Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

freedom.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#101

Post by Alupis »

userulluipeste wrote: post #98
cmurf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalism has a strong component of devotion, an emotional attachment, to the state. Its a derivative of statism, which itself is a derivative of tribalism. You can have either liberals or conservatives subject to such an emotional appeal to the state. Due to the strong emotional appeal in nationalism, the political ideology is more nuanced. In classic liberalism, power comes from the individual who then grants a r…

"Nationalism has a strong component of devotion, an emotional attachment, to the state." Actually, as the name itself suggests, it is about devotion to the nation not the state. Nationalism never ceased to be promoted, even after ww2, but the attention bias caused much of it to go unnoticed. The so-called "rise" of today's nationalism is in fact more of a rise in public awareness to it from (globally) opposing sides.

> Actually, as the name itself suggests, it is about devotion to the nation not the state

Nations are called States commonly. Sometimes even referred to as "Nation-States".

The USA is unique in that we have states within a nation, rather than a single nation state and/or provinces.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#102

Post by hackuser »

Alupis wrote: post #101
userulluipeste wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nationalism has a strong component of devotion, an emotional attachment, to the state." Actually, as the name itself suggests, it is about devotion to the nation not the state. Nationalism never ceased to be promoted, even after ww2, but the attention bias caused much of it to go unnoticed. The so-called "rise" of today's nationalism is in fact more of a rise in public awareness to it from (globally) opposing sides.

> Actually, as the name itself suggests, it is about devotion to the nation not the state Nations are called States commonly. Sometimes even referred to as "Nation-States". The USA is unique in that we have states within a nation, rather than a single nation state and/or provinces.

Technically they are two different things, in the language of political science. I'm don't know exact definitions, but a nation is something a group of people have an emotional attachment to, a cultural entity; a state is a political entity. If you're lucky, the two coincide and you a have a nation state.

The U.S. usage of 'state' has a different meaning. Maybe when the states were more independent entities (with their own currencies, militias, etc.) around the time of the Revolution, it carried the standard meaning.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#103

Post by hackuser »

creshal wrote: post #85
hackuser wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for raising some interesting issues > the political ideology is more nuanced ... I think it requires some research ... I agree on one hand. On the other, any issue like this is much more complicated than what can be presented in an HN comment, so we all need to simplify things a little. > You can have either liberals or conservatives subject to such an emotional appeal to the state In theory, yes. I find this…

One example for a non-nationalist conservative party would the German CDU (Merkel's party): They were one of the driving powers behind the ECSC, EEC and later EU, and staunchly pro-NATO, even at the cost of German sovereignty.

I agree - in fact if you read the comment you responded to ... :)

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#104

Post by hackuser »

woodman wrote: post #91
hackuser wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative ... I disagree strongly with this point: The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK, the Republicans and National Front in France, the LDP in Japan, Likud in Israel, etc. Internationalists, int…

> Internationalists, international cooperation ... are the province of the left and of moderates. This is the first time I've heard this charge. Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences. Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists.

Hmmm ... interesting points.

On one hand, conservatives in the US have rejected multilateralism. For example, the latter Bush administration openly denigrated and ignored the UN and our European allies. Conservatives criticize even attempting to follow international law or legitimizing US military action through multilateral support, calling it weakness. They say they don't want to be tied down and see the US going it alone. Also, they tend to be more isolationist. Fringe conservatives (a small group) talk about UN black helicopters and world government conspiracies.

On the other, you bring up some good points:

> Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences

Just some ideas:

* Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action - it's seen as the US imposing itself on other nations. The economic equivalent of military action.

* Maybe the WTO is an exception to that, or maybe it's the US creating a legal and bureaucratic tool to further it's power.

* You're mostly talking about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They are substantial, but the moderate wing rules and the progressives also criticize Bill Clinton and Obama for globalization.

> Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists.

This I strongly disagree with. Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. That's more than any GOP administration since ... I don't know when. There are protectionist elements in both parties, including unions and progressives among the Dems and businesses in the GOP; I don't think it favors one or the other (but that's just my impression).

> This is the first time I've heard this charge.

I assure you it is nothing new. I will point out that you are talking about economic issues, which is perfectly valid; I was thinking of political issues such as immigration, conflict, etc.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#105

Post by userulluipeste »

Alupis wrote: post #101
userulluipeste wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nationalism has a strong component of devotion, an emotional attachment, to the state." Actually, as the name itself suggests, it is about devotion to the nation not the state. Nationalism never ceased to be promoted, even after ww2, but the attention bias caused much of it to go unnoticed. The so-called "rise" of today's nationalism is in fact more of a rise in public awareness to it from (globally) opposing sides.

> Actually, as the name itself suggests, it is about devotion to the nation not the state Nations are called States commonly. Sometimes even referred to as "Nation-States". The USA is unique in that we have states within a nation, rather than a single nation state and/or provinces.

