We recently heard again a term that we had recently forgotten:
The “new Patriotism” !
Which Alexis Tsipras invoked when announcing his new party.
But how “young” is it? And how “patriotism” ?
- Every time a political movement adds the adjective “new” in front of an ideological designation, it is worth wondering whether this is indeed an evolution of an older idea or its complete denial .
— The so-called “New Left” was largely a departure from traditional notions of class consciousness and class conflict . In their place it promoted other forms of identity – more woke – other forms of claim and other forms of confrontation. Barely “class” and not at all Marxist …
— Correspondingly, “Neo-liberalism” also moved away from classical liberalism , which was born as a demand for political self-determination and economic freedom of citizens against arbitrary powers. In its place, a reality often emerged where power is transferred to impersonal supranational decision-making centers , to gigantic economic concentrations of power , and to mechanisms that are increasingly far from democratic control .
— Now, therefore, the “new Patriotism” is appearing.
The question is simple:
Is this a “renewal” of patriotism ?
Or, perhaps, for his refusal ?
Because very often “new” does not describe the evolution of an idea.
It describes its abandonment . - First of all, Patriotism is not an ideology. It is not a political slogan.
It is not a communication structure .
It is the sense of belonging .
The awareness that we are members of a community greater than ourselves . That existed before us. And will exist after us…
A community of history , memory , culture and common destiny .
Without this feeling , there is NO political responsibility .
There is NO acceptance of institutions .
There is NO legalization of rules of law .
There is no such thing as the “common good” .
Because the common good presupposes something “common” .
It presupposes a community .
Greece is a country . It is not a “place” .
And the Greeks are a people . They are not a “population” .
Population is a statistical category .
The people are a political and historical community .
And community is not an abstract concept.
Not just a “fantasy construct” . It is a historical reality , with very real substance and tangible consequences… - It is formed through bonds .
Historical , cultural , emotional , linguistic , religious , political ties.
Not necessarily ties of common origin.
History is full of examples:
The Muslim Ummah was formed around the common Faith.
Medieval Christianity around a common religious and cultural reference. Especially when it fought the invasions of Islam in Europe , for 900 years – and from all directions…
The newest nations around combinations of language, history, culture, institutions and shared experiences.
In each era, the “Homeland” had a different form.
But in all of them it constituted a community of reference greater than the individual .
A community that gave meaning to their common life , as well as meaning to the sacrifices , expectations , obligations and rights of people. - The greatest figures of Western philosophy understood this.
— Plato saw the fulfillment of man within the organized state.
— Aristotle characterized man as “a political animal by nature” and argued that outside the city man becomes either a “beast” or a “god” .
— Centuries later Kant moved the discussion from the political community to the moral community .
But neither did he perceive man as an isolated individual .
The person acquires moral status only through the relationship of mutual recognition with other persons.
— Hegel will go even further. He will argue that even self-consciousness is formed within specific historical communities , institutions , traditions , and forms of collective life.
— And Marx insisted on the class character and the conflictual dimension of these social relations: Class struggle !
But Marxism outside of social references does not exist .
And Marx himself considered the myth of “stripped individuals” without social references ” nonsense “… - With different starting points, different methods, and different conclusions, the entire great tradition of Western thought ends at the same point:
A person does not become a “person” on their own.
It happens through relationships . Through communities .
Through bonds of mutual recognition , responsibility and participation . Personality does not “precede” the community.
It is formed within it.
And Freedom is not born from the absence of ties. It is born within ties that man recognizes as his own.
That’s why eliminating the sense of belonging does not lead to more freedom.
It leads to the decomposition of the conditions of Freedom . - Even political systems that proclaimed the transcendence of national identities – the “abolition of homelands” – could not survive without some form of “patriotism” .
The anthem of the Third Communist International triumphantly proclaimed:
— We have no homelands, nor saints with swords …
And the Soviet Union was built on Proletarian Internationalism .
But when in 1941 it was threatened by the Nazi invasion, it did not call on its citizens to defend the… World Revolution .
He called on them to defend the “Great Socialist Fatherland” .
And in one night, he opened the deserted churches in Russia , so that people could go to mass and receive communion, before being sent to the front.
And that war remained in Soviet history as the Great Patriotic War .
Even those who had renounced patriotism were forced to invoke it when their survival was at stake.
Because without a sense of community , societies cannot withstand great challenges . - In recent years we have been hearing more and more about a “new Patriotism,” he says.
— Alexis Tsipras linked it to better schools, better hospitals, better public services and modern infrastructure.
— Similar approaches had been formulated earlier by George Papandreou .
Of course, all of this is necessary.
But this is NOT “patriotism” .
These are the obligations of an organized State .
The problem is not that some are proposing a “new patriotism” .
The problem is that they propose a patriotism without a Homeland !
A patriotism without historical community .
Without collective memory . Without a common destiny . Without obligations …
They keep the word. They cancel its content …
— Just as the New Left imagined a Left without class consciousness and class conflicts.
— Just as “Neoliberalism” often ended up imagining a Freedom without political self-determination.
— Thus, the “new Patriotism” seems to envision a patriotism without a Homeland . - But what constitutes a citizen is not “rights” alone.
Not even the obligations themselves.
It’s the balance between the two .
Balance that has a name: Responsibility !
— If you take away rights, people become “subjects” .
— If you remove obligations, they become “consumers” .
In neither case do they remain “citizens” !
The citizen is born where demand and supply coexist.
Freedom and Duty .
The Right and the Responsibility .
And Responsibility always presupposes a community to which we feel accountable.
This is exactly what “Homeland” is…
This is why the so-called “Constitutional Patriotism” is not enough.
And it doesn’t make sense…
The Constitution is necessary (for a democratic system).
But it does not create the “people” .
The people create the Constitution .
The Constitution is the political expression of a pre-existing community .
That’s why Constitutions change.
They are being reviewed.
They are replaced.
If the sole basis of collective identity is a legal text, then the collective identity itself changes every time the text changes.
And then patriotism turns into an administrative relationship .
On a limited-term contract .
Not in a community of memory , culture and common destiny .
It is no coincidence that the Greek Constitution itself, in its very last article, stipulates that:
“The observance of the Constitution is left to the patriotism of the Greeks.”
No to bureaucracy.
Not to state mechanisms.
Not to governments.
To the patriotism of the Greeks !
That is, in the sense that Democracy , Freedom and Homeland constitute a common good that citizens themselves must defend. - It may be that many times in history, national projects have threatened democratic conquests.
But without a collective identity, there has never been a Democracy .
Without a Municipality, there is no Democracy .
Without a City, there is no Politics .
And without a community , there is no Municipality .
Patriotism is not an opponent of Democracy.
It is a crucial prerequisite .
Great civilizations flourished when the sense of belonging was strong.
And they began to decline when the bonds that connected their members weakened.
Patriotism can be renewed .
It can be customized .
It may evolve .
However, it cannot be cut off from the Homeland without losing its meaning.
Just as there can be no Democracy without a Municipality , there can be no Patriotism without a Homeland .
The first perception builds peoples .
The second one manages populations . (Until it can’t manage them anymore…)
PS. It would be amusing – if it weren’t so sad – how those who hate it try to fabricate the concept of “Homeland” …
And they invent terms like “new Patriotism” , which they repeat like they’re swallowing cod liver oil …
THANASSIS K.
