theglobaljournal.net: Latest articles of Alexander Svitych

Ukrainian Maidan And Nation-Building: Between A Nation-State And A Corporation-State

2014-02-26T12:24:54Z

The recent struggle of the Ukrainian people against president Yanukovych's rule, originally named as the Euromaidan, is a vivid illustration of the emerging brave new world. While the political crisis in Ukraine is still not completely resolved, several important observations can be made already. I would like to put forward three main theses here. First, Maidan is a manifestation of the battle between a nation-state and a corporation-state. Second, Maidan is a form of nation-building and reinforcement of the nation-state. And third, Maidan is a new and effective form of civil resistance in the post-modern world. I will first provide a background for each argument, then make a connection with the Ukrainian case, and finally demonstrate implications for the rest of the world.

Ukrainian state-building: nation-state vs. corporation-state

It has been claimed that globalization as a political and economic phenomenon of the later capitalism has weakened the national dimension of nation-states. The majority of scholars agree that nation-states are undergoing transformations. Yet the question is what these transformations will result in. Some speak about the world government, others advocate for civilizations, while still others highlight regional economies. Yet another opinion is that we are witnessing the birth of the corporation-state, a candidate for replacing the 'outdated' nation-state that reached its peak of development in the period of 1850-1970's. Corporation-state is an entity of a primarily economic character (vs. political in a nation-state) aimed at minimizing costs and expenses. Once economic competitiveness is declared to be the main objective of a state, its social and national components recede into background. The state starts acting as a corporation ruled by the economic effectiveness of the “survival of the fittest”.

Corporation-state must not be confused with the corporative (social) states like Italy in the 1920-1930's or Germany in the period of 1933-1945. The main features of corporation-state are desocialization, denationalization and deterritorization. While the 'social face' of the nation-state is a welfare state, corporation-state excludes 'extra' population since the market is regarded more important than social sphere, freedom than equality and justice, and police than army. This process has been conceptualized already in sociology by the '20:80' theory, meaning 20 per cent of the rich versus 80 per cent of the poor with no middle class which will be used as 'raw material' by the newly emerging corporation-states.

The process of constructing corporation-states is taking place all over the world. It is slower where there are civil societies, strong religious, historic and cultural traditions (especially non-Western ones) or national identities, or where the states are big in their territories. Where is nothing to confront with, the process is sweeping and even violent. The post-Soviet states, and Ukraine in particular, have been a vivid manifestation of the process.

In this regard, Maidan has been the struggle against such corporation-state built up by Viktor Yanukovych at the Ukrainian territory. In fact, similar systems are emerging in Russia, US, Europe, and even China with its strong influence of tradition and culture onto statecraft. However, it is Yanukovych who created the system of the criminal corporatocracy that other countries are yet to witness. In this system the state literally does not exist, with state authorities transforming into criminal structures aimed at serving corporate oligarch business at the expense of the middle class.

Why did this struggle became so fierce in Ukraine, and not any other place? Perhaps because the crisis of capitalism first starts from its peripheries, and only then moving to the core. It cannot be denied, however, that Maidan – as the battlefield of the nation-state against corporation-state – has made a tremendous contribution to the global justice movement, starting from anti-globalist protests and up until most recent “Occupy Wall-Street” movement and its affiliates.

As a preliminary conclusion, the case of Ukrainian Maidan demonstrates that only a renaissance of nation-state, and welfare-state as part of it, with individuals united for a common cause may be a viable alternative to “book a place” in the brave new world. It is this alternative that, optimistically, will make the world politically more stable and acceptable. This is a winding a road through thorns yet to the stars. As we all know, there is no victory without a battle.

Ukrainian nation-building: the “third way”

To restate one of the points above, the world of nation-states is irrevocably changing. This means not only the states as political entities, but the nations themselves are transforming too. Again, I assert that it is ultimately the struggle of the nation-state against corporation-state that will shape the future of nations. In this regard, Ukrainian Maidan gives room for interesting observations. Before looking into this however, let me recap definitions of some of the terms to be used.

A nation can be understood as either as a community of people with a common ethnicity, language and culture, or a political community of citizens of a sovereign state. The two approaches can be even combined by viewing a nation as a transformed ethnic group that acquired its sovereignty and statehood. The most important, however, is that a nation consists of individuals; it cannot be formed from tribes, clans, castes or other communities. These collective forms embrace individuals and prevent nation-building. It is not by chance that nations began to appear in Western Europe in the 17th - 19th centuries with the decomposition of communities of a pre-modern (traditional, or agrarian) society. While ethnic groups have existed throughout the world history, nations appear only in the modern (industrial) society.

