Drifting about the countryside this Saturday afternoon, with temperatures above freezing, the roads dry and shards of light blue in the white sky on the horizon, the car running to ideal standard, it was all I could do to sustain myself from unending proclamation of euphoria. Granted a particle of this gleeful elation was my sudden release from the stomach aches I’ve endured for the past three days (perhaps those pink pills really work); but the winning effect of it all was a palliative beyond description.
It contributes to one’s well being to have the common elements of one’s life so obviously commingled with overall fortuity. Indeed if it were otherwise I’ve no doubt we’d resort to a less inclusive view of the world and might as a result ponder instead one’s temporary withdrawal. Which makes me think, reflecting too avidly upon anyone else’s life is not unlike imagining one’s own life differently. It is an unprofitable conclusion for many reasons, the most persuasive of which is that our unique perceptions of life are what distinguish us, not just from others but from any other parallelism. Our first duty of correspondence is to our own catalogue of behaviour. And this, I have concluded, includes its geographic detail.
With all the talk about the United States of America overtaking Greenland, Canada, Venezuela and Latin America, one cannot help but ponder the dry equivalence of the ventures. The strength of national pride is put to the test – though, as I say, one must question the fundamental effect of the uniformity.
By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality. George Orwell
Voltaire stated that “It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.”
Contrary to this chilling statement is the possibility of further purity by the elimination of inadequate differences.
Marxists have taken various stances regarding patriotism. On one hand, Karl Marx famously stated that “The working men have no country” and that “the supremacy of the proletariat will cause [national differences] to vanish still faster.” The same view is promoted by present-day Trotskyists such as Alan Woods, who is “in favor of tearing down all frontiers and creating a socialist world commonwealth.” On the other hand, Marxist-Leninists and Maoists are usually in favour of socialist patriotism based on the theory of socialism in one country.
Add to this sentiment, the following:
Anarchists oppose patriotism. This was exemplified by Emma Goldman, who stated:
Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, and more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living in that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in an attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.
It is for me a predictable step from this vision of the world to an attack upon all other fanciful limitations (such as religion, culture, race, colour of skin, shape of one’s face, history of experience). This is not meant to demean anyone’s life; rather to include all in the narrative. Any analysis of others risks contaminating the fruitfulness of the dialogue unless the purpose is not bypass them but to include them in our own. This requires overcoming segregation by any definition – though for the time being I have determined to remain living in the country.