Many things went wrong because after WWI and especially WWII the world had experienced (and still experiencing) siege socialism, siege pan-Africanism, siege-Islamism, etc. By which I mean the centers of political and economic power in the west (US & Europe) do not want any competition and do not want challenges to their domination. This plays a very large role in the turmoils experienced by the world after WWII.
One can see that by and large, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was relatively peaceful, with exceptions, the most relevant being the Azeri-Armenian one. The Ukraine/Russian conflict could have been avoided, and the fluctuation of power in Kiev between west and east could have become something of a Conservatives/Labour type of thing. Exxcept for the interference of the US/EU...
I'm frankly surprised you didn't go straight to Hegel's account of the origin's of the modern nation state which he discusses in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right. To summarize his argument, the modern nation state is more than just a form of political organization but a mechanism for producing modern "subjects" and "citizens" precisely from the raw material of "folk" whose historic identities were linked traditionally to tribes, clans or other more-or-less extended ethno-social groupings. What the state introduces is the set of formal legal relationships not only between subjects and the state but between individual subjects within the state and, in fact, between individual subjects within the traditional family structure itself. So, what were once "organic" or "natural" forms of being-in-the world, now become functions or products of legal status - of rights and responsibilities - which, not surprisingly, lends itself quite well to the demands of capitalism in its early, modern and post-modern manifestations.
Thus, it is not surprising that following the dissolution of empires after WWI and WW2 that former colonial subjects would assume the form of social and political organization which best guaranteed their ability to slot into the emerging capitalist world order, with its corresponding political, financial and economic institutions. And it is also not surprising that the United States and other post-colonial Western powers would encourage this approach, however begrudgingly, as in the cases of Algeria, Angola, Vietnam, etc., insofar as it facilitated ongoing neo-colonial forms of exploitation and control, a good deal of which persisted even after countries such as Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and other former French colonies gained putative "independence". So I don't think you adequately take into consideration the impact of capitalism on the evolution of the nation state as the dominant form of "modern" socio-political organization.
In the absence of viable alternatives to nation states, we should not be surprised nor overly critical when former colonies ended up adopting that form of social organization. However, as you note, in many instances the states formed after the departure of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, etc., or the collapse of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires (or even the collapse of the former Soviet Union), did not correspond to an underlying cultural, ethnic or religious homogeneity, but were stuck with the borders imposed on them by relatively recent history - e.g., the Treaty of Versaille, Sikes-Picot, etc., - and therefore had to deal precisely with equitable distributions of power and representation, or face internal conflict.
In hindsight, one might wish that the history of societal organization had taken a different or "better" path, though I kept waiting for you to suggest what that might look like and you didn't offer any suggestion. You concede the empires of the past not only can't be conjured back into existence but left a lot to be desired to those who lived under their control. Some were more tolerant or benevolent than others, but all of them demanded subservience to imperial authority and strictly limited and controlled alternative, competing forms of political authority. The United States has attempted, over the course of its own imperial trajectory, to assert political and economic hegemony in ways that preserve the appearance of individual state sovereignty, while never hesitating to violate that sovereignty when deemed necessary. This is something that even loyal vassals like Germany are finding out, and which disloyal vassals like Iraq learned the hard way.
Since we are saddled with nation states for the near future - to paraphrase the racist Churchill: "Nation states are terrible, but every other form of socio-political organization are worse." - we at least should be encouraged by the emergence of a multi-polar world order and corresponding organizations based on greater respect for national sovereignty and greater international cooperation, and that doesn't involve the tyranny of the United States and it's "rules-based" international order.
Except I would say 'industrial' societies instead of capitalist ones. For all I know, former colonies which followed communism or socialism didn't performed really better than the capitalist ones...
So it might be that nation-state organisation seems the natural option for industrial societies (as opposed to agrarian ones) because a higher degree of individual rights is needed to manage their greater complexity.
And still maybe they tend to fail one way or an other because they are left with no choice but to be part of an empire anyway (either the soviet one until it collapsed or the American one, maybe soon the Chinese one). And being part of an empire means that whoever rules the country must do it, to some extend, according to the interests of the empire instead of the interest of its own people. Or be overthrown by a more complacent, if not downright corrupted, opposition (be it from a different ethnic or social background, whichever divide its society).
