Capitalism,
to consolidate itself, created the nation-state, endowed it with tentacle and
repressive state apparatus and a discriminatory ideology when not racist, the
nationalism. As a process, capitalism has globalized, without losing the use of
its instruments of accumulation and social management; even with the
preponderance of the financial system as the main element of capital creation
(fictitious), capitalism is the responsible for climate aggression. And there
is no solution for the planet and humanity within capitalism and using its
usual instruments - nation-state, state, nationalism, political classes.
Summary
1. How capitalism created the
nation-state
2 - Nationalism as an instrument of
ideological control
3 - To each nation a nation-state?
4. Capitalism magnifies the nation-state in its process of
consolidation
5 - The capitalist globalization reconfigures the role of the
nation-state
5 .1 - Some segments taken from the domain of nation-states
6 - The State, local manager of the stratification of the Human beings
/// + \\\
1. How capitalism created the nation-state
The sedentary nature of human beings has created several and chained
groups with increasingly complex relationships. Families expanded and
intersections with other families emerged in the context of meetings of a
wandering life or conflicts leading to the integration of the defeated; This
integration corresponded to the implicit appreciation of human capital, where
and when the hostility of the environment forced it. On the other hand, closure
in the same inbreeding was avoided[1]
and the emergence of a great diversity
of human beings spread across the planet was favored.
In Rome, gens were sets of families that saw themselves in an
illustrious ancestor or considered important in their lives, as a unifying
element and implicit generator of identity; which is comparable to clans in
other societies in Northern Europe, Arabia, China, Japan, etc. These lineages
later led to the concepts of noble and nobility, as a social class in which
affiliation in the same lineage was essential. It is known that the lineage had
true meaning only when there was possession of lands, mills and, slaves, levers
necessary for the exercise of political power; for those who did not have this
property the issue of lineage would be irrelevant, apart from the transmission
of fathers or mothers to son(s) of possessions, even including in these small
portions of agricultural land or workshops of blacksmiths, carpenters, etc.
On a broader plane came the tribe, a concept also from the Romans that
was also remotely based on inbreeding, sealed by the veneration of the same
gods, the lares. The incorporation of
other elements, of distinct human groups or individuals, as was practiced by
North American natives, has rarely been removed; the variety of peoples, tribes
and, languages recorded in antiquity, between the Mediterranean and
Mesopotamia, has no comparison with the existing mosaic.
The concept of tribe in Europe ceased to be used as the manorial
territories were formed, with a well-marked social division between masters and
servants; the servants came to fit in as subjects of the lord (count, duke,
king), in a picture of sedentary, of link to the land. The arrival of other
tribes moving from north to south or from the Asian steppes such as the
Lombards in Italy; or, the arrival of the Goths and Berbers to the Iberian
Peninsula, for example, resulted in a total miscegenation. In the Lower Middle
Ages, as trade relations became denser and the flight to the cities became
widespread, the reference of origin was no longer the connection to a feudal
house, to be replaced by the region of provenance, the gentile, as a reference
of origin, identification, until the constitution of nation-states, when the
main reference became the identification of origin; as today it remains.
This identification of origin was initially a simple reference that
translated habits, customs and, a culture, before people of other origins. If Colombo
was Genoese (which will not be peaceful), his trip to the Iberian Peninsula did
not drag rights or duties towards Genoa. The same was true with Magalhães when
he went to Spain after seeing his project rejected by the Portuguese king. At
that time, people circulated, traveled, without prior knowledge of their
"State" because at the borders no passports were required, leaving or
entering; though few people traveled, confining all their lives in a small
circle around their agricultural, self-sufficient community.
With the disintegration of the Roman Empire, the usual networks of
commerce ceased to be used and the urban population declined, as evidenced, for
example, in the abandonment of Conimbriga, with the richest moving to the
countryside, to their villae,
developing a very localized and self-sustaining economy. Thus, throughout the
Middle Ages, an autonomous agrarian economy predominated, with a range of
knowledge that went from parents to children, all illiterate (except the priest
who gave mass… in Latin), with a low volume of foreign trade.
The references of
the population were fixed in the place, with sparse trips to urban centers; a
self-centered, closed society, self-sufficient in food (as long as there were
no wars or bad harvests) and autonomous in the knowledge of fields and domestic
animals. Scholarly knowledge was anchored in the Bible and limited to
monasteries and universities, whose teachers were clerics.
