Capitalism Created the National Movment

[il Commie]

I know marxism says the best form of state for Capitalism is the national state (in contradiction to the king under Feudalism for example). I know historicaly that's correct, national states began to arise in the revolutionary period of the bourgeouise - the end of the 18 century.

But my question is: why is that the form of state built by Capitalism?

[Morpheus]

That may be what Marxism says, but I don't think it's true. Similar forces that brought about capitalism also brought about the nation-state but capitalism didn't *create* it. And I think capitalism could work pretty well in a world state, too.

[redstar2000]

I do think that capitalism "created" the modern national state...but not in the sense that a group of "rising bourgeoisie" sat around a table in a tavern one evening in 1680 and agreed with each other to push for a "national state".

There was a time in Europe when you could hardly travel 10 kilometers in any direction without having to pay a toll and, if you were carrying merchandise, a customs duty.

The larger the area under a single unified law, the "easier" it is to do business. But it seems that whenever agreements are reached to expand the area in which it is "easier" to do business, the ideological concept of nationhood follows within a few generations.

That's not to say that there haven't been nations that were ideological constructs from the very beginning...usually formed, I think, in imitation of the more "naturally" evolving states.

If capitalism endures for another century, the European Union will be one country.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

The idea that capitalists benefited from a unified national state, if true, does not show that the rise of capitalism created the nation-state. It could just as easily be the other way around: the rise of the nation-state provided space for capitalism to develop. And the nation-state is more than merely a unified state over a signifigant area. It is a highly bureaucratic state based on rational-legal authority as opposed to previous states based on non-bureacratic organizations. It is also based on "national consciousness," which proves very usefull to elites attempting to control the populace. If nation-states followed automatically from political unification then ancient Rome, Egypt and many other ancient societies should have built nation-states long ago. In fact nation-state would become a reduntant term, since all states unify some particular area. If the political unificication of some area led to national consciousness then all states should lead to that, but they don't.

[redstar2000]

It could just as easily be the other way around: the rise of the nation-state provided space for capitalism to develop.

Chickens and eggs, eh?

Well, it's a tricky argument. When a despot conquers a geographical area, it is "easier" to administer if a common "law", common language, etc. are imposed. If the despotism endures for several generations, then at least a quasi-national ideology becomes plausible.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that historically the centralized monarchies of Europe were still, in fact, closer to the despotisms of antiquity than to modern nation-states until capitalism really began to "take root"...breaking down the old regional and local sentiments, attachments, etc.


If nation-states followed automatically from political unification...

That word "automatically" is a dangerous temptation...it over-simplifies what is, in detail, a pretty complex process. If you take a "long enough" view, it may be, at least crudely, justified. We can see that there actually was a rise of capitalism and that there was a rise of nation-states different from those that came before capitalism. And "coincidence" is always an unsatisfying explanation when adduced for "big" historical developments.

It seems to me that capitalism empowered states to rule their subjects in a way very different from previous forms (though there were certainly proto-types). "Rational bureaucratic" is certainly one way that the difference could be described.


If the political unification of some area led to national consciousness then all states should lead to that, but they don't.

No, but all states with a rising bourgeoisie do seem to go more or less rapidly in that direction. It's not a perfect 1:1 relationship...Russia and Austro-Hungary didn't manage to pull it off. Norway split off from Sweden. And so on.

But it's difficult to see how the over-all tendency could be denied. There seem to be many examples of the rise of capitalism followed by the ever-more-intrusive "rational bureaucratic" state and the corresponding development of a "nationalist" ideology.

"Automatic" is perhaps too strong a word to use--I'm not sure--but the regularities involved seem too frequent to be explained by chance.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Morpheus]

Nevertheless, it seems to me that historically the centralized monarchies of Europe were still, in fact, closer to the despotisms of antiquity than to modern nation-states until capitalism really began to "take root"...breaking down the old regional and local sentiments, attachments, etc.

But this can just as easily be reversed: Capitalism didn't really begin to take root until the nation-state began to take root. They developed side by side.


We can see that there actually was a rise of capitalism and that there was a rise of nation-states different from those that came before capitalism. And "coincidence" is always an unsatisfying explanation when adduced for "big" historical developments.

But correlation does not prove causation. Perhaps the rise of the nation-state caused the rise of capitalism. Or perhaps both were caused by some other thing, like religious change (protestant ethic), perhaps. Or the process of competition between states & the dissolution of the old "catholic empire." Or some other thing. I agree that there's a link between the the two, but I don't think capitalism caused the nation-state.


It seems to me that capitalism empowered states to rule their subjects in a way very different from previous forms (though there were certainly proto-types). "Rational bureaucratic" is certainly one way that the difference could be described.

And the rise of the nation-state empowered capitalists to exploit the subordinate class(es) in a way very different from previous forms of class societies.


all states with a rising bourgeoisie do seem to go more or less rapidly in that direction

And most nation-states seem to develop a capitalist class.