u/LittleSky7700

What problem is it actually trying to solve?

Historically, nationalism was a way for people to consider themselves as one people and deserving of representation as that people. It served both to control & standardise as well as liberate. In the case of Germany, we have a stamdardised german identity so that a whole german state could emerge. In the case of the balkans under Ottoman rule, it was a way for these ethnicities to organsie around a common identity and resist Ottoman rule, to have a state for themselves.

With regard to the US historically, there has never been an American people, even today there's hardly an American people. America is understood by the differences between people and how even with differences, you can all get along. (Never mind fot now actual american history thats full of prejudices and their atrocities). The melting pot, the statue of liberty, the way you become american not by adopting some american identity, but by believing in that hope of America.

Not until recently has there been a push for a distinct American People who deserve the land over other people who are Not American. Often times this is just blatant racism and xenophobia.

But what im really curious about is what you conservative nationalists or something similar are really trying to solve? How does it make your life better by believing in this stuff? Especially against other potential solutions that more directly solve your problems? Why do americans need a national identity and why do you need to ruthlessly exclude other people from it?

Pretty proud of this one, though would still like any feedback cause I like hearing the thoughts of others

"Sapphire Oceans and Amethyst Sky.
Seeking answers from a name that's died.
Forgotten photos and half baked renders.
A past longing to be remembered.

All the tapes unwound and tangled,
Memories memories lie here mangled.
Cameras discarded without their lens,
Empty is the inkwell and gone is the pen.

The brush is dry the bristles frayed,
The painting never to be displayed,
Of Sapphire Oceans and Amethyst Sky.
If only the name of the one who died."

Feedback:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tii3ok/comment/omx71q2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tiwb6n/comment/omxbuf5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

One thing that I think is an intention of democraric republics that has been distorted by practical application is having people who choose to enter, what i call, the political game and represent constituents.

In its ideal form, this person is a learned and educated person with regard to political philosophy, material governance, and diplomacy. They will take their responsibility if representing hundreds, even thousands, seriously. While they may not be able to understand all thousands of people... they will nonetheless make the honest effort. Perhaps arriving at some acceptable average. Sure, they will have their biases and they will do what they think is right.

However what we get are career politicians who are interested in power and money. They want to influence the whole country to what they think is right. You, the constituent, are a means to that end. You are a vote. One vote closer to their power. When actually engaging in the process of decision making, it is a game. Their political bloc needs just one more vote over the other to win. Who cares what the constituents think, the bill must pass! Whos bill? Whoever pays me enough money. Are you not interested in this and what to be the ideal representstive? It doesnt work that way so its you against entire ossified political blocs. Conform or go home.

So what of the consituent then? If theyre just a vote, what does their opinion actually matter? Well well start telling you what it is you want to hear and what you should think matters. We'll play off your material woes and instead redirect you to what you should actually be mad at. They tell you what to think. We let politicans speak for us.

Alternatively, why dont we simply speak for ourselves? Why dont we organise in our communities and talk among each other? Not people of political identities, but as people who live in similar material conditions and can understand each other. Why dont we organise ourselves to push for the change that would *Actually* help us? Or even better... to Make the change that would actually help us. To create subverssive and alternative systems that dont rely on the silliness of the political game.

We only have one life to live. Are we really going to live it passively?

We are born into a world where nothing matters.
Everything.
Works independently from ourselves
Nothing.
Needs us to function

We are born into a world where we can think.
Everything.
From the smallest atom to the expanse of the galaxy
Nothing.
Staring at a blank ceiling unsure of where to go

So what are we living for?
Everything?
A life of free expression where we can find all our satisfaction
Nothing?
To simply be allowed to live at all at the whim of things greater than ourselves

What are you fighting for?
Everything?
The meaningful life that you only get to live once
Nothing?
A crafted personality that follows what's at the bridge of your nose

We are born into a world.
Everything.
Can be done if we do what it takes to get there
Nothing.
Can be done if we never think at all

Feedback:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tc46qd/comment/ollj22v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tc4jaf/comment/ollfbyc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

As I gaze to the stars above me,
I wonder of all the things I could be,
Of all the things I could have been.
Of all that has..

To think of how small we all are,
To know the night from day,
Of life and decay.
The Past ever comes..

If I find my gaze trailing upward,
When I‘m old and have been.

Will I still be thinking of could be,
When The Past comes for me..?

Feedback:

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tb8ndq/comment/olf1smu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/OCPoetry/comments/1tb8kcb/comment/olf6j0j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

As an aspiring Sociologist, one of my pleausres has been using what Ive been learning from mu study of Sociology and applying it to Anarchism. Where Sociology is the scientific and empirical study of society and human interaction. I believe having what would be called a *Sociological Imagination* is immensely helpful for any anarchist.

One book alone, *The Social Construction of Reality* is enough to go over the fundamentals of how society works as a structure and how we humans interact to make this structure *Real*. *Real* in the sense that we can not simply will it away by our volition.

They argue that people inhabit multiple *Realities* of shared meanings. From fandoms to sports teams to coworkers to family, each of these areas of life contain their own meanings and norms that guide interaction. And over all of this we have what is called a *Reality par excellence*, the understanding of reality in total. Our ontology, if you will. Though its important to note that this overall reality is not the same for everyone. This is most blatant between cultures. But even within cultures, people can have different *base realities*. The person who has been socialised into Conservative beliefs operates on a different social reality than someone whos been socialised into more progressive or even revolutionary beliefs.

And its in this that I find the most important realisation. When we recognise that all social reality is contigent on the meaning making that happens when people interact with each other... and that other political ideologies, including anarchism, are merely unique cultural *realities* that contain their own worldviews and norms, then the questions of what we should do and how we should do it become a lot more clear, I think.

What we should do becomes answerable in the way that we should begin being more social. We should interact with people and express our anarchist beliefs wherever we can and is safe. We should express anarchist behaviours and encourage others to join in wherever we can and is safe. Use this human interaction to create shared meanings. How we should do it is through committed action through groups. Organising becomes a means where we can have known committed anarchists to rely on to engage with you in your anarchist endeavours. To have a sizable group to display towards others and to encourage others to join in on.

In fact, Damon Centola is interested in Social Change and his findings show how this way of interaction creates change. More can be read in the book *Change: How to Make Big Things Happen*. Where he shows through several experiments that change happens when committed actors perform new behaviour in close knit social networks, friends and family, and this basically peer pressures others into conforming to these new behaviours. You dont even need a majority, merely 25% of the group needs to be a committed actor to trigger a snowball affect of people joining in.

I think knowledge like this is invaluable and we should make a greater effort to understand it and use it in our daily activities.