> I would say "EU-Nationalism" is an inprovement on French nationalism or
> German nationalism, say -- it's several orders more inclusive.
Yes, I wouldn't equate it with the 30s/40s Nazi nationalism, which wasn't "inclusive"of anyone outside of northern and western Europeans, except for short/medium term strategic reasons. But I would bet -- at short odds -- on Morocco never becoming an EU member.
I think these emerging (supra)nationalisms are potentially _more_ dangerous than the old ones because I think the end result would probably be like a larger version of the multi-ethnic empires of pre-WW1 Europe (Austria-Hungary being the prime example) --- a world partioned off into several new, exclusive and antagonistic blocs.
> In a similar way, Eurasianiam is a big improvement on Russian nationalism,
not to
> mention
> Ukrainian nationalism (barf). I think its existence and flouishing is a
> healthy sign; that the nationalisms of the former Soviet Block (which led
> to several bloody civil wars in the 90s', remember?) are melting away.
> No Russian nationalist organization would ever have muftis on its board,
> let alone Jews (which the Eurasia Party does).
I recall that a major reason for the failure of late C19 pan-Slavism was the fear of the western Slavs that they would be dominated by Russia's sheer weight of numbers, and I can see this mix failing to congeal for similar reasons.
> It depends on the situation, I would say. Dmitry Glinsky makes a good case
> that "ex-Soviet" nationalism has more in common with the nationalisms that
> characterize Third World resistance movements (not that such a nationalism
> is necessarily a good thing).
Yes, not necessarily a good thing by any means. ThirdWorldism has contributed to the rise of Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Bin Laden, to name a few. Also, "ex-Soviet" nationalism, stripped of communism as it is, has lost its original meaning and its main attraction IMO.
> In any case, any kind of "progressive" political movement will inevitably
> come out of the lite-nationalist movement. Non-nationalist leftists simply
> don't exist in Russia, with a few very small exceptions.
It's not just a Russian problem. The international left generally is still focused on various nationalisms and I think we will never get anywhere much as long as that remains the case, because of the contradictions that the framework of "state v state" embodies. Somewhere, Marx wrote words to the effect that "the nation state is the logical arena for class struggle". But that was when the nation state was still in the process of superseding the old empires. And those of us on the left will probably soon have to deal with new supranational states as the logical arena for class struggle. That doesn't mean I'm going to cheer their creation.