What will come after our current system of nation-states?

[rousseau]

The topic of the thread says it all - I'm curious what's to come after our system of nation states. If you have thoughts of your own, or are familiar with any theorist/theory that has speculated on this question, please share.

Personally, I think it's a pretty open ended question with many possibilities. I'm not convinced that we'll ever have a much tighter 'global' system than already exists, as once a territorial unit of land becomes too large there becomes too many competing priorities. This seems to be the case in the EU where the health of varying members varies so widely that it creates tension between the strongest and weakest members. I can't imagine this dynamic ever being applied on a global scale. We are simply too tribal and nationalistic. Perhaps we will continually organize ourselves into bigger blocs.

And yet I don't see the state system going away either, save environmental calamity. If the structure of human society is ever to be re-ordered, I guess that it will likely come from a major change in climate, or composition of the earth's atmosphere. Something which affects humanity so much that the current system will largely break down. That's not to say that we'll become extinct, but maybe that it will mark a new era of human history.

 

[skepticalbip]

A frightening thought would be superstates like in Orwell's novel 1984. The EU would be close to the area of Orwell's superstate of Eurasia if Russia joined them. An expansion of China could create a superstate like Orwell's Eastasia if they expanded their influence over a few countries. Orwell's superstate of Oceania would be much less likely as it would require uniting all the nations of both Americas, Southern Africa, and Australia.

 

[jonatha]

Lots of sci-fi says a relative handful of powerful multinational corporations

 

[bigfield]

This immediately brings this article to mind: The Demise of the Nation State, by Rana Dasgupta.

Among many other interesting ideas, Dasgupta argues that nation states have been undermined by globalisation. 20th century government was characterised by "spectacular state-run projects in the fields of education, healthcare, welfare and culture". 21st century government is characterised by its tendency to dismantle the work of the previous century in service to multinational corporations. Basically, governments sold their people out.

Dasgupta suggests that, in order to return to the nation-building work of the 20th century, we need global government in order to control global trade with uniform laws and taxation. However this is purely prescriptive; just because it is a good idea, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Global government might never eventuate and nothing would emerge to stop the growth and consolidation of corporate power.

 

[rousseau]

This immediately brings this article to mind: The Demise of the Nation State, by Rana Dasgupta.

Among many other interesting ideas, Dasgupta argues that nation states have been undermined by globalisation. 20th century government was characterised by "spectacular state-run projects in the fields of education, healthcare, welfare and culture". 21st century government is characterised by its tendency to dismantle the work of the previous century in service to multinational corporations. Basically, governments sold their people out.

Dasgupta suggests that, in order to return to the nation-building work of the 20th century, we need global government in order to control global trade with uniform laws and taxation. However this is purely prescriptive; just because it is a good idea, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Global government might never eventuate and nothing would emerge to stop the growth of consolidation of corporate power.

That's an interesting perspective and something I hadn't thought about. I posted the same thread on Historum under the speculation section and had a few people reply with similar ideas. It definitely sounds like there's some weight to it, even now the U.S. is essentially under corporate rule. The E.U. seems a little more resilient in this respect.

And God knows all the ways that corporate culture and realities dictate how people live.

 

[Tammuz]

What I would like to see is a democratic world federation. Colonies on the Moon and Mars and elsewhere could also join once they are created.

What I have read is that in the late 20th and early 21st century, the world more than anything resembles the geopolitics of the Middle Ages. See:

Future Shock? Welcome to the New Middle Ages

Imagine a world with a strong China reshaping Asia; India confidently extending its reach from Africa to Indonesia; Islam spreading its influence; a Europe replete with crises of legitimacy; sovereign city-states holding wealth and driving innovation; and private mercenary armies, religious radicals and humanitarian bodies playing by their own rules as they compete for hearts, minds and wallets.

It sounds familiar today. But it was just as true slightly less than a millennium ago at the height of the Middle Ages.

In recent years it has become conventional wisdom that the post-cold-war world will see rising powers such as China and Brazil create what international relations experts call a “multi-polar” order. Yet for the next 10 or 20 years, it is not at all clear that the future many imagine will come to pass – namely that the relative US decline will continue, Europe will muddle along, China and India will grow ever stronger, and other straight-line projections.

In fact, the world we are moving into in 2011 is one not just with many more prominent nations, but one with numerous centres of power in other ways. It is, in short, a neo-medieval world. The 21st century will resemble nothing more than the 12th century.

...

Now, globalisation is again doing much the same, diffusing power away from the west in particular, but also from states and towards cities, companies, religious groups, humanitarian non-governmental organisations and super-empowered individuals, from terrorists to philanthropists. This force of entropy will not be reversed for decades – if not for centuries. As was the case a millennium ago, diplomacy now takes place among anyone who is someone; its prerequisite is not sovereignty but authority.

Some see contrary trends in the light of the financial crisis. But given the power of the forces pushing a new medievalism, it is too simple to speak of a “return of the state” evident in the bail-out of Wall Street and the stimulus packages of governments. Far more revealing about the future is the crumbling of most of the post-colonial world from Africa to the Middle East to South Asia, where over-population, corrupt governance, ethnic grievances and collapsing infrastructure are pushing many states towards failure.

From Congo and Sudan to Pakistan, many “states” are likely to see a move towards a hybrid public-private system of governance. Take Afghanistan, where a postmodern arrangement between international extractive companies, the Kabul government, local warlords and foreign peacekeepers seems as likely an outcome as any – a neo-medieval model also being used in Africa and elsewhere too.

Very interesting read. I think the author might well be onto something. Several of the previous posts mention corporations, but the author here seems to think that non-state actors in general, not just corporations, but cities, religious groups (and religious fanatics), and other non-governmental organizations, will increase in importance.

