Yes it's a bit of a mess at the moment, which is why I think institutional reforms are necessary, in one or the other direction, but not this hybrid form. — ChatteringMonkey

How the EU would make reforms is the problem. And I think it cannot create an common European identity.

It simply is too bureaucratic and basically the shall we say 'domestic' politicians are totally fine for "Brussels" to be in charge. Then they can blame "Brussels". In fact, the whole problem is that people can critisize "Brussels" and not their own politicians. True power lies with the heads of state of the member countries and their administrations, not with the faceless bureaucracy in Brussels. Perhaps France can have unified it's country with faceless bureaucrats, but the whole of Western Europe is a different thing.

Furthermore, the federalists have this idea that if federalization is not continued, everything will fall somehow apart. How that would happen is beyond me. Why cannot the EU be happy about a loose federation and grant that countries want to go a little bit differently some freedom. Even the state laws in the US can differ a lot.

And things like the common currency ultimately created a bit of a mess that was envisioned as simply the countries would follow similar economic paths. Even with the mess, the currency still has a lot of advantages.

Once appropriately defined and philosophically validated in the context of 'the good life' it might then have the social and political potential of becoming the aspiration of the majority. When this occurs, the polarity between left and right, republican and democrat will begin to naturally dissolve, and man can then begin to aspire towards the best form of government, which is the government which has the least need to govern. — Marcus de Brun

I think both the left and the right have a lot to say about that. And how do we philosophically validate the context of 'the good life'. I assume people have different opinions about this.

I certainly sympathize with anyone who is puzzled about the current state of western democracies, especially given the rise in right-wing populism, as I am myself dumbfounded over this issue. However, I also believe it's something that we will never be able to truly understand in the same way we can acquire knowledge in fields like physics, because we cannot do any large-scale social experiments to see what will happen if we change just one variable. The best we can do is make some intelligent guesses.

From the history I've looked into, it appears that right-wing populism tends to take off when their is a feeling of economic insecurity present as well as insecurity regarding cultural identity, along with the further factor of non-responsive government institutions. I think, I am guessing, after the fall of the USSR,, many social scientists and political pundits thought that there was no alternative to democratic capitalism, so why bother addressing concerns that people living in these societies are having? They have no alternative but to accept the system. Only now we have come to realize how mistaken this thinking was ---- that there is the danger of fascism or some form of authoritarianism returning.

It's also my understanding that social media has a lot to do with the rise in authoritarianism. Social media uses algorithms that allow people to live in a bubble world, a self-reinforcing echo chamber, where they only see one view presented, and often it's a bullshit view of entirely made-up nonsense that people post on the web without really checking into whether the post is accurate, or meaningful in context.

It's simply one of those mysteries I doubt we will ever have a good handle on, except for maybe some broad facts that are present. We have history involved, social media, racism, educational institutions, political institutions, group-think, etc., etc., and how any of these factors contribute to the end result is hard to figure out.

They may have a lot to say about it, however the more they say might well corelate with their respective lack of knowledge of Thoreau, who effectively dissolves the practical and ideological distinction(s) between left and right.

How the EU would make reforms is the problem. And I think it cannot create an common European identity.

It simply is too bureaucratic and basically the shall we say 'domestic' politicians are totally fine for "Brussels" to be in charge. Then they can blame "Brussels". In fact, the whole problem is that people can critisize "Brussels" and not their own politicians. True power lies with the heads of state of the member countries and their administrations, not with the faceless bureaucracy in Brussels. Perhaps France can have unified it's country with faceless bureaucrats, but the whole of Western Europe is a different thing.

Furthermore, the federalists have this idea that if federalization is not continued, everything will fall somehow apart. How that would happen is beyond me. Why cannot the EU be happy about a loose federation and grant that countries want to go a little bit differently some freedom. Even the state laws in the US can differ a lot. — ssu

I agree that it's too bureaucratic and that the whole federalization and creating of a European identity feels forced right now... still as I alluded to before, some issues simply seem to require a higher level of governance then the national level.

To name a few :

- Seperate national foreign policies seem wasted in a world where everything seems to be determined more and more by big blocks, and the same is true for the military
- The immigration problems seem hard to solve if you have to negotiate and agree with 28 members states every time
- It seems again wastefull to not have common science and innovation agenda's, and to not share research and infrastructures (how are we to compete for instance with China where everything is directed centrally?)
- Climate change is another one that is really only effectively dealt with on a higher governance level.

