Revolutionary States, Cults of Personality, and their eventual demise.

[mswas]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...1#post11339315

Originally Posted by mswas

Well it would be nice. The stage seems to be set. When an ideological state loses its ideological stance and stands on nothing more than brute force intimidation its days are numbered. I do not think that North Korea in its current incarnation can withstand the loss of Kim Jong Il, just as Iran is having trouble in the absence of Khomeini and Cuba is peacefully and quietly doing away with some of Fidel's narcissism via Raul Castro. The Soviet Union collapsed precisely because no one was a true believer anymore, it became a thug state and had little ability to maintain itself as such. Of course we owe a great debt to the Afghan Mujahideen for that.

This statement was made as it regards North Korea. I am moving this over here so as to stop the hijack of that thread.

Basically what the debate is here is regarding the longevity of revolutionary states after the loss of their ideological figurehead.

What examples besides the United States of America are there of a state founded by ideological revolution that has stood the test of time? Using the US as an example, I think one of the strengths of the US is that it wasn't founded on a personality cult surrounding one individual.

My view on this is that North Korea is in a state of actually rather rapid implosion. As anyone who has debated with me knows I take a long view that views any major shift in a state's politics that happens within a single generation to be incredibly rapid. So the fact that North Korea has yet to collapse after the loss of Kim Il Sung is not evidence of North Korea's staying power. I do not think it will survive Kim Jong Il, and if it collapses with Kim Jong Il that will be an incredibly rapid turn around given the pace of nation-states.

[E-Sabbath]

Well, it _partially_ was, but he refused to become royal, and, in fact, stepped down.

... mmm... France? No, I suppose not. Vietnam's doing quite well, though.

[mswas]

Isn't Vietnam kind of quietly going capitalist in the same way that China has been?

As for France they restored the Monarchy shortly after and I would say it's hard to argue that Napoleon was an arbiter of a liberal egalitarian state.

I have never read of Washington as being a cult of personality, architect of the state type of person. Yes, he was pretty much universally respected, but he was never the brains of the operation. That was Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton by and large.

[Tom Tildrum]

Your OP seems to ask for examples where the state has survived, but in a later comment you seem to be referring to examples where the *revolution* has survived. The Chinese state has outlived its revolutionary ideals by quite some time, but Ikm not sure if that's what you're asking for.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

Your OP seems to ask for examples where the state has survived, but in a later comment you seem to be referring to examples where the *revolution* has survived. The Chinese state has outlived its revolutionary ideals by quite some time, but Ikm not sure if that's what you're asking for.

The Chinese state predated the revolution also. But I'd say China is a good example of a state that HAS survived, and there is no reason to eliminate China from the discussion. Also, in its current incarnation with its current government it's only about three quarters of a century old as opposed to the almost two and a half centuries of the United States. Also, in the case of China it's primary ideology is undergoing a nearly 180 degree reversal, something that never occurred in the US.

[Chimera]

One of the things I find humorous about Revolutionary governments is how they (since at least the French Revolution) carry the the idea of "viva la revolution!". Sorry, "revolution" is change. Once a government is changed, the revolutionary government often goes to absurd lengths to ensure that there is no further change. Witness Cuba and North Korea. Their nations are dying from that lack of change, which is absolutely vital.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Chimera

One of the things I find humorous about Revolutionary governments is how they (since at least the French Revolution) carry the the idea of "viva la revolution!". Sorry, "revolution" is change. Once a government is changed, the revolutionary government often goes to absurd lengths to ensure that there is no further change. Witness Cuba and North Korea. Their nations are dying from that lack of change, which is absolutely vital.

Agreed. I find that to be kind of funny too.

[Little Nemo]

One of the things I find humorous about Revolutionary governments is how they (since at least the French Revolution) carry the the idea of "viva la revolution!". Sorry, "revolution" is change. Once a government is changed, the revolutionary government often goes to absurd lengths to ensure that there is no further change. Witness Cuba and North Korea. Their nations are dying from that lack of change, which is absolutely vital.

