The Rise and Death of the Nation-State

The state and the nation soon achieved an inter-penetration. People rushed to die for their nation, enthusiastically and for free, but in return the state assumed as its central role ensuring the well-being of the people.

The system worked so well that eventually pretty much everybody wanted their own nation-state. Soon, however, technological advances changed the equation.

The creation of the nuclear weapons (and, later, long-distance warfare) rendered unnecessary enormous armies of conscripts willing to die for their nation. Many nation-states effectively ceded their sovereignty to those countries that possessed nuclear weapons and were promising to defend them in case of invasion. (What these promises are worth we are seeing now in Ukraine’s case).

The nation-state has served its purpose. It was an important purpose, and the world is obviously a better place now than it was in 1680. However, the basic contract between a member of a nation and the state makes little sense today. Regions that are pursuing a nation-state today are hopelessly behind the times.

We are witnessing a move in the direction opposite that of the nation-states. The borders that nation-states fought so hard to draw and secure once and for all are becoming porous. Attachments to national symbols are eroding. Huge migratory flows have turned the idea of “national character” into a joke.

Rate this:

19 responses to “The Rise and Death of the Nation-State”

musteryou

June 4, 2014

And still Tony A-bot requests that we sacrifice for the nation.

LikeLike

Clarissa

June 4, 2014

Oh, he’s SO behind the times.

LikeLike

Reply
1. musteryou
  
  June 4, 2014
  
  Yes, it doesn’t seem to be working, except on the very old.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

valter07

June 4, 2014

Would you give me a permission to post it on my Facebook? If yes – would you prefer a reference (to your blog, not to your real name), or would you prefer not to be mentioned?

LikeLike

Clarissa

June 4, 2014

Of course, go ahead. Links to the blog are always welcome. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply

Shakti

June 4, 2014

Honestly, I attributed the decline of nation states to the increasing power of multinational corporations and global elites, not nuclear weapons. No nation-state that has them presently will renounce them, NPT or no. Multinational corporations are not motivated by loyalty to any country or place and global elites have more in common with each other than fellow nation-state citizens. They use the machinery of strong nation states as their muscle to get poorer nation states to do their bidding or get access to their resources. Examples of this include the invasions of Guatemala and Iraq. This trend has been going on for at least twenty years if not longer.

LikeLike

Clarissa

June 4, 2014

Multinational corporations have existed for over 100 years and co-existed perfectly well with nation states.

The reason why we need to look towards war-making strategies to see what the fate of the nation-state will be is that the nation-state did not arise for economic reasons. The economy was always accidental to it. The nation-state arose very specifically for the purpose of waging more massive warfare with greater ease.

“Multinational corporations are not motivated by loyalty to any country or place and global elites have more in common with each other than fellow nation-state citizens.”

– This is absolutely true and was as true 100 years ago as it is today. Capitalism and a nation-state do very well together. But a nation-state can just as easily be non-capitalist.

The nation-state is required to provide a high degree of well-being to its members in return for their allegiance. Capitalist nation-states do this better than non-capitalist nation-states. Still, non-capitalist nation-states have existed and still exist. And will probably alays exist.

LikeLike

Reply
1. cliff arroyo
  
  June 4, 2014
  
  “The reason why we need to look towards war-making strategies to see what the fate of the nation-state will be ”
  
  My first reaction is that future of wars seems to be governments against citizens.
  
  My second thought is more Crimea, non-uniformed military acting against civilians on orders from undisclosed (at least technically undisclosed) powers (either government or power).
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

cliff arroyo

June 4, 2014

I’m not sure if I agree here or not.

Could you define ‘nation state’ and give some examples of modern ones as well as viable non-nation states?

LikeLike

Clarissa

June 4, 2014

The Enlightened ideology won. Everybody on the planet exists either according to it or in reaction to it. This means that everybody is either a consolidated nation-state or is freaking out because it hasn’t been able to consolidate as one. There are also countries in Africa where all statehood is falling apart but even they see as their goal a nation-state.

A nation-state needs: well-defined borders, a set of symbols, a nation-exalting history, an artistic tradition, a history of shared suffering, a national character, and a feeling of commonality amongst its members.

