I am revisiting some ideas about the evolution of human society in the context of a world facing ecological disaster. Recent times have already shown clearly the failure of the "Nation" concept in the Middle East. A major lesson from that region and its recent wars and uprisings is that artificially drawn National boundaries are not based on reality when you look at how they ignore people and their natural communities.
People have many ways of identifying themselves and many times they have religious or ethnic identities that are stronger than any national loyalty.
This is not a new idea and it has been studied in depth. One example is World-systems theory
World-systems theory (also known as world-systems analysis or the world-systems perspective), a multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change, emphasizes the world-system (and not nation states) as the primary (but not exclusive) unit of social analysis.
"World-system" refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system has dynamic characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time. For a time, some countries become the world hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and (most recently) to the United States of America.
I use this example to point out that there are global views based on systems theory that give a different perspective. Read on below for more.
We tend to focus on nations as some natural unit of world organization even though the evidence clearly challenges this view with some reasonable alternatives. Here is one:
World-systems analysis argues that capitalism, as a historical system, has always integrated a variety of labor forms within a functioning division of labor (world-economy). Countries do not have economies, but are part of the world-economy. Far from being separate societies or worlds, the world-economy manifests a tripartite division of labor with core, semiperipheral, and peripheral zones. In core zones businesses, with the support of states they operate within, monopolize the most profitable activities of the division of labor.
There are many ways to attribute a specific country to the core, semi-periphery, or periphery. Using an empirically based sharp formal definition of "domination" in a two-country relationship, Piana in 2004 defined the "core" as made up of "free countries" dominating others without being dominated, the "semi-periphery" as the countries which are dominated (usually, but not necessarily, by core countries) while at the same time dominating others (usually in the periphery), and "periphery" as the countries which are dominated. Based on 1998 data, the full list of countries in the three regions—together with a discussion of methodology—can be found.
The late 18th and early 19th centuries marked a great turning point in the development of capitalism in that capitalists achieved state-societal power in the key states which furthered the industrial revolution marking the rise of capitalism. World-systems analysis contends that capitalism as a historical system formed earlier, that countries do not "develop" in stages, but rather the system does, and these events have a different meaning as a phase in the development of historical capitalism; namely the emergence of the three ideologies of the national developmental mythology (the idea that countries can develop through stages if they pursue the right set of policies): conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism.
Proponents of world-systems analysis see the world stratification system the same way Karl Marx viewed class (ownership versus non-ownership of the means of production) and Max Weber viewed class (which, in addition to ownership, stressed occupational skill level in the production process). The core nations primarily own and control the major means of production in the world and perform the higher-level production tasks. The periphery nations own very little of the world's means of production (even when they are located in periphery nations) and provide less-skilled labor. Like a class system with a nation, class positions in the world economy result in an unequal distribution of rewards or resources. The core nations receive the greatest share of surplus production, and periphery nations receive the least. Furthermore, core nations are usually able to purchase raw materials and other goods from noncore nations at low prices, while demanding higher prices for their exports to noncore nations. Chirot (1986) lists the five most important benefits coming to core nations from their domination of periphery nations:
Access to a large quantity of raw material
Cheap labor
Enormous profits from direct capital investments
A market for exports
Skilled professional labor through migration of these people from the noncore to the core.
According to Wallerstein, the unique qualities of the modern world-system include its capitalistic nature, its truly global nature, and that it is a world-economy that has not become politically unified into a world-empire.
A number of things come to mind.
First and foremost is the lack of global perspective in our National political theater. This is rather striking if you think about it. Ironically, the extreme right wing seems to be more in touch with these issues in their own sick distorted way. Worries about the UN, Agenda 21, etc. reflect an underlying awareness that we are susceptible to change because we are part of a larger system. They see this as a threat that can be stopped and a lot of foolish things come from this mentality.
Second, it has been a reasonable expectation that the income discrepancies in the world would have to level out. The United States enjoyed a very skewed distribution of wages and its middle class benefited from this. People who saw this as an instability also reasoned correctly that the tendency for equalization would hurt the American worker rather than help others in the world. We may be seeing a little of both, but clearly the water is seeking its own level.
Third, recent trade policies are very controversial yet analysis I have seen seems to miss the point. I suspect the trade issue is a part of the larger issue I am looking at here and has its origins in the global system's reality.
I could go on but I hope I have made my point. There is a global system and it is creating forces for change that Nations, ours included, are misinterpreting for lack of a systems perspective.
The global nature of our National artifacts is driven home with Global Warming. There is no way that National sovereignty can trump what is going on with the planet. Once again the right wing is terrified but does have some kind of sense of what it means to their beloved isolation.
Finally, if I can sit here and write this there is no question that others are even further along in understanding it. The oligarchy may be more clever than most of us suspect. We see American politics in a theater defined for us. It is hard to believe that the clown car circus is what our oligarchs are all about. They must be laughing at how foolish we are to be distracted by such antics once again while we are being had big time.
We will be captivated by the political theater for the next year or so and they will be laughing very hard. There is a global system and they have their moves well planned out. Individual players may be stupid yet there are enough of them so that some of them will make the right moves to keep the system going. Some of those moves will involve the further diminishing of the role of Nations in the global scene. Our right wing friends are going to be very disappointed and blame us. It is ironic is it not?