own state. And each nationality is described by either language (Norway), culture (Germany) or history. (France)

>>527093
you're fully right, I missread the OP.

Then, it unifies your people under a slogan and makes them want to be useful to their leaders under moral reassons.

Better?

>>527093
Well I know in some cases the nation predates the country (Germany) and sometimes the country predates the nation (USA, most African and Arabic countries).
Also the process began in late medieval period but the whole process and what circumstances allowed it to happen are not exactly clear to me. It was something about and how the rivalization of rich landowners actually made the process of consolidation faster and that even at that point it was clear that other forms of political order including empires, were in decline.
Or something like that. I'd like to read more about that.

>>527093
>each nationality is described by either language (Norway)
you do understand that norwegian, swedish and danish are linguistically just dialect groups of the same language and they are seen as different languages purely because of political reasons?

>>527029
>Why this form proved to be the most successful?
To whom? On what basis?

Not to mention the great powers of the world today aren't nation states
>USA
>China
>Russia

>>527029
>So what are the origins of the nation state?
The nationstate is a more democratic conception compared to aristocracy and sprung up along with the other democratic ideals of the Enlightenment. So instead of some king with a personal army carving out an arbitrary state, the people do, at least in name.

>>527170
Like serbo-croatian?

>>527170
Only Norwegian is truly mutually intelligible. Sweden vs Danish can be quite problematic.

>>527029
Press printing or any technology that facilitate communication of people who share language
Effectivity of said media
Arabs

>>527184
So it really goes back to the origins of national patriotism.

>>527189
pretty much
>>527193
yes, norwegian is the clearest sounding of the three and danish is weird mumbling but it practically isn't a problem unless you take two people from exact opposed ends of the dialect continuum. almost every language has more or less internal variety.

>>527029
French Revolution

Simple element unifying people with different political, economical or religious preferences from different regions in contrast with their neighbors and enemies.

>>527180
IMHO American nationalism works differently than European one

>>527204
Back to what exactly? Most of history was about being loyal on feudal terms not national terms. The nationstate draws legitimacy from and is accountable to the nation/public instead. This setup is more stable or "successful" because royal ties and dependencies are more fragile than the nation.

>>527226
This

If us amercanadians went by our nation, I would be an english scottish german norwegian spaniard russian polish italian romanian native american ghanaian. You can see how it can get out of hand

>>527306
muh heritage aside Americans and Canadians are distinct by themselves

>>527226
America has patriotism. Its devotion to a concept that is upheld by the motherland as opposed to the same thing but running alongside ethnolinguistic lines.

China has patriotism.
So does Russia.

Nation is a pretty cancerous term as it is concurrently synonymous with "state" or "country." I mean, fucking heck, people call Singapore a Nation casually but when you bring up a "Singaporean Race," they'd be stumped.

>>527318
True, but I saw an opportunity and took it

>>527180
China and Russia are nation states. Yes, they have various native minorities in their country but they are still overwhelmingly populated and dominated by one nationality. Countries like France (Basque, Bretons) or Ukraine (Russians, Romanians) have minority populations too.

>>527566
Except its "nationalist" discourse is always heavy on the so-called "5 Nations of China."

>>527195
see
>>527029

Nations are a language with an army and navy.

Nation-states are only successful as groups held together by international law. They are successful because the competition between nation-states leads to technological and organizational progress.

Empires have historically been more successful than nation-states because strong nation-states usually conquer weaker ones, becoming an empire. However the ruling people of an empire are more concerned with maintaining the status quo than progress. They stagnate.

>>527067
>implying nation states aren't the most succesful
They are. It's why Europe got ahead in the 15th and 16th century when the rest of the world was dominated by empire.

>>527692
>Europe was not dominated by empires until recently
What the fuck are you trying to say?

>>527170

I'm a born and raised Swede and I can't understand Danish if my life depended on me. It's not the same language as Swedish

>>527093
>Nation state, as the name indicates, is the idea that each nationality has their own state.
Usually, yeah. But I would argue that a more fundamental representation of the nation-state is any political body without one culturally distinct group ruling over other groups.

If a country had two or more lingually and culturally distinct groups but all significantly contributed to central governance then I would say it is still a nation-state.

