The Nation State
illuminex
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-03-13 Member: 27317Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">will it last much longer?</div> As of World War II's end, Europe began to shift from a nation-state philosophy to a more united continent, aka the European Union. With the internet, the beginning death of the powerful energy community, and the growing ease of trade among nations, the world is drawing closer and closer.
The question is, how long will the nation-state last? Is America the last and greatest of the nation-states?
Some other questions that one should ask before going onwards:
What type of government will rule the world? Will it be a totalitarian government? Will it be democratic?
What type of economic system will run the world?
Will there be a war to force a one world government?
Discuss (this thread should be interesting)
The question is, how long will the nation-state last? Is America the last and greatest of the nation-states?
Some other questions that one should ask before going onwards:
What type of government will rule the world? Will it be a totalitarian government? Will it be democratic?
What type of economic system will run the world?
Will there be a war to force a one world government?
Discuss (this thread should be interesting)
Comments
n.
A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language.</i>
That what you meant? Never heard of the expression before this thread, so I checked the dictionary... not sure if it fits the topic though.
On second thought, no, that does not fit the topic. USA is definitely not a nation-state(common history? hah).
So, if you don't mind, could you define nation-state as you're using it?
The nation-state will always be the way the world is organized. Countries may become linked closer together than ever before, but borders will always cross the globe. Civilization has never existed without some form of localized government, and there has always been separate groups of governments. The borders have changed, the number of governments has grown, but really it's just in the nature of humans to identify yourself with some government, and be able to say "You all over there are foreign to us".
And I think we can define "nation-state" as an autonomous country for the purposes of this discussion. And the USA has enough history behind it at this point to define the region, if not the people inhabiting it.
In any case, nothing short of a massive alien invasion would likely make the human race form a world government. After all, people need enemies.
In any case, nothing short of a massive alien invasion would likely make the human race form a world government. After all, people need enemies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
NO country is about to hand over its military and/or currency to a world power, not even democratic countries. Any world government in the future will literally have to force the US to join a world government to this extent. Heck, we're debating whether or not to leave the UN right now; we're ignoring them enough we might as well not be a member. And even if Washington decided to join the nations of the world, forget about taxing the populace. That proposed UN world tax can go to hell, it's not happening here.
[edit]Maybe I should add that I do not see the end of the nation state as the inevitable advent of a one world government. We could just as well fall back into an era of city states, for example.[/edit]
--
Why did people start forming communities that extended the frame of cities and villages? Because they had something that united them. In the maybe oldest case of a civilization uniformly enough to describe it as 'country', Egypt, it was the river. The need for dams and irrigation systems that were too compilcated for single communities to maintain made nearby cities unite, the need to organize the constant defense and adaption to natures threats created a countrywide bureaucracy, and at its top, a government.
Most countries began like this - certain factors controlled the everyday lives of many, which then joined to face those more effectively.
In the beginning - and this term can be loosely applied to all time between the antique empires and the end of the Dark Ages - these uniting factors were usually of geographic nature. A river that threatened to drown your crops, mountains that had to be secured and mined, thick forests that had to be burned - such things were the saplings of countries.
These countries grew, and often grew larger than the old common denominator. This led in some cases to their decline - the Ottomanic Realm or Germany during the Dark Ages, for example - while others created new factors that were strong enough to unify the country, and be it only the unified military that would uniformly kill whomever happened to decide that the kings reign wasn't as holy as it was said. China would be the perfect example here.
The actual idea of 'nations' and 'national identity' is much younger. It's an invention of the 18th century, during the transition between extended Renaissance and Industrialization.
The European countries had grown big - bigger than Europe, in fact - and their governments had achieved bigger power than any other entity before them. Their countries had however become so big and diverse that geographic or similiarly 'real' factors couldn't lend unity to the whole of the population.
Thus, 'national identities' developed, abstract factors that created a feeling for unity where there was none in everyday life. Cultural heritage and physical characteristics, common history and the common reciever of ones taxes were cited to create this feeling. Above all, these new nations were however negative definitions - definitions against <i>other</i> nations. German, thus not French, Russian, or British. British, thus not German, French or Irish. French, thus nothing other.
The invention of nations was accompanied by a new kind of warfare. Suddenly, armed conflicts stopped being something between two feudal sovereigns, and became something between two populations. They weren't fought by mercenaries for money, but by soldiers for their nation. WW1 or 2 wouldn't have been possible without of nationalism and patriotism.
And today? Todays nations are in almost all cases too big to be based on common geographic characteristics anymore, but also the abstract values crumble. Globalization is not a soley economic process, it extends into culture. This does, contrary to shortened anti-/pro-americanistic rethoric not mean the export of one nations cultural identity into other nations, it means a constant im - <i>and</i> export, although not in equal amounts. But even if all nations <i>were</i> to become 'small Americas', this would still mean the end of the American nation.
Why? Because this nation defines itself as much as being different from the rest of the world as every other nation. If all national images start equalling, and they do, just look at Europe, this definition becomes obsolete.
Even more, the creation of international broadband communication like the internet means that people are no longer forced to search for people of equal everyday life or opinion, which is, as I already explained, the beginning of a common identity, in the geographical proximity.
Look around yourself. How many of the people you see on the street, which're most probably of your nationality, are truly 'like you'? How many of them have an identity that's even remotely comparable to yours? I for mine know that there are people in Boston, York, North Carolina, Egypt, and Australia I share more interests, ideas, and thus identity with than with my neighbours.
Thus, nations that extend the frame of direct problem solutions - where to build a street, how to organize a hospital, how to build that damn - will in my opinion decline in the near future as they just aren't necessary anymore.