Definitions

ANATION, in the modern political sense, is a community of individuals who are linked socially and
economically, share a given territory and recognize the existence of a common past - even if they differ
about aspects of this past. The community has a common vision of the future and believes that this future
will be better if they remain united than if they separate - even if some aspire to change the social
organization of the nation and its political system, the State.

In this sense, it is possible to speak of a Brazilian nation, of a Mexican nation, of an Indian nation, of an
American nation, and so on, even if social groups within these nations can have different interpretations of
their past and distinct aspirations for their common future, without, however, any significant group
desiring and fighting for secession.

Nationalism is the sentiment of considering the nation to which one belongs, for one reason or another,
better than other nations and thus, to have more rights. Extreme manifestations of this sentiment are
xenophobia, racism and imperial arrogance. Nationalism is also the desire for affirmation and political
independence before a oppressive foreign state. When the State has already become independent, it is the
desire to assure within the territory better treatment from the State, or at least treatment equal issued to
foreigners, whether individuals or entities. The significant nationalist movements from a political
perspective - the most simple historic manifestations of which stem from ethnic, linguistic identification or
to belonging in the past to a political organization - have as their principal objective the establishment of a
State or the modification of the policies of the State to defend the interests of those in the movement.

Nationalism

The prejudice of considering one's nation better than the others has its origin in the idea that the divinities
had chosen a people, a certain nation, as elected, that is, the nation as a set of individuals who
worshipped a certain divinity. The case of the Jewish people, the so-called chosen people, is classic. It is
this conviction that has political consequences until today, with the Near East being the principal and most
complex focus of world tension. Japan is another interesting case to the degree in which the emperor was
considered a Child of the Sun and as such symbolized the concrete link between the Japanese people and
the supreme divinity. China, traditionally considered itself so superior to its neighboring peoples, and to
distant peoples, that it would not even accept maintaining political relations at the level of sovereign
states with other States. These could, at most, offer tributes to the Middle Empire, the center of
civilization, whose emperors believed they were directly linked to celestial divinities.

The case of the United States, a civilization more recent than the Chinese, Jewish and Japanese (and even
than the French, German and Russian) is a distinct one, but the roots of American nationalism can be
found in the Protestant religion. The latter posits that material success is a sign of divine approval, of
salvation itself, of a pre-destiny. From a collective point of view, the material success of the American
society signifies divine approval that American society had been elected by the Lord and that for this
reason, not only could but should assume the role of leader and of model for all societies and States. This
salvational mission of the United States is clearly expressed in U.S. foreign policy documents. The
declaration by President George W. Bush that he had literally spoken with God, and the growing presence
and enormous influence of extremely conservative, bellicose and nationalist religious fundamentalism, are
revealing factors of this conviction of the people, that it is a chosen nation and therefore, superior in
relation to other nations.
One of the principal nationalist movements developed in Germany and was based on the superiority of a
supposed Aryan, Germanic and pure race. It led to the taking of the State by the National Socialist Party,
with terrible consequences for the world, and in particular, for those considered members of inferior races,
in particular the Jews, who became victims of a policy of physical elimination, the Holocaust.

Nationalism in the developed countries, in particular in the Great Powers, and their pretense to national
superiority, led to expansionist and aggressive policies, both on the European continent as well as in the
formation of the colonial empires. This was accompanied by an explicit ideology regarding the inferiority of
the local peoples and cultures and even, at times, the idea that they are different and even inferior human
beings. In a shocking example of this prejudice, the former commander in chief of U.S. forces in Vietnam,
General Westmoreland, publically referred to the Vietnamese as being different " from us" to justify
certain actions of American troops.

The central characteristics of the international system of the past five hundred years since the discovery of
the Americas have been imperialism and colonialism. The foundation of this domination, in addition to
force, was the ideology of racial and civilizational superiority in relation to the colonies and their peoples
and forceful aggression against the political, social and cultural systems of the dominated nations by the
European metropoles. (This also took place in the creation of the " continental empires" as in the
territorial expansion of the United States to the West, and of Russia, to the East and South). Slavery was
the maximum expression of this domination and the slaves were considered inferior beings, without souls,
and therefore naturally subject to the judgment and will of their masters. Lord Acton, in an article
published in 1862, maintained that the most perfect states are those that, like the British and the Austrian
Empires, include various, distinct nationalities without oppressing them because " the inferior races are
elevated by living in a political union with intellectually superior races" .

In the countries of the periphery, ex-colonies, or ex semi-colonies, nationalism has a radically different
nature from the nationalist movements that developed in Europe, which had their reputations definitively
tarnished by Nazi-fascism, which had arduous followers and sympathizers in various European countries in
addition to Germany and Italy. It can be said in passing that the current " cosmopolitans" often
erroneously equate European nationalism and the nationalism of the periphery to disqualify the
anticolonialist, anti-imperialist and now antiglobalization movements – by accusing them of being "
nationalists" (to which they usually add the term populist). The nationalist movements in various colonies
- with natural variations in time and space - were movements of affirmation of nationality, for the revival
of traditions, language, political autonomy and independence, in relation initially to the European colonial
metropoles. They later were transformed into movements for political affirmation and independent
economic development for the States that originated from the former colonies.

