Skip to main content

War, Borders, and Making the State Look Real


This brief comment was part of my introduction to the Old Mole Variety Hour on July 2, 2018. It is part of my ongoing mission as an Old Mole to make capitalism look as bad as it really is, a task made necessary by capitalism’s never-ending capacity to appear neutral or even benign.
Capitalism depends on the nation-state for many things, including organizing and defending its way of doing business in the world. Thus the State regulates and limits the ability of workers to organize to minimize their exploitation; it funnels profits to major corporations for the production of war and security materiel and for building and operating camps and prisons for the enemies of the state. The nation-state, of course, is only a social fiction, and yet it must command the loyalty and even the veneration of most of its people since it is in the holy name of the Nation that people are often required to lay down their lives on the battlefield for its preservation and honor. And it is precisely the mountains of the dead left on battlefields that makes the state real and revered by its people. We are encouraged to believe, as the Roman poet Horace put it, that “It is sweet and proper to die for the fatherland,” or, as we now say, the Homeland, and that so many have died for it makes us believe that it must be real – since we are not allowed to say that all those soldiers died for an illusion. Another way the State can make itself seem real in the eyes of its people is by making a spectacular defense of its borders against people it demonizes as outsiders, enemies, alien people. That of course is what’s happening on our Southern border today: The nation state that calls itself “America,” and that has historically conceived of itself as “White”, is trying to make itself “Great” by militarizing the arbitrary line between itself and the peoples of other American nations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Saving the Time of Our Lives

Thinking in the wake of Martin Hägglund’s This Life: Secular Life and SpiritualFreedom If we had all the time in the world, if we were immortal, then it wouldn’t matter how we spent our time, for there would always be more of it. But if life is short, then it matters a lot. If we and the people we love are mortal and can die at any moment – and will die at some moment – then every day and every minute of our finite lives is supremely important. How, then, should we arrange our lives together so that the time of our brief lives is well spent? In view of our mortality, wouldn’t we want   to spend as much of our allotted time as possible doing things we want to do, that are worth doing for their own sake, and to minimize the time we spend doing things we have to do? There is the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity. The realm of necessity is what we have to do whether we want to or not; it includes the activities necessary for maintaining life: cleanin...

About This Blog

A Blog About How We Are Put Together I will be pursuing two sets of questions in this blog.  First , politics and the economy, issues I can be heard talking about regularly on The Old Mole Variety Hour . These are questions about how we, collectively, are put together in social relations.  Second , questions about how the human soul is constructed and the sources of our inner demons. I have written about these matters in my book Demystifying Demons: Rethinking Who and What We Are .  This blog could also have been called Consciousness and the Unconscious , which is the name of a course I taught several times some years ago. For I will be dealing with the limits and distortions of what we think we know (our consciousness) both about how our souls are put together and how we are all put together in society; and what we know -- and feel -- but do not know that we do, both about ourselves and our social relations with each other (the unconscious).  ...

Martin Luther King Day Commentary

Just in time for Martin Luther King day, Newsweek magazine reveals that Donald Trump thought that all welfare recipients were black. When told, in a meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus last March, that not all people on welfare are black, Trump responded, “Really? Then what are they?” – apparently unable to picture a white person on welfare.   In fact, most welfare recipients are white. White people without a college degree ages 18 to 64 are the largest class of adults on welfare. The assumption, spoken or unspoken, that welfare recipients are black is a common misconception. We can point to the media and their repetition of stories and pictures of black single mothers on welfare, but that doesn’t explain why the media makes the assumption and why it comes across as plausible to most Americans. In fact this image of welfare recipients as black flows from the racist ideology that permeates US society: the idea that black people are a distinct kind of peopl...