Many flags around the world are iconic, think the ones of France, Canada, South Africa, the Nordics, etc.
However, there are some that aren’t as good, like the Australian and New Zealand flags, both of which still retain the union jack with little Indigenous symbolism. Speaking as an Australian myself, our flag isn’t all that great! The Southern Cross is cool, but there is no hint of green/gold, and the union jack just looks tacked on. There are also many flags that look good, but the symbolism represents ideas that you’re against. Think Iran’s flag that draws heavily from their sect of Islam and the theocracy, or the PRC’s flag having the smaller stars representing the people surrounding the larger star representing the one party state. There’s also some that are okay, but a bit boring and hard of distinguish from the rest, and an additional element would make it stand out more.
And purple should be on more flags! Republican Spain during the 1930s had some purple, but they lost the civil war and the flag was replaced.
If you could change the national flags of the world, what would be your flag proposals?
National liberation and sovereignty in colonized and neocolonized countries is a key first step in internationalism.
It’s a trap, a pitfall on the way to actual freedom. Who gave them the idea that they need nations and flags in the first place, if not the colonizers?
And many of the nations ‘liberated’ by previously colonized people just end up being a tool of their oppressors through neocolonization. Their national government – and even their national identity – are useful tools to be corrupted and controlled by colonizers.
No, this is myopic. Figures like Frantz Fanon and Kwame Nkrumah have correctly analyzed the necessity of establishing statehood and creating pan-African coalitions to resist the overwhelming might of western finance capital and neocolonialism. Nationalist compradors for neoimperialism are a consequence of deliberate balkanization and fragmentation by neocolonial powers. Same with Palestinian, Latin American, and Asian resistance to colonialism and neocolonialism.
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon, and Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism by Kwame Nkrumah are extremely useful and describe exactly the extent to which nationalism is useful in the anti-colonial context, and the extent to which it falters and holds the people back, devolving into tribalism. We can see the correctness of their views today with the progressive nationalist movements in resisting neocolonialism from Burkina Faso and the Alliance of Sahel States, where statelets are unifying into a front to support each other and resist foreign domination from France and the US.
A necessity? Perhaps. But a necessary evil, then.
National identity is still a bad thing. It should not be celebrated, and it should be abolished as soon as feasible.
National sovereignty, celebration of indigenous cultures and maintaining the rights of self-determination for all peoples, is the first step towards genuine internationalism. Genuine sovereignty cannot be imposed from without, but comes from within. Tribalism and the progressive elements of nationalism are separate things. The basis of genuine internationalism is nations on equal footing and sovereignty.
Nationalism in imperialist countries is exclusively negative. This is what is in service of perpetuating imperialism, and justifying racial supremacy. This is unambiguously an enemy to be crushed. Nationalism is not progressive in general, but in a particular context exclusively, such as Palestinian nationalism against genocide.
You can have celebration if indigenous cultures and maintain the rights of self-determination without national sovereignty.
And, in fact, nationalism very often interferes with the rights of self-determination, because the nation often imposes laws that interfere with it.
I don’t want “internationalism” – I want post-nationalism. No nations at all, anywhere.
Fuck nations. People should be on equal footing and sovereignty.
All “countries” are imperialist. As soon as you lay claim to territory and exclude others from it, you’re setting up your own little empire. So all nationalism is exclusively negative.
Sovereignty is only secured by the creation of an organized body, a monopoly on force, that can resist external domination. Statelets cannot do this, nor can disorganized regions. This is why finance capital breaks up and balkanizes countries it wishes to dominate, either politically via the creation of new statelets, or through economic balkanization of existing States.
Secondly, the national question. A nation and a state are two different things. A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. This is how I am using the term, and what I mean by gaining national autonomy. Internationalism, then, is the unity of many different national groups.
Saying “fuck nations” in this context seems to be saying you wish to erase all identity and all cultural history, creating a sort of blob of humanity, but this isn’t what I believe you mean, hence why I am taking the time to explain exactly what I mean.
As for how you are classifying imperialism, this is frankly a bit absurd. Surely you can understand that the Alliance of Sahel States, in resisting French neocolonialism, is playing a progressive role. However you choose to interpret the Sahel States securing their sovereignty as “imperialism,” surely you can see that this is far less consequential than the economic domination levied against west Africa by France and the US, no? By your estimation Palestinians are imperializing Israel by trying to secure their own statehood, and I know that’s not what you actually believe, right?
But it is still consequential. It is still bad, and it is still wrong.
“Internal domination is the only way to resist external domination.” Both should be abolished. I realize that one may be a necessary evil in order to resist the other, but the goal should be for that necessary evil to be as temporary as possible, and it should be abolished as soon as you can safely do so.
It’s kind of what I mean.
You don’t need national identity. You don’t need national cultural history. You can have individual identity and individual cultural history. These can be defined by yourself and the others you relate to. There’s no need for them to be defined by a ‘nation’. In this respect, ‘nations’ are merely a way of categorizing and organizing individuals’ identity and culture … and in so doing, it often imposes sharp boundaries and distinctions where there are really just blurred lines and spectrums. You don’t need to divide people into nations in order to have identity and culture.
Is it, though?
Every state is its own little empire, enforcing its will against the individuals within it just as more powerful states try to impose their will on other states (and their own people). They demand tribute, extract resources, and enact their will through force just like any empire. Doing it on a smaller scale makes them a less urgent problem, but they’re still a problem.
I’m going to disagree with you stating that the Alliance Sahel States banding together in the beginnings of a Pan-African coalition is imperialism, pretty firmly. This is, frankly, an absurd position that demonizes what is uncontestably an anti-imperialist coalition for seemingly no other reason than to satisfy a vague moral code you have. In practical terms, there is no way to resist neocolonialism without collective sovereignty. This is not done at the expense of others.
As for sovereignty being a “necessary evil,” I don’t agree, nor do I define it as “internal domination.” States should be temporary, but only in the context of internationalism, ie as a joining of national states in one big international union until state lines are abolished and classes disappear, making states themselves redundant. I’m not going to finger wag Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, etc. for creating a powerful regional resistance coalition against France and the US.
The next comment is just an odd tangent describing why you don’t think culture is important or relevant. I’m not sure how to respond other than to tell you to speak with indigenous resistance groups, assuming you live in a settler-colony like many of us unfortuantrly do.
As for calling states “little empires,” this is again myopic. States are the means by which one class monopolizes its power. The national revolution creates a weak national bourgeoisie that can generally only be overtaken by the peasantry and urban proletariat. The anatomy of the national revolution is documented extremely well by Frantz Fanon in the work I mentioned earlier. Nkrumah deals with the Neocolonial phase, where external powers continue colonialism via financial means and balkanization.
States can be governed by the proletariat, in which case the majority is organized and are working together for the betterment of the whole. This is how socialism works. By defining a state as a “little empire,” you are making a subjectivist argument, not a materialist one. Same as calling the Alliance of Sahel States “imperialist” for kicking out France and the US. You use buzz words and emotionally charged diction in place of an actual argument, hoping it carries the conversation. This doesn’t hold up to scrutiny though.
You have to actually justify the things you say. Anarchism is truly even worse than communisation theory.
Read Hegel’s Philosophy of Right or any Winfield and you’ll immediately realize how philosophically incoherent your position is.
Others you relate to! I wonder if this somehow inevitably transforms into national identity!