Nation

At the end of the Roman Empire, the invading Barbarian tribes occupied the Roman provinces and
established feudal territories in which various tribal leaders had their political and military sovereignty
recognized, even if in a somewhat limited form. This established for the first time, through the
differentiation of local languages and popular Latin, the seeds of the modern nations and States. The
Church had special importance in this process, to the degree to which these feudal lords converted to
Christianity and recognized the authority of Rome.

These feudal systems - loosely beholden to a central power, in general the master of a feudal territory
with more land and population - corresponded to a set of fiefdoms, small territories that progressively
came together by force of the various systems of political inheritance (which after all were also
patrimonial), the regime of the first born and marriage. Disagreements over hereditary rights, wars of
conquest and the patrimonial personal relationships of the feudal masters with their territories,
periodically caused populations of distinct origins to be submitted to the sovereignty of distinct masters.

This is how the European National States were formed, which, in reality, do not correspond to
homogeneous nations, but to groups of populations of distinct ethnic origins, with different degrees of
miscegenation, distinct traditions and at times different religions. Absolutist regimes ruled in these States
based on the doctrine of the divine right of kings over all of their subjects (including the noble
descendants of the feudal masters). The monarchs mutually supported themselves in this pretension.
These absolute monarchs had the ideological support of Rome, until Protestantism came to ferociously
oppose, in bloody wars, some of these States, which continued, however, to believe in and defend the
divine right of kings.

The idea that the State was born with the nation does not correspond to reality in the majority of cases,
because the nation was in fact a posterior ideological construction, very often " constructed" by the State.
The natural emergence of nations in reality was impossible because of the ignorance of the masses, the
diversity of ethnicities and religions, the absence of real, effective traditions, the late fixation of languages
and the diversity of oral traditions. Therefore, the emergence of a nation only became possible after the
rise of the modern State, which organized an administrative center for the State and as a consequence,
gave rise to public education, military service and the will of the leaders to unify the populations.
Nevertheless, if this took place, that is, if nations were built by States, it is necessary to clarify how the
State arose.

Thus, nation and nationalism, despite being diffuse concepts, had and have a strong impact on the
political reality and are found closely tied to another concept which, although a concept, is the most
concrete fact of the daily reality of all individuals - the State. All the theoretical and practical questions
related to the nation and nationalism, such as to what degree each nation should correspond to a State; if
the nations to be considered as such should be ethnically, linguistically or religiously homogeneous; if
nationalism would always be a perverse and dangerous political manifestation; if nationalism tends to
Nazism, and so on, are of special interest when examined under the light of the concept and the reality of
the State.

The primitive formation of the States

Despite important differences in the process of formation and evolution of the current States, a general –
if a bit schematic - description of their formation can be made, which must be adjusted and qualified in
accordance with each historic and geographic circumstance of a specific State. But the general dynamic
can be considered reasonably valid for all.

The diversification of productive activities and social functions caused, even in the most primitive
societies, conflicts of interest that made necessary the existence of norms to discipline the relationships
between individuals and groups and which - whether accepted as valid by all or imposed - allowed for a
peaceful coexistence without a permanent need for force and violence to guarantee obedience.

The struggle for hegemony (that is, for the right to extract natural wealth from a certain territory and
organize human work) led to the subjection of some communities by others and to the definition of
territories and their frontiers, within which this hegemony was exercised in practice by the definition of
norms and by the capacity to make them accepted - if necessary by force.
Naturally, the hegemonic groups in each society sought to justify and explain their hegemony by means of
their supposed ties with the divinities that protect those communities, which confirmed the right to
govern, and therefore, to elaborate the norms of conduct and insure compliance.

Borders separated geographic territories dominated by distinct hegemonic groups whose leaders sought to
accentuate the existing differences in culture, language, tradition and religious practices between the
communities separated by frontiers. This encouraged the rivalries and notions of superiority that
characterize nationalisms.

Borders define the physical limits of the exercise of hegemony (of sovereignty) of groups and were
established in the past as the result of struggles. They were set along natural barriers to the exercise of
force such as seas, lakes, rivers and mountain ranges, obstacles that contributed in the past, when
distances were very significant, to the development of distinct languages and traditions.

As societies became more populated, the need arose to organize permanent institutions responsible for
establishing norms of conduct, to assure obedience to them and to finance their operation, by collecting
taxes. In primitive and smaller communities, all individuals could participate in the establishment of social
norms and all could, in principal, participate in the social organisms charged with establishing obedience to
these norms.

To the degree that the communities grew in population and productive activities diversified, individuals
could no longer participate directly in elaborating and executing norms and resolving conflicts. It became
necessary to choose representatives to govern societies by means of systems whose differences stem, as
Aristotle defined in his work Politics, from an a priori judgment about human nature. The basic question,
according to Aristotle, was if all individuals are essentially equal or unequal; and if unequal, if one family
could be considered better than the others; or if some individuals could be considered essentially better
than others. Depending on the nature of this a priori conviction, the possible political regimes would be
democracy, monarchy and oligarchy, with their variations. It is obvious, however, that there was never a
theoretical debate about human nature before the definition of the political regimes of the human
communities, primitive or not, which were defined through the intense conflict of interests within each
community and the struggle of various groups for hegemony.