A good point. I think one of the main reasons that the American Revolution was so successful was because the revolutionaries didn't try to lock in what they had done. They acknowledged that future generations would need to create new institutions and explicitly made it possible for them to change the government from within.

[XT]

What examples besides the United States of America are there of a state founded by ideological revolution that has stood the test of time? Using the US as an example, I think one of the strengths of the US is that it wasn't founded on a personality cult surrounding one individual.

The cult of personality in the US was for the Founding Fathers (though in his day, George Washington had quite a following...so much so that he COULD have declared himself king without too much protest, had he chosen to go that way).

My view on this is that North Korea is in a state of actually rather rapid implosion. As anyone who has debated with me knows I take a long view that views any major shift in a state's politics that happens within a single generation to be incredibly rapid. So the fact that North Korea has yet to collapse after the loss of Kim Il Sung is not evidence of North Korea's staying power. I do not think it will survive Kim Jong Il, and if it collapses with Kim Jong Il that will be an incredibly rapid turn around given the pace of nation-states.

I'm not sure how this relates to your OP, but by and large I agree...I also think that NK is running out of gas, and that it will most likely fall after lil' Kimmy snuffles off. And certainly this is due in large part to the cult of personality and autocratic rule first by his father and now by him.


As for the eventual demise of Revolutionary States(tm) and cults of personality, I'd have to say that all states eventually fail, so I guess it would depend on your time table and what you mean by revolutionary. I think that, in the beginning, most states were formed by some kind of revolution, and in general they were formed by a single person (either as a figure head or an actual ruler). Examples I can think of off the top of my head are Rome (in it's empire stage), Egypt, Mesopotamia, Germany, France, Russia, the early Chinese empire, the UK...etc. Many of them lasted for a hell of a long time. They have all morphed of course...as has the US.

But all good things come to an end, and eventually even the US will fold and either go quietly into the good night or blow apart to become a bunch of fragmentary political entities. Or space weasels will come down and subjugate us all...

-XT

[Little Nemo]

But all good things come to an end, and eventually even the US will fold and either go quietly into the good night or blow apart to become a bunch of fragmentary political entities. Or space weasels will come down and subjugate us all...

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I've predicted all along that the United States will be subjugated by a race of froglike aliens and your space weasel theory hasn't convinced me otherwise.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by xtisme

The cult of personality in the US was for the Founding Fathers (though in his day, George Washington had quite a following...so much so that he COULD have declared himself king without too much protest, had he chosen to go that way).

The reason I still - after, lo -- all these years - consider Washington to be the greatest president ever is due to the precedents he set, the most important of which is that he voluntarily stepped down, handing power peacefully to his successor, and retired to his farm. The history of the nation would have been far different had it been Adams or Jefferson, or - heavens forbid - Burr setting the precedents.

His love of the expense account is the only thing I'd quibble with.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Frank

The reason I still - after, lo -- all these years - consider Washington to be the greatest president ever is due to the precedents he set, the most important of which is that he voluntarily stepped down, handing power peacefully to his successor, and retired to his farm. The history of the nation would have been far different had it been Adams or Jefferson, or - heavens forbid - Burr setting the precedents.

His love of the expense account is the only thing I'd quibble with.

Diocletian did more or less the same thing. In Imperial fashion of course.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Frank

The reason I still - after, lo -- all these years - consider Washington to be the greatest president ever is due to the precedents he set, the most important of which is that he voluntarily stepped down, handing power peacefully to his successor, and retired to his farm. The history of the nation would have been far different had it been Adams or Jefferson, or - heavens forbid - Burr setting the precedents.

But Adams did something every bit as important: He voluntarily stepped down and handed power peacefully to the opposition.

[mswas]

The United States won't fall, it will be supplanted by a world government. The nation-state system as we know it will not survive the century.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

But Adams did something every bit as important: He voluntarily stepped down and handed power peacefully to the opposition.

Good point. Very good point.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by mswas

The United States won't fall, it will be supplanted by a world government. The nation-state system as we know it will not survive the century.

