The nation-state is probably going to collapse. At least that is the suggestion of a theory I developed in a recent working paper to understand the evolution of control system transitions. This is also the general prediction of metasystem transition theory, which focuses on understanding the nature of control in living systems. I don't think we are serious about the future until we re-think the structure of the nation-state, it is inadequate to deal with globalisation. It is pretty obvious that the historical division between the left and the right has been the difference between the role of the free market and the state in public life. Although I agree that the distinction is now breaking down as America turns into an Oligarchy, it is a useful way to realise that neither the free market, nor the state, is the answer going forward. I said that the answer lies with a new left because the radical left has historically always dreamed of the dissolution of state power and a move towards a cooperative international community directed by "the people" (which in the 21st century could be a type of distributed governance).conversation it begins on the 'Nation State' as a cultural construct and the condition of its foundation.
I do not see an fundamental difference between the American political left and the American political right, and I don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one hereI don't think that Cadell made a convincing case for one here.
I disagree with Cadell that the answer lies with the leftists.
I can see that. However, I think it can be argued that the mantle has been largely assumed by the libertarians. I do not see communism as aligned with decentralization, although there are overlaps. Whereas communism charges the governance structure with the task of public good, libertarians tend to argue that the public good ought to be a byproduct of a system. There is a lot of shared ground, yet I think libertarians are more closely aligned with what technology is making possible, at least in the short term. But, really, what I am arguing, is that we needn't look to the left or to the right. Because they are reflections of a system that is becoming unstable. IMHO we are seeing left/right political dissonance because those views don't reflect the possibilities of a new framework.I said that the answer lies with a new left because the radical left has historically always dreamed of the dissolution of state power and a move towards a cooperative international community directed by "the people" (which in the 21st century could be a type of distributed governance).
I can agree with that. My call for the "new left" was mostly because, in my lifetime, the only time I have seen the foundations of society really challenged was with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Occupy movement can be rejuvenated, the structure is basically still there, and they are attacking precisely what needs to be changed. Also, they have international appeal as it spread to over 90 countries.But, really, what I am arguing, is that we needn't look to the left or to the right. Because they are reflections of a system that is becoming unstable. IMHO we are seeing left/right political dissonance because those views don't reflect the possibilities of a new framework.
OWS failed because they railed about problems without presenting a cohesive solution. The Arab Spring wanted an overthrow of dictators; OWS, depending on who you asked, either wanted a higher marginal tax rate, stricter inter-bank lending laws or something-something-welfare. There shall be no protestant movement until OWS can present its 99 theses in a concise manner.The only time I have seen the foundations of society really challenged was with the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I think, by their nature the leftists look more populous, but a large portion of the tools and communities that are enabling the growth of State-independent culture have been generated by folk that probably identify more with libertarians or perhaps see themselves as neoliberals.
Yes; I've read every post in this thread and the insistence that it's the "radical left" that will overthrow/rebuild the state is confusing me a bit. If anything the members of the radical left as it existed 40-60 years ago have migrated to left-libertarianism (which may be the term you're searching for, because it's where the so-called neoliberals might intersect with classical liberalism). Nowadays, I associate the phrase radical left with extreme socialism. The furthest left political parties in the world are all in essentially socialist countries.
To be honest, that is a development that I am completely unaware of, although I should read up on it. But it's clear that the state is getting pulled apart from many different movements. Although it is not clear yet how it will happen, I think it is now safe to say that the liberal democracy as manifest in the nation-state does not represent any type of an "end of history".