Rob Schaap
Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:44:10 -0800
G'day Chris,
>"Sovereignty carries with it many rights, but killing and torturing
>innocent people are not among them."
Well, the Bush Baby disagrees - he's just furthered his presidential
ambitions Bill Clinton style, and put a granny in a box (I believe that's
his 121st stiff). And of course, Albright was the salient hawk in the grand
idea of wasting the odd thousand civilians (and no doubt a lot more over
time, what with destroyed infrastructure and poisoned environment)
Belgradians and NoviSadians. Guess Unca Sam is just that extra bit
sovereign.
>I suggest this is not just an ideological battle. It is a reflection of the
>fact that the development of the means of production limits the ultimate
>relevance of the nation state.
Might I suggest the institution is rather more in flux outside the US? The
US nation state is still pretty essential to frying foreigners, enforcing IP
regimes, and coercing/bribing other states into giving it up for daddy. Not
all that different from your own fair Albion but a century ago, eh? And the
Yanks don't even bring cricket with 'em!
>A hegemonic power therefore has some logic in appealing, if it wishes, to
>an overarching ideal with which to justify its interference in the internal
>affairs of other countries.
Fair comment.
>I suggest this hegemonism must be fought on the merits of the case and not
>on any abstract principle that national sovereignty is sacrosanct. There is
>no materialist basis for such an approach.
Er, yeah ... Is this Burford of Kosovo speaking? Christopher nemesis of
Luxemburgian state theory? What's happened to ya, mate? Whatever it is, I
like it.
>Clearly we contest the bourgeois, fragmented and individualist version of
>human rights that is promoted by US imperialism.
Demanding that these fragments be afforded material content is an apposite
start, I reckon. I still maintain that exposing the formalism of bourgeouis
rights, and demanding they be given the content their essence requires, is a
good way to push 'the idea' towards the already pulling material relations
of our day.
>But limited national sovereignty is here to stay.
Well, it certainly is for the rest of us. But I maintain it's not wise to
content ourselves with a 'dissolution of the state' descriptor-du-juour.
What the state's doing is transforming. From the proletariat/petit
bourgeouis/lumpen-point of view, it looks to be dissolving. To some it
already looks completely alienated from them. But, from the point of view
of the haute-bourgeoisie, it's as crucial as ever, although now an ally who
asks much less for its services than it used to.
I still think Seattle can best be read as a demand for democratic
involvement in the polity. Which means, and must mean already to a lot of
the protesters, that the contradiction between high capitalism and
humanly-authored human existence has shown its face. The broadly-animated
quest to reassert the enlightenment conception of the state (a la
Galbraith), or an enlightenment notion of transnational democratic
accountability and guidance (a la Habermas), should, with a bit of luck, be
most enlightening for people, as the very idea of 'liberal/democratic
capitalism' becomes harder and harder to envisage.
The thing to watch is that people don't respond to this dissolution of the
twin pillars of modern human identity by seeking out other modes of
soul-salving identity, generally tendentiously concocted for them out of an
idealised past. That way lies ol' Nostradamus's fond visions of global wars
and rumours of wars. Or, if you prefer (and what's the diff?) Rosa's notion
of barbarism.
But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself - race wars, religious wars, culture
wars, and concomitant bouts of traumatic balkanisation are still a way off,
eh?
Cheers,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---