the requirements of being a state are not static, and those "marinara chess pieces" have done more damage than your immigrant war-machine, which is an epiphenomenon of the drive to totalise and globalise the liberal state
-
-
Replying to @_Vimothy_
I don’t doubt my old men are still powerful, just not as much as they think. And I wouldn’t characterise the migrants as an “immigrant war machine”. Violence associated with mass migration is just one possibility, there are others—though I chose the most dramatic.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart @_Vimothy_
I tend to see the ability of a state to defend territory as being a constant feature across time, though other aspects probably do change. Do you see the EU as part of a project to globalise the liberal state?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart
basically yes, or at least to expand its logic as far as it can go
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Vimothy_
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tomxhart
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
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Vimothy_
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tomxhart
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @tomxhart
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 ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Vimothy_ @tomxhart
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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
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.