3.6 Capitalist Modernity and the Nation-State

The notion of nation-state has not only been left in obscurity but it has also more often than not been distorted. Any effort to determine its main role and real function is resolutely avoided. It can be said that it is mainly used for propaganda. Special effort is made to disguise the ontological link between fascism and nationalism especially. This is similar to the omission of the subsidiary link between fascism and nationalism with that of official modernity. This is not unique to bourgeois liberals. The socialists, too, are either defensive when it comes to the nation-state or evade it by making it sound as if it is trivial. But nation-state is indeed one of the key concepts to understand and change our era. I found Antony Giddens to be quite illuminating because he put forth the importance of the nation-state, albeit inadequately.

The issues I tried to set out thus far may also be viewed as preparation to define nation-state and elucidate its function. Without defining the factors influencing the birth of capitalism, modernity, power, nation and state, at least a little, it would not have been possible to determine the role of nation-state. There was also within this framework a need to present the Jewish question under some main topics. Just as the analysis of nation-state is a key concept in the resolution of present societal problems. in order to resolve the question of the nation-state. it is quite instructive to analyze the Jewish question in the context of civilizations both historically and societally. If we do not understand the Jewish question and nation-state, then any meaning and commemoration given to the victims of the Holocaust will be incomplete and inaccurate and that is quite wrong. The current tragedy of the Middle East confirms these evaluations many times over.

The nation-state is the form in which capitalist monopolism comes true. Even during the sixteenth century, the necessary state form needed in Netherlands and England to destroy the Spanish and French empire’s aspirations was a sort of proto nation-state. The Princedom of the Netherlands and the English Kingdom tried to attain superiority by evolving into nation-states. When in 1648 the Peace of Westphalia was signed amongst the states the nationality factor gained prominence and this in turn accelerated the development of the nation-state. The states based themselves on mercantilism as their political economy. This was another factor that sped up, enhanced, and gave prominence to the national market. National language, arts, and historical research were increasingly put under the monopoly of the state. Various disagreements and wars between nations could no longer be carried out without power in the form of nationalism and nation-state. The Napoleonic wars played a leading role in this regard. Napoleon could not have waged war if France had not been turned into a nation-state. The German ideologists who were following the developments closely found in the personage of Napoleon all that they needed for the creation of German nationalism and a nation-state. The rapidly developing German nationalism would now provide the leverage needed to unite Germany and create the state sought by modernity. The process that would later breed Hitler would begin at the onset of the nineteenth century.

In fact, these issues are of course much deeper. They are linked to the roots of capitalist modernity (civilization). This movement, which harbored the economic monopoly’s quest for success at its core, did not just distort the national development but it had to nationalize all the factors that would constitute a nation. In the absence of the nationalization of religion, the economic monopoly would not have easily dominated the market. The nationalization of culture and arts is linked to the similar monopolist position. The nationalization of wars will constitute the last but most important factor. The nationalization of all these factors gives birth to the national spirit that results in nationalism. The work of ideologists on nation and state had long ago prepared the intellectual ground for them. Obviously, all these factors were the work of national markets and the monopolist capitalism that fought over these market. and imposes itself to the very end.

The Industrial Revolution accelerated all these processes. Industrialization gradually produced more surplus-value than trade and as a result it began to constitute the fundamental issue that would be subjected to nationalization. The national industry meant the most profit for capitalists in a certain nation. The nineteenth century was significant because of this. Industrialism, as an ideology, is closely linked to having a nationality. It is not possible to distinguish nationalism from that of industrialism as it becomes the favorite ideology and power of political action of the nineteenth century. The trade bourgeoisie does not have the capacity to sustain a nation on its own and mercantilism is far from forming an economic monopoly that could lead a nation on its own. The bourgeoisie, which expanded its capacity quite a lot because of industrial monopolies, began to feel that it had the right to represent the whole nation. It re-wrote its own history and clarified its philosophical tendencies. It made national culture part of its own history. It left its mark on the national army and national education. Capitalism’s nationwide victory and concomitant domination was here to stay, especially through the national industrial bourgeoisie.

The concept of bourgeois revolution can only be meaningful if all such processes are included. Despite the contrary belief, the singular English, French, and similar revolutions cannot be considered to be planned bourgeois revolutions. What the bourgeoisie did was to exploit it to serve its own interests. It is also wrong to think that the Industrial Revolution is a victory for the bourgeoisie. This revolution, too, is the consequence of a huge historical accumulation.

What we have here is simply the appropriation of this area, just as was the case with other areas, by the selfish and monopolist bourgeoisie imposing its interests. Just as economy is a social area that does not require the bourgeoisie. the industry is also an economic area that does not require an industrial bourgeoisie in advance. What the trade monopolists did was to appropriate this area that brought in more profits than commerce had. None of the real revolutionaries were bourgeois. The bourgeoisie is not to be found in either the theoretical or practical preparations of the Industrial Revolution. It was the most important leap by economy within the rhythm of historical and social development. It may be compared to the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic period. The economic production, which develops at every stage of history, turns the state (in essence economic monopoly) and its collaborators into new monopolies that impose themselves over the new productive area. These new monopolies do not hesitate to use force when necessary and are most ambitious and reckless. The material basis of the nation-state is indeed found in these monopolies, and if they are not they are to be created.