We are now witnessing signs of the end of the Modern epoch that has lasted for about five hundred years. During this phase of historical development nations have been an important part of social classification and identification, in contrast to ethnic, religious, tribal and other forms of self-identification in the Pre-modern epoch. Moreover, emergence and rise of nations brought about nation-states that became the main form of political organization and proved to be effective in uniting populations of respective countries. Two important questions arise here. First, considering ethnic groups organize people in the traditional society, while nations do so in the modern one, what will the next development be in the Post-modern epoch? And second, if nations transform into something else (like ethnic groups did into nations), what type of identification will appear to replace the national identities?

Several possible scenarios can be drawn based on the existing empirical as well deducted data. These can be named the post-modern scenario, the counter-modern one and finally, the alternative way. Thus, in the first scenario the community of nations is to be replaced by a global non-ethnic post-modern society. On the practical policy level, the attempt to achieve this has been made in the European Union, for example, via the policy of multiculturalism. This strive for a global non-ethnic post-modern society, however, has been unsuccessful so far. The policy of multiculturalism has actually failed, with nationalism rising throughout the EU, and the political leaders of Great Britain, Germany and France advocating publicly for strengthening their nations.

However, it is the counter-modern scenario that has been pushed forward most of all. This is manifested in the already discussed emergence of corporation-states as opposed to nation-states, which inevitably leads to open conflicts like the one revealed by the Ukrainian Maidan. It is a counter-modern process as it re-invites the features of a pre-modern, or traditional society. For example, corporation-states keep the same characteristics of community (vs. individual in nation-states) and hierarchy, with the difference that now corporations act as communities. Also, compared to all other state forms, corporation-state is an exclusive, not inclusive entity with neo-patrimonial, neo-communal features. Finally, while a community is basic social element of a traditional society (forming ethnic groups), and an individual is the basic element in a modern society (forming nations), it is a clan that is an essential element of the corporation-state in the new world. Thus, counter-modern is a type of society similar to pre-modern, but artificially implanted in the Modern and Post-modern epochs.

To make a connection with the Ukrainian Maidan, it is worth asking why the world leaders were so slow and reluctant to impose the long-awaited sanctions against the Ukrainian governmental officials and oligarchs. This happened because the world ruling class received an excellent testing area for experimenting with the conflicts between representatives of the old national identity and the new criminal and corporate one.

There is yet an alternative way that may define the shape of nations in the new world. As already mentioned, European states are actually seeking to solidify nations in view of the ongoing crisis which is financial and economic on the top, but rather deep and structural in essence. In this regard, promoting nationalism as a way to strengthen a nation may become a necessity in the post-modern society. However, the idea of nation in this case will need to be re-determined. While in the Pre-Modern epoch people are organized via collective forms (communities), and in the Modern epoch communities decompose into social atoms (individuals) to create nations, in the Post-Modern epoch individuals must re-unite in collective forms in order to cope with the challenges posed. There is a major difference here though. In the traditional society man exists only as a community member, and does not see himself outside of it (if he leaves, then he leaves for another community). He cannot have interests other that those of the community (like a leg cannot strive to get away from a body). In the alternative scenario proposed, collectivism means uniting efforts of individuals in order to achieve a common goal; it implies having an individual who may have both common goals with the others as well his own ones. Collectivism is therefore a dialectic, and not an absolute opposite of individualism.

Maidan has been an excellent embodiment of the above principle. It has become an important element of nation-building, gave birth to new heroes, reinforced and expanded the boundaries of the community known as the Ukrainian nation. It is impossible to foresee which of the three scenarios discussed will take place in which parts of the world. Nor is it possible to tell whether national identities will be strengthened, or will fade away together with nation-states to give place to global and corporate identities. Still, the case of Ukraine may serve as an example that nation-building – ideally both from the bottom (by people) and top (by political elites) – is crucial in order to cope with the challenges of the newly emerging world order.

Ukrainian civil protest: from territorial to network communities

Maidan has also demonstrated the power of social networks in a civil protest. Network is the most effective communications system that can compete effectively with the state and corporate media. In this regard, social networks have proved indispensable in the conflict nation-state vs. corporation-state. By 'social network' here I mean not only any physical Internet networks like Facebook or Twitter that helped disclose the truth despite numerous manipulations in mass media. This is also a network of citizens that provide mutual trust, respect and cooperation. Yet most importantly, this is a principle of self-organization of the previously 'territorial' local communities. These communities managed to organize themselves into trusted connections and stand up against the system of criminal corporatocracy. Ukraine has survived so many times against the will of the state, that its civil society has now little or no affiliation with the state structures.

