> Why have so many state-centered alternative development regimes in
> the so-called Third World gone bad? Hardt & Negri have a theoretical
> answer: that national liberation struggles turn sour once they
> achieve state power, because the nation-state is a realm of hierarchy
> and exclusion.
It's also a potential realm of egalitarianism and inclusion. The slogan of the great gandmomma of all national revolutions was "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", a neat little Hegelian triad. National development regimes have worked amazingly well in Central Europe and East Asia; China and Vietnam show that the 3rd world can get into the act, too.
On the other hand, H & N put their finger on something important when they talk about the obsolescence of nationalism as a utopian ideal. It's true, we're in the transition period towards a multinational society, where states are so many subdivisions of much bigger units. Somehow we've got to create multinational liberties, equalities and fraternities. If history is any guide, these will be as different from anything we've seen in the 20th century, as 20th century politics was from the 19th.
-- Dennis