The mid-nineteenth century was a turning point in history: There would either be a victory for the centralist nation-state of the bourgeoisie or the democratic confederative movement of all sections of the society that were left outside of that new monopoly and aristocracy. These two inclinations were essential to the 1640 and 1688 English Revolutions, and to the 1789 French Revolution (although there was no obvious distinction between the revolutionary forces). The Levellers in the English Revolution and the communards in the French Revolution were the representatives of the democratic tendency. But they were later eliminated. The 1848 revolutions were totally popular revolutions and the work of Marx and Engels on the Communist League and Manifesto were significant and historical. The very first strategic loss was the defeat of the revolutions as a result of the betrayal by the bourgeoisie who had compromised with all kinds of reactionary forces. Therefore, the people’s spring was short lived and once again the gloomy winter came. The extent to which the bourgeoisie would be revolutionary is linked to its immediate interests. If it were successful, it would have turned its political power into economic monopoly as soon as possible. But instead of losing everything it knew how to protect what it had and to be satisfied with limited gains. The expectations of the old pro-monarchists and aristocracy were also not met. The nation-state, like a sort of balance of power, would strengthen itself even more in this period. The alliance of the economic and political monopolies over the centralist nation-state would determine the period to emerge. The Italian and German nation-states officially declared themselves in 1861 and 1870. The turn of other nation-states would follow.

When the new wave of revolutions was not as expected, Marx stepped aside in London and began his examination of capital. At the time, he also became involved in the First International which was an association. The German communists objectively acknowledged their defeat by basing themselves on (including Marx and Engels) the centralist nation-state. Formation of a program, establishing an organization, development of a strategy and tactics were all taken up through theories of depression and according to the decline of capitalism. Gradually, it ended up reconciling with capitalism against the society under the same patterns of modernity (considering industrialism and nation-state legitimate). It finally turned into a movement that demanded its share from the monopoly called economism. Economism is the acceptance of economic and nation-state programs of the industrial monopolies. The Soviet Revolution, like those before it, could not escape becoming an instrument of the monopolist state capitalism and its nation-state program. The Chinese Revolution, too, after a long period of turmoil, followed the same path to a Chinese nation-state and Chinese monopolist capitalism, and global monopoly reached a compromise.

National liberation revolutions are revolutions with a more superficial modernist mindset having readily accepted industrialization and nation-state as their ultimate program. Although there may be many examples of real-socialist attempts amongst them, their mutual program was the same. The fundamental reason for the failure of the one hundred and fifty year old movement in the name of scientific socialism was its inability to surpass the Enlightenment’s modernity and to show the strength to form and implement the theoretical, programmatic, strategic and tactical aspects of democratic modernity. In fact, it has not even shown such an intention. All these indicators unite in determining this movement’s bourgeois characteristics, restricted horizons, and its ease in surrendering to the system.

On the other hand, the anarchists had raised their protests in that period. Bakunin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin especially had significant criticisms and program proposals. But because they could not organize themselves. had ideological shortfalls. a superficial knowledge of the society. and a pro individual action stance, they could not become a political alternative. Their intervention in the historical process that was going on at the time did not achieve the required success. The real weakness of both tendencies was their total embrace of the Enlightenment philosophy and dogmatic devotion to positivist scientism. Failure was more dependent on ideological reasons than anything else. Murray Bookchin seems to make a better diagnosis in relation to the developments in the societal arena when he says that although the democratic confederation tendency of the urban and rural laborers of Europe up until 18505 was strong, this chance was lost altogether as socialists surrendered to the idea of centralist nation-state.

The great philosopher Nietzsche (it would be right to call him the strongest oppositional prophet of the capitalist era) was the first to notice the dangers associated with the 1870 declaration of the German nation-state. As everyone, including the social-democrats, was applauding he could see the great loss of humanity in this. If I am not mistaken, the substance of his analysis amounts to this: as the state becomes a god, the laborers and individuals become ant-like, and this in turn results in a castrated and housewifized society.

Critique of citizenship by Proudhon is even more striking: it is as if he was able to predict the present-day individual. Max Weber defines the society under the influence of modernity as “the society enclosed in iron cage.” There are other grislier descriptions made by the world of literature. As society is squeezed under the nation-state trap similar interpretations will increase. But all these criticisms and projections are far removed from being a concrete analysis of society and its freedom program. The resistance of peoples and intellectuals from the sixteenth to the end of twentieth century cannot be compared to any other time in history. They had many temporary successes. But if the global hegemony of capitalism in the era of financial monopoly is up on its feet with all its might, then this means the democratic modernity tendency has not rid itself of its deficiencies and the faults in its analysis, program, strategy, organization, and line of action.

The three main factors of modernity should be analyzed giving equal wait to each. The important and unpostponable task is to carry out the main factors of democratic modernity with great intellectual enlightenment and all types of societal movements on this basis and as an alternative. The critique of capitalism, albeit with inadequacies, has been done excessively. This is why we should point the tip of the arrow to the nation-state and complete it with a critique of industrialism. This continues to be an important task presently in the monopolist financial era and preserve. its importance in the struggle for a democratic, free, and egalitarian society. And I am trying to accomplish what befalls our share.