The countries that are doing the best today are the ones that consolidated their nation-states early. The US, Western Europe (with some exceptions). Then there are countries that came by their nationhood later and are not doing as well right now (Israel, Ukraine, the Baltic states, etc.) And there are also the ones that have missed the train of nationhood and are trying to catch up (Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec). And the ones that are still a long way from managing to have their own nation-state (the Congo).

The problem for those who have missed the train is that soon there will be no more trains because everybody is switching to airplanes. The nation-state is getting eroded as a model. Western European countries are drifting away from a true nation-state model because they an’t even defend themselves any longer. Nor can they articulate a set of value and goals shared by all members.

LikeLike

Reply
1. cliff arroyo
  
  June 4, 2014
  
  “Western European countries are drifting away from a true nation-state model because they an’t even defend themselves any longer. Nor can they articulate a set of value and goals shared by all members.”
  
  It’s truly sad to see what most of western europe has become. I tend to agree with the idea that they never truly got over the trauma of WWII.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    June 4, 2014
    
    “It’s truly sad to see what most of western europe has become.”
    
    – The values that were created in Western Europe in the XVIII and XIX centuries are still unsurpassed and will remain unsurpassed, I believe, for the foreseeable future. What’s sad is that now other people need to be upholding these values because their original creators have gone into a mode of sluggishness and inertia. I might be mistaken (and I hope I am) but it does seem like the reaction of Western Europeans to anything these days is, “Yeah. . . Whatever, I guess. . .”
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Ben
      
      December 15, 2016
      
      “The borders that nation-states fought so hard to draw and secure once and for all are becoming porous.”
      
      “Western European countries are drifting away from a true nation-state model because they an’t even defend themselves any longer. Nor can they articulate a set of value and goals shared by all members.”
      
      “it does seem like the reaction of Western Europeans to anything these days is, “Yeah. . . Whatever, I guess. . .”
      
      I agree with all of this, but I don’t think Globalism is inevitable. I don’t see how any political philosophy is inevitable. Have not western’s own actions also led to this? What if after experiencing the down sides of the post nation state world (Or watch the globalist beta test the EU not turn out so well) nationalist candidates and parties continue to gain momentum?
      
      The language issue is one that I mentioned before so I won’t go into it a lot, but wouldn’t people like to live in communities where almost everyone speaks one common language? It would be easier to form friendships and if one’s car breaks down or something they could communicate with others to solve the problem.
      
      On dating, I think white women is the group that has the most to gain from a globalist dating world. I think black women have the most to lose in a globalist dating world. I don’t share this opinion, but I have heard from many men (including many black men) that they will not consider dating a woman if she is black. I have also heard many men both minorities and alt right type white men fetishize white women. From these observations I don’t think a globalist dating market is a net positive for all races.
      
      I don’t hear women talk honestly on the subject in person so I don’t know which groups of men benefit and lose opportunities in a globalist dating market. According to Roosh V Mediterranean men gain the most and Asian men lose the most.
      http://www.rooshv.com/totem-pole-of-race-attractiveness
      
      What if a group such as the Muslims, the Chinese or the Russians have a competing global philosophy and try and use the West’s open borders and apathy as an opportunity to go on the offensive and try and make Moscow, Bejing, or Mecca the head of the global government? What if a coalition of nationalist peoples like: Zionists, Japanese, Hungarians, (maybe Americans) and others like that work together to preserve the nation state? Could they pull it off?
      
      Couldn’t nationalism allow certain groups to have the political system the people desire? Like Saudis having Sharia law or Venezuelans having Socialism without having the rest of the world do the same?
      
      If a global world is reached what will prevent Zionists for example from getting together to form a nation state so people can work together for the shared goal of border control?
      
      There are good benefits for consumers that come from global competition to make better goods at cheaper prices. However how much material things do people need? How much material goods will satisfy the desire for more stuff? Couldn’t a national capitalist system provide a good amount of material goods even if it is not up to par with the global model? Couldn’t there be multinational competition economically without the free movement of people, even if free movement would provide economic benefits like cheaper labor?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. el
        
        December 15, 2016
        
        \ a coalition of nationalist peoples like: Zionists, Japanese … If a global world is reached what will prevent Zionists for example
        
        Ben, the word that suits is (Israeli) Jews, not Zionists. There is no such ethnic group or / and nationality as “Zionists.”
        
        ethnic group = Jews
        nationality = Israeli (Jew or Arab or … )
        Zionism = Jewish nationalism
        
        The term felt really jarring to me since the Arab world uses “Zionist/s” all the time in anti-Israeli and/or anti-semitic propaganda. Post-Holocaust, talking about those horrible beastly Jews became less acceptable in the Western world, but one gets free pass as long as the word “Zionist” is used, so Arabs use it while talking with Westerners.
        
