Nation-State

[All Systems Go]

I've read here now and again people stating that the nation-state is no longer useful (or words to that effect). I was wondering, what is wrong with it and what do you think should replace it?

[JammyJim]

Are you referring to it in terms of security? or just in a very general broad term.

[MrL_JaKiri]

In what ways are you talking, specifically. Ideally I wouldn't want to be arguing a position based on 'lol bush sux lol'.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I've read here now and again people stating that the nation-state is no longer useful (or words to that effect). I was wondering, what is wrong with it and what do you think should replace it?

I've studied the concept of Nation States in the past and I quickly realised that it is a very dull subject. Alcohol abuse with my mates is a far better replacement.

~Vaio~

[All Systems Go]

Basically, I'm doing some reading for my coursework and it refers to nations as 'imagined communites'. During my reading I have read that nations were useful at one time at least for economic reasons. Nowadays with the relatively easy movement of capital and people these reasons are defunct and there is no reason for nationalism, especially smaller countries. Wales would be a good example, some people want Wales to be independent although there is no real benefit in this.

[madi]

my dad is bigger than your dad
my team is better than your team
my town is better than your town
my country is better than your country

people like to belong
i think maybe it helps give them an identity or something

[IncubusGod]

If you are not a citizen of a particular country then you would be just a random person. Without a nation behind you, without a sence of identity you would feel vunerable and be open to exploitation. You would be just a consumer.
Without nations people would always find some other clan to belong to. People do it all the time now.

People join groups to feel less vunerable. Its instinct. Nations are an extension of that.

[zakoff]

Nation states aren't particularly important in the Global World. Globalisation has stopped borders being particularly important these days. In the European Union for instance, the Schengen (spelling?) group has no border control at all.

Nations, in History, have been the cause of many conflicts basically for the reason Madi explains. People want to be the best etc. In the Post Colonial world the lact of 'Great Nations' to control the smaller nations allowed nationalism and small states to cause conflicts between themselves. In Africa, many of the problems we see now, are due to the system of Nation states. Pre-Colonilisation and during colonialisation the power of the nations that held them in check were able to stop conflict. Once they left, without creating a stable well thoughtout national system (like India, Pakistan etc), they left many problems for the people.


Whether or not Nation states are important in this day and age is a matter of great debate and i don't believe its that boring. Its one of the new regions of debate between the Left and the Right. Especially with large organisations, such as the EU and the UN, taking power away from nations which upsets many nationalists.

However, i don't think we will have the 'United Earth' anytime soon, hehehe

[zakoff]

Nationalism of ethnicity is something a little different and it is certainly caused by opression. Nationalism within nation states (like English Nationalism or French Nationalism) has nothing to do with opression at all.

The Kurds, i'd agree, have adopted nationalism in a reactive sense against the Turkish dominance, just as the Welsh nationalism grew out of English dominance in the UK. However nationaliam still broods in people who just love their country. The BNP in Britain for instance cannot claim to have any real problems with the state, they just want a White Britain (they are just racist basically). There is also a high proportion of people who are anti-EU, because they fear the loss of power that propaganda in the Right wing media expresses.

The idea of a Nation-State has been totally overshadowed by Globalisation, which almost makes it inferior. The use of tariffs etc is never going to be used again and most small countries cannot stand alone anymore, including Britain which has the biggest economy only 100years ago. So the nation-state is increasingly becomming less important.

[zakoff]

Nationalism is irrational, I'd agree.

my analysis of Globalisation was meerly a simplistic form of the arguments of Globalisation. I'd certainly agree that Globalisation is one of the causes of nationalism, especially in countries outside of G8 etc. Yes, tariffs in the NAFTA and EU are increased in their lucrative forms, however as nations they cannot sustain such tariffs individually. Even the US has trouble keeping Tariffs because its losing its economic power. If the EU were pushed back into individual nation-states working seperately, tariffs would cripple most of the countries in Europe and most of the countries would be substantially poorer, because its important to have a common market.

I really disagree though that the Nation state is important in this world, the large communities are massively important and obviously the situation of places like Africa wouldn't change with or without Nation states and Rich nations can't work as nation states unless that have a massive market, like China! I also don't see how its a line of defence.... Economically the stability of a currency and economy perhaps, but this is pretty much the same anywhere. Except in times of crisis, but this still doesn't much matter because you can easily move capital somewhere else.

[Yahwe]

the only people who say 'nation states are no longer essential' are the large multinational companies

what they mean is 'nation states are a threat to us and therefore we should play them down to avoid damaging the share price'.

the nation state is essential because without it there is no legal system.
the only point is that some multinationals are now as rich as some nation states, this is a misleading truism to focus on.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the only people who say 'nation states are no longer essential' are the large multinational companies.

When has anyone occupying an important position within a multinational company ever said this?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

When has anyone occupying an important position within a multinational company ever said this?

yesterday.

at drinks.

weren't you there?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I've read here now and again people stating that the nation-state is no longer useful (or words to that effect).

I was wondering, what is wrong with it

Why should I be a minority in your country when you can be a minority in mine?

and what do you think should replace it?

Something less prone to massive populism.