We see quite clearly now that all kinds of nationalism act as bonding agents in the formation and sustaining of nation-states. I would like point out that I define nationalism as an ideological element with a unique role. It may be more appropriate to call it religionization of positivist-secular ideology. In the early stages of the system, positivism and secularism played a positive role in overcoming the traditional dogmatism although they are far removed from the mentality of democratic modernity. They have contributed to the development of scientific interpretation. But the system since mid-nineteenth century, as with all civilizations, ideologically slipped into religiousness because on the one hand it had attained its political and economic victory, and on the other there was the continuous threat of democratic action. Such a need was fulfilled by nationalism.

It may be more instructive and essential to try to make a more concrete and detailed analysis of nation-state after such introductory remarks:

A more comprehensive definition of nation-state would be the combination of tools of power which have been spread across the whole of society with that of individuals (citizens) within a legal framework. The determinative concept here is “power that has been spread across the whole of society.” The legitimacy of all the prior states was limited to their own cadres and institutions. With the nation-state, such a restriction is surpassed. The essence of nation-state is to incorporate the citizens or the individuals it wishes to create in terms of its own ideological, institutional, and economic interests into the state as if they were members of the state with rights and duties. The formation of the citizen is a priority for the nation-state. In order to achieve such a citizen many factors are used and from which benefits are drawn, such as ideology, politics, economics, law, culture, gender, military, religion, education, and media.

The most influential tool is nationalism. It has the value of being a new religion. Nationalism attributes a sacredness of “the image of God on earth” to the nation-state. The requirements of this new religion include being devoted to the state to the death, and to embrace it as the most valuable thing.

In order to turn the individual into a citizen, the appeal and influence of political power is used intensely. Political parties specifically work towards this end. Entering the services of power and to say “the state is mine” is the shortcut for security and reputation of the individual.

The state’s economic monopoly characteristic became more widespread with the Industrial Revolution and as a result industrial monopolism also developed further. Thus, nearly half of society is employed as workers or state servants within the state institutions. This situation alone pushes the majority of society to compete with one another in order to be a member or citizen of the nation-state. It is really difficult to distinguish the so-called private monopolies from those of the nation-state. Both form a very close unity and partnership. It is really hard to distinguish where the state and private monopoly begin and end. As the private monopolies give some of their profits to the state, the state in turn provides them with unlimited conveniences in the form of modern tax farming. Therefore, at times the turning of an individual into a citizen by the private monopolies can be more backward than that done by the state. This is because it becomes easier to mold the individual as desired when they are threatened with unemployment. These are some reasons why unions have lately become so conservative and pro nation-state. Laborers have almost been turned into being the militants of nation-state with the practice of real-socialism.

The bond between citizenship and law is quite clear. Each individual wishing to take care of his or her own needs must have an identification card. This in itself means being a citizen of a state, the symbolic expression of being a member of a state.

The consciousness or tradition of state and power kept alive throughout history clearly makes significant contributions to the formation of citizenship.

The influence of sexism is also due to the perception of the father as the representative of state at home. At home, each man equals the state before the women. Such a perception is also true in terms of the whole of society. The nation-state tries to further educate and adapt this perception to suit itself.

The military institution is at the top of the list of those state institutions where the nation-state is engraved as the most fundamental value upon the emotions and consciousness of the individual. Each institution of the nation-state has a similar function but none of them can attain the role played by the military institution.

Religion has been used most often by nationalism during the process of becoming a nation-state and is a tool that has been turned into a nation-state religion. Religion has been both nationalized and made nationalistic. Thus, religion has become a societal institution in conflict with its moral essence during the nation-state period. The religion of sections of the society that are left outside the influence of secular nationalism is integrated with nationalism; so the individual has become reintegrated with the new form of the ancient God, as its conscious or unconscious servant. This is a kind of internal betrayal for religion. The conflict between religion and secularism is closely related to this betrayal.

The most influential institution of modernity for turning the individual into a citizen is education. It competes with the military institutions in this respect. The historical society continues its development and change by becoming different. The values formed by historical society are put through the filter first of religionism and then nationalism for the benefit of capitalist modernity. The educational institution’s main target is to use these to mold the most stupefied citizen within its pot of official ideology. In this way, a citizen is created; fanatical adherence has superseded the medieval scholastics.

Media is the most influential brain washing and heart winning tool. The apparatus of the media makes it much easier for the nation-state to create the desired citizen. The media is at its the best when presenting sex, sports, and arts, removing all its substance and thereby creating a very stupid, dull and lethargic citizen.

Through the use of these methods and tools the type of citizen created is incomparable to any other period in history. This citizen’s real aim in life is to have a car, a family (to find a husband or a wife, to have one or two children), and to own a house; in other words, to become a daily standard consumer. The meaning of sociality can be easily brushed aside for menial selfish ambitions. The citizen’s memory is wiped out and consequently it is detached from history as well. History is thought to be nothing but all about chauvinistic national clichés. The citizen has no philosophy and does not believe in the existence of any other philosophy of happiness than narrow pragmatism. In appearance, the citizen looks modern.

However, at issue is the individual of the “herd of citizens,” “mass society,” or, indeed, lack of individuality that has been created and prepared to work for the most obscure aspirations (such as fascism) which are hollow and devoid of substance.

Many excellent novels and many famous authors tell of the role played by this type of citizen as fascism arises. Such novels which analyze genocides are very instructive indeed. The more recent critique made under the influence of postmodernism on “citizenship” is also quite enlightening.