 

[SLD]

I once asked in PD if we could ever get a one world government and how would it work. Nobody wanted it. Americans would not want to be outvoted by the rest of the world.

But it may be an inevitable necessity. But with so many ethnic conflicts, and regional disparities, I don’t see how it could happen.

 

[Politesse]

They already exist primarily for the middling classes; the very wealthy and the very poor change their national location opportunistically, when they can or see the need to. I suspect the new reality will be much more decentralized than our political mythology proposes we have now.

 

[steve_bank]

Eventually probably a period of chaos, authoritarianism, mass starvation, and population reduction. Think of the Chines Cultural Revolution on a global scale.

 

[DBT]

Eventually probably a period of chaos, authoritarianism, mass starvation, and population reduction. Think of the Chines Cultural Revolution on a global scale.

If we keep closing down the whole economic system each and every time there's a bad flu, it won't take long....

 

[steve_bank]

I watched a series from UCLA on the history of wetern civilization.

The pattenr is rise, fall, assimilation, change.

We are repeating the pattern. We are unable to deal with growing problems within the paradigms that got us this far. The big one is that all problems must be left to free markets and supply and demand.

In the long run China will likely dominate..... They have a highly homogenous population that culture can act collectively. The Chinese leaders can make changes without a lot of popular political consent.

In the west the concept of diversity is failing miserably. Constant racial and ethnic conflict.,

 

[Politesse]

I watched a series from UCLA on the history of wetern civilization.

The pattenr is rise, fall, assimilation, change.

We are repeating the pattern. We are unable to deal with growing problems within the paradigms that got us this far. The big one is that all problems must be left to free markets and supply and demand.

In the long run China will likely dominate..... They have a highly homogenous population that culture can act collectively. The Chinese leaders can make changes without a lot of popular political consent.

In the west the concept of diversity is failing miserably. Constant racial and ethnic conflict.,

I know what I think about people who are sad about the decay of authoritarianism and oppression.

 

[DBT]

I watched a series from UCLA on the history of wetern civilization.

The pattenr is rise, fall, assimilation, change.

We are repeating the pattern. We are unable to deal with growing problems within the paradigms that got us this far. The big one is that all problems must be left to free markets and supply and demand.

In the long run China will likely dominate..... They have a highly homogenous population that culture can act collectively. The Chinese leaders can make changes without a lot of popular political consent.

In the west the concept of diversity is failing miserably. Constant racial and ethnic conflict.,

I know what I think about people who are sad about the decay of authoritarianism and oppression.

Perhaps its more a lack of cohesion and common social purpose, too many splinter groups, each pushing their own agendas?

 

[bigfield]

I watched a series from UCLA on the history of wetern civilization.

The pattenr is rise, fall, assimilation, change.

We are repeating the pattern. We are unable to deal with growing problems within the paradigms that got us this far. The big one is that all problems must be left to free markets and supply and demand.

European civilisation has followed a cycle, yes, but that cycle has also spurred constant renewal and development. That's part of the reason why Europe came to dominate the entire world, including China. The Americas have essentially become an extension of European civilisation, but those countries are still too new to see the trends we see in European history.

Neoliberalism is a relatively recent, relatively short term problem for the West. Laissez faire economic management wasn't the norm until Reagan and Thatcher. Before that, the US government sent people to the moon. It will probably be replaced by some other political philosophy.

In the long run China will likely dominate..... They have a highly homogenous population that culture can act collectively. The Chinese leaders can make changes without a lot of popular political consent.

China's history shows it's likely to continue into the future as a monolithic culture. They've been like that for millennia. History also shows that China's culture is also relatively stagnant, and they aren't capable of the fast, chaotic progress that Europe has demonstrated, and it remains to be seen whether China can export their culture to other countries.

In the west the concept of diversity is failing miserably. Constant racial and ethnic conflict.,

The history of the West is absolutely chock-full of ethnic conflict. It's an essential part of what made the West what it is. In the context of millennia of history, a peaceful, open, pan-European community is an abnormality. In the past, the closest Europe ever came to anything like it was the Roman Empire, and that was still engaged in constant frontier warfare.

So before you decry the imminent collapse of Western civilisation, I encourage you to take the long view and made a better-informed prediction.

Also: I've previously read your argument that "melting pot good, multiculturalism bad", so I have some idea where you're going with this complaint about diversity. It's based on the idea that minorities used to be well-behaved and now they're not. I suspect the culture of ethnic minorities was simply hidden in the past, confined to the privacy of the home and ethnic neighbourhoods, because people in general used to be less tolerant, less open to living in a cosmopolitan society.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think there isn't enough information to even say a specific system is probable; there are a number of significant factors pulling in very different directions.

 

[steve_bank]

I watched a series from UCLA on the history of wetern civilization.

The pattenr is rise, fall, assimilation, change.

We are repeating the pattern. We are unable to deal with growing problems within the paradigms that got us this far. The big one is that all problems must be left to free markets and supply and demand.

In the long run China will likely dominate..... They have a highly homogenous population that culture can act collectively. The Chinese leaders can make changes without a lot of popular political consent.

In the west the concept of diversity is failing miserably. Constant racial and ethnic conflict.,

I know what I think about people who are sad about the decay of authoritarianism and oppression.

Perhaps its more a lack of cohesion and common social purpose, too many splinter groups, each pushing their own agendas?

It is starting to look like that will be our downfall.

 

[steve_bank]

Not just Europe. It goes back to the first civilizations. The overall patter is the same.

A dominate civilization forces assimilation. Economy grows. Knowledge and intellectual cross pollicization occurs. Then decay followed by a new dominant power and the cycle repeats.

Rome being the most well known example.