Maidan demonstrates that the network principle increases dramatically the capacity for survival in the conflict between the nation-state and the corporation-state. No state and corporate means can suppress an entity that can quickly and efficiently re-appear in any other place. Geography is no longer important for the networks of mutual supportiveness and donation. No criminal system can exist for a long time against the people's morale transformed into network communities.

Perhaps Maidan is a prototype of the alternative world. Its separate elements of the territorial, professional, and interest communities, as well political structures (such as the Council of Maidan) are able to give a viable response to the challenges of the system of criminal corporatocracy. Maidan as a phenomenon is a new reality of communities that make a nation rise against the corporation-state appearing all over the world. This is the reason why even the biggest political players, like US, Europe, Russia and China, are afraid of Maidan.

As a conclusion, Ukrainian Maidan is ultimately a reaction and a vector of resistance to the construction of the corporation-state. It is also is a dramatic example that there is a need for reinforcement of the nation-state (and the welfare-state as economic dimension of the nation-state) in order to cope with the challenges of the newly emerging world order. Finally, it shows that the concept of nation in the post-modern world needs to be redefined as a community of individuals united within the borders of a nation-state under the principles of collectivism and solidarity. Only a 'refined' nation-state with individuals united for a common cause may be a viable alternative to a corporation-state. The current situation, even if not on the brink of disaster yet, will become so by the middle of the 21st century or even earlier. This will be the moment of truth for the leaders and peoples, the moment of final choice between a nation-state and a corporation-state, between existence and non-being.

The End of Globalization and Renaissance of The Welfare State

2013-12-04T08:06:13Z

Globalization and its influence on state sovereignty has been undoubtedly a topic of broad discussions and hot debates among academics, experts and policy makers. A popular idea developed recently is “the end of the welfare state” concept echoing that of The End of The History articulated by Francis Fukuyama. The end-of-the-welfare-state advocates usually claim the increasing economic globalization is limiting a number of policy options available to states, which entails a retrenchment of the welfare-state in developed nations. Yet, however clear the standpoint is, no comprehensive and profound explanation is provided on the roots of the phenomenon. Likewise, no policy implications are given based on the analysis of the changing nature of state sovereignty.

The proposed response to the article aims to fill in this gap. I would like to first pick up on the strong elements of the above-mentioned argument. I will then challenge this standpoint by claiming new trends are rising in the world that are anti-globalist in nature. My ultimate argument will be that globalization is in fact coming to a end. The world is entering a new era of post-globalization which could entail renaissance of the welfare-state.

The proponents of “the end of the welfare state” concept assert that capitalism has been changing the nature of state sovereignty. Namely, increasing globalization has undermined the sovereignty of nation-states to enact their own policies. Such limitations come from three main channels – trade and economic integration, financial markets and competition for employment. Furthermore, the neo-liberal ideology has asserted the primacy of the market over everything else, which is manifested via serious cutbacks to the welfare- state. All in all, the state's capacity to fulfil the 'welfare contract' has been undermined in the name of 'competitiveness and economic efficiency'.

The followers of the idea outlined are persuasive about the thesis of globalization-welfare state interrelation in the developed nations. As a rule, there is also an attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of the concept of sovereignty. However, a number of important factors are omitted from such analysis, and several terminological confusions are created. All this, in my opinion, decreases the validity of the argument articulated.

As far as terminology is concerned, several remarks can be made. First of all, the concept of globalization is confined to the economic dimension only. There are talks about trade and economic integration, currency devaluation, international competition etc., while other important aspects of globalization are skipped, such as political, national, and cultural. In this regard, such phenomena as supranational entities (EU), transformation of national identities ('global citizenship'), and multiculturalism could be analysed in view of their influence onto the welfare-state. Secondly, the general assertion is the changing nature of sovereignty has led to understanding a nation-state as a 'welfare state'. However, few scholars specify that a welfare-state is a phenomenon of the more developed Western society. In other words, not all nation-states are welfare-states. Such disambiguation is critical in analyzing the ways globalization is affecting the capacity of welfare-states to conduct their policies. Finally, not all definitions are articulated in these discussions, e.g. 'capitalism', 'neo-liberal', 'developed democracies'.

It is the conceptual side of the argument, however, that needs most elaboration in my opinion. Let me explain in detail what can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. I will then conclude my analysis with a counter-argument for the author's thesis, and will reveal the subsequent implications from my argument.