In any case, even in absolute monarchies and authoritarian regimes, the king or the dictator does not
govern alone, does not prepare the norms of conduct alone, and does not guarantee obedience to them
alone. He must make use of assistants, nobles, ministers, apparatchiks or aides with whatever name they
may have, to whom he delegates the exercise of part of his functions and prerogatives and whose political
and military support he needs to remain in power. It is possible to imagine that, at the beginning, the
choice of these individuals was made from the core of those families in the hegemonic groups that initially
organized the community and their systems of production and defense from other communities.

The distinct political regimes, forms of government, are merely different systems for selecting the
representatives of a community to exercise the public functions and the form of financing the exercise of
these functions, which are to legislate, execute and judge. The set of institutions that exercise these
functions of legislating, executing and judging on behalf of the group of citizens of a society is called the
State. An essential and preliminary function of the State is the organization of its defense in relation to the
territorial pretensions of other States. This guarantees its sovereignty over its territory and the population
that inhabits it. The State, even in its primitive forms and of limited scope, is therefore essential for
peaceful coexistence of the various groups of individuals that inhabit a given territory and for the defense
of their interests in confrontation with other communities organized under the form of the State. Naturally,
the religious systems, with their norms for social conduct and with the powerful instrument of divine
sanction, were an integral part of the States.
The modern State has a monopoly on the use of force that is an essential and indispensable prerogative
for the efficient maintenance of a system of norms and government.

The historic evolution of the primitive communities by means of wars, and the consequent incorporation of
territories and subjection of the populations found in them, eventually led to the constitution of the
modern States. It is in those cases in which this incorporation of territory and population was not accepted
that have been found the more or less violent demands for autonomy or independence, as in Spain, China,
Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, Canada, Belgium and so many other countries.

This historic evolution of communities and nations led to the constitution and definition of territories within
which was exercised the sovereignty of each one of the 192 States that are current members of the
United Nations (UN). Their peaceful co-existence can only take place through obedience to the principles
of Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter which call for: peaceful settlement of disputes; equal rights and self
determination; respect for human rights and basic liberties; sovereign equality; and abstention from
threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State.

The French Revolution in 1789, the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the Chinese Revolution in 1949 were
three great attempts to modify a social system for organization of the State. Each had enormous
consequences in the history of humanity. The first triggered the elimination of feudal rights and the
transformation of the absolute monarchies in Europe (and of their colonial empires, in particular in Latin
America) by affirming that " each people is independent and sovereign" . The second began the first
experience with a social model and political alternative to capitalism and liberalism and reinforced the self-
determination of peoples - in competition with the United States, which defended the idea only for
Europeans. The third began the transformation of the Chinese state and economy with the consequences
that now find China, upon growing an average of 10% for each of the past 20 years, transformed into the
world's second largest economic power.

The vision of the State at the beginning of the 21st century

Current society is characterized by the concentration of wealth and power, accelerated technological
transformation, social instability, individual anxiety and frustration, religious fundamentalism and by the
consumption of consciousness altering products such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy and other narcotics.

Control of the State is essential for the dominant classes in modern societies, whether they are highly
developed or underdeveloped. This involves control of the system of norms and institutions that define
and guarantee the fundamental characteristics of the production system, and which, regardless of the
reason, legitimize certain privileges.

In the modern democratic system, however, which is the result of a history of struggle and of conquests
of the oppressed sectors of society, each citizen - a concept that has been defined in different forms over
time and space - has a vote in the process of choosing the directors of the State. In turn, under
capitalism, each monetary unit corresponds to a " vote" in the market, and therefore, in the social
decisions about what and how to produce and how to consume. The benefits that stem from these
decisions are highly concentrated in the hands of the megacompanies, that is, of their shareholders-
owners and their delegates, or their best employees, the so-called executives.

The large and permanent challenge that the detainers of economic power must confront in modern
societies with democratic regimes - in which each citizen corresponds to a vote - consists in transforming
economic power into political power. This transformation is essential to guaranteeing the survival of the
fundamental norms of the economic and social system and eventually, to promote, to the degree that this
is necessary, its controlled, reformist and non-revolutionary modification - that is, without altering the
fundamental relations of property. In the early days of liberal democracy, this challenge was still not
raised, because the regime was based on tax collection, individuals were only citizens to the degree to
which they had a certain income, or property, or paid taxes.

The first goal, therefore, in the process of transforming economic power into political power, must be to
separate the mass of citizens from the activities of the State and of politics - which is the activity by which
the State is controlled - or to reduce to a minimum and control the participation of this mass in politics
and the State. Thus, it is necessary to promote a negative image of the State and of politics at the heart
of the mass of society, but certainly not among those who compose its elites.

The image of the State diffused in current society, in which individualist values predominate, exalted by
the media, the educational system and even by religions, is that the State is the modern Leviathan, the
source of all Evil.

According to this vision, the charging of extorsive taxes (as low as they may be in reality) to feed a
parasitic bureaucracy, which prepares thousands of useless and confused regulations - which stimulate
corruption and inhibit the liberty and creativity of the originally pure and happy individual - stems from
the existence of a State that each day infringes on individual liberty and numbs social development. This
vision, which has persisted for centuries, originated in the criticism of the arbitrary practices of the
absolute monarchies of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The nascent bourgeoisie and its political
representatives struggled against these monarchies to implant capitalism and liberalism as forms of
economic and political organization, before the industrial and technological revolution.

