So the general consensus among most historians has been that “the short XXth century” (c) was all about waging one long war (including the 2 world wars, the Cold War, the Spanish Civil War, the wars in Korea and Vietnam, the invasion of Afghanistan, etc) to figure out which of the 3 systems, democracy, fascism or communism, worked best. Supposedly, we figured it out in 1989 and 1991 and could all collectively move on to creating a new system of states and state relations.
But what have we seen since January 2014? The undisguised fascism in Russia, Germany covertly trying to aid it, Western Europe falling into the embrace of fascism yet again. . . Does this mean the lesson didn’t stick? Are we doomed to dedicate one more century to hashing out the same boring issue? And it has got to be Russia and Germany again? The same folks who got us into all this back in 1914-17? Will they ever just settle down already?
This is very disheartening. The only good news is that the nation-state has been eroded to a degree where these old and hopeless ideologies find it harder to inflict as much damage.
Clarissa's Blog 
Oops accidentally clicked the wrong button and lost several paragraphs…
Anyhoo….
“Western Europe falling into the embrace of fascism yet again … the nation-state has been eroded”
There is a strong relation between the two. When moderate nationalism is made taboo then the uglier forms will thrive underground and eventually burst through the soil.
If the nation state really has outlived its usefulness (a debatable topic) then it needs to be allowed to wither away naturally so that a replacement can organically grow. The alternatives to the nation state offered to Europe, multiculturalism and European ‘intergration’ and technocratic rule from Brussels are both so unattractive that the majority has rightly rejected them. Part of the population falls into nihilism and alienation and another part hunkers down with what they know.
LikeLike
—If the nation state really has outlived its usefulness (a debatable topic) then it needs to be allowed to wither away naturally so that a replacement can organically grow.
The nation state did not outlive its usefulness – it is a wonderful tool to justify allocating various resources to self-appointed “rightful owners” of a given state and to exclude others. So it is very “useful”, except it is appealing not to the best in people.
The replacement already exists and can be observed in English-speaking North America. International meritocracy. Common language strictly as a communication tool, without much identity issues and “why don’t you respect us” attached to it. Of course it is not perfect, and works properly only at the middle class level so far, but it is viable alternative to nation state.
And who said “natural” process of one thing withering away and something new being born has to be completely conflict-free? Something new is born out of tension…
LikeLike
Yes, you are absolutely right about the alternative. Bobbitt, my new favorite analyst and historian, calls it “the market state.” And it’s exactly the way you describe. Of course, the transition to this new form of the state will provoke conflicts. But these should be new conflicts, not the same oldc same old kind.
LikeLike
“Supposedly, we figured it out in 1989” do you mean in 1984, perhaps? 🙂
LikeLike
“1989” described the phenomenon, not its causes.
LikeLike