And as soon as you go "well, not THAT neighbor" it's nationalism.
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2025
492 points (97.5% liked)
Political Memes
9862 readers
2701 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not patriotism tho. It's just common decency.
I would agree with Leo Tolstoy that patriotism is just bad. And I do not understand why should we invent a "good patriotism" while the term itself is so bad.
To destroy governmental violence only one thing is needed: it is that people should understand that the feeling of patriotism, which alone supports that instrument of violence, is a rude, harmful, disgraceful, and bad feeling, and above all—is immoral. It is a rude feeling, because it is one natural only to people standing on the lowest level of morality, and expecting from other nations those outrages which they themselves are ready to inflict on others; it is a harmful feeling, because it disturbs advantageous and joyous peaceful relations with other peoples, and above all it produces that governmental organisation under which power may fall, and does fall, into the hands of the worst men; it is a disgraceful feeling, because it turns man not merely into a slave, but into a fighting cock, a bull, or a gladiator, who wastes his strength and his life for objects which are not his own but his governments'; and it is an immoral feeling, because, instead of confessing oneself a son of God, as Christianity teaches us, or even a free man guided by his own reason, each man under the influence of patriotism confesses himself the son of his fatherland and the slave of his government, and commits actions contrary to his reason and his conscience.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-patriotism-and-government
Patriotism as a feeling of exclusive love for one's own people, and as a doctrine of the virtue of sacrificing one's tranquillity, one's property, and even one's life, in defence of the weak among them from slaughter and outrage hy their enemies, was the highest idea of the period when each nation considered it feasible and just, to subject to slaughter and outrage the people of other nations for its own advantage.
The way Tolstoy uses the word aligns with the negative, exclusive definition of the word:
The desire to compete sharply with, and perhaps also dominate, other nations; nationalism.
and not the positive sense of the word:
Love of one's country; devotion to the welfare of one's compatriots; passion which inspires one to serve one's country.
That makes sense, because he didn't have access to the word nationalism as a means to distinguish between the two. The word "nationalism" doesn't appear a single time in Patriotism and Government or in Patriotism, or Peace?.
And that makes sense. The word nationalism didn't see common usage until well after he published that piece (in 1900).
We're not "inventing" good patriotism now, because it was already "invented" over the course of the past 100 years.
We now have access to both words, allowing us to distinguish between the positive and negative aspects of that love.
Leo Tolstoy's writing is timeless in a lot of ways, but when we're talking about terms, it's important to take into account what those terms meant when they were used.
I think he was aware of the kind of linguistic argument you just made. Your positive view inevitability leads to the negative one. You love your country at the expense of others, right? Otherwise you would have been talking about loving the global community. Well, how do you justify supporting your country but not others? Discrimination. That's how. So patriotism leads to nationalism. Not for everyone all the time, but still for real numbers of people, 100% guaranteed to occur.
Just to expand on your point:
Love of one’s country; devotion to the welfare of one’s compatriots; passion which inspires one to serve one’s country.
One of these things is not like the others. And it's the essence of the feeling, sadly. The other stuff is just being a decent person.
Your graphics make me feel as "nationalism" being a rebranded "patriotism" to maintain the basics of a concept that was fadding away. And for the few I know, both were mostly used as an excuse to make some poeple fight those from the other side of the river, and to make believe in a natural difference between "us" and "them".
I don't understand well why "them" should be excluded of the good aspect you are refering to.
and not the positive sense of the word
I cannot agree. Tolstoy started his writing from the breaking the myth about the "good patriotism".
It is generally said that the real, good patriotism consists in desiring for one's own people or State such real benefits as do not infringe the well-being of other nations.
Talking, recently, to an Englishman about the present war, I said to him that the real cause of the war was not avarice, as is generally said, but patriotism, as is evident from the temper of the whole English society. The Englishman did not agree with me, and said that even were the case so, it resulted from the fact that the patriotism at present inspiring Englishmen is a bad patriotism; but that good patriotism, such as he was imbued with, consists in Englishmen, his compatriots, acting well.
"Then do you wish only Englishmen to act well?" I asked.
"I wish all men to do so," said he; indicating clearly by that reply the characteristic of true benefits,—whether moral, scientific, or even material and practical,—which is that they spread out to all men; and therefore to wish such benefits to anyone, not only is not patriotic, but is the reverse of patriotic.
Even in the definition of the "positive patriotism" you were mentioned there is a paradox.
Love of one’s country; devotion to the welfare of one’s compatriots; passion which inspires one to serve one’s country.
If one wishes the welfare of one's country, the welfare of one’s compatriots... Does they wish the welfare of only one's compatriots? If yes, it is a wish of superiority of one's country, the superiority of one's compatriots over other people. If not, it is not patriotism just by the definition.
There is nothing bad to wish the welfare of people living around you, your neighbors. But it is solidarity, not patriotism. Patriotism is tightly coupled to the concept of the national state (because all the modern states are actually a national states). While Tolstoy did not mention the word nationalism, he mentioned the concept of nations and national states. And he criticized the whole concept.
I would again agreed with Leo, that the concept of nations and national states might look modern in the time of French Revolution (and there were no "nations" before no matter what the today's patriots will try to sell you), but even in the time of his writing the concept was already totally outdated, I'm not even saying about today. And I do not understand how are you going to distinguish the concept of national states and patriotism while all the states are national state. Why not just to use the word "solidarity" instead and leave the "patriotism" in the past era of world wars?
Yes, it's basically the difference between nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism is mindless. A tiny bit of it isn't too dangerous, but in large doses, it is the end of thought.
Well yes, but if your neighbour happens to live behind an imaginary border he's suddenly a foreigner and doesn't deserve that freedom anymore.
Indeed
Nah, man. I do want everyone to have the same rights and freedoms, and as many of them as possible without bothering each other (out of sheer selfish reasons: if everyone has as many rights and freedoms as possible without being a bother to others, I have as many rights and freedoms as possible, and they don't bother me! Golden rule, bitches!), but fuck them neighbours, brunch of bastards the whole lot of them (I should know, I'm their neighbour and I am one), those freedoms don't include me opening the door or answering when some bastard rings the fucking doorbell, just slip a note under the door like a normal person and I'll get to it when my executive dysfunction feels like it.
You can love someone and not ever want to be around them or converse with them. Some people like privacy.
wtf? helping others? fuck no /s
It's the true patriot who gets a parking ticket and says "Yay! The system works!"
While also saying "fuck the police".
What if the conflicts come from immigrants still wanting freedoms that the natives have given up for a long time and just pretend to have?