. . . then remember that “nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so” (c). There is no nation-state without people believing the most egregious lies known to humanity. Even just today, a blogger recognized that
any national history gauged more to promote skills of dispassionate analysis than to inculcate patriotism and civic virtue is bound to outrage a large subset of citizens with affection for said nation.
And it’s true. Nation-state’s existence as a model is predicated on people abandoning rational analysis and descending into the depths of emotional, unreasonable attachment to something that doesn’t really exist. And that’s all shades of pathetic.
Clarissa's Blog 
I don’t think there’s any collective identity (ethnic, religious, political, sexual, familial… whatever) that doesn’t require believing all kinds of nonsense.
For better or worse a desire for collective identities seems to be part of *human nature (and so humans are good at believing all kinds of things that either aren’t true or things that contradict each other).
*for lack of a better term
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
“I don’t think there’s any collective identity (ethnic, religious, political, sexual, familial… whatever) that doesn’t require believing all kinds of nonsense.”
– Exactly. And if you know this, you will be very much OK in the new state-form. Not that I worried you, of all people, wouldn’t.
“For better or worse a desire for collective identities seems to be part of *human nature (and so humans are good at believing all kinds of things that either aren’t true or things that contradict each other).”
– Also true. Individuality is harsh and lonely. Diluting oneself in collectivity is pleasing on an almost physiological level. I freely confess that I dig yelling together with a crowd at a hockey game in a stadium or marching in formation and signing military songs at the top of my lungs. It is such a sweet feeling of taking a vacation from self.
LikeLike
I am sure that in post-nation state period just as many people will descend into the emotional and unreasonable. The difference will be that the new something may not bring as many benefits to those people as the nation state has done. Moreover, if life becomes more unstable, *more* people will descend there than today. So I can’t agree with your argument here.
LikeLike
“I am sure that in post-nation state period just as many people will descend into the emotional and unreasonable. The difference will be that the new something may not bring as many benefits to those people as the nation state has done. Moreover, if life becomes more unstable, *more* people will descend there than today.”
– All true. This is precisely why I’m writing these educational posts. I’m reading a lot on this subject right now because it fascinates me and the feeling I’m getting is that there will be many people who lose a lot in this new model but there will also be people who win. Let’s be among those who win. Being informed means being prepared and capable of adapting to change more easily. We can bemoan the passing of the nation-state, but what good does it do? It was good, it’s over, let’s move on because the world is moving on whether we want it or not.
LikeLike
\\ It was good, it’s over, let’s move on because the world is moving on whether we want it or not.
The question is how fast that movement is going to be. May be, in Israel a nation state will survive till my death and my generation won’t need to move anywhere. Could it be so?
I love this new series of posts, btw. Would love to get more information and a name of author / good book or article on this issue. Fascinating.
LikeLike
You don’t need to move anywhere specifically. But we will all need to move in our heads, so to speak.
LikeLike
\\ You don’t need to move anywhere specifically.
I didn’t mean geographically, but experiencing some huge changes in Israeli state.
LikeLike
Huge changes are in the process of happening, and that’s what this post series is all about.
LikeLike
I’m not sure criticism of this new world order that you’re describing is motivated by nostalgia, but by the feeling that it’s clearly worse than the existing one. A bunch of East India companies controlling the planet? No, thank you.
It’s the same argument that capitalists use. ‘Yeah, we know it’s not perfect and has inequality built into it, but it’s better than any other system’.
I know you read Corey Robin’s blog. I really liked his reflections on labor day: http://coreyrobin.com/2014/09/01/labor-day-readings/
“On pain of being fired, workers in most parts of the United States can be commanded to pee or forbidden to pee. They can be watched on camera by their boss while they pee. They can be forbidden to wear what they want, say what they want (and at what decibel), and associate with whom they want. They can be punished for doing or not doing any of these things—punished legally or illegally (as many as 1 in 17 workers who try to join a union is illegally fired or suspended). But what’s remarkable is just how many of these punishments are legal, and even when they’re illegal, how toothless the law can be. Outside the usual protections (against race and gender discrimination, for example), employees can be fired for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all. They can be fired for donating a kidney to their boss (fired by the same boss, that is), refusing to have their person and effects searched, calling the boss a “cheapskate” in a personal letter, and more. ”
If this is what the future has in store for us, I’m not sure I agree with your approach to it. Instead of protesting it you’re all ‘Let us stop living in the past and learn to adapt in this new system and be winners.’
Just treat this as fait accompli?
LikeLike
Worse than the two world wars? It’s hard to imagine things much worse than what nationalism has brought us.
As for protesting, there is hardly any point in protesting modern technology and the very structure of contemporary society that is pushing these changes forward. We could hand-wring and panic-monger, but there are too many people doing that already. There is a lot of potential in this new world order – together with a lot of harsh stuff. This is so going to be a winners/losers world. I only have one life and I’ll be damned if I condemn it to misery.
As for the situation of the workers, you can be the boss and treat your workers right. If anybody can, it’s you.
