- i.e., another form of the state - and not its disappearance and replacement with some sort of fantastical deleuzian apparatus
-
-
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 -
-
-
one could even group the evolution of the state over time into distinct epochs - philip bobbit calls these "constitutional orders" - so the imperial, colonialist state of the 19th century gives rise to the demotic nation state of the 20th century, which gives rise to ...
-
whatever it gives rise to (bobbit calls this the 'market state'). this seems correct to me bc the problems the state is trying to solve today are very different than in the past, in part bc of the success of past solutions
-
for eg, the success of liberalism in the last century gives rise to the "second golden age of globalisation" (not a phrase you hear much any more), which leads to a new set of global crises involving terrorism, finance and immigration
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.