The main obstacles facing democratic modernity are the nation-state and its society as they generate this type of citizen. Therefore, the most important duty of democratization is to analyze the nation-state and the society that produces such a lack of individuality (where the individual is considered non-existent) and to raise egalitarian, free, and democratic individuals (free citizens) who can construct the democratic civilization.

It is important to see the ontological tie between the nation-state and fascism. One of the most fundamental errors made in relation to fascism is not seeing or explaining its relationship with the nation-state systematics or avoiding it even when it is most obvious. But even this draft analysis shows fascism’s fundamental relationship with the Enlightenment ideology (including positivist secularist ideologies). The main power form of official modernity is nation-state and its new religion is nationalism. Societies that have gone through the filter of nation-state nationalism are societies that are constantly ready to produce fascism. It is not possible to imagine fascism without the nation-state. In turn, it is not possible to envisage nation-state In the absence of economic monopolism (that is, trade, industry, and finance).

It is not so difficult to find the roots of Hitler’s fascism in German ideology. The only way for the German bourgeoisie to advance was to concentrate on becoming a monopoly on the basis of a nation-state. The most important work and success of the German bourgeoisie and ideologists were to produce this type of state both ideologically and materially throughout the nineteenth century. But this is a long story which I am not about to tell. The contribution made by Jewish capital and ideologists to this cannot be belittled either.

The German model later was to become a source of inspiration for all other nationalisms and nation-state movements. The most important weakness of all the anti-fascists, but especially that of socialists, was their inability to notice the systematic bond between nation- state, monopolies (state and private monopolies), and fascism. Moreover, the ontological bond between capitalist modernity in general and fascism had not been determined.

Another topic which preserves its significance and awaits an analysis is the question of nation-state and the Soviet Union. The source of all problems was the German centralist nation-state but it had come to be seen as the fundamental framework of struggle for the working class even during the period of Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels held the view that the democratic confederative formations based on strong urban and rural rebellions in Germany up until the mid-nineteenth century were backward, and that instead of supporting them the centralist nation-state should be supported. I think the criticism and views of Bakunin and Kropotkin on this matter are still topical. This finding by Marx and Engels is the fundamental reason behind the miscarriage-like birth of the First and Second International. There is an objective alliance established with German industrial bourgeoisie, a matter openly written about. The consequence was to dissolve within the nation-state. The one hundred and fifty years old story of Marxism is the story of being a victim of such an error. The proofs to this are the Soviet experience and today’s China. The democratic structure of the Soviet Union had been terminated before the onset of 1920. Hence. all they were Ieii to do was to build a socialist construction in a single country using the nation-state model. In order to achieve this all opposition was eliminated, peasants who were a democratic force were destroyed and intellectuals were silenced. The system constructed was nothing but a modern Pharaoh Socialism.

They did not even think of democratic modernity, moreover, they prevented it. Such a democracy also had a miscarriage-like birth and came on the agenda only after the 199os. I would not find it appropriate to call Stalin’s practice fascism compared to Hitler’s fascism which existed at the same time. These are movements that originated from different approaches. However, history shows us that the Soviet experiment was not socialism and that if socialism is to be realized it must be based on democratic civilization. Mao did have an interest in democracy and his criticism of the Soviet Union is of importance. The Cultural Revolution in China is a proof that something went wrong. However, neither his knowledge nor tools and methods were strong enough to surpass the Marxist error or the Soviet experience. Today’s China clarifies many things.

Many of the national liberation movements evolved with real-socialist political intention and had accepted the aim of nation-state in their programs. The realized model can only stand on its two feet if there is an alliance with the main capitalist monopolies such as the USA, EU, IMF, and the World Bank. Therefore, it should not surprise us to see their structures to be increasingly anti-democratic and conservative.

One of the most tragic examples is the Ba’ath socialism of Saddam Hussein: it is the perfect example. The “welfare state” of the social democrats is no different to the nation-state. The German social-democrats, who are also the leaders in the world when it comes to this, continue to secure their strong positions by attaining huge profits through their economism in contrast to the damage done by Hitler to their nation-state. But this was in exchange for emasculating the world democratic movement and turning it into a backup of their own bourgeoisie! Another grave consequence of the nation-state is the destruction, elimination, and assimilation of cultural heritage incomparable to any other period in history. One of the more distinguishing characteristics of the nation-state is that it basis itself on a dominant nation-ethnicity and ignores all the other ethnicities together with their thousands of years old cultures (one language, one nation, one land, and one state was Hitler’s main slogan), and then to destroy, eliminate, and assimilate it. Its main cultural policy is to create citizens and institutions that are alike. There was also an attempt to practice Darwinism or biologism, which was intended to be applied to the society. Here we have one of the gravest sins of positivism: It considers the strongest culture’s dissolution of all the other cultures a rule of evolution. But this is only possible if you eliminate or ignore millions of years of evolution of the human being!

Nowadays culture has become shallower than ever before and it has lost all its fascination, revelation, and inspiration. This is due to the damage done by the nation-state. Thousands of languages, tens of thousands of tribes, clans, peoples, archaeological heritage, different lifestyles, and indeed many cultures have all but become the victim of this policy of cultural genocide. It is as yet not clear if and when the nation-state will stop this. The nation-state, nation-individual, and nation-society (which represent nothing but uniformity) do not just generate fascism but also take the productivity out of life. It enters into a process of behaving like a beast that continuously seeks new targets to fight with. The consequence of all this is the complicated ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other cultural wars. The present time is wracked by such wars. Hitler is the symbolic value and beginning of this culture of war, and this symbolism is at this moment turning into reality. For those who wish to know, the situation in Iraq is a golden opportunity to learn from.