LikeLike
\\ Worse than the two world wars? It’s hard to imagine things much worse than what nationalism has brought us.
From what you said before, I understood that the wars will remain, only nation state will leave us.
\\ There is a lot of potential in this new world order – together with a lot of harsh stuff.
Could you talk more about the potential? It’s not an easy topic to understand for me, everything sounds so vague, probably since I haven’t read relevant literature.
I try to tell myself a story in order to understand, but keep ‘meeting walls’ of confusion:
“I wake up in the new Israel. No workers’ rights, no social safety net, no free education. If somebody was a school teacher before, he is currently employed by private educational system (with less benefits), found another job or is begging on the street since social safety net has disappeared. People, who live in communities like Haredi and Arab sector, have advantage over many secular Jews who are left completely alone. IDF is a professional army now. In post-Zionist age, more Israeli Jews feel free to move abroad. [What about non-Jewish immigration to Israel, if mobility is so high? Don’t see my country agreeing.] After secular nationalism disappears, Jews survive as a people only thanks to Orthodox community. ”
Is something off in what I made up?
LikeLike
“From what you said before, I understood that the wars will remain, only nation state will leave us.”
– Of course, wars will remain. But they will be conducted differently. The massive wars where the entire population participates are out.
LikeLike
The problem with your scenario is that you are narrating it in terms of the old state form. Try doing it in the new language: I wake up in the new world. The teacher has moved to Greenland and opened a school there. A group of Peruvians have started a school in the neighborhood. The isolated groups of religious people are clinging to the old certainties but their kids are massively fleeing to the Antarctic where they are organizing the first ever transgender Olympics. And I’ve decided to take a year off and explore China.
LikeLike
\\ But they will be conducted differently. The massive wars where the entire population participates are out.
What about the massive wars in which the entire population suffers horribly? Use of biological and nuclear weapons?
LikeLike
Some people are so traumatized by the agony of the nation-state that they might just use them. The goal right now should be to help everybody make the transition as peacefully as possible. Which is why it’s so tragic that right at this crucial juncture the US is choosing to retract.
LikeLike
“Of course, wars will remain. But they will be conducted differently. The massive wars where the entire population participates are out.”
They’ve been out for a while now. When was the last time you heard of anyone seriously calling for the military draft not being laughed out of the room?
LikeLike
\\ They’ve been out for a while now. When was the last time you heard of anyone seriously calling for the military draft not being laughed out of the room?
No draft in USA didn’t prevent Iraq from turning into a total hellhole.
You don’t need draft to destroy / attack another country.
LikeLike
“You don’t need draft to destroy / attack another country.”
That’s exactly my point, that you don’t need the entire country to participate in wars anymore. The fighting is done by a tiny segment of the society, the poorest of course, lured by false promises of the state (free education! plenty of jobs after you come back!), while the overwhelming majority is completely oblivious of what’s going on.
LikeLike
Since the mass war involvement isn’tnecessary, the nation-state loses its reason to exist. Which is exactly what Im saying in this series.
LikeLike
The society of consumers is not willing to die for the goals of the state any longer. Even in Russia, all of Putin’s nationalistic propaganda is not enough. He has to bribe people with promises of apartments for them to go to war. In Russia the nation-state has barely had time to coalesce and it’s already doomed.
LikeLike
\\ Since the mass war involvement isn’tnecessary, the nation-state loses its reason to exist. Which is exactly what Im saying in this series.
My point was different. You said:
“Worse than the two world wars? It’s hard to imagine things much worse than what nationalism has brought us.”
Implying that the times of world wars’ horrors will be over in the new order since new wars will be conducted by, quoting SB, “a tiny segment of the society.”
I wonder how those wars will be conducted, which means will be used and to which extent civilians will suffer in them. If most citizens will be, as you said, “stateless within a state,” why would a state care to do anything to help those non important people?
My initial point was that a tiny segment of USA society can easily cause horrible suffering and deaths of thousands in another country. In addition, a non-state / terrorist organization with advanced weapons, probably biological or even nuclear, can cause great damage too.
LikeLike
Selective warfare is the future. Drones. Not that I’m a huge fan of drones but they are much better than 700000 people dying in the war of attrition during the battle of Verdun. Completely senseless deaths. 700000 people. And that was before the battle of Stalingrad. 2 million lives lost there.
This is the price humanity has paid for the heart-warming flag waving of the nation-state. I’d much rather somebody had taken out the Nazi leadership with a few drones instead. But that wasn’t possible until we all got our flag waving out of our systems.
LikeLike
There will always be wars, always. In the foreseeable future, at least. But the carnage that the nation-state made possible and necessary can be left in the past. And that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
// The teacher has moved to Greenland and opened a school there. A group of Peruvians have started a school in the neighborhood.
What is the problem of opening it in his / their own country?
