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...

Beyond Mocking and Cursing

A great deal of the opposition to Trump and Trump supporters is couched in the register of moral outrage. Some of it is ridicule: making fun of Trump’s appearance and his obliviousness to demonstrable facts, as well as the ignorance of some of his supporters. We lament the danger he and his supporters pose to democracy and peace, and the hatefulness of what they say and do about women, people of color, and the poor. One might almost suppose that the Left these days is united primarily around hatred for Trump and people who support him, even though we say that love trumps hate. Trumpists find solidarity in their disgust for the Left, whom they call “libtards” and “snowflakes”, but it would be nice if the Left was united by something better than hatred or even moral outrage. There’s no denying that shared moral outrage feels good; it is a way of declaring oneself to be on the right (that is, the Left) side of history and in solidarity with like-minded others. But it only drives the ...

Prospects for a Green New Deal

Presented on The Old Mole Variety Hour , December 3, 2018 The report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released last month seems to have tasked the governments of the world, or more broadly, the human species with an impossible task: to reduce and eliminate the use of fossil fuels, by the end of the next decade. Doing so could prevent the most serious climate catastrophes that will otherwise occur within the lifetimes of most of the world’s population. We have the knowledge and tools we need to make the changes in the production and use of energy necessary to avoid the destruction from floods, fires, heat waves, droughts, rising sea levels, and crop failures. What has been lacking is a concrete, actionable proposal,   put before the US Congress, that is equal to the task. There is now such a proposal before Congress.  But first, consider how enormous that task before us is: . Every item produced, transported, and used o...