The dialectic between peasants and feudal lords was centered on the
tribute to be paid to the nobleman to ensure the safety of the people without
ruining it; in times of bad harvests, this was a vital matter. Thus the
pendulum oscillated between the tolerance of the rural communities and the
greed of the lords; and their abuse resulted in large and bloody peasant
uprisings such as the remensas revolt
in Catalonia in the second half of the fifteenth century, Walt Tyler and John
Ball in late fourteenth-century England or, Jacquerie in France, few decades
before, following many others, against the abuses of the lords since the tenth
century.
In Germany, the peasants tried to take advantage of the movements
resulting from the Lutheran secession to free themselves from the lords, but
Luther preferred to help the German nobility in their purpose of abandonment of
papal suzerainty. In these struggles, the rebellious were not directed against
a distant king whom they were asking for intervention but, against their direct
oppressors.
In the typical agrarian societies of the European Middle Ages, the idea
of nation-state was unknown because the solidarity was manifested among social
classes - the peasants, among themselves against the masters; and among the
latter, the extension of their domains was achieved by war, where it was not
possible to obtain them through family crossings.
At the top of the manorial hierarchy in a given area was a king who
often had equal or less relevance than some manor houses, and, on the other
hand, the loyalties among the nobility were very volatile[2]
as is always the case at all times when
there are riches in dispute.
The apex of the pyramid of power in the setting of Christian Europe was
the Pope, "vicar of Christ" to whom everybody would be debtors of
obedience and heir to the responsibilities assigned to the Church, although
during the fourteenth to the fifteenth century there was an inter-papal
competition; with one in Rome, another in Avignon and for a few years a third,
in Pisa. For centuries there have been serious disputes over the primacy
between clerical and lordly powers – all, dominating vast territories and
servants; after the Lutheran and Calvinist schisms in the Protestant states,
the king became the head of the local church, thereby adding one more element
to the integration of the respective territory in the process of creating a
nation-state. Following the French Revolution and the formation of the USA, the
principle of religious freedom was stressed. Today, stricter situations of
state religion are observed, for example in Saudi Arabia, with the monopoly of Wahabite
Islam or, in Iran, Shiite, where there are temples of other cults, and atheism
is not punished.
No one would remember, in the late Middle Age, to speak of homeland,
nation, and even less of State. Take, for example, the genesis of Portugal.
The first Portuguese king was vassal of his cousin of Castilla and Leon,
the Spanish emperor; and, to get rid of this dependency, he held, for decades,
negotiations with the Pope over the number of ounces of gold to pay, to have
only an obedience facing to Rome. Those who lived in those lands that became
Portugal they were vassals of the king, whether they were Christians of
obedience to the Pope (the people of the North), Muslims, Mozarabians or Jews
(the people of the South), without any sense of nation, or even a common
culture; despite this, the present-day nationalists celebrated Portugal's 840
years, counted from the purchase with gold and, the end of the Portuguese
king's obedience to his cousin of Castilla and Leon. Only much later, in the
16th century, with the expulsion or forced conversion of Muslims and Jews, the
Iberian kings tried cultural homogeneity; which in the case of Spain is still
absent, of course, after 500 years.
The Italian republics, especially Genoa and Venice, had an oligarchic
power structure with mature diplomacy, suited to their mercantile and financial
logic, with territorial possessions circumscribed to the Mediterranean through
war or plunder; and with little in common with the austere European kingdoms to
which they lent money. Its decline began with the Ottoman expansion and the
shifting of the spine of trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic,
initially through Spain and Portugal. Moreover, the Italian republics to
compete in the outer space of the Mediterranean would have to use new
shipbuilding and armament technologies, trade-support logistical bases and
increase the volume of military spending to compete with the Iberian countries
already on the routes of East and the Americas.
In the Italian republics, the economic dynamic focused on foreign relations
was anchored in a class of merchants and bankers, united by business, with no
pretensions to a higher level of integration, especially national. The
extensive Hanseatic League that united dozens of Baltic and North Sea cities
formed an alliance for trade and transport in that region, minimizing pirate
attacks. In these two cases, economic and political planning had nothing in
common with feudal territories based on the constitution of peasant rents from
warlords; and had nothing in common with the emerging nation-states.
The passage from the Middle Age to the Modern Age is structured under
several axes. Existing lenders in the main urban centers financed the monarchs
to promote the exploitation or conquest of their colonial territories, granted
to small nobles such as Cortez, Pizarro, Almagro or the grantees of Portuguese
captaincies in Brazil[3].