Besides, what will happen with regard to languages, if people are constantly on the move? To succeed in a new place, you need to know its language. There is a limit on how many languages one can learn and how fast. It’s easier for children, but even they need years to acquire their mother tongue while living and studying in the environment of native speakers, otherwise they won’t know any language well. For instance, children of Turkish immigrants to Germany were described as “bilingual illiterates” who were fluent in neither the language of their parents nor that of their German fellow students by contemporary historian Ulrich Herbert.
The only real solution is adopting one language. English?
\\ And I’ve decided to take a year off and explore China.
Explore China by working there as a cleaning lady because of not knowing a word in Chinese?
If one follows your descriptions, will Jews die out in the new order as a people? After all, if everybody is always on the move, the concept of nationality in itself disappears, no?
LikeLike
Forget this language of “their own country”, it’s dead. This is like a medieval person asking you why you just can’t work in your father’s guild or marrying whomever your parents choose for you.
LikeLike
“Explore China by working there as a cleaning lady because of not knowing a word in Chinese?”
– What for if you can always make very good money teaching your own language?
“After all, if everybody is always on the move, the concept of nationality in itself disappears, no?”
– Exactly.
LikeLike
\\ Forget this language of “their own country”, it’s dead.
But to know any language well, children must be educated in it. Hearing parents at home isn’t enough for reading Pushkin. Won’t most people have sufficient language skills to enjoy literature in the new world?
Oh, I have an idea. Now I will try to use your own technique against you :). You said
“What for if you can always make very good money teaching your own language?”
Why would somebody pay for it, if already today there is f.e. a cellphone program, which can listen to a person near you talking and immediately translate the words into the language of your choice? F.e. somebody is talking to you in Chinese on the street, he ends talking, you push a button and hear those sentences in Russian.
Of course, to know a language well, one would benefit from paying a professional (not a random school teacher of subject X, who never taught languages). But why invest in learning one foreign language well, if you’re constantly on the move? Some people may make learning languages a hobby, but they will be few.
On a different subject: what will be moral principles of those future people? If everything is atomized, unconnected, it’s not “we, US citizens, against …” but “I against the world.” The “in” group of most new people may become much smaller than today’s. You know how people tend to treat “the Other,” and in the future everybody (except one and a few relatives and friends) will be classified as “the Other.” How will people treat each other then?
Besides, if there is no state’s law enforcement and no communities to protect people, won’t a significant minority begin stealing, raping, killing? Travelling may become more dangerous than now.
LikeLike
“Hearing parents at home isn’t enough for reading Pushkin.”
– You are probably not doing this on purpose but I have a very visceral reaction to the “reading Pushkin” argument. It was the same argument used by the Russians to create fear-mongering about Ukrainian Nazis making everybody forget Russian. Could you do “reading Bulgakov” the next time? OK, Bulgakov is an anti-semite. What about “reading Chekhov’?
“Oh, I have an idea. Now I will try to use your own technique against you”
– Why is this “against me”? Or “pro me”? This isn’t my plan that I’m trying to impose or anything. 🙂
“Why would somebody pay for it, if already today there is f.e. a cellphone program, which can listen to a person near you talking and immediately translate the words into the language of your choice? F.e. somebody is talking to you in Chinese on the street, he ends talking, you push a button and hear those sentences in Russian.”
– Well, perfect then. The problem of not understanding people in China has been solved.
“But why invest in learning one foreign language well, if you’re constantly on the move?”
– And who is investing into it today all that massively? People prefer to buy Rosetta Stone for enormous sums of money, which is pretty much the stupidest way of wasting money I can imagine. Doing that when instead you can make a Mexican friend and just learn for free is the height of insanity. Yet people still do it. Let’s not start me on the subject of foreign language learning because I will rant.
“Some people may make learning languages a hobby, but they will be few.”
– That is and always has been the case.
“On a different subject: what will be moral principles of those future people? If everything is atomized, unconnected, it’s not “we, US citizens, against …” but “I against the world.” The “in” group of most new people may become much smaller than today’s. You know how people tend to treat “the Other,” and in the future everybody (except one and a few relatives and friends) will be classified as “the Other.””
– Traditional morality is long dead already. Cable TV has buried it. 🙂
LikeLike
\\ their kids are massively fleeing to the Antarctic where they are organizing the first ever transgender Olympics
Had a thought that your world sounds like anarchy with a difference. There will still be states and wars, but unimportant people will be permitted by those in authority to live like gypsies in Europe, wandering from place to place. As long as they don’t interfere with state’s interests, they’ll be let to live in their world of anarchy and do (or been done to) whatever they (or others) wish. The moment they are of the slightest inconvenience, the state will make them disappear forever, without a trial or getting the second chance. I loved Orwell’s 1984, somebody definitely should write just as good distopia set in this new world.
LikeLike
“And it’s true. Nation-state’s existence as a model is predicated on people abandoning rational analysis and descending into the depths of emotional, unreasonable attachment to something that doesn’t really exist. And that’s all shades of pathetic.”
In fact, though, nothing really “exists” — not even Jewishness (or any of the identities, people like to espouse, which are just about drawing arbitrary lines and engaging in some contortions).
LikeLike