Hobbesian “state of nature”:
Before the state men lived in a state of nature where man was at war with all other men.
Schmitt’s “concept of the political”:
When men come together and form a state it is a unity against all other men.
Weberian concept of the state:
He who holds the monopoly of force is sovereign.
Land and natural resources are scarce. States are in competition over land and resources.
If you accept the above then obviously nationalism is the conclusion. Agree? Disagree? Any thoughts?[/quote]
Nationalism has been the most powerful geopolitical force of the modern era. However, the European Union is an interesting counter example to nationalism. A continent once synonymous with power politics and Realpolitik has managed to transcend the security dilemma and function as a mature common security community. National identities still exist, but a higher sense of being European is palatable. We will see if it endures. [/quote]
It will never endure because the EU is an internationalist, utopian and pluralist conception. Globalism is an ideology that is at war with human nature itself.
“Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed - nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity - too bad for you.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
While the EU isn’t perfect by any stretch, it seems to be the display of progression.
When you think of a state of nature how does it progress? It seems to go from individual to family, to down, to city, to state, to multi state, to nation. Maybe the next step in this progression is some sort of Union that is respectful of national culture and all that?
It isn’t necessarily logical that it stops at a certain point. The extra rhetoric is purely based on fear.