The abundance of gold and silver in the American colonies of Spain, as
well as the weaknesses of the natives, with their way of life destroyed by the
colonizers and increased by the diseases offered by the latter, led to the
slave trade until the 19th century, distributed throughout southern of the
nowadays US, the Caribbean, the mines and the sugar mills of Brazil, for three
centuries.
Gold and silver entered Seville twice a year in large fleets protected
by warships; and, as feudal lords, the Iberian kings used gold to pay for war,
the hiring of armies with many mercenaries, and the pageantry, with no purpose
of economic promotion or logic of income redistribution, as one would say
today. They acted as true feudal lords, owners of many lands and ideologically
bound to Boullionism, the eagerness to own gold and silver for the creation of
money.
The Spanish cities continued to be unhealthy slums where penniless
nobles (who had a squire begging for them) but candidates for incomes and
positions with the king, high nobility, and clergy; also ruffians, awaiting
contract for the use of the sword in defense of a lord who paid the service;
many merchants from various origins to sell their goods; rural without work,
given the abandonment of land by the nobles; and many beggars and little
thieves waiting for food at the door of the convents. The important thing was
to have gold or silver in hands.
In the sixteenth century, in Spain or Portugal, there was neither nation
nor state[4]
because the rise of capitalism was still
incipient. The power was in monarchs, marked by the spirit of crusade, imbued
with a feudal mentality, under which the territory was theirs; and where it did
not exist a commercial bourgeoisie similar to that observed in the Italian
republics or and Hanseatic cities. Their inability to understand the new
economic dynamics was exploited by foreign traders who came to Seville to sell
what was not produced in Spain and were paid in gold. In Portugal, where the
scenario was similar, the economic ruin was added in 1578 by the king's
disastrous military adventure in Morocco, which led to the dynastic union of
the two Iberian countries, with the people's indifference to the fact the new
king was Spanish.
The Iberian countries did not develop as capitalist powers but remained
led by monarchs with an expansionist vision marked by concerns of
evangelization in the new territories of the Americas and the East. And in the
case of Spain, with an expensive and exhausting involvement in the political
and religious wars that marked the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire. Hence, it happen
its decline and the ceding of maritime power to Dutch, French and, English.
The Netherlands[5] (Northern Netherlands) had in the 16th and 17th centuries very
different characteristics from the Iberian monarchies; it had created a
republican regime after the end of a long war against the Spanish rule, which
continued to be exercised in the South Netherlands, Belgium. It has done great
work in building dikes and canals, modernizing agriculture by introducing crop
rotation and increasing livestock breeding; and in manufacturing, the
specialization of workers within the industry began to develop, producing
larger, faster and more profitable ships to the colonial trade.
Its republican political regime corresponded to the rule of an active
and wealthy bourgeoisie, which favored immigration, especially of artists,
philosophers and, scientists; on the other hand, religious tolerance attracted
wealthy or cultured Jews, expelled from Spain, from Portugal[6]
and Belgium, where the Spanish sought to
maintain religious oneness.
The role played in the development of world trade generated major capital
movements and gave rise to the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, the Bank of Amsterdam,
the emergence of joint-stock companies that came to originate the East and West
Indies Companies, to which the state gave the monopoly of colonial products,
increasing the profit margins of their holders. Almost at the same time,
English competitors created the Bank of England, and the Bill of Rights that
limited royal powers, while the property rights emerged.
Amsterdam has replaced Lisbon and Seville as the center of global trade.
The Netherlands took advantage of and consolidated the shift of European trade
from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, becoming the hub of developed sea and
land links with the whole of northern or southern Europe, replacing, for
example, the decaying Italian republics in trade with Morocco.
Colonial trade was complemented by transactions on the European scene in
food and raw materials. Religious eclecticism allowed the monopoly of trade
with Japan, after the Portuguese were expelled from there, always interested in
trade but, linked to evangelization, naturally taken as offensive to educated
Japanese.
This network of interests between traders, transporters and, bankers,
operating on a worldwide basis, enjoys the absence of a despotic and imposing central
power as well as religious freedom, were elements that greatly enlarged the
commercial and financial capitalism designed in the Italian republics, in the
essentially Mediterranean context. This network also aggregated the various
dependent social strata, interested in the current prosperity and continuity.
