Comments on: Borders and Warders http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:26:27 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: ca http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/#comment-3186 ca Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:24:16 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/#comment-3186 Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. Enlightening but not astonishing. Corruption is everywhere - hope is not. Enjoyed your piece as well as the one referencing it at: http://survivalacres.com/wordpress/?m=20070720 Thanks. Read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins. Enlightening but not astonishing. Corruption is everywhere – hope is not.

Enjoyed your piece as well as the one referencing it at:
http://survivalacres.com/wordpress/?m=20070720

Thanks.

]]> By: David A. Smith http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/#comment-3153 David A. Smith Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:48:25 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/#comment-3153 Mr. Zingh - thank you for the thoughtful piece. I enjoyed your interpretation of history and generally agree with the thrust of your argument. I find a little fuzziness in your depiction of some of the key ideas you are exploring. Without ever really coming out and saying it, you seem to understand "nationalism" as ideational, and I would agree with you in that assessment. The way in which the ideational works with reference to the state, the people, to the movement of history is never made really clear. You just seem to deploy the argument when and where you need it to move your narrative along. This leads to some rather odd juxtapositions; pairing nationalism with religion is probably reasonable, but pairing it with genetics strikes me as odd and probably misleading (after all, people don't "believe" in, e.g., being brunette, like they believe in a nation). Of course, I recognize that this may result from the limitations of space in a short article. I am less sanguine about your use of "government" and of "state." And this second one is ultimately important to your proscription for action in the closing of your essay. Indeed, your definition of each in the first paragraph of the last section could be considered to be reversed (though, this is not precisely the case). There is a substantial literature and long history within (western) political theory which views the state as, in the words of Adorno, an apparatus. The state is the institution, a collection of organizational structures, assets owned, established procedures. You are correct in believing that the modern world "elite" own the state, but they are not the state. It is possible for one group to wrest control of the state from another. This is the case in a "revolution" but more often is simply one group of elites replacing another. I think this opens up strong possibilities for your over all argument as the contemporary modern global elite becomes more homogeneous and gains control of more and more "states." This would, however, work against your desire for a "no state" solution unless you can figure out a way to disassemble the various state apparatuses. The issue with "government" is less critical, but important from an academic perspective - government is typically used in two ways, one to describe the form of the policy creation portion of the state (e.g. Democracy, Monarchy, etc.), the other to refer to the specific administration currently at the head of the state, especially in parliamentary forms of government. The common use of "government" to refer to the "state" is a reflection of the modern era notion of the "nation-state" where the ideal was that the "nation" controlled the apparatus of state. An ideal that we all know was never really achieved. One other aside, your pejorative tossing aside of tribal and "stone age" options for the organization of society suggests a rather uncritical acceptance of the modern western political theory belief in the superiority in civilization (which not surprisingly is coextensive with the rise of the state). Mr. Zingh – thank you for the thoughtful piece. I enjoyed your interpretation of history and generally agree with the thrust of your argument. I find a little fuzziness in your depiction of some of the key ideas you are exploring. Without ever really coming out and saying it, you seem to understand “nationalism” as ideational, and I would agree with you in that assessment. The way in which the ideational works with reference to the state, the people, to the movement of history is never made really clear. You just seem to deploy the argument when and where you need it to move your narrative along. This leads to some rather odd juxtapositions; pairing nationalism with religion is probably reasonable, but pairing it with genetics strikes me as odd and probably misleading (after all, people don’t “believe” in, e.g., being brunette, like they believe in a nation). Of course, I recognize that this may result from the limitations of space in a short article.

I am less sanguine about your use of “government” and of “state.” And this second one is ultimately important to your proscription for action in the closing of your essay. Indeed, your definition of each in the first paragraph of the last section could be considered to be reversed (though, this is not precisely the case). There is a substantial literature and long history within (western) political theory which views the state as, in the words of Adorno, an apparatus. The state is the institution, a collection of organizational structures, assets owned, established procedures. You are correct in believing that the modern world “elite” own the state, but they are not the state. It is possible for one group to wrest control of the state from another. This is the case in a “revolution” but more often is simply one group of elites replacing another. I think this opens up strong possibilities for your over all argument as the contemporary modern global elite becomes more homogeneous and gains control of more and more “states.” This would, however, work against your desire for a “no state” solution unless you can figure out a way to disassemble the various state apparatuses.

The issue with “government” is less critical, but important from an academic perspective – government is typically used in two ways, one to describe the form of the policy creation portion of the state (e.g. Democracy, Monarchy, etc.), the other to refer to the specific administration currently at the head of the state, especially in parliamentary forms of government. The common use of “government” to refer to the “state” is a reflection of the modern era notion of the “nation-state” where the ideal was that the “nation” controlled the apparatus of state. An ideal that we all know was never really achieved.

One other aside, your pejorative tossing aside of tribal and “stone age” options for the organization of society suggests a rather uncritical acceptance of the modern western political theory belief in the superiority in civilization (which not surprisingly is coextensive with the rise of the state).

]]> By: Max Shields http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/#comment-3140 Max Shields Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:01:43 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/borders-and-warders/#comment-3140 Also, why do you keep brining up South America and Canada. The largest exporter from their is Mexico. Isn't that a "colony" of the US per NAFTA? As is Canada. Venezuela is the only renegade and the US was just complicit with a coup attempt. Look at our history in Latin America if you want to really see interventionism par excellence. Also, why do you keep brining up South America and Canada. The largest exporter from their is Mexico. Isn’t that a “colony” of the US per NAFTA? As is Canada.

Venezuela is the only renegade and the US was just complicit with a coup attempt. Look at our history in Latin America if you want to really see interventionism par excellence.

]]>