Not if PNAC has anything to say about it!

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Not if PNAC has anything to say about it!

Umm, I think your understanding of the PNAC is 180 degrees off. The PNAC was about building a world government. That was the entire point, to dominate the Middle-East.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by mswas

Of course we owe a great debt to the Afghan Mujahideen for that.

Of course, in hindsight, we shoulda supported the Afghan Commies, not the Mujahedeen.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Of course, in hindsight, we shoulda supported the Afghan Commies, not the Mujahedin.

No in hindsight we made the right decision. The covert war in Afghanistan is one of the few things the American government got right in the cold war. Yes it lead to increased terrorism, but Al Qaeda is a fly on the ass of the Soviet juggernaut.

Taraki was a Soviet puppet who had very little actual control over Afghanistan and was eventually supplanted. After he was supplanted Massoud had to convince the Afghani military NOT to defect because they were more useful to him as spies. Often when a battle would go Massoud's way the Afghan military would turn its guns on the Soviets and support Massoud.

Communism is evil because it is a faith based ideology with the pretense of being rational. It's a religion without God. Capitalism is more moral than Communism because it is more honest in its dealings.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by mswas

Umm, I think your understanding of the PNAC is 180 degrees off. The PNAC was about building a world government. That was the entire point, to dominate the Middle-East.

But the point is not a world government that would supplant the United States, the point is an American Empire.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

But the point is not a world government that would supplant the United States, the point is an American Empire.

Yes, but an American Empire would supplant an American Nation-State no? And if the Empire were ultimately global the effect would be the same right?

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by mswas

Yes, but an American Empire would supplant an American Nation-State no? And if the Empire were ultimately global the effect would be the same right?

No more than the inclusion of Hawaii caused the end of the United States as a nation.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by begbert2

No more than the inclusion of Hawaii caused the end of the United States as a nation.

Different by orders of magnitude.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by mswas

Different by orders of magnitude.

The Louisiana purchase was also different by orders of magnitude.

Let's be quite succinct; the United States of America was once 13 states. Now it is 50, most of them larger than any of the original 13. All this purchasing, conquering, and annexing didn't in the slightest supplant the American Nation-State with something other. Neither would the annexation of Canada. Nor would conquering Mexico. Nor would the entire EU getting wildly drunk one night and selling itself to the states.

This is simply not how nation-states end - unless you're the one sold, conquered, or annexed, anyway.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by begbert2

The Louisiana purchase was also different by orders of magnitude.

Let's be quite succinct; the United States of America was once 13 states. Now it is 50, most of them larger than any of the original 13. All this purchasing, conquering, and annexing didn't in the slightest supplant the American Nation-State with something other. Neither would the annexation of Canada. Nor would conquering Mexico. Nor would the entire EU getting wildly drunk one night and selling itself to the states.

This is simply not how nation-states end - unless you're the one sold, conquered, or annexed, anyway.

A single world empire wouldn't just end one nation state, it would end them all. That is the road we are travelling, the nation-state as a concept is about half a millenium old and it is in the throes of its demise as it is supplanted by economic cooperation zones as the primary mode of political discourse between large groups of people. Transnational corporations with a tenuous loyalty to a nation are also working from below to supplant the nation-state as the primary political sovereign corporation. Ultimately to maintain an empire a state must compromise its old idea of itself to the new one.

Just as the Civil War ended the sovereignty of the states, the success of empire would supplant the sovereignty of the nation-state to something greater.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by mswas

A single world empire wouldn't just end one nation state, it would end them all. That is the road we are travelling, the nation-state as a concept is about half a millenium old and it is in the throes of its demise as it is supplanted by economic cooperation zones as the primary mode of political discourse between large groups of people. Transnational corporations with a tenuous loyalty to a nation are also working from below to supplant the nation-state as the primary political sovereign corporation. Ultimately to maintain an empire a state must compromise its old idea of itself to the new one.

Just as the Civil War ended the sovereignty of the states, the success of empire would supplant the sovereignty of the nation-state to something greater.