In this Leviathan State of the 21st century, the politician, the man of the State, is seen to reign
maliciously as an Evil being. He is incompetent and incapable of confronting the evils that afflict society;
dishonest, he eludes the citizens who he periodically betrays; xenophobic he stimulates conflicts; and
corrupt, he defends foreign interests, or those of the powerful or the interests of the social incompetents
who fail in the individual struggle for success, while taking advantage of the " benefits" of the positions
that they occupy.

Disdain and even loathing for politics (and for politicians) are systematic and stimulated daily by the mass
media, which seeks to make the middle and working classes believe that political activity is not worthy of
a " good man" , who should be exclusively dedicated to his professional activity whether he is a worker,
an employee, a technician, or an independent professional who risks being corrupted.

In the strategy of stimulating this loathing and disdain (with the goal of distancing the " inferior classes"
from the temptation of governing society), it is necessary to demobilize these " classes" , deviate and
distract their attention. The more unequal and exclusionary the society, with greater ostentation of wealth
and the more striking poverty, the more important is this strategy.

The attention of the large working masses and of the middle classes is distracted by the creation of new
cults and the promotion of the heroes of these new cults. This is undertaken by the mass media,
particularly television, and by the massive supply of banal audiovisual entertainment, musical spectacles,
journals and magazines, sporting events and advertising. Society is a show in which everything is
transformed into a spectacle, including politics.

The principal new cult is that of the body, manifest through " body building" , plastic surgery and
corrective diets (the soup diet, fruit diets, protein diets, diets by blood type or vitamins...). Its heroes are
athletes, artists and fashion models, while it disdains the cultivation of the spirit and culture, more by
omission than by direct attack.

The second cult is that of money, in which the entrepreneur is seen as the great hero, a dynamic, astute,
tireless worker in search of personal success. This cult tries to convince everyone that anyone can become
successful and rich by simply following the strategies described in business self-help books: If Harry Potter
Ran General Electric?, Smart Couples Finish Rich, or The Tao of Warren Buffet and Sun Tzu – The Art of
War for Executives, etc.. The entrepreneur is thus the hero who confronts the politician-villain, he is the
victim of the State, he employs the masses, he is in favor of peace. The heroes of these two new cults are
models for the young and the scorn of the elderly who can no longer be athletes or entrepreneurs – they
are failures for not being rich and given that their experience has no value in the society of the new and of
programmed obsolescence.

The ideal world for the individuals of the new 21st century society - from which all utopias are driven
away, and in which those who propose to confront social inequalities and change the structures of power
that created and maintain them are always ridiculed - would be a world without governments, without
violence, without drugs, without politicians, without norms, without taxes, where everyone would be
physically and financially successful, athletes and entrepreneurs, a world in which, above all, the State
would not exist.

The real 21st century world

In the real 21st century world, there are 192 States and an ever larger number of nations, and therefore,
it is a world in which conflicts and divergences proliferate among and between the States, and in which
the permanent elaboration of norms and incessant political activity are inescapable realities.

There are not only 192 States today, but the number of States has been growing since 1946 when the
United Nations charter was signed by its founding States. The member states of the UN grew from 51 in
1946 to 152 in 1980 to 192 in 2008. To the degree in which nationalisms – stimulated or natural – are
heightened, other States may arise, as was the recent case of Kosovo, a highly nonviable state, but which
opens an important precedent that affects the most strategic interests of the United States and Europe.
The stimulus to the local nationalisms in Europe weaken the new European nationalism which is
concretized in " European citizenship" by making the political action of the European Union more difficult,
while the stimulus to nationalism on the periphery has the effect of weakening the large States such as
China, India and Russia. Politically, if the nationalisms are strengthened, this economically weakens these
large competitors and harms the globalization process by multiplying the number of States.

The armed conflicts of the 20th century were the most bloody and destructive of the entire history of
humanity. The end of the communist regimes, to whose existence and action the conflicts between States
was attributed, reduced neither the number nor the intensity of these conflicts.

The increase in the number of States is certainly due to the vitality and success of the nationalist
movements in their struggle against the domination of colonial empires and against the States under
whose domination were found unredeemed national groups, such as those in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia
and the Soviet Union.

The formation of States certainly occurred differently in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia. The
current states, particularly in Latin America - where the institutions of the local populations existing at the
time of the conquest were either totally eliminated, as in the case of Mexico and Peru, or were fragile, as
in the case of Brazil - are often the result of the transplantation of European institutions made by the
metropoles in their colonies. In Africa, a century and a half later, the colonies had borders arbitrarily
traced which, later would survive decolonization. These borders separated ethnicities, languages and
traditions, and gave reason to the conflicts which, however, often had their real origin in disputes for the
exploitation of natural resources. In Asia, European colonization took place indirectly and found much
more sophisticated political and administrative systems on which it imposed itself. Today, those previous
forms of organization, or at least their spirit, survive in the political organizations of the Asiatic State.