The density of social and economic relations, especially in a small territorial
space, unified its inhabitants in a common culture and interested in a State
with a role to give a cover to private enterprise. As there was competition
from other regions - England, France, Spain, Portugal, and Scandinavian
countries - it was convenient to erect a border delimitation, the existence of
an army and, above all, a powerful war navy - under the responsibility of a
state apparatus, financially anchored in customs duties, taxes, tithes.
This evolving global project that involved the Dutch, more so as a
culturally and linguistically homogeneous people (a nation) and averse to the
domination of a foreign monarchy (Spain), is called capitalism. To secure
internally social peace and defend itself from competition, this political
project created a national label[7]
(Netherlands) that would unify the
population around certain economic and political designs in the global scene
and, in particular, the European framework - this project was materialized in a
nation-state. At the same time and as European economic development was
proceeding, in a global framework of competition and war, it was essential for
the capitalists of the various countries, the creation of nation-states, with a
territory and a population, of their own, mobilized for work and war.
2 - Nationalism as an instrument of ideological control
Each nation-state circumscribed itself by a border - sealed space that
separated it from other competing nation-states as to the possession of
territories and their wealth; and which today comprises other structures and
distinct frameworks. Among these riches stood out relevant population groups,
which were required in each nation-state to crack down and antagonize what
would be necessary and convenient to face identical groups at the border as
potential threats. As it is "my capitalists" that give me work and
"my state apparatus" that gives me security against external aggressions
"I accept a narrative that unites us all" - nationalism; and against
neighbors and intruders who want to impoverish or violate "my
homeland".
Local capitalists, with whom a new aristocracy was being integrated (not
only sword experts like their feudal ancestors but literate ones, too) needed
to have the mass of the population against a potential or effective enemy.
Nationalism is an ingrained sense of belonging that transforms any poor thing
living in a nation-state into a declared enemy of another poor thing, for the
sole reason that the latter was born the other side of the border, each in
defense of the interests of "his" capitalists against the capitalists
of the other, which can be considered as a form of ideological and material capture
- a new bondage - of labor by capital.
In fact, in objective terms, a shipyard worker, a producer of armor,
weapons, wheat, or a sailor would soon change his social and economic position
if, in the course of a war, they were included in another nation-state, after a territorial loss of the
defeated nation-state. The immense changes in the political borders of Europe
since the 16th century have rarely been matched by massive population
movements. We cite two exceptions; the exchanges between Greeks and Turks on
the banks of the Aegean a hundred years ago and the rearrangement of the
Germanic population following the rewording of the borders in eastern Europe
after World War II in a framework of great anti-German animosity. Conversely, African nations essentially
maintained colonial boundaries without major migrations, because labor, whether
forced or not, was on plantations or subsistence agriculture, in a context of
traditional ethnic integration, where colonial authority was distanced and its
economic power is very concentrated in commodities.
For people, in general, power and political classes are strange and
distant things that are accepted, better or worse, for many, many reasons,
namely because they hold the coercive power of the state in their hands, regardless
of the color of the flag... The EU's blue flag started to be side by side with
the national flags in public buildings without any problem; except in Britain
where this has not been replicated since long before Brexit was spoken.
It is not the changes in border boundaries that most lead to migration.
Wars, ethnic and religious persecution and, above all, the search for a better
life, are the motors of migration, even in a world built by capitalism, by
nature a creator of enormous destruction and convenient (for itself)
inequalities. Human beings seek to settle where they can live in peace, without
lack of food, work, housing, education or health care; and, for this, they
disconnect from their places of origin, fit into different cultures from their
own, bring about various discriminations and eventually integrate themselves,
incorporating even the current nationalism and even the repulsion towards those
who have just made it, going through the same emigrant course.
The original national bonds are lost within two or three generations as
their insertion into the new society, their adaptation to a new culture. For
example, in World War II, many thousands of soldiers, with recent ancestry in
Germany, Italy or Japan, fought against countries of this close origin without
embarrassment[8].