I disagree.

As I think this is nothing more than a semantic argument about what a "nation state" is, I think that simple disagreement is a fair response. In my opinion there is no criteria for being a "nation state" that excludes one that happens to include every land mass and person on the planet. Sure, with a single world empire you'd only have one nation-state, but as far as I know, the existience of other nation-states isn't a criteria for being a nation-state either.

And the American Civil War didn't end the sovereignty of the states; it ended the sovereignty of the confederate states. The USA trucked along just fine. So yeah, I think this supports *my* position; in cases like this, only the loser vanishes. So, only a world government that consumed all the former nation states would end them all, not one that consumed all other nation-states while retaining its own coninuity of existence.

And eitehr way, however it gets created, by my definition the new world government is itself a nation-state.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by mswas

Yes, but an American Empire would supplant an American Nation-State no? And if the Empire were ultimately global the effect would be the same right?

Britain's acquisition of an empire did not put an end to Britain as a nation-state. In any case, PNAC's vision seems to be not an actual empire in the old sense, but, rather, America acquiring permanent global military-political hegemony and calling all the shots -- not a world of American colonies, but a world of American client states or puppet states.

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Britain's acquisition of an empire did not put an end to Britain as a nation-state. In any case, PNAC's vision seems to be not an actual empire in the old sense, but, rather, America acquiring permanent global military-political hegemony and calling all the shots -- not a world of American colonies, but a world of American client states or puppet states.

Well, America is not a nation-state, although another one could work. I gues that's semi-off-topic, but America is the quintessential anti-nation/state; it's united primarily by shared values and the Constitution but not by any ethnic kinship.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

Well, America is not a nation-state.

Yes, America is a nation-state like France, not an idea-state like the Soviet Union. The American nation, though of diverse origin, is a real ethnocultural entity and existed before independence and will still exist if our government and Constitution fall.

[E-Sabbath]

Wouldn't say it would, as a single entity, to be honest.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Wouldn't say it would, as a single entity, to be honest.

The American nation would still exist as a nation even if it were not united politically. China has been through many periods of political fragmentation in its long history, but throughout all that China has remained at all times China, a single nation and civilization. Poland was partitioned in the late 18th Century, but the Polish nation survived under decades of foreign rule, ready to re-emerge as a nation-state in 1918. Nations are not immortal, but they are much longer-lived than states or constitutions or political systems or borders.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I've predicted all along that the United States will be subjugated by a race of froglike aliens and your space weasel theory hasn't convinced me otherwise.

I'm holding out for Sentient Plants, who will come gunning for our Vegans.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by mswas

No in hindsight we made the right decision. The covert war in Afghanistan is one of the few things the American government got right in the cold war. Yes it lead to increased terrorism, but Al Qaeda is a fly on the ass of the Soviet juggernaut.

Taraki was a Soviet puppet who had very little actual control over Afghanistan and was eventually supplanted. After he was supplanted Massoud had to convince the Afghani military NOT to defect because they were more useful to him as spies. Often when a battle would go Massoud's way the Afghan military would turn its guns on the Soviets and support Massoud.

Communism is evil because it is a faith based ideology with the pretense of being rational. It's a religion without God. Capitalism is more moral than Communism because it is more honest in its dealings.

Soviet juggernaut? The one bought low by a polish shipworker? That juggernaut?

Have you ever considered not getting your history from comic books?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by tagos

Soviet juggernaut? The one bought low by a polish shipworker? That juggernaut?

Have you ever considered not getting your history from comic books?

If you think Afghanistan was not highly significant to the end of the Soviet Union, then it is not *I* who is ignorant of history. Anyone who thinks that one person ended the Soviet Union has no right whatsoever to lecture anyone else on its demise.

Here's a book for you to read: Ghost Wars

[mswas]

Originally Posted by begbert2

I disagree.