In turn, the current process of European integration is not a process of elimination of the State and of its
fundamental characteristics, but a process of gradual unification of the independent States that cede part
of their sovereignty to the supra-national organs of the European Union. This is a phenomenon similar to
that which occurred in the past in Germany and Italy, and has nothing to do with any supposed historic
trend to end borders, but corresponds to a redesigning of borders and citizenship. In reality, it involves
the gradual formation of a new (and enormous) State in a process similar but not equal - because the
States, in the European Union, still maintain a much larger number of sovereign prerogatives – to those
involved in the formation of the United States, Germany and Italy.

Capitalism and the campaign to end the Stat

Modern capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production. Its principal objective is
profit. This supreme objective makes indispensable the permanent expansion of production on which, in
turn, the division of labor, and therefore, the extension of the market ultimately depend.

The greater the extension of the market, the greater the possibility for the division of labor, and thus for
greater productivity, production, consumption, profit and human happiness - given that, according to
Jeremy Bentham, since it is impossible to measure human happiness, it could be considered that the more
goods an individual (and a community) can consume, the greater their " happiness" . It is for this reason
that GNP growth is praised with such joy, despite the high degree of dissatisfaction of common individuals
even in the more developed countries. It is clear that for the excluded masses, the increase of their "
happiness" can only occur when they are able to achieve minimum and decent levels of consumption of
physical and cultural goods.

Thus since its early days, capitalism, as a form of organization of production, distribution and consumption
of goods, sought to expand markets through the incorporation - by peaceful or violent means - of
populations and territories into its production system. It also sought to assure the existence of political
systems for the elaboration of and execution of the norms that would guarantee its expansion and
peaceful operation.

Market formation - which was at first local, then regional, then national, later continental and finally global
- was interrupted from 1914 -1989, a period in which there were two World Wars, the Great Depression of
1929 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, which implanted the socialist regime in Russia that was
expanded to Eastern Europe, China and Asia. In addition, in many States decolonization led to the
organization of mixed economic production systems with a high degree of State participation, as in Latin
America. These events fragmented the world economy in various forms, interrupting the globalization of
markets and the integration of the world economy. Many analysts understood this to be a prelude to
communism's inevitable defeat of capitalism.

The fall of the Berlin Wall, the removal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe and Afghanistan, the
disintegration of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states, the adherence to capitalism of the formerly
communist European regimes, China's new economic policy and the reorganization of the economies of
the former colonies of the periphery by means of conditionalities linked to foreign debt renegotiations,
created the opportunity for globalization. That is, they allowed the formation of global markets to resume
with complete ideological and practical vigor, through the incorporation of these " new" territories.

At this beginning of the 21st century, for globalization - which corresponds to the expansion of capitalism
and to its permanent technological transformation - to be efficient (maximization of profits), there must be
uniformity in the norms that regulate economic activity in the distinct sovereign territories. The removal of
the economic question from the political arena is also required by establishing neoliberal policy and its
fundamental precepts of private property and the free interplay of market forces as absolute and
untouchable truths. This requires privatization programs (which even extend to managing national
security forces and prison systems), deregulation and commercial and financial liberalization, the
reduction of taxes on capital and the non-discrimination between national and foreign capital.

What could be more useful to strongly assist this harmonization of norms than the elaboration of theories
that call for the end of Nation States (and of nationalisms), the end of borders and the benefits of the
minimum-State, accompanied by the negotiation of international norms that lead to the adoption by
sovereign States (in the impossibility of their political subjection by force) of those neoliberal policies,
relegating any other policies to the realm of the illegal and the " absurd" ? In sum, efficient economic
globalization depends on a global political governance that assures its operation and impedes national
attempts to reverse and limit the rights of multinational megacompanies. Nevertheless, paradoxically,
since there is no world State, globalization requires National States to internalize the norms negotiated
internationally and to guarantee their enforcement.

At the periphery of the world economic and political system, where former colonial states such as Brazil
are to be found, there are extraordinary disparities of income and power within territories, as well as
between these former colonies and the countries that integrate the developed and powerful center of the
international system. The growing disparities of power between the center and the periphery of the
system can be seen in the growing gap in per capita income and in the accumulation of military capacity
between the developed States and developing States. This requires the States - the only entities on the
periphery capable of confronting the power of the multinational megacompanies and of the " international"
agencies and the developed States - to strive for a peaceful coexistence among the social sectors within
their territories affected by the neoliberal policies. They do this by attempting to execute development
policies and combating poverty, which often means restricting the formation of global markets and the
free interplay of market forces.

These policies are called nationalist and " populist" and their defenders are accused, criticized and
ridiculed by the press, which is controlled by multinational entertainment and information companies that
are intimately tied to the multinational megacompanies and dependent on them, not only as a
consequence of their common ideological interests, since they are also private companies, but also
because of the system of advertising.

The imbalances relating to population, territory, production, armed forces and technological development
between countries of the center and the periphery make the idea of world government impossible and
utopian. The idea is conveniently substituted by the idea of global governance, which is exercised by the
international agencies that were created after World War II to assure peace, political security and
economic stability. Or, when these agencies for one reason or another are found insufficient or become
inconvenient, by new international or multinational agencies that may be created.