"Nations are called States commonly." "The USA is unique in that we have states within a nation"

I understand where you are coming from, but I have to disagree that nation and state is the same. They are different as concepts (state is organized territory, nation is people), and although usually states and nations reside in roughly the same place, not all of them do! USA have managed to develop itself as a nation to some degree, but there are enough countries out there that didn't! To understand this it's enough to look at the states with separatist movements or in general at ones in which the feeling of appurtenance to the country is very low to say the least. There are people inside the same country very foreign to each other (speaking from group attachment perspective), close to the report between any given two foreign people on the planet. Is India a state? Well, it has states within it, like USA, and its overall organization is like a state too. Is India a nation? Not really! People inside it fought together for independence, and they may have common problems like a nation does (defense, foreign policy, etc), but the ethnic groups in there although living peacefully with each other don't really adhere much to something "national". Not yet at least. It's the same with Iraq, a state inhabited by different ethnic groups which the head statesmen failed to make a nation from. The same for a bunch of African states. Nation is different from the state.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#106

Post by hackuser »

icebraining wrote: post #80
hackuser wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The SNP (Scottish National Party) isn't nationalist in the usual sense of the word. It's well to the left of, and more liberal than, the other UK parties Thanks; that's a great counter-example. I wonder how the politics works - what draws liberals to support it? Is it the usual xenophobia, or something else? Incidentally: At the time of the referendum, I watched a debate between leading advocates on both sides. A m…

In the SNP case, and the other example I was thinking about - the multiple regional parties in Spain which defend their secession from the main country (see the recent Catalonia independence movement) - I'd say the nationalism is rooted in the basis of the right of self-determination, which is very dear to the Left.

> the basis of the right of self-determination, which is very dear to the Left.

That's an interesting perspective. I think of that as more libertarian and right-wing. In the U.S., those supporting states rights (over the federal government) are overwhelmingly on the right. The left is stereotyped as wanting a 'nanny state'.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#107

Post by hackuser »

RightWingRabble wrote: post #82
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nationalism doesn't lead to wars, massacres and other oppression and brutality. That's tribalism leading to that. Could you explain the difference between nationalism and tribalism? > If you want real danger, you should want to curb and reverse the mass immigration we're still seeing. History is very clear on this point; if immigration continues unabated, eventually the immigrants will become targets. Hopefully it'…

> Could you explain the difference between nationalism and tribalism? A tribe could be described as a people of common genetic ancestry. On the occasion they have an ancestral homeland, that's called a Nation. For example, the Germans have Germany, the French have france, etc. If you were to replace the German people with Syrians, for example, the nation of Germany would cease to exist. The Syrians living in Germany…

> A tribe could be described as a people of common genetic ancestry.

I'd agree that they share an ethnicity (depending on how that's defined!) but I think there is no genetic basis, and that studies have shown great genetic diversity within ethnicities.

There is no real rhyme or reason to how humans group themselves. It's not like they carefully review specifications and test solutions before they choose. It's on an emotional level.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#108

Post by ZeroGravitas »

tim333 wrote: post #53
hackuser wrote: post #31

Neo-nationalism seems to be on the rise everywhere. Look at the UK (Scotland trying to secede, the crazy extreme right-wing party getting seats in Parliament, etc.), France (the National Front did very well in recent elections), South Korea (IIRC, textbooks are edited to replace history with nationalist propaganda), Israel, Turkey, Russia, China, Donald Trump, etc. etc. When is the last time you heard someone stand u…

I'd say Scotland was an example of things getting more laid back in that some Scots wanted independence and the British Government kind of said whatever, have a vote. Compare that to say Erdogan or Putin freaking out if the Kurds/Ukrainians want to do their own thing.

Well, there's not been any tanks yet, but the only reason they gave a vote was that they thought they'd narrowed the options down sufficiently that they'd win soundly and have a mandate. A bit of a political miscalculation. As is the offering of a vote on the EU to avoid the right wing splintering, yet the business interests the conservatives represent don't want that to happen and the voter intention, once again, is not doing what was expected.

There's a reason that even members of his own party consider David Cameron to be a) winging it, b) very lucky.

We'd likely have seen the ugly side of the UK state if the vote had gone against them, they were already openly threatening to financially ruin an independent Scotland.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#109

Post by mirimir »

cmurf wrote: post #93
mirimir wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Bolshevik revolution is an example of a left of center revolution, it certainly was nativist, nationalist, and was not conservative. Actually, it was a fascist coup pretending to be a "left of center revolution".

Untrue. Difficult to have fascism when the state isn't strongly supporting businesses. For the simple version, Mussolini's description is good: fascism is better called corporatism. Revise your understanding of fascism.

Fair enough. It's better to say authoritarian. Lenin was a dictator, and spawned generations of them. Also, he was supported by the Kaiser, to keep Russia out of WWI. Fascism is much closer to corporatism. But I'd call it authoritarian corporatism.

Re: Japanese government dismantles freedom of the press

#110

Post by icebraining »

hackuser wrote: post #106
icebraining wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the SNP case, and the other example I was thinking about - the multiple regional parties in Spain which defend their secession from the main country (see the recent Catalonia independence movement) - I'd say the nationalism is rooted in the basis of the right of self-determination, which is very dear to the Left.

> the basis of the right of self-determination, which is very dear to the Left. That's an interesting perspective. I think of that as more libertarian and right-wing. In the U.S., those supporting states rights (over the federal government) are overwhelmingly on the right. The left is stereotyped as wanting a 'nanny state'.

Ah, you are talking about individual self-determination, but I was talking about self-determination of "a people", as declared in the first article of the UN Charter. This doesn't mean a lack of government, or a smaller one (in terms of "nannyism"). In this example, the Scots and the regions of Spain consider themselves a different "people" from the whole country (with different languages, culture, etc) and want independence to form their own (possibly "nanny") State and government.

That said, the concept of libertarianism and reduction/elimination of government being right-wing is mostly a (relatively recent) American invention. The long history of Anarchism and individual libertarianism, including in the US with fellows like Benjamin Tucker, was mostly left-wing and anti-capitalist, since Proudhon coined the term.

Post reply on HN