As I think this is nothing more than a semantic argument about what a "nation state" is, I think that simple disagreement is a fair response. In my opinion there is no criteria for being a "nation state" that excludes one that happens to include every land mass and person on the planet. Sure, with a single world empire you'd only have one nation-state, but as far as I know, the existience of other nation-states isn't a criteria for being a nation-state either.

It is actually a criteria as a Nation state's sovereignty exists through a lateral hierarchy of mutual recognition. To call a world government a nation-state is to stretch the meaning of the word beyond meaninglessness. But as I said the interim state of economic cooperation zones will help to cement the difference between a nation-state and a Global Federalism comprised of nation-states.

Yes, it's semantic, but that doesn't dismiss a thing. All things are semantic. That's why cat, astronaut and nation state have different meanings, it's all semantics.

Is there a fallacy for the way he's using semantics? I see this all the time where people think that saying something is semantic that it dismisses the point being made.

And the American Civil War didn't end the sovereignty of the states; it ended the sovereignty of the confederate states. The USA trucked along just fine. So yeah, I think this supports *my* position; in cases like this, only the loser vanishes. So, only a world government that consumed all the former nation states would end them all, not one that consumed all other nation-states while retaining its own coninuity of existence.

It ended the sovereignty of ALL states. If a state doesn't have the right to secede it is not sovereign. Also the 14th amendment put down strict limits on a state's ability to govern itself which affected all states not just the southern ones. If Vermont doesn't have the right to secede its sovereignty is just as impacted as South Carolina's.

And eitehr way, however it gets created, by my definition the new world government is itself a nation-state.

By your definition yes, but you should recognize that it's an idiosyncratic one. Maybe it will win out in the long-run, but pushing it will only lead to useless semantic quibbles when you could just choose not to make a semantic quibble, or just keep it as an aside, when you fully understand the point the other is making.

Reading on this subject:

On Power by Bertrand de Jouvenel

The Rise and Decline of the State by Martin van Creveld

[mswas]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Britain's acquisition of an empire did not put an end to Britain as a nation-state. In any case, PNAC's vision seems to be not an actual empire in the old sense, but, rather, America acquiring permanent global military-political hegemony and calling all the shots -- not a world of American colonies, but a world of American client states or puppet states.

No, but Britain didn't succeed in a lasting and enduring global government either so the point is moot.

As for America acquiring a global military-political hegemony to compliment the economic one it already has, I'd like to point to Caesar's Rome and direct you to the upheavals of power that occurred as representatives of the conquered lands were enfranchised. Do you think America could maintain such a hegemony without enfranchising its client states in the long run?

[mswas]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The American nation would still exist as a nation even if it were not united politically. China has been through many periods of political fragmentation in its long history, but throughout all that China has remained at all times China, a single nation and civilization. Poland was partitioned in the late 18th Century, but the Polish nation survived under decades of foreign rule, ready to re-emerge as a nation-state in 1918. Nations are not immortal, but they are much longer-lived than states or constitutions or political systems or borders.

I agree with this. Comparing America to China is an apt description because America's deracinated null-ethnic culture is in a way a socio-cultural ethnicity of its own. Certainly it's not genetic but Americans as a whole are separated from their Mother cultures and have a more distinct identity that is American.

The collapse of the American Nation-State (And it certainly is a Nation-State) would have such dramatic political upheaval that the great suck it creates as it goes down the drain would bring with it a great many of the states of the rest of the world. America as a Nation-State has crafted itself as the keystone in the arch of the global economic order. Some drastic shift in power would have to occur first for America to be able to fall and for it not to bring everything down with it. Unlike the Soviet Union America's reach is not localized to contiguous border states.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by mswas

It is actually a criteria as a Nation state's sovereignty exists through a lateral hierarchy of mutual recognition. To call a world government a nation-state is to stretch the meaning of the word beyond meaninglessness. But as I said the interim state of economic cooperation zones will help to cement the difference between a nation-state and a Global Federalism comprised of nation-states.

Yes, it's semantic, but that doesn't dismiss a thing. All things are semantic. That's why cat, astronaut and nation state have different meanings, it's all semantics.