The nation-state cannot be evaluated just as a political and military war movement, as seen during the Second World War period against states and prominent cultures. It is a massive social war movement against all historical and societal tradition and other promising things, as well as all new formations that are different. Single nation, single state, single language, single homeland, and the existence of many other “single” concepts are engraved within the logic of its establishment. Hence, this is nothing but a continuous, albeit at times open and at other times disguised, state of war on all fronts.

The nation-state is also careful to develop uniformity when it comes to politics. Just as there is no room for different national identities, there is also no room for different political formations either. What is meant by centralized state, or indeed unitary structure, is to render it impossible to participate in politics on the basis of their differences (a fundamental condition of democratization). It considers this a threat to the integrity of the state. It is even suspicious of giving minimum authority to the local governments. The central bureaucracy constitutes its main power base and bulk, as the nation-state is the state that is created by the modern bureaucracy. The whole society is kept under surveillance, in an iron cage. The fundamental provision laid for all the parties and NGOs is to act in accordance with state policies. Therefore, different political, social, cultural, and economic organizations and their development (pluralism-an essential principle of democracy) are seen as a source of threat and are constantly monitored. Hence, they are not allowed to form an alternative and take their place within the governance. The nation-state, because of how it is structured, is against political plurality and is therefore anti-democratic. The reason that democratic and socialist (real socialism and others) concepts do not develop and are being eliminated is because they either defend the nation-state or surrender to it. If the nation-state and democracy, as two separate units, can reach a compromise based on principles then one can talk about the presence of a structure that is open to democracy.

The nation-state does not create a uniform mentality and emotions on the individual alone but also instills them on all the societal structures. As a result, it is able to spread its power to the whole of society but it can also create a uniform society: the nation-state society. It aims to form a corporatist (fascism’s model) society. One should not misunderstand their concept of society’s hold of power. The opposite is true. The nation-state positions its agent individuals and institutions into all the pores of the society in order to multiply its power in depth and width. Herding society can only be realized through such a method. Indeed, the spread of power in society means war against the society. This does not mean that the society holds the power. Foucault finds this issue important. The dominant male plays this role, as agent institution, against the woman. And, thus, societal sexism is spread all over society like a plague through the use of sexual policies. A war against society is waged in this manner. Especially women are thoroughly enslaved. For women to think that becoming a man is to become free is nothing but a defeated womanhood and a very profound one indeed!

Sports and arts, in terms of their function in society, also serve the nation-state and they have been turned into effective agent institution. in the war against society. I refer specifically here to popular cultural and sports programs as these are widely used to serve this purpose. The essence of sex, sports, and arts is drained deliberately by global capital so that they can be turned into effective instruments of war against society. This analysis is not about the existence of sex, sports, and arts. On the contrary, democratic civilization should, as a fundamental task, ensure that these, as the greatest ethical values, serve to benefit society.

Although sport was a tool of education for a healthy society it has now been reduced to being the state’s tool for honor and reputation. It has become trapped in an impasse of triumph and defeat as if in a war and hence turned into a tool of war in the hands of power. Football specifically is used in such a way, as a power monopoly, by nation-states. Sports have become nation-statist and turned into an effective arena of war against society.

Art is the second most important area for both state and private monopolies to wage societal war. Entertainment, especially through the use of pop and arabesque culture, is effectively used to capture society, as if there is an attack by an army of stars against society. Classical arts have been disgraced, folk culture has been removed from its real function by being popularized and now playing a totally opposite role, that is, a role in its own elimination. Sex or sexuality has been turned into an object of war against society like never before in human history. Sex is the most effective tool in the war against society.

I hope to have an in-depth discussion on this topic in my next volume, The Sociology of Freedom. But let me just say that for each male the sexual act has been turned into an act of power. The sexual act has been distorted or detached from having a biological function, an act for the continuation of life and its own species and has been turned into having a function of unlimited reproduction and spread of dominant male power in both the societal and political arena. The sexual act has been transformed into an act of power. In all homo, hetero, and other kinds of sexual relationships, such a relationship of power plays a determinant role. Although sexuality has a prevalent historical background. there has been no other form of society and state than the nation-state and its society where sex has been reproduced in depth and scope and implemented so systematically and widespread for the purposes of attaining power and hence for the purposes of enslavement. Societal sexism is in fact the relations and a phenomenon of societal and political power.

The nation-state has perverted power because of the policies implemented in relation to sexuality both within and outside the family. Women see themselves as a commodity of sex and men make themselves tools of sexual power. Not only does this lead society into a moral crisis, but they turn both themselves and to the society victims of the power struggle. The most effective tool of waging a war in these three areas (sports, art, and sex) is the media. No other tool than the media (which is under the control of the monopolies) have played such a destructive role in the war waged against the society. On the other hand, it is without doubt that it has the capacity to be a very effective tool of democratization if it is utilized by democratic civilization.

The nation-state has diligently created policies in respect to prisons and hospitals, and these play an important role for the strengthening of its power and to capture society. Those who end up in prisons and hospitals face losing much of their material and immaterial values in the face of such power.

