The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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.
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 Oui - Feb 4 27 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 427 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 275 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2732 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1222 comments