Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You've got the history wrong. As Melancathon points out, the modern state system has its origins in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War. But these weren't 'nation states' in the modern sense of the word. First of all nations as such didn't exist back then for the most part,  and secondly these states were often multinational. Seeing the Enlightenment as something that emerges to challenge the nation state is exactly backwards. The nation, in the sense of a mass collective identity dominating all others really takes off in the wake of the Enlightenment and the Revolution. It was a byproduct of the emergence of a public sphere and civil society autonomous of state and church.

At that point it is more associated with the revolutionary movements subverting the old order than with a prop for the state since the primary group identities of the ruling elites in most of Europe then are as royal subjects, as socio-economic castes, and religious. That remains the case until the mid nineteenth century - the movements for German and Italian unification, for Polish, Hungarian, and Greek independence are seen, and see themselves, as of the left, attacking the oppressive social order of the non-national elites in the name of the nation as a whole. That would quickly change over the next couple decades as states and ruling elites embraced nationalism as a source of legitimacy, while the new Marxist left tentatively retreated from nationalism (though only tentatively and as the anti-colonial movements showed, nationalism could remain a powerful left wing force even with a Marxist cast).

I also don't see any reason to see national identity as particularly bad. Group identities are going to exist and they can be harnessed for good and bad ends. And what this has to do with capitalist exploitation or the concept of corporate personhood is unclear to me.

by MarekNYC on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 01:07:25 PM EST
I also don't see any reason to see national identity as particularly bad. Group identities are going to exist and they can be harnessed for good and bad ends. And what this has to do with capitalist exploitation or the concept of corporate personhood is unclear to me.

If it were group identities being harnessed for good, it would be a wash. Harnessed for ill, as raisers of the spectre of xenophobia to enable the armaments makers, they can easily be the death of humanity. Like now.

Like the famous scorpion in the fable, where the scorpion asks the turtle to ferry him across the river, and the turtle demurs, worried that the scorpion will sting him, and the scorpion says no, we'd both drown, and they set off and the scorpion stings him anyways, and as they go down, the scorpion explains "It's my nature," the oligarchs are too much in and of their greedy nature to see the turtle they are stinging. That would be us.

The concept of corporate personhood is this: corporations have been stupidly granted personhood in the United States. I'm not familiar with European law. In the United States, a person has the right to express themselves through the spending of money, which is considered speech. Money buys propaganda.

Corporations, which legally exist with only one strand of morality, to make their stockholders profit. As Reinhold Neibuhr clarified beautifully in Moral Man in an Immoral Society, corporations are amoral in the normal sense of being able to make the fine distinctions of interpersonal recognition upon which the Golden Rule is based. They shouldn't be "people" any more than seriously mentally disabled people should be driving schoolbuses. They sure shouldn't be writing their own regulations, and picking legislators.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 01:31:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series