[lbo-talk] The Shocking Truth About the Nation-State

[Peter Hart Ward]

I submit as evidence of the totalitarian bent of the left the fact  
many manifestly obvious truths cannot be uttered. One such truth is  
that the primary function of a nation-sate is as a unit in game of  
power-struggle. States have formed to better to conquer, for  
protection from conquest and as clients for exploitation--welfare of  
the citizens has at best only been incidental. As far as one can tell  
from the historical record this has been the case--at least--since  
the birth of western civilization. Liberal criticisms of ,e.g., the  
war on Iraq are without fail from the implicit assumption that  
American foreign policy is actuated by benign, even humanist motives  
(Cf. any volume of the Nation).* What evidence is there, in fact,  
that nation-states ever act in a benign manner; for that matter, what  
evidence is that ANY human institution serves a benign purpose?

I think the fact that, today, only (nominal) conservatives, such as  
the late Raul Hilberg, seem to be able to write decent history or do  
decent work in the political sciences is not as paradoxical as it  
seems. Unlike liberals, conservatives are not obliged to go to such  
great lengths in feigning distaste for imperialism, since they more  
or less openly support it . In fact, aside from anarchists/ 
libertarians, only conservatives appear able to grasp such elementary  
facts to any degree. However, this kind of conservative is on his and  
her way out. Imperialism (in the traditional technical sense of the  
word) is no longer defensible, which means either the thought police,  
in liberal costume, will regroup--or, we will all choose to take on a  
greater share of our God-given social responsibility than we have  
been willing to hitherto. I think that is important to realize that  
the kind of flagrant criminality represented by the Bush  
Administration is on its way out. It will in fact be the Military  
Humanism in the tradition of Bill Clinton that, if imperialism  
continues at all, will dominate the first part of this century.**

In think--in this connection--the resurgence in popularity of  
Niezsche  among liberals is instructive. His  philosophy appeals to  
those who are without real power and have little apearent prospect of  
gaining power but, who have a desperate and overwhelming unconscious  
desire for power. Perhaps this desire is an understandable  
consequence of the destruction of religious faith; but it is not an  
outlook from which to begin building a humane world.

*Cases that are just too flagrant to be rationalized away are treated  
as sort of aberrations (when in fact they are typical, if badly  
"spun"). Just about everything written about the current war falls  
into this category; one will never find an author admitting that in  
fact the administration have and are taking action precisely as one  
would expect.... I often have the feeling that liberal outrage, such  
as is frequently represented, e.g., by JosuahHolland on Alternet, is  
more to do with a particular fantasy being disturbed than actual  
horror at the terrible crimes that are being committed. The fact that  
in the main it has not been the (nominal) left but people directly  
affected by the war (as well as the usual marginan groups such as  
Christian fundamentalists, the same fundamentalists the left hates so  
much) who have actually taken action to try to stop it would seem to  
bear this conclusion out.--Personally, I have done nothing  
constructive;--absolutely nothing as people die--thus am included as  
part of the "nominal left", in this case.

**Find me an article on the genocidal atrocities we created in East  
Timor--What about the bombing of Serbia?--The Iraqi sanctions--Not in  
a liberal rag. Not even the Nation.

Peter Ward
Astoria, New York