To begin with, the concepts of 'sovereignty' and 'nation-state' need to be analyzed in more detail. The end-of-the-welfare-state advocates tend to demonstrate the shift from 'sovereignty over a state' to 'sovereignty over people'. In both cases it is a state that exercises sovereignty, i.e. we talk about a 'sovereign state'. However, quite a lot in the academic and expert circles are talking rather about the sovereignty of the market, including such scholars as Colin Crouch, Saskia Sassen and Zygmunt Bauman. Thus, Crouch’s main contention is that the key institution of the post-democratic world is the global firm; Saskia Sassen explores economic and corporate citizenship under the hegemony of the world market; Zygmunt Bauman stipulates the sovereignty of a state and nation is being replaced by the sovereignty of the market. Indeed, the traditional national-democratic and social-democratic political model is based on the idea of a state or national sovereignty. Today, in contrast, we can witness the sovereignty of the world market which influences the structure of power, its responsibilities and the state-citizen relationship in every nation-state that ceases to be 'national' and is 'fading away'.

Furthermore, the changing nature of the sovereignty triggers transformation of the nation-state itself. Globalization has weakened the 'national dimension' of nation-states. Today a new type of a state is being constructed all around the globe. This is corporation-state, a candidate for replacing the 'outdated' nation-state that reached its peak of development in the period of 1850-1970's. Corporation-state is an entity of a primarily economic character (vs. political in a nation-state) aimed at minimizing costs and expenses. This is a state that acts as a corporation ruled by the economic effectiveness of the 'survival of the fittest'. The process of constructing such a state is taking place all over the world. It is slower where there is a civil society, a deep religious tradition (especially non-Western one), strong national identity, or where a states has big territory. Where is nothing to confront with, the process is sweeping and even violent.

My second claim to the-end-of-the-welfare-state argumentation is declaring 'a global economic foundation' a root cause for the changing nature of sovereignty and welfare-state. I agree globalization has diminished the sovereign capacity of nation-states for the last thirty years. In my view, however, the main reason for this shift is a deliberate act of the Western elites to dismantle the welfare-state, a process intensified by the end of the Cold War. On the factual side, the decline of 'The Glorious Thirty' (1945-1975) started with abandoning the Bretton Woods system by the US and the 1973 oil crisis. Two years later 'The Crisis of Democracy' report was written by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki at the request of the Trilateral Commission. This report clearly challenged the social achievements of the working class during 'The Glorious Thirty' period. It stated that further industrial development would entail a rapid growth of the working and middle classes, which could in turn bring about unwanted political forces. Thus, the shift from the policy of welfare-state to the policy of market fundamentalism (or neo-liberalism) was first initiated by Margaret Thatcher in Great in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in the US in 1981. This was accompanied by a decreasing technological progress, growing deindustrialization, and promoting fantasy to replace science fiction with for the mass culture. In other words, an attempt was made to create the 'New Middle Ages'.

Finally, while many talk about "decreasing the size and scope of the welfare state", perhaps the most important outcome of the process is omitted – social inequality. Increase in social inequality has been an alarming world trend lately affecting the US, the EU and the less prosperous countries. A serious structural social change is taking place with the middle class fading away. The social gap is increasing, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Today the growth of GDP and national economies is no longer connected with the growth of well-being of nations, bur rather means increase in revenue of corporations and their top managers. In this regard, 'The New York Times' – a newspaper unlikely to be claimed 'socialist' – declared in one of the recent articles inequality undermines democracy, reporting it 'breeds resentment and political instability, eroding the legitimacy of democratic institutions'.

With all the considerations mentioned above, a question remains open: what happens to globalization? It has been claimed we are witnessing the crisis of the neoliberal model and the US hegemony. Combined with the current global economic crisis, the chances are very likely that globalization will turn drastically into ‘deglobalization’ and ‘regionalization’. And more and more signs are there to indicate the shift is taking place. The current crisis is exceptionally deep and structural, and cannot be resolved without a state interference into economy. In contrast, neo-liberalism hinders the capacity of states to conduct independent policies, and must therefore be reconsidered. The new world economic order will therefore mean decline of neo-liberalism in order to overcome the ongoing crisis. This will inevitably imply re-constructing the welfare-state as healthy, educated and socially-secured population is indispensable for the economic growth.

Let me draw a conclusion at this stage. Unlike the advocates of “the end of the welfare state” concept, who leave an open question on what or who will provide the economic and social rights to citizens, I strongly assert it is crucial to reinforce the welfare-state in order to cope with the challenges of the newly emerging world order. Only a renaissance of the social welfare-state may be a viable alternative to a corporation-state. It is this trend that, optimistically, will make the world economically more stable and politically acceptable.

