a state is not only an instance of a political form. it has other institutional qualities such as legal system, trade relations, statecraft, financial systems, military power. the state is subject to historical forces, and changes character over time
-
-
I think it is part of that, often under the rubric of “governance”. However, the actual execution has been ad hoc and ramshackle. It’s a utopian project, like the USSR but soft. It’s also a managerial extension of the US Empire. This liberal project is in recession now, I think.
-
I agree with this. the liberal project is a mess and probably cannot support its own internal contradictions for much longer (eg the pretence of neutrality is wearing thin), but this is not the same as the state disappearing. the state and the form of the state are not the same
-
Yes, liberalism must be hegemonic while pretending to be value neutral. This is in crisis and liberals know it. Could you expand on what you mean by the state and the form of the state not being the same and also tell me where you got the idea from, please?
-
The state takes on different forms over time. For example, the state today is not the same as the state in the 20th C, which was not the same as the state in the 19th C, and so on.
-
I agree to an extent, but don’t some things remain constant? Don’t states always monopolise force in a delineated territory, administer laws, and so on? The state may shrink or grow in its functions, but there has to be a core that makes it a “state” not something else, I think.
-
perhaps there are some things the state always does, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to come up with an intensional definition. certainly, WRT our current situation, a state which encourages immigration (however irresponsibly) does not thfore cease to be a state, in my view
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.