Indeed, as the nation-state imposes its power on the whole of society, even down to the smallest detail, it at the same time admits that it has come to the end. A power that has attained such scope and size cannot escape crashing. What is needed is to spread and implement the concepts of effective democratization, organization, and action of the democratic civilization to all areas of society.

The nation-state indeed backs the middle class and is based on the middle class. It is theoretically but not practically possible for it to develop any another way. The nation-state is the modern God of the middle class. It lives in its own mentality and passion with the dream of reuniting (through attainment of task and benefit) with this God. Just as society would worship the ancient gods without really knowing what they were, today’s modern middle class too does not really know its own god (in terms of capitalist modernity). But it is also aware that it has no other alternative. A position within its bureaucracy or monopolies means salvation. It thinks society is merely made up of itself. It is a very selfish class. Liberals view the middle class as a fundamental pre-condition for democracy. But the contrary is true. Middle classes are a reservoir from which fascism, not democracy, compiles its ingredients from. Just as the relationship between fascism and the nation-state is structural, the relationship between fascism and middle class is also structural. The judgment about the middle class cannot change just because fascism has structural relations with capitalist monopoly. The presence of exceptions just verifies the main trend.

Liberal democracy aims to drain the substance of democracy by trying to attain supremacy over the real democratic forces of society by supporting the middle class in this great game called democracy. The liberal bourgeoisie and liberal democrats can only play a positive role, as left-wing, if there is a strong democratic development but one must guard against the perversion of the middle class. Capitalism is quite experienced in using the middle class against the democratization struggle of society. It continuously frightens the middle class by pointing at the lower sections of society, as well as gives concessions and awakens the imagination in its execution of internal policies. We can thus say that the nation-state is an intensified war of the middle-class. The nation-state, within this context, is also the god of war of the middle-class which understands, envisages, and worships the nation-state as such. The democratic forces have no other option but to create their own mindset and action against this god and the war it has intensified. The only option and most sacred alternative against this god is free life itself!

It may be enlightening to compare the nation-state to other forms of state in order to understand the possible different models. The nation-state must not be equated to a republic either as a concept or as an institution. Not all republics are nation-states and even monarchies can also be nation-states. Some republics can turn into nation-states. But republics are more receptive to democracy. Its relationship with society is not the same as that of nation-state and there is more of a distance between itself and monopolies. A republic is a regime of alliance and compromise, whereas nation-state is a regime of one- sided imposition and formation of society. Republic is aware and careful about its alliances and society’s equilibrium. But the nation-state disrupts all alliances and equilibriums, thus becoming unrivaled and maximizing the central authority. It also aims to dissolve all the different political, social, economic, and cultural values and perspectives. A republic can be shared by many; different views, cultures, ethnicities, political institutions, local and regional governments can exist under the roof of a republic. But the mindset and structure of nation- state are against these differences and their unity.

There are three models that are talked about most when it comes to nation-states. The French example is the initial nation-state model. The birth place of nation-state is France and its creator and god, Napoleon. It is based on a political identity. By strengthening the political and juridical arenas they form a traditional approach which prevents them slipping into German-type fascism. They are not so narrow-minded when it comes to race and dominant ethnicity. Anyone who participates in the French language and culture can take part in the French nation-state. It has followers all over the world and the Turks have been inspired by this model.

The German model is based on the culture unique to the German nation and this is the underlying precondition both for citizenship and nation-state. The fact that it is more prone to descend into fascism is closely related to the way in which the German nation-state developed. The German nation-state has influenced the world, including the Turks. The Germans are trying to make this model prevail.

The English example is the more flexible one. They do not base themselves on a political unity like the French or on cultural unity like the Germans. The English state is an example of a nation-state that is more receptive to different political formations and cultures. Probing into the nation-state in terms of its timeline is important in order to understand the changes and development that it underwent. Although I have constantly emphasized that it is the main state form of capitalist modernity, we will not fully understand its role unless we look at its historical development.

The nation-state came on the agenda because the Netherlands and England embarked on a quest for a more effective state in order to shatter the imperial ambitions of Spain and France. The nation-state increasingly proved its financial and political superiority over the former political and military structures. This was especially true for military innovation. First, they achieved naval superiority. By the end of the sixteenth century. the Spanish hegemony at sea, had passed over to the Netherlands and England. In the early 17005, these countries also proved their superiority on land after the battles with France and Spain. But the French and Austrian dynasties would not abandon their imperial ambitions. They paid dearly for it. They were losing their chance to be a nation-state. In addition, their state structures were financially more costly.

The Netherlands and England politically supported the construction of nation-states against imperial ambitions. In particular, it was an effective policy to put the Prussian state as a strong nation-state up against Austria and France. Another effective policy was to continuously support all of the opposing forces in Europe, as well as all those seeking a nation-state, to wear their rivals out. It looked quite impossible for their rivals to deal with the emerging nation-states. The Peace of Westphalia was the result of such developments. The Europe of nation-states was gaining ground and having an edge over the imperial Europe. The aim of England during the French Revolution was to topple the king who would refuse a compromise and back his opponents. England supported anyone that had a conflict with the king. Therefore, in this sense (but of course not totally), the French Revolution was a conspiracy by England. But the transition from monarchy to republic, and under Napoleon to a nation-state, thwarted their plans. England narrowly escaped from the hands of Napoleon. Moreover, its Prussian policy also faced a similar result.