>>527692
It was a slow process. I need to write an essay about this and obviously can't focus on the really interesting things like the Congress of Vienna or Spring of Nations. No, those have to be circumstances that allowed the nation states to emerge.
They really were the most successful. Or rather, they were the only really possible outcome. Like a side effect of the growing bureaucracy because more people outside of the ruling kinship group became involved or some shit like that. It's all late-medieval stuff.

>>527566
>China and Russia are nation states
You're retarded.
>Yes, they have various native minorities in their country
That have their own autonomous regions and special status within the country. Russia is a Federal Republic, China is a bit more united than the USSR used to be.
Furthermore their relations to most of those minorities are forever associated with their imperialist past, like the US with Native Americans.

>they are still overwhelmingly populated and dominated by one nationality
That's true of most states without them necessarily being nation-states.

>Countries like France (Basque, Bretons) or Ukraine (Russians, Romanians) have minority populations too.
Frankly, that's irrelevant, and in France's case those populations aren't even minorities. Also you must retarded if you thought of the Bretons and Basques before the Guyanese, Caribbeans and Polynesians in France's totally-not-colonies.

>>527707
Europe began to surpass the rest of the world during the 15th century due to Europe being dominated by nation-states of relatively equal power rather than being controlled by a single strong empire as most regions of the world were at that time. Nation states are better for competition and therefore better for progress. European nation-states had empires abroad, but Europe itself was kept divided into many nation-states.

You don't need bigger and better canons when your opponents are just nomads without canons. You need bigger and better canons when you are surrounded by enemies with the same canons as you.

You don't need bigger and faster ships when a central government controls all trade. You need bigger and faster ships when you are competing with other nations for the best trade routes.

>>527757
>That have their own autonomous regions and special status within the country. Russia is a Federal Republic, China is a bit more united than the USSR used to be.
Italy gives South Tyrol a good deal of autonomy, does that mean Italy isn't a nation state?
>Furthermore their relations to most of those minorities are forever associated with their imperialist past, like the US with Native Americans.
So? Why does that matter?
>and in France's case those populations aren't even minorities
How are they not?

>Also you must retarded if you thought of the Bretons and Basques before the Guyanese, Caribbeans and Polynesians in France's totally-not-colonies.
I listed Bretons and Basques because they were more comparable to Russia or China's minorities, being a direct land connection and all.

>>527750
I believe the circumstances you are referring to is the advent of international law. Nation-states were historically less successful than empires because they typically had a hard time coexisting without international law. Regional groups of nation-states were usually conquered by the strongest of the bunch. International helps keep groups of nation-states to coexist and productively compete with one another.

>>527180
>The USA, Russia, and China aren't nation-states
Culturally heterogeneous countries are still nation-states if their distinct groups have equal or proportional representation within the government.

>>527088
I think nation-states have existed for most of recorded history and came to predominance a lot earlier than the 18th century. The enlightenment may have simply involved the first theoretical analyzations of what nation-states are to humanity.

>>527781
>Italy gives South Tyrol a good deal of autonomy, does that mean Italy isn't a nation state?
It's not even remotely comparable to the Chinese and Russian situations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_regions_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_prefectures_of_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_administrative_divisions_of_Yunnan#List_of_autonomous_subdivisions_by_ethnic_group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
"Much of the PRC Constitution is modeled after the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union, but there are some significant differences [...]. While the Soviet constitution formally creates a federal system, the Chinese constitution formally creates a unitary multi-national state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_subjects_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_Russia
"Most of the republics represent areas of non-Russian ethnicity, although there are several republics with Russian majority. The indigenous ethnic group of a republic that gives it its name is referred to as the "titular nationality". "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_okrugs_of_Russia
"Originally called national okrug, this type of administrative unit was created in the 1920s and widely implemented in 1930 to provide autonomy to indigenous peoples of the North."

>How are they not?
They are considered regional identities, not nationalities or ethnic minorities. A Breton or Alsatian isn't any less French than a Marseillais or Niçois. For that matter, neither are the Guyanese.

>I listed Bretons and Basques because they were more comparable to Russia or China's minorities, being a direct land connection and all.
What do you mean by "more comparable"? Native Americans in the US are comparable to the Chinese and Russian minorities. France has nothing comparable on the mainland, but overseas subjects might be.