There are problems too with having an open economy, yet keeping taxation and social policies strictly seperate. You then get competition between memberstates for the most advantagious taxation and social systems, advantagious for companies only that is... so then it quickly becomes a race to the bottom.

So returning more to the nation states does seem a bit reactionary to me, and not really suited to today's world and problems.

The inefficient bureaucracy is a big problem, I definitely agree with that, and the question is if this can ever be solved or if it's just a natural consequence of scale. But there are two things that might be reasons to expect it to get better. One is that the European Union is in terms of a governing body still very young. These things need time to iron things out and traditions to be built up. And two, with new data technology the larger scale might not be such a big problem in the future.

Anyway, though I'm conflicted about this, I just can't really see the nation states as the solution for the future.

Then they can blame "Brussels". In fact, the whole problem is that people can critisize "Brussels" and not their own politicians. — ssu

Americans would like to blame Brussels as well. We are tired of criticizing and blaming Washington, and Washington has grown accustomed to being criticized, excoriated, referenced as a swamp, and threatened with draining. Perhaps American criticism of Brussels would be refreshing to the bureaucrats there.

I just can't really see the nation states as the solution for the future. — ChatteringMonkey

We enlightened moderns dismiss the ethnic identities of the rabble, frown on nationalism, disapprove of the nation state, regret the existence of hierarchies, reject religious identity, and so on. We, of course, think of ourselves as transethnic; beyond gender's dictatorship; world citizens; above hierarchy (or would that be below hierarchy?); not religious; etc.

If we want to find the people who are quite out of touch with reality, all we have to do is look in the mirror.

Very large complex societies maintain their internal organization using national identity, gendered roles, hierarchies, ethnicities, religion, race, and so on. The results of maintaining strong internal identity -- identity strong enough to survive world wars, civil wars, regional wars, economic collapse, and so forth are not altogether pleasant, but they work quite well.

I think a nation state that can hold itself together and function in a complex, sometimes destabilized world is a good thing, and citizens, being the primates that we are, need recognizable features to identify with.

Or visa versa: what holds nations together are strong internal identity and material necessity causes war. Or both.

I do not have enough background to assert that the Balkan war of the 1990s was material and not ethnic. There seems to have been a very strong and long-standing desire to reorganize ethnic distribution, and if possible eliminate some of them altogether (mass graves). Were there material necessities? Don't know.

Israel and Palestine have both material necessity and ethnic identity in conflict. The Middle East may be homogeneous as far as Islam is concerned, but there are various ethnicities and material interests in conflict. Burma wants to be Buddhist and has discriminated against both Moslems and Christians (maybe others too... don't know). How different ethnically the Moslems and Christians are, don't know. Is it a religious or ethnic conflict? China has decided that Uyghurs are an undesired ethnic/religious group.

I would anticipate that in the presence of increases economic, climate, and agricultural stress, groups will seek to solidly their cohesive identities, as well as their material needs.

The best way to avoid a trampling and crushing of minorities as the majorities rush for the exits, so to speak, is to try avoid as much economic, climate, and agricultural stress as possible. Otherwise, prepare for interesting times.

We enlightened moderns dismiss the ethnic identities of the rabble, frown on nationalism, disapprove of the nation state, regret the existence of hierarchies, reject religious identity, and so on. We, of course, think of ourselves as transethnic; beyond gender's dictatorship; world citizens; above hierarchy (or would that be below hierarchy?); not religious; etc.

If we want to find the people who are quite out of touch with reality, all we have to do is look in the mirror.

Very large complex societies maintain their internal organization using national identity, gendered roles, hierarchies, ethnicities, religion, race, and so on. The results of maintaining strong internal identity -- identity strong enough to survive world wars, civil wars, regional wars, economic collapse, and so forth are not altogether pleasant, but they work quite well.

I think a nation state that can hold itself together and function in a complex, sometimes destabilized world is a good thing, and citizens, being the primates that we are, need recognizable features to identify with. — Bitter Crank

Good post Bitter Crank.

Thought you are probably right that I myself am somewhat disconnected for all these identities, as philosophical types tend to be, it was not my intention to frown on or dismiss any of them per se.