A construction similar to that of the Napoleonic model is seen in the Republic of Turkey. When England supported the pro-English opposition against the pro-German faction of the Committee of Unity and Progress, Mustafa Kemal came out as the winner in what was almost a repeat of the Napoleonic example. Both the pro-German and pro-English opponents lost. This, like other similar English political experiments, requires careful examination.

The triumph of the nation-state became clear with the unification of ltaly in 1861 and Germany in 1871. The hegemonic war became the war between England and Germany. The forty-five years from 1870 to 1914 were a period in which both sides tried to establish an alliance. The First World War dealt a serious blow to the hegemonic aspirations of Germany, but the Second World War was more like a war of revenge with the consequentially severe destruction of the German nation-state.

With the October Revolution of 1917 Russia wanted to fill the hegemonic vacuum left by Germany. To succeed in doing this the Soviets were rapidly turned into a nation-state. But the alliance of the experienced England with that of the USA quickly annulled the hegemonic desires of Russia, just like it did with France and Germany. The official dissolution of the USSR in 1991 meant the end of its hegemonic claims. The three-hundred-year-old English hegemony was turned over to the USA in 1945 in return for remaining its smaller ally. The policy of support for national liberation struggles by the Soviets against the hegemony of the USA was the result of Cold War from 1949 to 1989. The Cold War between the USA and USSR was the golden age for nation-states as the tension between them prepared the ground for the birth of many nation-states. The period of nation-states was completed by 1914 in Europe and by 1970 all over the world. The Second World War was the first serious crisis of the European nation-states. The EU was born as the product of this crisis.

It may be appropriate to add another reason for capitalist modernity developing the nation-state as a model. This model does not easily allow for empire-like formations. If empires had triumphed the chances of the capitalist monopolies would have been as that of medieval times. That is why they declared an all-out war against the four big imperial ambitions; the imperial ambitions of Spain (1500-1600), France (1600-1870), Germany (1871-1945), and Russia (1945-1990), while the Ottoman and Austrian empires can also be added here. They could only be defeated with nation-state policies.

Although nation-states are called national bourgeois, the reality is that it is a product of capitalist monopolies that are after an international world-system. Even Turkey, which thinks it is a strict nationalist state, could only come into being after the approval of England and in alliance with the USA. Without the international capitalist system, the birth of the nation-state and its development cannot be envisaged. The Soviet and Chinese nation-states are also included in this. The main reason for their formation and development is because they were the best political counterpart for the guaranteed profits of the capital. When they lost these characteristics, they were slowly transformed and they tried to continue their existence under English and later US hegemony. No nation-state can exist for long if it does not comply with the policies of the world-system (capitalist modernity and the hegemon’s). The contrary would be against the mentality of the state. Such systems would really struggle to exist or they would collapse, as can be seen from Soviets and China. Even they needed to make compromises in order to exist.

We may therefore now understand the tragic end of Saddam Hussein. He did not or did not want to understand the system. His only chance to exist lay in his transforming Iraq into a comprehensive democratic system. He could not make use of this chance because of his very strong belief in the nation-state god. As he was to be executed, he held the Quran which had the words of the ancient god, and he tragically realized that it did not have the strength to rescue him from the new god of the system. But the god of the system, the Leviathan, is now stuck in the Iraqi swamp. It is in a difficult situation in the whole of the Middle East.

Europe is searching for a new god. Most probably it will build itself a god that is more peaceful and that leaves room for law. The efforts to develop the EU is a reaction to the militant past of Europe, especially that of the Second World War which is the last of the terrible wars experienced during its four hundred years of nationalization and nation-state history. They are trying to correct those exposed destructive aspects of nation-state through evolutionary methods. As a result, a new European citizenship with new thoughts, beliefs and institutions in economic, social, political, and historical areas is being developed. It is a bit like self-criticism. This development needs to be closely followed as we cannot predict the end result. On the other hand, the US showed a radical stance to the nation-state that no longer suits it by destroying Saddam (he can be likened to Louis 16th in terms of the nation-state civilization) and his regime. it may try to re-construct the nation-state more through a federative model (which is the structure of US itself).

The fact that USA is stuck between being a hegemon and an empire shows how difficult of a period it is going through. It is difficult to manage nation-states with a weak hegemony, as we see from its relationship with Turkey. It may isolate itself if it decides on being an empire but the memory of the collapse of Rome is still fresh. Then again, it may be lucky because there is no other power that dares to become an empire. All indicators point to a deadlock. The classical nation-state just barely made it to the twenty-first century through hegemony. The EU on the other hand is a step which is still under formation with a future which is not that clear. The UN, as if a reflection of the nation-state, also points to the nation-state’s deadlock. Instead of being a place to resolve matters it seems to be a place to aggravate them. It is not expected that other regional or continental alliances will be able to overcome the nation-state obstacle. It looks as if they do not have the ability to resolve matters either. The nation-state model has long ago ceased to be the solution for both internal and external societal problems. Besides, although during its formation it may have been the most appropriate model against occupations and for initial capital accumulation it is now understood that it does not have the power to resolve anything. This can be seen from the resurfacing of issues with historical, societal, cultural, ethnic, environmental, feminist, and political dimensions that were suppressed. In addition, it has been exposed many times that it is an obstructive model in relation to international disagreements too.