And by the way, it's not just the former colonies that are concerned. It happens in former imperial nation-states too.
In France (and in other European countries too), the elite in power governs for more than 50 years according to Brussels wills, that is, Berlin's and then ultimately Washington's interests. And to be sure, ethnic divisions were exacerbated to ensure obedience. Recent events in France or England have shown that if the population wants to protect its nation-state, it is prevented from doing so. One way or an other.
Or Russia which find itself surrounded by NATO bases or countries raked by colourful revolutions and threatened with 'nation-building' for not accepting to play by the rules...
Second world ( socialist/ communist) did very well without doing imperialism.
Socialism was not present in most countries. Economic system is capitalist.(Bretten woods and after). Sure they wanted to but the parties ruling these countries are bourgeoisie most of time
I think there is also competitive pressure in the international system which forces some conformity of political arrangement in a very Darwinian way -- there are only so many arrangements which can simultaneously withstand internal fissiparous forces and external threats.
"the British and French realised that the situation was economically unsustainable, and started looking for ways out".
Not in India, Kenya, Aden, the Malvinas, Vietnam or Algeria, Madagascar and no doubt others, if I could be bothered dredging through my memory. In each of those cases Britain or France went, very unwillingly, and were in fact forced out by either native opinion of armed force. If not for that hey would still be dependent entities. Madagascar and the Malvinas still are, of course.
Where this propensity to defend defunct empires comes from, and why, is a mystery to me. It becomes however, very tedious among the otherwise interesting comment.
If you don't understand the history of salvation through Christ, then you won't properly analyze history. This 500 year+ revolution against Christ the King and the rights of God is why we are at this point. This is a world that lives and breathes the spirit of anti-Christ. Look no further than the opening and closing ceremonies in Paris. We have rising authoritarianism everywhere. God is allowing this to happen--this chastisement. You are trying to make sense of the world using lenses riddled with error. Even the best scientists using faulty instruments will come to false conclusions.
My goodness, but this is interesting. I was a little surprised that the Treaty of Westphalia didn't get mentioned, since it formed a truce among the European empires NOT to meddle in the religious affairs of one another's polities. This is a lesson that today's Liberals flagrantly violate (typical of their historical ignorance and arrogant assumptions that religion no longer matters -- to the point that they can no longer even recognize the religious impulse when it is staring them in the face!); and as far as I'm concerned they have unwittingly smuggled religion in through the back door with all of their constant moralizing and lecturing and their scheming for regime change always and everywhere in polities resistant to their "universal" project. And how all the media personalities would be offended if you were to identify them with priestcraft, notwithstanding how obviously their current role parallels those who controlled the pulpits so many years before them ...
A nation is essentially the same thing as a people. Both in the meaning of a folk, in English or German.
The German nation being the same thing as the German folk, or collection of German folks.
These folks live in countries, or land. So the country refer to the territory inhabited by a folk, if they do possess land, ie a country. Jews are a folk, or nation with no historical country. Some countries are inhabited by more than one people, such as Sweden and Finland.
A state is a political organisation which may or may not correspond to a nation or country.
For example Belgium is a state with two countries in it, each traditionally inhabited by one people, the flemish and the valoons. Britain is a state with 4 countries, and 4 people on two islands.
A nation-state is what you get when a people, ie a folk, is sovereign, and is the ideal form of democracy as it means that the demos, ie the folk, decides it's own affairs. All other forms of government are different kinds of subjugation, most often imperialism.
Thus we can equate nationalism and national struggles with liberation movements and democratic movements. Most often in the form of bourgeois revolutions, as the bourgeoisie, ie the middle class is the carrier of the national polity.
Anything else, is a an ahistorical leftist fantasy.
I'm conspiratorial here, but I think that the essay is colored by an illuministic (let's call it that way) perspective. Even if the nation state is labelled as a failure, France and all the capitalized metaphysical concepts still stand out, according to the author. Ethnic and cultural homogeneity are downplayed (ask the kurds) in favor of universalism. Pan-Africanism... this is the part construens I think. Some "pan"-thing to spread across the world. China, India, Russia, Brazil... large countries with big ethnic populations and wildy different cultures... I hope this is where the world is headed with the incoming demise of the West...