>>527029
the nation state is a disease that is born of lies, ethnic cleansing. it is maintained by further lies and deception, death and misery. and it is propagated by even newer lies and ethnic cleansing. nation state is the highest form of feudalism that humanity has seen so far. it is absolute slavery. a nation state is like a cattle ranch. the rancher draws his boundry around the ranch to claim that everything within it is his property. the people in the nation state are the cattle that are at the mercy of the rancher.

the nation state is a disease that has infected humanity only thanks to its carrier going around the world and spreading it through cons and lies over four centuries.

the economic success of the europeans has nothing to do with the creation of the nation state. it is because the european are currently feeding off of humanity and have been doing so over four centuries. if there some something inherent in the nation state disease that made the people living in it successful then the whole world would be rich, since the whole world is filled with nation states.

the europeans did not become enlightened they became even bigger slaves than their ancestors were a thousand years before. the nation state is the new church of the west and its god is called an ambigously defined entity called "the people", so that the nation sate claims to act in the name of "the people". the politicians, the economists and the scientists are the three branches of this trinity. the feudal lords are the big corporations. before the european masters went about the world conning humanity they conned their own to create the present system. the euro cons against humanity were nothing new for the europeans. for this is what they have done to each other for milenia.

wars of a nation state are the most deadly to civilians because in these wars the people are the raw material that is contested.

>>527049
>Westphalia
I believe international law is the more general answer. The Peace of Westphalia simply typifies international law in Europe.

>>527029
You're begging the question. Very few countries today are nation states. I will list a bunch that are not.
America. Germany. Austria. Switzerland. Ukraine. Spain. Romania, Turkey, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Canada Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Koreas, literally any country in Africa or Latin America. Virtually any country in the middle east.

Note that my requirement for a state to be a nation state is that it only comprises one nation and that it is the only state for that nation.

>>527865
I'm not so sure reservations make a country an empire instead of a nation-state. There is a distinction to be made between a reservation and a group of people both exploited and lacking representation.

>>527932
your requirements are irrelevant. by that logic there is no nation state on this earth. a state calling itself a nation state is a nation state. all the states you listed have been trying to impose a national identity on the people living within their borders. this is how the european nation states were created as well. they are nation states because they say they are.

>>527932
You bring up a good point. There are a lot of countries that don't match some definitions of what nation-states are. However, I think you are avoiding the meat of the issue because an of a definition of nation-state that is too strict.

Humans organize themselves today into nation-state like countries unlike most of human history and it is working out well. That warrants discussion and nation-state is the best word for such countries.

File: uighur-kid.jpg (116KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x432px

>>527801
>Russia has Kebabs, Turkics, Mongols, and Asian Eskimoish people.
>China has the Han, Whatever is left of the Manchus, British Han Chineses, Oogabooga Southern Tribes, Kebabs in the west, a Buddhist Theocracy in Tibet, and Mongols.
Pic related, a Chinese citizen.

Let's not even start with the language

And America is quite the Bukkake, I don't know where to begin.

>>527965
>Humans organize themselves today into nation-state like countries unlike most of human history and it is working out well

there has never been so much human suffering and misery as exists today. working out well my ass. a western way of life was imposed on us through cons and lies while we are simultaneously being accused of trying to impose our way of life on the west through cons and lies. the western man always accuses his intended victims of wanting to do what he wants to do to the victim. it is a behavior that results from the vanity. but on the positive side, it is a good way to figure out what the west wants to do next.

>>527972
>Russia has Kebabs, Turkics, Mongols, and Asian Eskimoish people.
Don't forget the other Caucasians and the Micro-Israel in the Far East.

China also has the Hui who are considered a separate group based on religion (like Pakis are from Indians) and still different from the Western Turkic people.

>>528076

u can ignore micro israel, it is have no jews at all

>>527932
>Turkey
"There are no Kurds here, only mountain Turks."

>>528000
>there has never been so much human suffering and misery as exists today
Except that's not true unless you are only scaling the bad aspects of humanity with population size without the good. You sound like a run of the mill anti-humanist.

>>527972

>Pic related, a Chinese citizen.

b-but that's a human senpai

>>527972
So you are agreeing with me, right? Just want to be certain.

