Strong states mean less ethnic conflict? Not so sure about that.
Strong states mean less religous conflict? Not so sure about that.
I guess we have to start with your definition of "the state".
If anything "The State" has been the greatest proponent of ethnic and religious Homogeneity in the name of national unity.
It might be nice to believe that the Stalin, Mao, Tito or Lincoln were able to use the strength of the state to stop ethnic and religious conflict--but I don't think it holds true.
I do think multi-ethnic and secular societies are just peachy, I'm not sure that it is "statism" that brings them about or holds them together.
What would a non-coercive state look like? Anarchy. Libertarian socialism. Free Soviets. IWW's Industrial Democracy's Administration of Things. Kaianere'kó:wa. Whatever term you like best.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-05 09:10 pm (UTC)Strong states mean less religous conflict? Not so sure about that.
I guess we have to start with your definition of "the state".
If anything "The State" has been the greatest proponent of ethnic and religious Homogeneity in the name of national unity.
It might be nice to believe that the Stalin, Mao, Tito or Lincoln were able to use the strength of the state to stop ethnic and religious conflict--but I don't think it holds true.
I do think multi-ethnic and secular societies are just peachy, I'm not sure that it is "statism" that brings them about or holds them together.
What would a non-coercive state look like? Anarchy. Libertarian socialism. Free Soviets. IWW's Industrial Democracy's Administration of Things. Kaianere'kó:wa. Whatever term you like best.