An interesting analysis that fails as the author forgot to apply this to the topic of Israel/Palestine, especially whether the “two state solution” is even a solution to begin with.
The problem is that a successful nation state (with either an organic or ideological basis) can muster so much more power, relative to its resources, than any other polity. We saw this almost immediately, when the armies generated by both Revolutionary and Napoleonic France were able to keep the entire rest of Europe at bay or under their thumb for almost two decades.
All that said, the EU is essentially a post-Westphalian institution, isn't it? It looks like an attempt to layer a super-national structure and identity on national populations.
A state - this means registering all its citizens by name, place of residence, age, gender, etc. for the purposes of taxation and possible conscription for military service.
It also means the recording and surveying of land (cadastre), the most accurate possible mapping of all economically, politically and militarily relevant circumstances.
To put it briefly: it is about control - in every respect.
Like Aurelien, I also doubt whether the model of the Western ‘liberal’ state, which has been exported all over the world, can manage the security and well-being of its own and all its citizens - or whether it even wants to.
The state as an agent of a ruling class is another topic of its own, which Aurelien will perhaps address in a later essay?
Wherever you step in this world on some land, someone comes and claims it is his. It's annoying, but even stray dogs on our street claim their territory fervently, and there is no point in arguing with them.
Not being very clever I was at full stretch staying with you during the whole essay but managed to go along pretty well and found it very rewarding indeed. All good brand new stuff to me. But it seems I didn't really get it: because that last paragraph threw me. 'Political Islam' ? What's that?
Many things went wrong because after WWI and especially WWII the world had experienced (and still experiencing) siege socialism, siege pan-Africanism, siege-Islamism, etc. By which I mean the centers of political and economic power in the west (US & Europe) do not want any competition and do not want challenges to their domination. This plays a very large role in the turmoils experienced by the world after WWII.
One can see that by and large, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was relatively peaceful, with exceptions, the most relevant being the Azeri-Armenian one. The Ukraine/Russian conflict could have been avoided, and the fluctuation of power in Kiev between west and east could have become something of a Conservatives/Labour type of thing. Exxcept for the interference of the US/EU...
I'm frankly surprised you didn't go straight to Hegel's account of the origin's of the modern nation state which he discusses in his Elements of the Philosophy of Right. To summarize his argument, the modern nation state is more than just a form of political organization but a mechanism for producing modern "subjects" and "citizens" precisely from the raw material of "folk" whose historic identities were linked traditionally to tribes, clans or other more-or-less extended ethno-social groupings. What the state introduces is the set of formal legal relationships not only between subjects and the state but between individual subjects within the state and, in fact, between individual subjects within the traditional family structure itself. So, what were once "organic" or "natural" forms of being-in-the world, now become functions or products of legal status - of rights and responsibilities - which, not surprisingly, lends itself quite well to the demands of capitalism in its early, modern and post-modern manifestations.
Thus, it is not surprising that following the dissolution of empires after WWI and WW2 that former colonial subjects would assume the form of social and political organization which best guaranteed their ability to slot into the emerging capitalist world order, with its corresponding political, financial and economic institutions. And it is also not surprising that the United States and other post-colonial Western powers would encourage this approach, however begrudgingly, as in the cases of Algeria, Angola, Vietnam, etc., insofar as it facilitated ongoing neo-colonial forms of exploitation and control, a good deal of which persisted even after countries such as Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and other former French colonies gained putative "independence". So I don't think you adequately take into consideration the impact of capitalism on the evolution of the nation state as the dominant form of "modern" socio-political organization.
In the absence of viable alternatives to nation states, we should not be surprised nor overly critical when former colonies ended up adopting that form of social organization. However, as you note, in many instances the states formed after the departure of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, etc., or the collapse of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires (or even the collapse of the former Soviet Union), did not correspond to an underlying cultural, ethnic or religious homogeneity, but were stuck with the borders imposed on them by relatively recent history - e.g., the Treaty of Versaille, Sikes-Picot, etc., - and therefore had to deal precisely with equitable distributions of power and representation, or face internal conflict.