>>528178
>ginger
>human
Do you even meme?

>>528194

Alright, alright, it's a halfling. Close enough tho.

>>528104
I once visited Turkey and asked the different regional guides about kurds, the most open one said it was a difficult topic because they also did attacks on civilians so it was a situation where both sides felt they were right. He was pretty full of shit, but I think that's what most turks must think.

>>527029
>So what are the origins of the nation state?
An extremely specific set of historical, political, economic, social, cultural and religious conditions.
>Why this form proved to be the most successful?
Not too small, not too big; just the right size.
>Are there any exceptions?
Balkans (too small), Russia (too big). Also the reception of the national idea outside of the European world was pretty lopsided.

>>528217

>Not too small, not too big; just the right size.

Also the fact that people with a common history will generally also have a common interest... I guess.

Look at the US, where this is not the case.

>>528224
Don't you think Americans have a common interest?
They fought an extremely bloody war for the sole purpose of keeping their political union, and then a couple of others on behalf on that union. It doesn't get any more common than that.

>>528231

Of course but that was over a 100 years ago. Today you have an extreme right and an extreme left, both of which are immensly numerous. Why are these people even in the same country when they want so radically different things?

>>528250
There is not a single legitimate democratic country which is unanimous on any matter. In any case, the Constitution and Founding Fathers' principles unite the nation in most regards.

>>528250
Idunno, maybe those are just different interpretations of le american ideal?
But seriously, the US always had political extremities. Whatshisface in New Orleans in the 1930s was basically a homegrown fascist, while socialism was also a thing in America until 1918 at least. If anything the political compression of the 1970s onward was the exception, and what we see now is a return to the normal state of affairs. Americans are revolutionaries, remember.

>>528250
>Why are these people even in the same country when they want so radically different things?
Well to be fair the US is supposed to be a federation of states, except now the Fed is as central and oppressive as in any unitary state.

>>528250
>American right and left
>so radically different
kek

This is what happens when you have several 24/7 news stations. Everyone thinks even the most inconsequential of disagreements is Earth shattering. Granted, it's a self fulfilling prophecy in a way because when news tells them a stupid issue is important the public gets opinionated and vote in ideological twats who are willing to shut down the government over the inconsequential minutia everyone is freaking out about.

>>527776
>but Europe itself was kept divided into many nation-states.
Yeah like all the Sorbs, Jews, and Slavs in the HRE and later German Empire.

Or the Occitans, Bretons, Basques, etc. in France.

Or Great Britain, greatest empire in the world, whose home turf was filled with Irish, Welsh, Scots...

>>528321
>This is what happens when you have several 24/7 news stations. Everyone thinks even the most inconsequential of disagreements is Earth shattering. Granted, it's a self fulfilling prophecy in a way because when news tells them a stupid issue is important the public gets opinionated and vote in ideological twats who are willing to shut down the government over the inconsequential minutia everyone is freaking out about.

Here's a thought exercise: take Trump vs. Sanders and compare it to any electoral pairing since Reagan vs. Mondale.

>>528345
>Trump
>far right beyond his social views
>Sanders
>far left

>>528322
I would say arguing the exact definition of nation-state is beside the point. The point is that the success attributed to the nation-state is due to the progress that comes from competition between relatively equal powers. It's the ability of many distinct states to coexist right next to one another for long periods of time that makes the era of the "nation-state" distinct from previous periods.

>>528378
Except that empires are able to border other empires of roughly equal strength, or confederacies, or any other form of organization, and are able to compete with each other just as much.

>>528356
This isn't what the post said.

>>528321
The American "right" and "left" are actually the most polarized I've ever seen. But not in a politics sense, just in a cultural sense. There are plenty of countries with separatists movements in which the minorities are less different from the majority than "Blue State American" vs "Red State America". Those two hate each others more than Turks and Greeks (and they even differ more.)

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

>>528356
What exactly are you arguing? That the current state of American politics ISN'T due to idiots becoming partisan about inconsequential shit the media told them was important because their was nothing else to report on and thus electing in twats who are willing to be destructively uncompromising about about irrelevant shit?

>>527029

Time passed and languages within borders got standardized over time, simple enough.