This material basis for the creation of nationalism is profoundly
opposed to the childish, false, metaphysical, and reactionary narratives
constructed by the political classes, which justify the nation-state as the
simple organization of a nation, pure, different, with its invariably glorious
past, with their mythical heroes and spectacular deeds, with the occasional
support of the gods ... Nationalism is a cultural and psychological deviation
that proves to be the fuel of war, persecution, rape, looting, destruction,
expulsion, massacres, barbarity, discrimination …
The nation-state is a mixture of common interests, with one or more
peoples present in its territory; with a more or less intense mystique invented
to shape nationalism, to exorcise the differentiation from the Other, usually based on fantasist or
childish elements used to mark this difference. Since the nation-state is a
political construction of capitalism, nationalism is an ideological instrument
of the latter whose use is performed by the institutions of the nation-state;
and it serves to establish separation, difference, and antagonism among the
inhabitants of a nation-state against those of other nation-states in the
context of global and widespread competition. It is, therefore, an element of
consolidation of the nation-state, favoring the rule of its capitalists and the
administration, carried out by its political class, on the basis of
differentiation, discrimination, racism; although it does not seek homogeneity,
since the existence of various cultures may be useful to maintain some tension
and division inside the homeland, to generate discriminated populations, since
capital accumulation requires divergences, social, racial or religious hierarchies, to create struggle, dynamism. At the top will
be a government to manage divergences and conflicts between the various
capitalist interests, which will be able to compensate their representatives.
Nationalism is a weapon ready to be thrown, instilled into the plebs, by
the possessing strata against other nation-states and their peoples. Regarding
specific cultural groups inside a nation-state, there are cases where these
groups want to create their nation-state, such as Kurds, Catalans, Basques… or
fascists like Lega who had called for an independent Padania before becoming a
national party; others, where these groups or cultures live within the
nation-state where they are a minority but without independentist pretensions
(Berbers or Copts, for example); and still cases in which these cultures are
expelled and persecuted as outcasts, undesirable (Palestinian, Gypsy,
Rohingyas…). Thus, some can live peacefully with their own cultures; and others
are pointed out as threats to the unity and good living of the motherland, which,
if appropriate, will not retreat from genocide, persecution or promote columns
of fleeing refugees.
Nationalism does not require cultural homogeneity and accepts
heterogeneity as long as it does not constitute a threat, damage to the march
of business or the unity of the motherland. The construction of the
nation-state generated the predominance of the spoken language in the area
where the power was centered and the vulgarization of this language in administrative documents, through writing;
later, with school networks and compulsory education, power led to widespread
adoption of the language (s) it uses, with the regression or extinction of
regional or local languages. The press and later, radio and television, came to
accentuate the predominance of the language spoken by political power. And
finally, US supremacy in politics, business, and the internet has made English
the great language of global communication.
In Italy, everyone speaks Italian (Tuscany language) but there are
millions of people who use their traditional, regional languages; the same is
true in France but to a lesser extent (Basque, Breton, Occitan, Corsican,
Catalan…). More lurid was, in Spain, the ban of the Catalan, Euzkera, or
Galician languages by the fascist Franco regime for forty years; and whose
effect was just the opposite, when freedom of speech was reestablished, with
the natural uneasiness of the parties inheriting Francoism.
Due to its irrationality, nationalism tends to impose itself over other
ideologies or cultures when it is based on fear of a threat taken and held as
latent, though often only imaginary; it also serves to unite a people with a
production of isolation or through the punishment of internal
"traitors".
Nationalism articulates with the dominant religion in the production of
persecutory and excluding acts, as in Francoist Spain. Similar nationalist
repression took place in Salazar's Portugal, the creator of a
"multicontinental nation" to legitimize the possession of colonies.
And in Protestant monarchies, the king, as head of the national church,
represents national unity.
Nationalism can be an excellent means of elevating to undisputed
leadership, a dictator, a demagogue, a ruthless gang leader, as a leader of the
nation, who will be indebted to such political capacity, so much love for the
country; he will be showed commonly in statues and his name appears on many
avenues throughout the country.
In short, the nation-state is not the logical and unquestionable result
of the existence of a people, a culture, the sharing of a common language. The
nineteenths idea of "each nation its nation-state" was a concept with
specific and opportunistic purposes, in a historical context, later used
according to political convenience and never desired or applied by the vast
majority of specific peoples and cultures.
The nation-state, after establishing itself with political power
(state), integrating capital groups and hierarchies, installs unifying symbols
for the veneration of the people - the anthem and the flag[9]
in particular; and in modern times also
with the national football team, taken as a squad mission is to defeat the
enemy.
Through school in general, particularly at the youngest age brackets,
nationalism is instilled through the heroes and achievements of the past which,
as a rule, are greater than those of close competitors. This indoctrination
serves to create a collective spirit and distrust facing other countries and
peoples around, in the neighborhood. It is an inducer of distrust,
disqualification and exclusion of an abstract Other and that should make each person a patriot, objective
defender of the interests of the homeland or rather of "its"
capitalists; by the verb and the shotgun.