Is there a fallacy for the way he's using semantics? I see this all the time where people think that saying something is semantic that it dismisses the point being made.

Did you just refer to me as "he" in a response to me? How odd. It's like one of those deliberate audible asides, only in plain, un-tone-differentiated text.

I disagree with your bald unsopported assertion that "To call a world government a nation-state is to stretch the meaning of the word beyond meaninglessness." So from where I stand, your position lack legs upon which to stand.

Originally Posted by mswas

It ended the sovereignty of ALL states. If a state doesn't have the right to secede it is not sovereign. Also the 14th amendment put down strict limits on a state's ability to govern itself which affected all states not just the southern ones. If Vermont doesn't have the right to secede its sovereignty is just as impacted as South Carolina's.

I agree with this completely. However, we're not *talking* about if america, britian, and austrailia each give up soverignty to a separate higher authority that they formed on the spot without dissolving themselves as subordinate entities. We are talking about if Rhode Island had rolled out the armies and conquered the other states, and declared them subordinate colonies of itself. Which is not quite what happened.

Clearly one of us doesn't understand what the discussion is. Based on this clarification of your already dodgy analogy, it's you.

Originally Posted by mswas

By your definition yes, but you should recognize that it's an idiosyncratic one. Maybe it will win out in the long-run, but pushing it will only lead to useless semantic quibbles when you could just choose not to make a semantic quibble, or just keep it as an aside, when you fully understand the point the other is making.

Idiosyncratic my ass. You just don't want to admit that you're wrong, despite there being an obvious difference between the US, Canada, and Mexico joining together as separate subentities of the new United States of North America, and America breaking out the guns and conquering everything else that moves without ceding sovereignty in the slightest.

Originally Posted by mswas

Reading on this subject:

On Power by Bertrand de Jouvenel

The Rise and Decline of the State by Martin van Creveld

Reading on the subject: any dictionary. See "cede" and "conquer". Not that they're not synonyms.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Did you just refer to me as "he" in a response to me? How odd. It's like one of those deliberate audible asides, only in plain, un-tone-differentiated text.

I dunno, frankly I am uninterested in parsing through what was said to figure it out.

I disagree with your bald unsopported assertion that "To call a world government a nation-state is to stretch the meaning of the word beyond meaninglessness." So from where I stand, your position lack legs upon which to stand.

Whatever you say, it's just an usage that doesn't fit the criteria that I have heard for nation-state in the past. Sure it's a state, but I think calling it a nation strains credulity.

I agree with this completely. However, we're not *talking* about if america, britian, and austrailia each give up soverignty to a separate higher authority that they formed on the spot without dissolving themselves as subordinate entities. We are talking about if Rhode Island had rolled out the armies and conquered the other states, and declared them subordinate colonies of itself. Which is not quite what happened.

Of course, but what I am arguing is an assimilation of power where the conquered becomes simply part of the state that does the conquering. IE, eventually giving statehood to the Iraqi province, etc.. Likely Iraq would be three states, but I hope you understand what I am getting at.

Clearly one of us doesn't understand what the discussion is. Based on this clarification of your already dodgy analogy, it's you.

blah

Idiosyncratic my ass. You just don't want to admit that you're wrong, despite there being an obvious difference between the US, Canada, and Mexico joining together as separate subentities of the new United States of North America, and America breaking out the guns and conquering everything else that moves without ceding sovereignty in the slightest.

Nationalism is quite often in sociological or political treatises differentiated from global universalizing ideals. Which is why Bolivia's socialism might be considered a nationalist movement, but the global communist revolution of the mid-twentieth century would not, even though Communism was trying to bring about a global worker's state. It's why Reza Aslan makes a differentiation between Jihadism as a global universalist political ideology and Islamism as political nationalism based on existing national-boundaries. Nasser was for Pan-Arab nationalism, but that had specific territorial boundaries, IE, where Arabs were the predominant ethnic group. I generally hear France and Germany referred to as Nations but not the European Union. Though people refer to all three entities as states.