>>528422
>linguistic reductionism
wew ladino

>>528280

I know, I'm just citing an obvious example of when a non-nation state (and big at that) can get out of hand.

>>528294

I'd say the Conservatives want to improve and adapt their american ideal to the modern world without leaving it behind, whereas the Liberals want to progress and change the things that are no longer relevant to our modern world.

>>528302

Good point, but we know from history that never works.

>>528321
>Everyone thinks even the most inconsequential of disagreements is Earth shattering

These aren't inconsequetial disagreements. As anon said, just compare Trump to Sanders. They don't agree on a single issue. The disagreements also have large consequences for the american public.

>>528385
An empire is a nation-state that conquers other nation-states (keeping power centralized) and only stopping when it's too much trouble simply maintaining the status quo to expand even further. If two empires border one another for a long period of time then that's either because both are preoccupied keeping the elites in power than competing with one another. Also borders on maps can sometimes be deceptive. Two colors of two empires may be drawn side by side in a map but in reality there's a huge sparsely populated area of mountains or dense rain forest.

Without international law limiting the extent of conquest, empires grow until conflict is asymmetric (an empire defending against rebellions or nomads). With international law, nations of the same relative size are able to coexist, allowing symmetric competition.

>>528422
Language came first.

>>528439
And yet the empires ultimately failed. Sure there are always some empires on the map but less and less common.

>>528388
>The American "right" and "left" are actually the most polarized I've ever seen.
What I'm saying is that the anon was playing it off as if the disagreement was fundamental and there was no middle ground. I'm saying that the perceived lack of a middle ground is mostly imagined and superficial.

People are getting polarized for the sake of polarization because of the media. Without the media blowing up every political issue we would all be a lot less partisan and a lot more reasonable. People are more concerned with choosing a side and making that side's opinions their own rather than bringing their own opinions to bear. It's a dumbing down. People are outsourcing their opinions and thus creating destructively decisive issues where there were none and shouldn't be any. I blame the media.

>>528438
>These aren't inconsequetial disagreements. As anon said, just compare Trump to Sanders. They don't agree on a single issue. The disagreements also have large consequences for the american public.
As I said, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. The media makes a big deal about inconsequential shit, people think they should be passionate about it when they really shouldn't, the middle ground shrinks, and opportunists and relative extremists capitalize on it.

The BS going on in American politics today isn't representative of a significant cultural divide. It's largely the same people, the same culture across party lines.

The partisanship has become destructive, so much so that it is doing more harm than the issues being disagreed upon risks. The sooner people realize that the sooner the middle ground between the right and left will be restored and the better off everyone will be.

>>528519
>big deal about inconsequential shit
Immigration policy, healthcare reform, foreign policy, and the structuring and funding of the military are all inconsequential shit?

>>528450
>And yet the empires ultimately failed
Yes, because of the advent of international law.

Humanity has wised up gradually since the beginning of history and as they have wised up they have realized there are shared goals across boarders and transcend the authority of regional governments. For example, European governments gave up some sovereignty to the papacy and through the shared goals of Christians Europeans tried cutting back on fighting and killing other Christian nations. The papacy helped arbitrate international disputes, international arbitration was wholly new.

Today we wised up enough to recognize the utility of international law and why the UN exists and why empire isn't practical anymore.

>>527972
>naming minorities

All three of those states have a dominant ruling ethnicity. Russians in Russia, Whites in USA, and Han in China (which is fucking 91% of the population, more than the amount of ethnic germans in germany).

Also you seem to forget that the minorities have been a major source of conflict in all those states. Blacks in USA, Chechens and other Caucasians in Russia, and Tibetans/Uyghurs in China.

>>528534
The illusion is that people think mere compromise will destroy the country. In reality, Americans largely agree on most of this shit. If you get people one on one they will say something like "oh, well yeah, I wouldn't mind the government helping the uninsured a little, but..." or "oh, well yeah, I understand that we have to cut some spending in order to reduce the deficit, but..." and the but is followed by party lines about how the other side is going to destroy America. Millions of people that should be moderates aren't because of the media.

>>528624
*followed by party talking points about
There, that's a little clearer.

>>527952
surprisingly underrated post

>>527952
By that logic North Korea is a glorious peaceful democracy because they say they are.