        \ If a global world is reached what will prevent Zionists for example from getting together to form a nation state
        
        What do you mean “to form a nation state”? Israel already exists. I live there, so I know. 🙂
        
        \ On dating, I think white women is the group that has the most to gain from a globalist dating world.
        
        I think you project white vs. black in America onto the entire world.
        
        For instance, many Muslims may desire to sleep with Western “whores”, but will marry “a good Muslim woman” only.
        
        I even heard such attitudes about “Russian whores” (in practice, Jewish immigrants from Russia) in Israel from Jewish immigrant family from the Caucasus.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Ben
        
        December 15, 2016
        
        I did not mean Zionist in that way. That was the wrong term. I was trying to use it as a term for Jews that are Israelis plus dispersed Jews that support Israel. If anyone is reading my former post please replace “Zionist” with “Israelis plus other Jews that support Israel”.
        
        In the US I heard Michael Savage use the word Zionist in the way I mentioned above. Other people in other parts of the world may see it differently.
        
        LikeLike
      2. el
        
        December 15, 2016
        
        Another example against “everybody wants a white European woman”: in Israel, most Jewish men want to marry a Jewish woman, not some “white European woman.”
        
        You have yourself mentioned the reason for preferring “white” women (whatever that means) :
        
        \ I have also heard many men both minorities and alt right type white men fetishize white women.
        
        Minorities! But in Israel, Jews aren’t a minority, suffering from anti-semitism and wishing to join the more powerful majority ethnic group by intermarriage. Yes, in FSU, many Jewish men preferred to marry a not Jewish woman, when my mother was young, since being a Jew meant being inferior and discriminated against.
        
        And, in the Arab world, Arabs aren’t a minority. So why would they see themselves as inferior and Arab women as ugly? Isn’t such assumption about Arabs a sign of racism in itself?
        
        Would many Chinese men living in China prefer a not Chinese woman? I do not believe so.
        
        It is all about power relations in a given society and in the world, not about true superiority of “white women.” As an anecdote, my younger brother, who immigrated as a small child to Israel, even felt he looked “too white” (=”not Israeli enough” = “bad”) because of his European, not Jewish looks. By contrast, I, who immigrated in early teens and experienced some anti-semitism in Ukraine, feel I look great by not looking “Jewish” in some particular ways. See?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Ben
        
        December 15, 2016
        
        I don’t think everyone wants a white European woman. I just think there is a large group of men that fetishize them. Larger than the group the fetishizes black women for example. I personally have dated and would date black women, but it’s not a fetish or an exclusively dating black women thing. I personally don’t think white women are better than other women. I have heard this sentiment from others frequently.
        
        “It is all about power relations in a given society and in the world, not about true superiority of “white women.” As an anecdote, my younger brother, who immigrated as a small child to Israel, even felt he looked “too white” (=”not Israeli enough” = “bad”) because of his European, not Jewish looks. By contrast, I, who immigrated in early teens and experienced some anti-semitism in Ukraine, feel I look great by not looking “Jewish” in some particular ways. See?”
        
        This could be it, or a factor in black men for example that fetishize white women. I have to think about it more. One thing against this is that in the US I have never heard a Jewish man, or Asian man talk in a fetish manner towards European women. I hear it very commonly from black men, white men, and hispanic men. I don’t have any close Arab friends so I’ll take your word on them.
        
        LikeLike

Stringer Bell

December 15, 2016

At this point I would make fun of Ben yet again for being a fucking idiot for taking his lessons about human relationships from a rapist pickup artist, but this time I’ll just thank him for reviving this two year old post.

LikeLike

Anonymous

April 28, 2024

Seems like the two most plausible candidates to replace the nation-state are proposition-states (similar to the US right now, or Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but with this concept being adopted and applied in more countries) and network states. Unless you’re thinking of another possible replacement model here, Clarissa?

LikeLike

Clarissa's Blog