Another historical element in the induction of nationalism is the compulsory
military service (CMS) to which all young men were called[10]
to receive the due capacities for the defense of the homeland at any time,
without limit to sacrifice, which may represent a glorious end wrapped in the
homeland flag[11]… even though in his homeland they may have no more than free streets to
walk. Presence in the CMS also means a training of obedience to a strict
hierarchy, in the context of integral subordination, if not in the humiliation
of subordinates; an induced obedience in young people that would lead them to
accept the hierarchy at work, to obey the employer, the State, the police
authority; and, in the case of women, also subordination to men - at home, at
work, on pay, on rights…
Today, for technical reasons, CMS has been abandoned[12]
and the military[13]
became a praetorian guard, unconnected
with the population, which for many is taken as a band of undisciplined
civilians. Today's military is a volunteer, long-term contractor, skilled in
the handling of sophisticated equipment, people looking for decent pay (hard to
find as civilians) and a certain respect on the part of the plebs. At the
lowest levels, they are ignorant people, easily indoctrinated and easy to use
violence[14].
Thus it turned back to the early days of capitalism, to the sixteenth
century, when the European armies were made up of mercenaries. Today, in the
United States, the recruitment of young people, especially the poor, is
achieved by having a university entrance, something which is only accessible to
families with possessions or, at the expense of brutal levels of personal
indebtedness. In this way, the United States, by creating a mercenary troop,
avoids the contestation of youth forced in the past to go to the clumsy and
unpopular war of Vietnam; A mercenary is paid to take all risks, and if
something goes wrong with his health… it is a professional risk.
To be continued:
Nation-state, nationalism,
instruments of capitalism (2/3)
Nation-state, nationalism,
instruments of capitalism (3/3)
This and other documents, here:
[1] It does not worried for centuries
European royal families, producing commonly, physically or mentally weak
[2] It should be
remembered, by the way, that most of the Portuguese nobility, under the
dynastic crisis of 1383/85 supported the power delivery to the king of
Castilla; this was not the case of non-eldest sons or bastards who saw the
conflict as an opportunity to seize the lands of the noble supporters of
Castilla.
[3] These grantees
had a hereditary right over the territory and, on the other hand, must give the
king 20% of the gold or precious stones found; or 10% if they were farm
producers.
[4] Only in the late fifteenth century, with King
John II, was generated a national administrative apparatus, a state outline…
with the arrival in India on a very near horizon.
[5] Since this paper is
not intended to summarize the history of the emergence of capitalism and the
rivalries between the first capitalist countries, we are particularly concerned
with the case of the Netherlands, not proceeding with the same process in
England or France, unless it is particularly useful in framing this essay on
the rise and fall of the nation-state
[6] Spinoza had very
close Iberian ancestors. The same happened with David Ricardo, whose father was
a Dutch Jew, with a more remote Portuguese ancestry.
[7] A trade mark, as one would say
today, in neoliberal language
[8] Conversely, Guinean
soldiers of Guinea-Bissau, who fought the Portuguese colonial army and who were
unable to leave the country, were punished for this their choice; option taken
often to avoid hunger and not for the sake of the colonizer
[9] When it is not a name
invented based on, for example, the name of the capital (Algeria, Tunisia,
Kuwait, Djibouti); something as artificial as Central African Republic
(formerly Ubangui-Chari); or Pakistan that looks like a soup of letters.
[10] However, women also
joined the armed forces in a spirit of gender equality; as if the equality
between the two genders, in a context of strongly authoritarian and even
ambiguous structures can constitute the elevation of someone.
Patriotic stupidity and
globalization (2)
https://grazia-tanta.blogspot.com/2019/10/patriotic-stupidity-and-globalization-2.html
[12] Nationalism, which is very present in right-wing and " left "
political groups, gives rise to the idea of the importance of an CMS, perhaps
because they intend to replicate the pre-revolutionary situation lived in
Russia in 1917 with its "workers soldiers and sailors committees". If
being leftist necessarily means being anti-militarist, refusing hierarchies and
classifications of human beings on the grounds of "nationality", it
is evident that there is no visible Left in Europe.
[14] Many later move to police or security
companies for intervention, especially where physical violence is
"acceptable" such as nightclubs