In hindsight, one might wish that the history of societal organization had taken a different or "better" path, though I kept waiting for you to suggest what that might look like and you didn't offer any suggestion. You concede the empires of the past not only can't be conjured back into existence but left a lot to be desired to those who lived under their control. Some were more tolerant or benevolent than others, but all of them demanded subservience to imperial authority and strictly limited and controlled alternative, competing forms of political authority. The United States has attempted, over the course of its own imperial trajectory, to assert political and economic hegemony in ways that preserve the appearance of individual state sovereignty, while never hesitating to violate that sovereignty when deemed necessary. This is something that even loyal vassals like Germany are finding out, and which disloyal vassals like Iraq learned the hard way.
Since we are saddled with nation states for the near future - to paraphrase the racist Churchill: "Nation states are terrible, but every other form of socio-political organization are worse." - we at least should be encouraged by the emergence of a multi-polar world order and corresponding organizations based on greater respect for national sovereignty and greater international cooperation, and that doesn't involve the tyranny of the United States and it's "rules-based" international order.
I mostly agree with you.
Except I would say 'industrial' societies instead of capitalist ones. For all I know, former colonies which followed communism or socialism didn't performed really better than the capitalist ones...
So it might be that nation-state organisation seems the natural option for industrial societies (as opposed to agrarian ones) because a higher degree of individual rights is needed to manage their greater complexity.
And still maybe they tend to fail one way or an other because they are left with no choice but to be part of an empire anyway (either the soviet one until it collapsed or the American one, maybe soon the Chinese one). And being part of an empire means that whoever rules the country must do it, to some extend, according to the interests of the empire instead of the interest of its own people. Or be overthrown by a more complacent, if not downright corrupted, opposition (be it from a different ethnic or social background, whichever divide its society).
And by the way, it's not just the former colonies that are concerned. It happens in former imperial nation-states too.
In France (and in other European countries too), the elite in power governs for more than 50 years according to Brussels wills, that is, Berlin's and then ultimately Washington's interests. And to be sure, ethnic divisions were exacerbated to ensure obedience. Recent events in France or England have shown that if the population wants to protect its nation-state, it is prevented from doing so. One way or an other.
Or Russia which find itself surrounded by NATO bases or countries raked by colourful revolutions and threatened with 'nation-building' for not accepting to play by the rules...
Second world ( socialist/ communist) did very well without doing imperialism.
Socialism was not present in most countries. Economic system is capitalist.(Bretten woods and after). Sure they wanted to but the parties ruling these countries are bourgeoisie most of time
I think there is also competitive pressure in the international system which forces some conformity of political arrangement in a very Darwinian way -- there are only so many arrangements which can simultaneously withstand internal fissiparous forces and external threats.
The Great Apologist strikes again!
"the British and French realised that the situation was economically unsustainable, and started looking for ways out".
Not in India, Kenya, Aden, the Malvinas, Vietnam or Algeria, Madagascar and no doubt others, if I could be bothered dredging through my memory. In each of those cases Britain or France went, very unwillingly, and were in fact forced out by either native opinion of armed force. If not for that hey would still be dependent entities. Madagascar and the Malvinas still are, of course.
Where this propensity to defend defunct empires comes from, and why, is a mystery to me. It becomes however, very tedious among the otherwise interesting comment.
If you don't understand the history of salvation through Christ, then you won't properly analyze history. This 500 year+ revolution against Christ the King and the rights of God is why we are at this point. This is a world that lives and breathes the spirit of anti-Christ. Look no further than the opening and closing ceremonies in Paris. We have rising authoritarianism everywhere. God is allowing this to happen--this chastisement. You are trying to make sense of the world using lenses riddled with error. Even the best scientists using faulty instruments will come to false conclusions.