Much can be learned from the Israel-Palestine question. Both are devoted to the very strict nation-state model. In order to be able to solve the problem of Jerusalem they either have to tear it into pieces or eliminate each another. It is perhaps difficult to find another example that exposes the deadlock of the system as clearly. Indeed, the situation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon is now before us all. It may one day be Iran’s turn and there may also be others in line. It becomes clearer with each passing day that since the model is not just and humane, nor political and democratic, it will not be able to keep itself going.

The nation-state. after reaching its peak around the 1970s, entered into a deep crisis especially with the disintegration of the USSR. Its crisis, with its inability to respond to the problems of the system and increasingly itself becoming an obstacle, has led the nation- state to lose its former esteem with the capitalist monopoly. Overcoming this crisis through evolution as proclaimed by the EU model does not really offer hope, linked as it is to the general global crisis of capitalist modernity. The Middle East, on the other hand, is where the crisis has turned into chaos: it virtually has the dimensions of a Third World War. A second EU or Greater Middle East Project is unable to respond to the realities of the region and thus the chaos may remain for a long time. The system may try to re-construct the nation-state under the disguise of democracy. The best response of those forces that favor equality, freedom, and democracy is to develop the democratic civilization. In volume four I shall try to discuss the project of Democratic Confederation for the region. It is a serious mistake not to discuss the epistemology of the nation-state as it is a deep- rooted paradigm. All the descriptions thus far show that it rests on a totally different paradigm than any other state. The works of Thomas Kuhn in relation to epistemology have laid down the importance of paradigms in general. What I am trying to say about paradigms in relation to this topic is that the nation-state has a tremendous power to distort. The scientific perspective of anyone raised in the nation-state’s societal environment is ninety percent opposite to the truth. The fundamental reason for this lies in the way citizenship is formed and how the nation-statist paradigm that is practiced on all layers of society constructs its own historical and collective consciousness and then prevails them. The history of nation and state it especially forms (constructing them both interrelatedly) not only denies the general history but also mostly denies the history of other nations, states, and societies. It also distorts and makes use of them in the construction of its own history. Therefore, it is really difficult for a citizen who has not passed through such a paradigm to become a scientist because he won‘t be able to advance meaningful interpretations. Such a scientist can only evaluate things from the perspective of the nation-state; thus, above all he is a fanatic. All facts are meaningless unless they are tested by his nationalistic templates. It is not possible for him to understand social sciences because the chauvinist nation perspective has limited his chances to do scientific work: he can only understand when it coincides with his own terms of reference. No other fact, relationship, or event can change this perspective. This is exactly where the damage done by nationalism as a religion surfaces. The reality of anything that does not serve nationalism does not have any meaning for him. He is not interested and his state of mind and thought-processes are set and unchangeable. Any social reality that falls outside the boundaries of the nation-state appears contradictory to him because social reality must be evaluated using the nation- state as the frame of reference. This framework cannot evaluate history and philosophy objectively and is also not suitable in order to understand science. The fixation of the mind is an obstacle in its own right.

Apart from its nation-state society it does not contemplate on the wellbeing of other societies. This fixation either distorts objective observation or drags it to a disinterested point of view. Viewing everything from such a fanatical paradigm, more fanatical than the fundamentalists, one would either not see the other or, when one would, the other would be seen as an enemy. This is the reason why the world of nation-states continuously generates wars. In this regard Hitler and Nazi-Germany are striking examples. Europe and the world will be as he sees them or not at all, in which case they are to be banished or eliminated. It is not too difficult to show how this paradigm turns into a factor of violence.

The wars of religion are clearly related to different paradigms. The increase in wars originating from nationalism is related to the nation-state paradigm, that is, with the fundamental perspective the nation-state imposes. Indeed, if the information is not understood correctly then it shall lead to misinformation. And that will be followed by wrong decisions and wrong implementations.

No scientist who is so deeply rooted in the paradigm of the nation-state can be expected to be able to meaningfully interpret especially social sciences or any other scientific areas.

This mindset that tries to turn everything into his own possession (“my borders,” “my society,” “my country”) is submersed into a massive egoism and makes himself grand through exaggeration. Therefore. It is understandable that because of this, no sound decisions, relations, and actions can be expected from such a person. There can be no expectations of peace and solidarity (nationally or internationally) whilst such a person identifies himself or herself so intimately with the state and its society, history, and horizon together with its interests and passion.

Therefore, if we do not step outside this paradigm, the nation-state point of view, we cannot begin to obtain correct science, and therefore the chance to make right decisions and relations. All indicators show that a democratic atmosphere creates the most fertile ground for scientific revolution. Examples are the period between 6,000-4,000 BCE (Fertile Crescent), in Ionia and Athens between 600-400 BCE, as well Europe’s Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment since the fifteenth century. They all show us that science develops fastest when the level of societie’s freedom is at its highest. If Europe is still being criticized world- wide, despite the great values it contributed to humanity, this is definitely because of the nation-state’s selfish interests. The reason why modernity is unable to solve present problems is that it bases itself on the nation-state system. This is also the reason for the unprecedented important wars of the last four hundred years.

The perspective of democratic civilization provides a tremendous opportunity for scientific production. The need for new science can only be satisfied under the presence of a democratic society paradigm. This is especially so where there is an atmosphere of crisis and chaos which needs to be transcended. It is not possible to develop practical solutions without resolving epistemological questions. Therefore, the destruction of the nation-state paradigm and the achievement of the democratic modernity paradigm will provide the ability to reach the needed solution of power.