PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact

Stan Przhegodsky On State Sovereignty .pdf

Original filename: Stan Przhegodsky - On State Sovereignty.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - Stan Przhegodsky - On State Sovereignty.docx

This PDF 1.3 document has been generated by Word / Mac OS X 10.9.3 Quartz PDFContext, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 09/05/2017 at 16:37, from IP address 93.72.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 289 times.
File size: 35 KB (3 pages).
Privacy: public file

Download original PDF file

Document preview

Stan Przhegodsky
The definition of a state’s sovereignty is that by which means it is
capable of defending itself.
The origin of states can be traced back to the origin of property itself,
which is when an animal uses violence to protect an item or a
territory. It became more systematic during the agricultural revolution,
when crops localised people from what was originally a huntergatherer nomadic lifestyle.
Warlords were individuals who, along with their collectivised and
subordinate armies, used violence, both physical and economic, to
take over plots of land, either piece by piece, or through that time’s
equivalent of what is now seen in corporate acquisitions.
State borders were drawn by these warlords around the various lands
populated by tribes who were not always related, and said borders
were, in practice, always a genuine representation of military
stagnation, with treaties drawn for the purposes of mutual aid by
means of trade and commerce.
To pacify the conquered tribes against insurrectionary and ‘illegalist’
revolutionary tendencies, social contracts were drawn up, offering the
protection of the warlord in exchange for certain rights being
surrendered, with, in feudal cases, the peasantry being slaves and
subjects, who, as history continued and as education gradually
decentralised (accelerated by means of the Enlightenment), gained
more and more freedom. The aforementioned social contracts were
precursors to what we now know as Constitutions, present within
Republics that dictate order in civil society. It must also be mentioned
that the maintenance of the Rule of Law within state borders is done
through a collective delegation of an individual citizen’s access to
violence to a centralised force represented by the state, itself
supposedly a branch of collective citizen representation: the police —
and in cases where national security is in question: the state federal
law enforcement agency (for internal turmoil), and the military (for
external issues).
The sovereignty of a state depends on its ability to balance itself with
that of other sovereign states on the merit of its ability to engage in
competitive trade, its collective ability to defend its socioeconomic

interests, and its delegates’ abilities to at least have the option to
persuasively negotiate deals that progress, secure, and insure the
assets belonging to everything within state borders.
In practice, however, the state prioritises the interests of high quantity
centralised private capital above that of those without ownership of
the means of production. Given resource scarcity, there exists a
natural order of acquisition of vast amounts of capital by any means
necessary, with Rule of Law only taking secondary precedence, itself
implemented by the very people who have the greatest capital
centralised under their ownership at that time — this natural tendency
derives from the panic of comprehending scarcity, which we call
Greed when it merges with the Slippery Slope fallacy and/or when
there is awareness of competitors intending to have maximum capital
This places Private Capital, meaning those centralising its greatest
amount, in a predicament; to maintain their position on the
international socioeconomic ladder, they must work with markets and
make trade deals, at the same time working with limited intelligence
on what is the most utilitarian to take next, relying on statistical
probability, unable to operate with outliers that are guaranteed to
arise and radically shift courses, forcing an anxiety of continuous
need for adaptation. This, in turn, internationalises capital, as it needs
to be international in order to adapt, and the consequence of this is
the gradual erosion of state sovereignty by means of “border erosion”
through elimination of trade barriers, along with the inevitable
decentralisation of capital by means of Finance permitting what used
to be isolated enclaves of villages and their ignorant villagers to
participate in the radical erosion of their local culture, notably
because most of those elements are irrational and therefore cannot
survive criticism as to what is their utility in the business world, the
elements of which contaminate and dominate decisions in causal
society — it is most efficient to have employees operate as
genderless, international units of human resources, therefore it is
culturally practical to promote anti-racism, gender equality, and
various forms of on-the-job ‘egalitarianism’ to maximise corporate
State sovereignty, therefore, is temporary if our species continues
with capitalist globalisation, which will continue so long as we have

the rules of supply & demand as well as the capitalist mode of
production to enable it, all in turn guaranteeing what is likely to be a
painful transition towards an economically post-scarcity society
operated by fully-automated corporations, hopefully with the world’s
citizens being equal shareholders.  

Stan Przhegodsky - On State Sovereignty.pdf - page 1/3
Stan Przhegodsky - On State Sovereignty.pdf - page 2/3
Stan Przhegodsky - On State Sovereignty.pdf - page 3/3

Related documents

stan przhegodsky on state sovereignty
on the development of new societal systems from within 1
on the development of new societal systems from within
isis arts 1 3
the social corporatist manifesto
china shanghai free trade zone

Related keywords