My goodness, but this is interesting. I was a little surprised that the Treaty of Westphalia didn't get mentioned, since it formed a truce among the European empires NOT to meddle in the religious affairs of one another's polities. This is a lesson that today's Liberals flagrantly violate (typical of their historical ignorance and arrogant assumptions that religion no longer matters -- to the point that they can no longer even recognize the religious impulse when it is staring them in the face!); and as far as I'm concerned they have unwittingly smuggled religion in through the back door with all of their constant moralizing and lecturing and their scheming for regime change always and everywhere in polities resistant to their "universal" project. And how all the media personalities would be offended if you were to identify them with priestcraft, notwithstanding how obviously their current role parallels those who controlled the pulpits so many years before them ...
In essence, it always was, is and will be a war on Christ - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/03/in-essenceit-always-wasand-still-isa.html?m=0 - and your excellent history confirms it.
Your terms are quite badly defined.
A nation is essentially the same thing as a people. Both in the meaning of a folk, in English or German.
The German nation being the same thing as the German folk, or collection of German folks.
These folks live in countries, or land. So the country refer to the territory inhabited by a folk, if they do possess land, ie a country. Jews are a folk, or nation with no historical country. Some countries are inhabited by more than one people, such as Sweden and Finland.
A state is a political organisation which may or may not correspond to a nation or country.
For example Belgium is a state with two countries in it, each traditionally inhabited by one people, the flemish and the valoons. Britain is a state with 4 countries, and 4 people on two islands.
A nation-state is what you get when a people, ie a folk, is sovereign, and is the ideal form of democracy as it means that the demos, ie the folk, decides it's own affairs. All other forms of government are different kinds of subjugation, most often imperialism.
Thus we can equate nationalism and national struggles with liberation movements and democratic movements. Most often in the form of bourgeois revolutions, as the bourgeoisie, ie the middle class is the carrier of the national polity.
Anything else, is a an ahistorical leftist fantasy.
Hello, Aurelien. I cited your post on my blog "The Seneca Effect" at
https://senecaeffect.substack.com/p/natural-born-killers-the-curse-of
Thanks for the interesting work you are doing!
Thank you!
I'm conspiratorial here, but I think that the essay is colored by an illuministic (let's call it that way) perspective. Even if the nation state is labelled as a failure, France and all the capitalized metaphysical concepts still stand out, according to the author. Ethnic and cultural homogeneity are downplayed (ask the kurds) in favor of universalism. Pan-Africanism... this is the part construens I think. Some "pan"-thing to spread across the world. China, India, Russia, Brazil... large countries with big ethnic populations and wildy different cultures... I hope this is where the world is headed with the incoming demise of the West...
An interesting analysis that fails as the author forgot to apply this to the topic of Israel/Palestine, especially whether the “two state solution” is even a solution to begin with.
This time too, an Italian translation "on the move", due to holidays...
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2024/08/popoli-stati-e-confini-e-altre-idee.html
Many thanks as always Marco!
The problem is that a successful nation state (with either an organic or ideological basis) can muster so much more power, relative to its resources, than any other polity. We saw this almost immediately, when the armies generated by both Revolutionary and Napoleonic France were able to keep the entire rest of Europe at bay or under their thumb for almost two decades.
All that said, the EU is essentially a post-Westphalian institution, isn't it? It looks like an attempt to layer a super-national structure and identity on national populations.
A state - this means registering all its citizens by name, place of residence, age, gender, etc. for the purposes of taxation and possible conscription for military service.
It also means the recording and surveying of land (cadastre), the most accurate possible mapping of all economically, politically and militarily relevant circumstances.
To put it briefly: it is about control - in every respect.
Like Aurelien, I also doubt whether the model of the Western ‘liberal’ state, which has been exported all over the world, can manage the security and well-being of its own and all its citizens - or whether it even wants to.
The state as an agent of a ruling class is another topic of its own, which Aurelien will perhaps address in a later essay?
Wherever you step in this world on some land, someone comes and claims it is his. It's annoying, but even stray dogs on our street claim their territory fervently, and there is no point in arguing with them.
Having read this article, I seem to be being plagued by interprenational ambiguities that have left me in quite a state of terroritory!
Not being very clever I was at full stretch staying with you during the whole essay but managed to go along pretty well and found it very rewarding indeed. All good brand new stuff to me. But it seems I didn't really get it: because that last paragraph threw me. 'Political Islam' ? What's that?