Paul:
> Sabri,
> I tend to agree with you except the first clause "our planet
> is shrinking". I would argue, because of peak oil and global
> warming, globalism ("a shrinking planet") is shortly, if not
> already, in retreat.
Dear Paul,
The clause "our planet is shrinking" was not mine but Peter's and I am not
sure what exactly he meant by that. What I agreed with him was this,
probably not paying attention to the first part:
> common problems like finite energy, global warming, and pollution
> are going to be key and the old model of competing states seems
> unsuited for these challenges.
This is why I view myself both a localist and globalizationist (not in the
sense of neoliberalism, of course).
On the other hand, I agree with you that globalism/neoliberalism is in
retreat and go even beyond that: its time has passed since rather than
solving the over production crisis it was supposed to solve it made the
crisis even worse.
> "National" (whatever that means) interests must conflate
> the interests of the local/regional interests. Thus the
> nation state must, in essense, become a very local thing.
> But that means, of course, a very different conception of
> the 'Nation State'.
For me the name "nation state" is just name for what I have in mind since I
do not have a better name that I can come up with at the moment, since, like
you, I do not know what "nation" means either.
However, whatever the "nation state" means, I do not think it must become a
very local thing. I say: it depends.
For example, it might be "feasible" to create a number of (say, three or
four) "local states" out of Canada since each of these states may turn out
to be reasonably self sufficient but I do not think the same is "feasible"
for Turkey: the "uneven and unequal development" is a much serious problem
for Turkey than for Canada.
So I claim that what is "optimal" for one region or country need not be
"optimal" for another one, without giving a definition of what exactly
"optimal" means. It may be that a Balkan Republic including Bulgaria,
Romania, all of former Yugoslavia and the rest is more "optimal" for the
peoples of that region that the currently existing "local republics".
The question is, under what conditions these "local states" do not compete
but cooperate for reasons such as Peter mentions and more?
Just some random thoughts and questions the above are.
Best,
Sabri
PS: Sorry, I could not respond earlier since I was away from home.