I have allways been critical of the intellectual left in my country and Europe for disregarding these identities as outdated, barbaric or what have you. With their war against these 'social contructions' I think they alienated the working class, the people... and so are in my view one of the main contributors to what we see now.

The cosmopolitan values they promoted are mainly only negative values, or 'meta-values' as i would call them. Equality, non-discrimination, multi-culturalism, freedom of religion etc... don't really have a content of themselves. They only serve to let different cultures and religions co-exist in one super-state. They are really empire-values, probably first originating in the Persian empire. And as such they can't really be the main course... there need to be recognizable features to identify with as you say.

So I guess my point is twofold. First, culturally I have no problem with strong national or ethnic identities, as long as they don't lead to what we have seen in Europe in the 20th century. And second, although these identities play an important role, we do need to recognize that the world has changed, and some of todays problems probably cannot be solved if we do not delegate some of the power to a higher level of governance.

as long as they don't lead to what we have seen in Europe in the 20th century — ChatteringMonkey

More recently than the Nazis, the Rwanda and the Balkan massacres come to mind. The Balkans seems to have produced some unusually long-lived and bitter hatreds, about as murderous as those of the Hutus towards the Tutsis. The Communist government clamped down on inter-ethnic conflict, but as we saw in the '90s, once the clamp was gone the hatred flowed as vigorously as ever.

Americans would like to blame Brussels as well. We are tired of criticizing and blaming Washington, and Washington has grown accustomed to being criticized, excoriated, referenced as a swamp, and threatened with draining. Perhaps American criticism of Brussels would be refreshing to the bureaucrats there. — Bitter Crank

Oh, it's quite possible: Just add there Democrats working with Brussels to emasculate the US and a sinister plot against American white heterosexual males. Also add a global pedophile ring there too. The Russian intelligence services would be so excited to nurture this new conspiracy with their trolls and bots!

I would anticipate that in the presence of increases economic, climate, and agricultural stress, groups will seek to solidly their cohesive identities, as well as their material needs.

The best way to avoid a trampling and crushing of minorities as the majorities rush for the exits, so to speak, is to try avoid as much economic, climate, and agricultural stress as possible. Otherwise, prepare for interesting times. — Bitter Crank

It is all about economics.

In an affluent society where people have work and a full stomach there's no need to find the culprit for your problems in the local minorities. There can be the ordinary rambling, but people aren't going to start a civil war or the government won't feel so threatened that it starts persecuting the minorities.
If a nation state is young and the idea of the state isn't yet fully acknowledged in the people, then it can be problematic for minorities, but that is a special case. And in Europe the last tumultous time when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia collapsed and new states gained independence (or got independence again) is already history to young people.

It seems to me that, despite desperate attempts to brainwash everyone, the obvious fact about any society is that some people exploit and dominate all the others. When they get especially greedy, or when the brainwashing breaks down, tensions increase. Can anyone seriously deny these well-known facts?

The thing is that it's not so clear cut I think. Yes those on top are the ones who profit, but at same time without any established order, there is nothing really. Brainwashing or creating a common ideal to work to, depends on the perspective of your particular position in relation to that order.

That's what I was taking about in my OP, that it makes sense from both perspectives. I wish it was a bit more fair too, which is the problem right now I think, that a large part of the population doesn't feel like they are a part of it.

But there are two things that might be reasons to expect it to get better. One is that the European Union is in terms of a governing body still very young. These things need time to iron things out and traditions to be built up. And two, with new data technology the larger scale might not be such a big problem in the future.

Anyway, though I'm conflicted about this, I just can't really see the nation states as the solution for the future. — ChatteringMonkey

You raised good points, ChatteringMonkey.

The problem is how to make nation states act as a team and be a functioning part of a federation. And as you said, that may be problematical. From the US states only Texas (I guess) was Independent for a brief time before joining the Federation. People usually have learned to be a part of a nation state as citizens and this bond the nation states have nurtured more or less successfully. The bond between the EU and it's citizens is, well, nearly non-existent. The EU has just been marketed as a way to improve our economy. And the idea that without the EU the European countries would start fighting each other seems quite remote today.

The real paradox is that perhaps for the EU to integrate and truly become a federation like the US, one would need unifier-politicians like Bismarck...or Napoleon. And that is a nightmarish thought. But let's not forget that the US had it's Civil War.