The permanent attempts of the States at the center of the system to impose their economic and social
policies, the growing asymmetries of wealth and power between the societies of the center and the
periphery, the growing hiatus between them, and the attempt of the States at the Center to impose on
the periphery - through violence or economic pressures - changes in the political and economic regime,
trigger strong antiglobalization and nationalist movements.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as well as the constant migratory movements, due to differences in
opportunities for individuals between the periphery and the center - combined with periodic migratory
waves caused by conflicts and natural catastrophes - cause xenophobic nationalisms to re-arise in the
highly developed countries. In turn, the economic development of China and India has created a strong
demand for energy, food and minerals, which has led to the accumulation of enormous reserves by the
countries that export petroleum, gas, minerals and agricultural commodities. The decision of these
countries to invest these resources (in " sovereign funds" ) in companies of the center of the world system
has provoked an unprecedented movement to impose restrictions on the flow of foreign capital aimed at
the central countries, whose directors and analysts argue that these restrictions are necessary for
strategic political reasons.

This rapid expansion in demand for energy, minerals, and foods in countries such as China and India
resulted from their legitimate aspiration to achieve decent levels of consumption for their populations –
which correspond, as a whole, to more than one third of the world population. Combined with demand
from Western societies, it has had enormous environmental impact, particularly on climate change, the
control of which makes more State intervention in the economy nearly unavoidable. This in turn will affect
the physical and ideological dynamic of capitalism.

Universities, international agencies, the press and governments from the highly developed countries
remain, however, convinced that for the countries of the periphery, nationalism, which is the opposite of
globalizing cosmopolitanism, and populism, which is the opposite of radical liberalism, are two twin evils to
be attacked and eradicated at any price. These underdeveloped countries are told that for their own good
(or suffering), their best option is to give in to the whims of the violent waves of wild and radical
globalization. The merits of this globalization are highly praised despite the economic crises resulting from
deregulation, financial speculation and the growing economic and social hiatus between the center and
periphery of the system. This process has been accompanied in the central countries by a rebirth of
economic nationalism and of xenophobic nationalism against the immigrants of the periphery. This
periphery is always seen as inferior since it is black, Indian, or yellow, barbarous, infidel and turbulent.

Although the illusions held by the peripheral States regarding the benefits of globalization and of the
possibility of a New World Order – sparked by the end of the Soviet Union – have been erased, these
States continue their efforts at economic development, as in the case of China; at political affirmation, as
in the case of India; and in the struggle against poverty, as in the case of Brazil. They have come to
coordinate their international action, proposing reform of the United Nations and of the central agency of
the international political-military system, the Security Council; reform of the world trade system through
the action of the G-20 in the Doha Round; the organization of blocks of States, as in the case of the
African Union; and the reform of the system to combat climate change and of the energy matrix. Only by
means of their coordinated action can they defend their right to development and to political
independence in a world system that is characterized by economic instability, by the violence of the
powerful, by the desperation of the weak, by extreme poverty and wealth and by the threat to the survival
of humanity.

1. ATION (BANSA) •A NATION IS A POPULATION WITH A CERTAIN SENSE OF ITSELF, A

COHESIVENESS, A SHARED HISTORY AND CULTURE, AND OFTEN (BUT NOT ALWAYS) A COMMON
LANGUAGE.
2. 3. STATE (ESTADO) •A STATE IS A GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, USUALLY SOVEREIGN AND
POWERFUL ENOUGH TO ENFORCE ITS WRIT.
 3. a Nation is a community of a person living together bounded by common traits, tradition, values, and
possesses a common goal and destiny. From the Latin word, “natio” means “set of people”, a Nation is a
community of a person living together bounded by common traits, tradition, values, and possesses a
common goal and destiny. Nation comes from the Latin word, “natio” means “set of people”. 
4. 3. A community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory
independent of external control and possessing an organized government to which a great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience. (Garner); Political Concept. While the State comes from the Latin
word “status”, means “condition”. 
5. 4. “ There could be a Nation composed of different states, or a Nation with only one State. But a State can
only have one Nation. ”
6. 5. For example, the States of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, and Lebanon belong to the Arab Nation. And
another one, the United States of America has 56 states. During World War II, the Philippines cannot be
considered as a state having lost its independence or sovereignty from the Japanese Imperial Army.
However, although it cannot be called as a state at the time having lost one of the important elements of a
state, it can still be considered as a nation in as much as its people were bound by common traits, tradition,
culture and values.
7. 6. What are the Elements of the State? The elements of the State are: a) People b) Territory c) Government
and, d) Sovereignty
8. 7. What is Government? The Government is the agency that carries out the will of the people. Its main
objective is to protect the people from both external and internal harm. The Government promotes the
people’s desire to live in harmony among themselves and to those in other states. The Government may
either be democratic or autocratic.
9. 8. What is Democratic and Autocratic Government? 1) Democratic Government: According to President
Abraham Lincolin, “It is the government of the people, by the people and for the people and shall not perish
on earth.” There are many forms of democratic government.
10. 9. 2) Autocratic Government An autocratic system of government is that the one whose power and control
lodge is in the monarch. Like that in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or a party like that of the Peoples Republic of
China.
11. 10. What are the Different Forms of Democratic Government? Presidential System : The doctrine of
separation of powers among the branches of government is observed. There is a separation of Executive,
Legislative, and Judicial powers among three branches of the government.
12. 11. Parliamentary form of Government : The King, Queen, Sultan or Emperor serves as the head of state,
while the Prime Minister serves as the head of government. There is a fusion of executive and legislative
power in the Parliament.