Why European Identity Will Never Work: Case Study 'EU Vs. USSR'

2013-04-24T15:15:46Z

In his article “The Challenges for European Identity” Francis Fukuyama claims the undergoing crisis in the European Union is primarily a crisis over its identity rather than economic or political foundations. While the author's standpoint is clear, no comprehensive explanation is really provided on the roots of the problem. Likewise, no policy implications are given based on the analysis of the EU identity crisis.

The proposed response to the article aims to fill in this gap. I would like to first pick up on the strong elements of Fukuyama's argument. I will then challenge his standpoint by contrasting the EU identity with that of the Soviet Union. Drawn out of such comparative analysis, my ultimate argument will be that construction of a supranational identity at the EU level is sheer impossibility due to a wide range of unsolvable contradictions.

In “The Challenges for European Identity” Fukuyama asserts that national identity and nation building are critical for the success of any society, including European society. The author's main idea is that the EU is currently failing due to lack of a proper supranational (European) identity, with the economic and political factors being secondary. Fukuyama claims there has never been a successful attempt to create a European sense of identity. In fact, the whole EU project, in his opinion, was mainly constructed by elites as “a technocratic exercise for the purposes of economic efficiency”. The author further suggests that economic reforms cannot resolve the EU identity crisis, and in fact stimulate re-nationalization of Europe.

Fukuyama is persuasive about his thesis of identity-success interrelation in a given society, and in the EU in particular. However, he limits his explanation of identity crisis to the economic field only. The author advocates for “positive values” in which to re-build European identity, but does not specify any of them. In this regard, the study of nation building in another supranational entity – USSR – can shed a light on the causes of the challenges for European identity. The reason why USSR is a valid example for comparison is two-fold. On the one hand, identity formation in the Soviet Union is somewhat similar with that of the EU. On the other hand, unlike the EU it was a successful attempt at identity construction ('soviet people') at the supranational level.

To start a comparative analysis, there are a few similarities between the identity formations in the EU and the Soviet Union. Firstly, the EU shares with the USSR a multinational and multilingual character. In another instance, the EU wishes to assume a supranational identity. Despite these similarities, however, the number of differences remains high. These differences can be traced on three levels – national, supranational and global.

On the national level, there was a predominant nation in the Soviet Union – the Russian one – that served as a foundation for constructing the new Soviet people. Predominance here is understood as the biggest ethnic group on a given territory. The EU, while priding itself on being 'united in diversity', does not have such a prevailing nation. While some of the EU members may claim to take the economic and political lead, there is no single prevailing ethnicity in the region. Likewise, the Soviet Union had Russian as a predominant language that was and is still spoken in the ex-USSR territories. In contrast, Europe is too linguistically diverse to assume a single language that could boost common identity. A good illustration of the thesis is the invented Esperanto language that failed to serve as an official one in the EU.

The next level – supranational – also exposes major differences between the EU and USSR identity formations. At first glance, it is clear the EU today lacks a formal ideology. The Soviet Union was built upon a Communist ideology that was paramount within its borders and even spread beyond them. The strategy of Communists was not without failures, but the common Soviet identity played a crucial role in uniting the Soviet people. More important, it created a new type of patriotism, mass enthusiasm, and pride to be a Soviet citizen. These feelings became especially intense during big historical crises, such as the Great Patriotic War (The Second World War) and sometimes during the Cold War. In contrast, the EU policy-makers have never attempted to construct an identity with solidarity, equality and justice being the core values. Nor is there a major external threat that could foster unification of different peoples in the region.

The last level of analysis is perhaps the most important one. On the global level, the forms and structures that defined the world for the last half century changed irrevocably after the collapse of the USSR. Globalization has weakened the national dimension of nation-states. Today a new type of a state is being constructed all around the globe. This is corporation-state, a candidate for replacing the “outdated” nation-state that reached its peak of development in the period of 1850-1970's. Corporation-state is an entity of a primarily economic character (vs. political in a nation-state) aimed at minimizing costs and expenses. In this respect, the Soviet identity was constructed still in the Modern epoch when everything national was an indispensable feature of state-building and identity formation. In contrast, formation of European identity can only happen in the Postmodern epoch, that is today, when corporate identity is becoming more and more important. There is therefore an inherent unresolvable contradiction in uniting nations when nation-states are fading away.

Let me draw a conclusion at this stage. Unlike Francis Fukuyama, who mildly concludes his article by saying the problem of supranational identity will be coming back in EU, I strongly assert that nation-building is impossible at the EU level. In contrast, the Soviet Union provides a successful example of identity-formation, the identity which untied all Soviet people irrespective of their racial, religious, national and other affiliations. Yet, as discussed above, this proves unlikely to happen in contemporary Europe.

The European Citizen: Just a Myth?

The Challenges for European Identity

Opinions voiced by Global Minds do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Global Journal.