It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


End of the State as a Political Organization?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:49 AM

It’s an issue that forces politicians to a tough place. Whatever benefits they see to their own economies from freer trade, they must be responsive to the voters who don’t necessarily appreciate the market forces that move their jobs overseas or flood their markets with cheap foreign grain.

There is an apparent growing dichotomy between free market capitalism, and its offshoot of globalism, and the orientation of the nation-state in imagining the ideal institutional forms and structures that can unify its population. Citizens in politically powerful, post-industrial economies can effectively vote away the justified earnings of members of less politically powerful organizations and states.

We see this in protectionism, which is meant to buttress domestic employment from exogenous market forces such as price, but ultimately at the expense of the wealth of the majority of the world's populations. When the third world actually develops a substantial industrial base, will they tolerate such exclusivity at the expense of their own citizens, who themselves form the aggregate of their states' own Democratic legitimacy?

I can not comprehend the successful organization and allocation of the world's resources, whether natural or human, without a greater degree of political and economic integration. This might include to some extent the abolition of certain notions of sovereignty so treasured by polities such as the United States, exemplified in their ignorance of world trade agreements and international law. I postulate that without nationalism, and the segregated Democratic institutions which fund nation-building (that is the precept by which only legal citizens can vote), wealth will finally be redistributed to the most productive pockets of the globe, and not to those whose ideas of economic policy are characterized by centuries of militarism and political dominion.

The world's present economic condition is entirely predicated on the insufficiency of a few nation-states' productive capacity, and their general disinterest in financial and sociopolitical regulation (subprime mortgages and other loans for purposes of nation-confined egalitarianism, excessive consumption, Community Reinvestment Act, etc.), all of which are characterized by nation-building and nation-citizen-oriented prerogatives, derived out of a common neglect for the present condition of the world at their expense.

Where are we headed if not to alienation, famine and war if the people of the world are in no position (as in they lack the political organization and influence) to deal with the affects of international trade in particular, considering they are equals in the inheritance of the globe and its resources?

How is containing wealth in one nation ever justified in a highly interconnected world economy? How is sovereignty and the habit of propping up citizens from one nation over another responsible in the face of economic recession and uncertainty, and even in times of relative normalcy? Is it because they were elected? Do the politicians owe their constituency some form of payment out of the public treasury? Is the modern, post-industrial state a viable model for which to advocate both Democratic principles and national economic policy concurrently, or does it only benefit those citizens born into them at the total expense of those born outside them?

The world can't rely on foreign aid forever. If the presently rich pockets of the globe fail to produce sufficient competition, why is it we continue to "contain" wealth, when free market capitalism would otherwise provide an equal opportunity for the less developed regions of the world to succeed where others have grown complacent and inefficient? This question is in relation to the recent auto manufacturers bailout. Why weren't foreign corporations enticed to purchase a stake in these corporations? Was it because of a fear such a transaction wouldn't serve the best interests of the people? Would the unions dissipate? Did they deserve to be there in the first place? Why was a bailout the first option considered?

I am utterly appalled by U.S. egocentrism in particular. When that country fails to be competitive, they take advantage of every aggressive and irresponsible national policy tool at their disposal to supplant any possibility of failure, instead of realizing a short term defeat and investing appropriately in the root causes of their problems, such as the education of a flexible workforce, the implementation of more efficient technology, etc.

Everyone wants a piece of the treasury. Citizens feel they own the country and their politicians. America today is ancient Athens at its nadir.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by cognoscente]

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:34 PM

threatens to tear both the euro and the EU apart


Let The March To Globalization FAIL !

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:17 AM
If the entire continent feels like neglecting financial regulation then let the entire continent suffer and pay for it. I don't see the implication that globalization had anything to do with this. The concerned countries, who all happen to be afflicted by the same problem, and who are all implicated in it, are related only by a vast expanse of shared, geographic space. Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of total land mass. Does that mean it's global? No, only people born there and those who have lived in Canada for some time are entreated to common rights, from access to citizenship, welfare, and equal participation in its political and social institutions. There is a clear conflict of interests between the citizens of a nation-state, whose Democratically elected leaders are expected to acquire wealth for their own citizens at the expense of people from outside who have not themselves been invited to vote. This becomes especially apparent in times of economic hardship. People would rather defect and pursue the hare than approach the stag in concerted effort.

We need a supranational, globally elected bureaucracy to keep the interests of the nation-states in check (and their belligerent citizens) and to enforce international law. Think of it as a new "checks and balances" system, where each nation-state is a different branch of government. In order for sound global governance to be achieved each nation-state must be checked against disproportionate influence and power.

If you want globalization to totally fail, then you should be indifferent to the starvation of millions of people who rely on the existence of such a system. And don't expect those people to come from the third world. No, they will be among your own community.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by cognoscente]

new topics

log in