What is a State?
A State is an independent, sovereign government exercising control over a certain spatially defined and bounded
area, whose borders are usually clearly defined and internationally recognized by other states.

1. States are tied to territory

o Sovereign or state as absolute ruler over territory
o Have clear borders
o Defends and controls its territory within those borders
o Is recognized by other countries (diplomatic recognition, passports, treaties, etc.)
2. States have bureaucracies staffed by state’s own personnel
o Has a national bureaucracy staffed by government personnel (legal system, educational system,
hierarchical governmental units, etc.)
3. States monopolize certain functions within its territory (sovereign)
o Controls legitimate use of force within its territory
o Controls money at national scale (prints currency; collects taxes)
o Makes rules within its territory (law, regulations, taxes, citizenship, etc.)
o Controls much information within its territory
States try to form nations within their borders (through symbols, education, ‘national interest,’ etc.).
So, what is a Nation?
A nation is a group of people who see themselves as a cohesive and coherent unit based on shared cultural or
historical criteria. Nations are socially constructed units, not given by nature. Their existence, definition, and
members can change dramatically based on circumstances. Nations in some ways can be thought of as “imagined
communities” that are bound together by notions of unity that can pivot around religion, ethnic identity, language,
cultural practice and so forth. The concept and practice of a nation work to establish who belongs and who does not
(insider vs. outsider). Such conceptions often ignore political boundaries such that a single nation may “spill over”
into multiple states. Furthermore, states ≠ nations: not every nation has a state (e.g., Kurds; Roma; Palestine).
Some states may contain all or parts of multiple nations.
And what about a Nation-State?
A Nation-State is the idea of a homogenous nation governed by its own sovereign state—where each state contains
one nation. This idea is almost never achieved.

Nation, State, Nation-State

Plenary Session 1-3 May 2019 | Concept Note – The world is facing today a growing threat of nationalist revival.
Exclusivist national ideology leads to mutual rejection and enduring conflicts. Yet humanity has learned from its history
that nations can coexist, cooperate and prosper together when they put their potential in common.
There is no universal definition of a nation. Everybody would agree that peoples with common ethnic roots, language,
religion, historical memory and the explicit desire to act as a political unity make up a nation. But not all nations do vest
the form of a sovereign territorial state. Nor are all states national states. So nation can be understood as having a double
meaning: nation as a people emerging in history and conceiving itself as a political subject, and nation as a political and
ideological construction. This construction is often made by states that legitimize themselves as being the political form of
the nation. Still, there are multinational states and nations without a state, and on the other hand, homogeneous nation-
states do not really exist. They have all people of mixed origin, through immigration and exchanges with neighbour
nations. Nearly all nation-states have national minorities within their territory.
The current theories of the state come from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century: one people, one
government, one territory. The nation-state has become the paramount expression of sovereignty. The formal division of
the world into sovereign nation-states leaves open two challenges: the national minorities in the state and the permanent
rivalry between nation-states.
The territorial state may cooperate with others territorial states but remains the ultimate decision-making authority.
Making a distinction between people, nation, state, and sovereignty could help evacuating the threat of aggressive
nationalism. Some political leaders use to play with the national feeling of their people and build a hostile image of the
other. This very common tendency continues to cause conflicts among nations.
The social doctrine of the Church gives radically new insights into international relations. The state is the legal order of a
community that wants to live together. It is aimed at providing what we call the common good, i.e. the conditions which
allow each human person to have access to all the material, cultural, and spiritual goods necessary for a dignified human
life.
The Church draws on two inseparable principles that are bedded in the very dynamic of human history and go much
ahead of current political practices, namely: the unity of humankind and the universal destination of the goods of the
earth. These principles do not contradict but illustrate the fundamental Christian view according to which the human
person and not the ethnic group or the nation or the national state is considered as the ultimate reference of all social
organization.
In the present stage of its development, humanity disposes of all possible technical means to organize itself in a
cooperative and peaceful way. Yet the minds are still shaped by stereotypes of exclusion of the “other”. We witness a
worrying tendency of nations or nation states to close themselves, insisting on their supposed interests. Globalization and
migrations inspire the fear that nations could lose their cultural identity and their political independence.
The social doctrine of the Church stresses that a state, as a voluntary political construction, always has to be adjusted to
the pursuit of a common good. When this common good goes beyond what a single nation-state may reach by itself, it is
natural that it be pursued by supranational political bodies vested with appropriate sovereignty. Peoples may perceive
themselves as belonging to a broader entity than a nation-state without being threatened in their national feeling.
The social doctrine considers that a legitimate authority must be able to serve the common good at all relevant levels.
Challenges like ecology, particularly climate change, human trafficking, energy, defence, regulation of the globalized
economy cannot be dealt with by competing sovereign national states alone. The European Union is an example of what
could become a supranational state with precise and limited sovereignty in matters of European common good. The
social doctrine of the Church calls this the principle of subsidiarity which does not destroy national autonomies but rather
protects them from the illusion of exclusive state sovereignty.
Our conference wants to understand in detail why nationalism became important in one specific historic phase of human
history, what its presuppositions and consequences were, why after World War II supranational institutions became
increasingly powerful, and why in the last years there has been a backlash against internationalism and a resurgence of
nationalism. Historic case studies, systematic issues, and the challenge of the future will be interwoven in the lectures of
the conference.

