msbrown at msbrown at
Sat Apr 20 13:11:37 BST 2002

On Mon Apr 15th, Dice George said:
>"on a national-by-national basis??? theres other alternatives, lots of 
different structures at different levels, some things decided globally, some 
for europe, some england, some parish council, many by the individual.."  ...etc

>>>> (REPLY): >> I could have said that until there is "critical mass" reched 
across the world to "opt-out" of the state (as has started to happen in 
significant numbers in Mexico and now Argentina), then it is meaningless to 
ignore the predominance of the nation state. My point is that in a world where 
we do have to reach international consensus on the basis of ensuring that the 
further destruction of the global commons does not continue, then it would be 
counterproductive not to have national status, even if we appreciate that this 
definition of what a "nation" is should recognise that the collective identity 
that the "nation state" is meant to represent is far more complex than any 
state administration can assume powers over beyond a certain amount (ie.e they 
should devolve power as much as possible - for instance Chavez in Venzuela has 
initiated what is called the "Constituent Assembley", where power has been 
devolved so as to include more citizen participation). 

You made the point that there are problems regarding borders between 
countries.  I quite agree. That is why "states" as we recognise them should 
recognise and leave alone communities who wish to operate outside the confines 
of the nation state (automonous anarchist communities) like nation american 
communities in North America.  Also, in Africa particularly, because the 
borders between nations states were artifically created by imperialist empires 
dividing the continent up between them, the dissolution of state structures of 
authority occurs because isolated tribal communities increasingly assert their 
independence and rightful place to return to ancestral lands, while for the 
greater mass of civil society, trust in the state as an honest broker and 
dispenser of collective social needs recedes as state-sponsered social and 
helth services collapse due to structural adjustment policies imposed by the 
IMF and World Bank. (Kwesi Kwaa Prah - Director of the Centre for Advanced 
Studies of African Society). Recent events in Kenya, Uganda and southern Sudan 
highlights the increasing assertiveness of particular communities. In April 
2000 owing to water shortges in Northern Kenya, 4 to 5000 Turkana with weapons 
entered Uganda from Kenya and took possession of Kidepo National Park. Fighting 
broke out between them and Dodoth and Jie. In the other direction, 2,000 Bokora 
moved into Kenya for food. In the face of these population movements, initially 
the Uganda authorities threatened to forcibly remove the Turkana. The response 
of the Turkana was that they were armed and ready for all-comers. The Ugandan 
authorities hesitated and requested the Kenyans to help in the removal of their 
citizens. The Kenyans responded by drawing attention to the fact that 2,000 
Bokora had moved into Kenya and could not also be either controlled or returned 
by Kenyan security forces. In the end a "people to people" treaty was reached 
by the various non-state parties themselves. This understanding took no 
consideration of the exsitence of state borders, and involved the Dodoth, the 
Mathiniko, the Jie, the Turkana and Topasa of Southern Sudan, allowing the 
Turkana to stay where they were. The pastoral Maasai till today have little 
recognition for the border between Kenya and Tanzania, regarding it as a 
hinderance to their age-old pattern of life and an infringment of their 
traditional rights. The large population movements we are seeing in recent 
years in the Great Lakes attest to the crude artificiality of the existing 
states in the area and their borders.
For whole article entitled "The Decomposition of the Post-Colonial State", by  
Kwesi Kwaa Prah, go to the following website:

devolved power so as to include more citizen participation to what is called 
the "Constituent Assembley".

From:  "george at" <george at> 
Date:  Mon Apr 15, 2002  11:23 pm
Subject:  Re: [diggers350] Re: Nationalism:

>>>on a national-by-national basis. ???

theres other alternatives, lots of different structiures at different levels,
some things decided globally, some for europe, some england,
some parish council, many by the individual..

what really pissed me off about thatcher's MPs is that they wanted all power to 
Westminster, not devolving much up or down or sideways

the germans voted for hitler, the israelis for Sharon

and because i dont like 'nationalism' therefore i'm against 'internationalism'
which presupposes 'nations'

and with nations theres the problem of where turkey and kurdistan have their 
borders, and what happens to those of a minority tribe born the wrong side of 
the borders, and those who're 'mixed race' like farmers hedges and cattle,
a way of rationing food... does a person belong to the land where one's born?

its american nationalism thats scary, most brits know our fate is linked with 
europe but i fear some americans think they could go it alone, pull up the 

----- Original Message -----
From: <msbrown at>
To: "Jan Pole" <anticapitalist2 at>
Cc: <diggers350 at>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: [diggers350] Re: Nationalism: Poison for the Working Class

> OK, I don't totally dismiss you. Anarchist cooperative self determination.
> but it can only ever be achieved if devolved but still subject to some
kind of
> state assembley-central governance - across the world on a
> basis.

> Mark.S.Brown

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list