From Nations to Corporations

vimothy

yurp
but they haven't been nation states for millenia. that's a much more recent development. bobbit's argument is not that these countries will disappear (altho ofc they might), but that the constitution of their states is something that changes over time. for now, they are nation states, but that is changing and in the future it will be something different - perhaps "market states", perhaps "civilisation states" (assuming that's an alternative constitutional model), perhaps something else.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
To clarify, "nation" in "nation-state" is primarily a geographic designation? At least for Bobbit? Maybe I'm abstracting it too much, because I'm still conflating "nation" and "state".
 

HMGovt

Bamber Clatscoigne
but they haven't been nation states for millenia. that's a much more recent development. bobbit's argument is not that these countries will disappear (altho ofc they might), but that the constitution of their states is something that changes over time. for now, they are nation states, but that is changing and in the future it will be something different - perhaps "market states", perhaps "civilisation states" (assuming that's an alternative constitutional model), perhaps something else.
Yes, only China and perhaps Japan qualify. Russia's a funny one, I suppose it's being made before our eyes, by force of individual, revanchist will in that case.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
even China is not as continuous a proposition as they want you to beleive. it's been subject to wave after wave of conquests.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Merriam Webster helped a bit, seemingly defining the state as some kind of transcendent body within/over the nation. I think part of the reason I'm so confused is that these meanings shift as we move from nation-state to market-state or ______-state. I think, perhaps, much of my understanding (perhaps even many people's understandings) of the state is predicated highly on its relation to the nation, as in nation-state. Hence my difficulty imagining what a "state" means in the case of the market-state.

And then there is the inclination to view any such development as teleological, that the nation-state evolves into the market-state, undergoing a more or less objective betterment along the way. What are some of the problems thinking this way?


Is the citizen to the nation-state what the consumer is to the market-state? Assuming nations are replaced by markets (or are they replaced by corporations?), what becomes of civic responsibilities and rights?
 

vimothy

yurp
nations are distinct peoples. they do not need to have their own states. eg consider the Kurds, or native Americans. states are formal systems of governance that rule territories. a state can rule or encompass a territory consisting of many nations. eg consider older imperial states that ruled colonies etc. a nation state is a particular constitutional form the state, which draws legitimacy from the particular nation which forms its polity. think of France or Japan.
 

vimothy

yurp
obviously these are contested and vague definitions. just remember that a state can serve or govern peoples from many nations. the nation state is a form of the state, which most ppl trace to the peace of westphalia
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
A lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with language and would prefer it to be replaced with numbers, which move about less.
 

vimothy

yurp
china for example has not been a nation state for its entire existence. the nation state is a "modern" concept.
 
Top