A nation is a large group of people with strong bonds of identity - an "imagined community," a tribe on a grand scale. The
nation may have a claim to statehood or self-rule, but it does not necessarily enjoy a state of its own. National identity is
typically based on shared culture, religion, history, language or ethnicity, though disputes arise as to who is truly a member of
the national community or even whether the "nation" exists at all (do you have to speak French to be Québécois? are Wales
and Tibet nations?). Nations seem so compelling, so "real," and so much a part of the political and cultural landscape, that
people think they have lasted forever. In reality, they come into being and dissolve with changing historical circumstances -
sometimes over a relatively short period of time, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Why, then, does national identity give
rise to such extremely strong feelings? And why would so many be ready to "die for the nation" in time of war? Because of
migration, most modern states include within their borders diverse communities that challenge the idea of national
homogeneity and give rise to the community of citizenship, rather than membership in the nation. In the age of global
transportation and communication, new identities arise to challenge the "nation," but the pull of nationalism remains a
powerful force to be reckoned with - and a glue that binds states together and helps many people (for better and for worse)
make sense out of a confusing reality.

What is the Nation State?

When we talk about the nation state, we are really talking about three separate things: the nation, the state, and the
nation state. Confused? Don't worry - you're not alone! Take a deep breath and relax.
The nation state is a system of organization in which people with a common identity live inside a country with firm
borders and a single government. That wasn't so bad, right? But what does it all mean? The nation state has a
dramatic influence on the way we live our lives. It's how we identify ourselves. I'm American. I'm Russian. I'm
Antarctican. (Okay, that last one isn't a thing.) It also determines what language we speak, what laws we follow, and
what holidays we celebrate. Cinco de Mayo? Boxing Day? Fourth of July? The nation state is a system of political,
geographic, and cultural organization, and it is one of the most important parts of your life that you don't think about.
The nation state is held together by its physical boundaries, its government, and the fact that the people believe they
are connected to each other.
The Nation and the State

The border between Jordan and Israel

The fundamental parts of the nation state are the nation and the state. Let's start with the state. In the broadest of
terms, the state is a body of government. All the rules and laws, the government officials and their titles, the
physical boundaries and those who define them - these make up the state. The state is what makes a country run
from a political, practical standpoint.

Baseball, an American pastime

The nation, on the other hand, is the people. The nation is created by a shared belief that the people inside a
country are connected to each other. Whether you live in Cleveland, Denver, or San Francisco, you still share a
connection with other Americans. The idea that people of a nation are connected to each other is
called nationalism.
Nation states must also have a shared national culture. This is often achieved through common language, history,
holidays, and education. Sometimes national culture is a result of similar people living in the same area. In the
United States, the colonists began developing a unique national culture, which led to them declaring war against
England and creating their own government and state.
On the other hand, sometimes the nation state begins as a government and later has to try and create a national
culture. For example, when Mexico became independent from Spain, the country was too large and fragmented for
the people to have developed a national culture. There were dozens of different identities. It took nearly a century
for the Mexican government to develop a sense of 'Mexican-ness', or Mexicanidad in Spanish.
The government had to carefully, and intentionally, select the moments from history that all Mexicans could unite
around. They had to control language, education, and holidays to make sure that all Mexicans celebrated the same
national culture. Sometimes this meant violent oppression of the people who weren't cooperating. However, the
government knew that without a national culture, the nation state had no real power, and it would fall back into war
and chaos.

Before the Nation State

There have been different kinds of states in history, other than the nation state. For example, in 15th-century Italy,
the independent body of government was centered on a city. These were called city-states. City-states were based
on the city, but their power extended beyond the city limits and could change depending on other powers,
resources, etc. The nation state, by contrast, has a definite border where its power ends. The United States cannot
enforce its laws in Canada.
At one time, kingdoms and empires ruled over lots of very different people who did not see themselves as united or
sharing any sort of identity. The transition from kingdoms, empires, and city-states into nation states did not happen
everywhere in the world at the same time, or in the same way.

History of the Nation State

Many historians debate the origins of the nation state. The historian Benedict Anderson, author of Imagined
Communities, argued that nation states began because of print media, such as newspapers, when the rise in
literacy and new technologies like the printing press between 1500 and 1600 let people talk to each other in new
ways. They discussed their similarities and ideas through the press, and this meant that they had to share a
common language. They began to form the early versions of national identities. Anderson's argument is still the
most commonly held belief by historians.
However, other scholars have also noted that the early nation states coincided with new map-making technologies
from the age of exploration and discovery in the 1500s, when European merchants began sailing around the world
for the first time. Better maps and technology to move people and goods changed the way that people, particularly
rulers, understood boundaries and borders.