Cosmopolitanism v. Internationalism

Cosmopolitanism’s Fascist Bogeyman under the Bed v. Internationalism’s Fight against Slavery

Even the LRB (September 2, 2018)  tries to cash in on the fretting over fascism industry. Anglo-Americans are in a terrible place to understand fascism, which they understand as an ahistorical shrek that materializes out of nowhere. England won’t go fascist, nor will the US, because they’re slavery societies. They’ve already been up to something horrible that’s not curable with elite moral cosmopolitanism, and even though foreign leaders and media don’t like Trump’s negotiation and discursive style, it’s all just going on business as usual, drifting and lurching back into the slavery. People fret over fascism because they’re unwilling to acknowledge slavery and the persistence of slavery institutions (police and guard jobs, carceral infrastructure, criminalization of everything, surveillance, war, ***shitty*** public goods and services–shitty because slavery societies, unlike fascist societies, are not pursuing rivalristic regional modernization) and how they’re as awful as fascism, look a helluva lot like fascism, and it’s a nice distraction to imagine a new fascism, a church-and-Clear Channel mobilized army of Midwestern American failed small businessmen and factory workers with German backgrounds following their blood destiny to the endless horror of coastal meritocrats of better ethnic extraction, and as confirmed chiefly by Commonwealth allusions to contemporary Indian fascism. So you have to hold your breath past the hagiographic liberal stylings of David Runciman reporting on latter day Obama propaganda. And then what the hell. I like 70% of what Pankaj Mishra dishes out, but he apparently decided to cash in with a fascism fret book that starts out with the completely invalid, anachronistic premise that Rousseau was the progenitor of Trump or the “Palin People” because Rousseau’s side was losing at the time?, and so he was mad?, and in no way were the artistocratic ladies of Europe all in love with him and citing his democratic Enlightenment ideas, thwarting elite solidarity, which helped considerably to advance democratic institutions?, and to point out that elite liberty is not human liberty is purely an emotional act of romantic resentment as opposed to a clear analysis? Because there is any sense at all in mis-citing Nietzsche–Nietzsche!–as a dispassionate authority on Rousseau, when you can just read Rousseau? So much bullshit. Let me ask you this: If the Palin People and the Brexiteers are the unique source of Untruth, why must liberals champion anachronism?

Capitalist Global Equality

Per Milanovic (2002:52), a direct implication of globalization is “that national borders are becoming less important, and that every individual may, in theory, be regarded simply as a citizen of the world.”

That is the perspective, or rather flattering comms, of capital, not the felt, embodied, epigenetic experience of social hierarchy, which economics has nothing to say about.

It extrapolates Anglo-centric history to presume that states (and their borders) are absolutely, always, everywhere the exclusive property of the capitalist class.

The Role of Social Regulation in Imperial Expropriation

“(A)t its center, British identity was informed by a critical dichotomy between the ideal of commerce as part of the civilizing process and the actual conditions of commercial growth in the imperial zone…an Augustan order based on politeness, good taste, and manners was at odds with the logic of economic development in the empire, which demanded total control and brutal governance–and slave labor” (Simon Gikandi 2014: 52).

Conservative Idea: Cosmopolitan Citizenship

Martin Prak’s “Citizens without Nations” is about how citizenship beyond cosmopolitanism wasn’t necessary in the pre-revolutionary era. Apparently, he makes the point that the French Revolution disrupted urban citizenship.

In response, I think of:

I) how a) uneven urban citizenship has continued to exist alongside uneven regional and national citizenship; and b) how the mercantilist town businessmen of Norway oppressed the Norwegians in the countryside in the 17th-19th century, to the point where rural Norwegians were forced to join a multi-pronged, strategic, fundamentalist religious movement in order to organize collectively and shed their constraining peasant culture.

II) We need to examine policy and law to validly categorize what KIND of citizenship states protect. For example, the Anglo-American states protect global capitalist citizenship with a suite of private property and negative rights. Anglo-American states, as David Abraham has analyzed, only residually protect territorial residents’ citizenship rights.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s