Countries, States and Nations | an Essay

originally published on 15/08/2022

In modernity - modernity being the current day and age, that being somewhere around the middle of August, 2022 - there is a very pronounced problem with the concept of the country. Naturally, that problem partially arises from the fact that a country can mean both a state and a location within said state, and that a state can be part of a country, rather than a country in and of itself.

This is further complicated and, in fact, worsened, by the fact that a country could also be a nation, yet a country can also house, or rather contain, a nation. That is applicable for the state, too, even if it is within a country.

These follies of terminology have started running rampant a decently long time ago. So long ago, in fact, that I’m afraid there’s no means of actually identifying the issue’s inception, due to the fact that the concepts of state and country existed far before the English language was even conceived, meaning that things were awry from the get-go.

But let’s try to bring about a measure of order in this debacle. Let’s say that state is only appropriate as a means of describing a country when it comes to a country that is made up of a single city. That would be a city state, which throws us back into Antiquity, in the fanciful times of slaves, women and humans (men), during which times Aristotle, Plato and Socrates did their thing, along with a large number of other big thinkers.

With that distinction having been made, I recognize that another issue might have arisen. The issue of definition, or lack thereof. Sure, I am talking about countries and states and nations, but am I talking about the countries, states and nations that the reader will consider? That’s an unknown that needs to be dealt with, thus we will begin by taking a long, hard look at the definitions of state, of country and of nation.

We will start off with the definition of ‘state’. Making use of the Oxford dictionary, the definition of ‘state’ that concerns us is:

“a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government”

This one almost fails at being useful, due to the fact that it winds up defining itself through the word ‘nation’, however we can glean something from it. The key here is that the territory is considered as an organized political community - the territory - under one government.

Not only does this fail - as a territory can not be a political community, much less an organized one - which indicates that this is a bad definition. In any case, we can fix it up by making the claim that the territory is important in relation to the definition of the state’s borders, OR so far as within it live the individuals who are considered to be the organized political community under that one government.

This indicates that a territory requires that it be considered the staging grounds for a political community so that it may be a state, or part of a state. Without pause we can immediately find issues with this expanded definition, due to the fact that within every single state in the world there is territory that is not inhabited by anybody, nor is it being used for anything, yet said territory is considered to be within that state’s confines and under its jurisdiction.

But we’ve got a pseudo-definition. A state is a territory within the confines of which lives a political community under one government.

No, that’s not enough, still. What defines a community as political and a community as not-political? Will there be a need to find the definition of ‘political’, too? By the looks of things, yes, because there’s very little in the way of explaining what a political community is and what a community that is not political is. After all, does this distinction imply that communities that are not political can not be confined to a state?

Oxford dictionary tells us that political is:

“relating to the government or public affairs of a country”

I find this to be absolutely astounding. Please, do explain what things are through the use of other terms that only mean anything by including the things they define within their own definition. That’s the equivalent of you asking me what a circle is and receiving the answer that it is round, only to then ask what round is and being bestowed with the answer that it is a circle. That’s not an answer that satisfies, thus we can not make use of this.

So, how shall we proceed? Must I give a definition to the word political, one that I’ve devised? But, then, due to the fact that said word is used in the definition of the other terms we are discussing, it would become pointless for me to make use of said terms - in the context of what they mean according to the dictionaries and thus the social contract - and would lead into me being able to simply state what I deem these terms to mean, which would be inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion.

Thus, we will have to look deeper. So deep, in fact, that we will consult Wikipedia.

Wikipedia tells us that politics (which is the thing that is political, whereas the act of being political is political) is:

“the set of activities associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.”

That actually means something and can be made use of. The problem that arises from this is that there turns out to be no community that is not political, due to the fact that every human being makes decisions regarding the distribution of resources or status. Naturally, the group that these decisions are made in might differ, be it in size or power, but there is always a group that any individual has the opportunity to make decisions within, which decisions are related to the distribution of resources or status.

However, due to the fact that the definition of ‘state’ relies on the distinction that the community is political, then that indicates there is some hidden meaning within that. It indicates one very important thing - that there are those communities who are not political. That, in turn, shows that either the community in question is split into a number of smaller communities, out of which communities one wields the power and makes decisions, whilst the others do not wield power and are bereft of the ability to make decisions, OR that the members of the non-political communities are not human (but are somewhat human).

This might have something to do with the social situation in Ancient Greece - where the concept of politics was defined - and might lead into a very great problem. That problem is, as follows:

The majority of the community is not part of the community, by merit of its status as inhuman and thus incapable of being part of the community. That inhumanity is owed up to either the entities in question’s biological sex - females of the human species being regarded as different, as less human than males - or the status of these entities as slaves.

It must be noted that being a slave stripped men of their humanity, or at least lessened it, for free men were more human than slaves. Slaves were, frankly, treated as tools, as extensions of their owner’s being. That was mused upon by either Plato or Aristotle, which goes to emphasize the problem with the distinction of political and non-political communities.

The political community rules over the non-political community. The non-political community does not wield any power, which is why it is not political, while the political community wields all the power.

Thus, we come to an impasse. Either we accept the definition of state that was provided - the one that indicates that a state can only exist through the creation of social classes, which social classes assign value to human life, arbitrarily and without any reasonable argumentation, which states can only exist through violence, or via the threat of violence that the governors can present the governed with… OR we defy that definition of state, change the definition so that it does not imply the separation and segregation of its inhabitants and lead into the conclusion that a state, a true state, can only be:

A territory upon which dwells an organized community under one government.

That, in turn, considering the definition of politics that we took a look at, indicates that a state, true to its definition, can only exist under the conditions of a direct democracy, in which every single member of the community takes part in the making of decisions regarding the distribution of resources or status.

Thus, a state is only possible if said state does not exceed a population of, say, 100,000 human beings - which might have something in common with either Aristotle’s Politics or Plato’s Republic, due to the fact that one of those fellows mentions how big a state can be and still remain manageable - as in, governable. Remember, states, by definition, originated as cities. Those tended not to be as stupendously massive as they are in modernity.

So any time the term ‘state’ is used in conversation relating to ‘politics’, it is being used mostly incorrectly. That is reassuring, yet simultaneously also undermines my heartiness. How can it be so? Why, perhaps it is purposeful. Perhaps that inclusion of the word ‘political’ prior to the word ‘community’ is indicative of the fact that this separation, this segregation of society has not been overcome. 2600 years.

Well, knowing that, we should probably approach another topic. By another topic I mean another one of those terms, and when I said ‘probably’ I meant ‘with certainty’. As is evident, if I proceed by saying things and assigning meanings I desire, without sharing said meanings with anybody, then my speech becomes senseless and lacking in reason, much like any discussion about anything that aims to achieve something.

We’re going to take on the task of defining the ‘nation’, due to the fact that it was already used as a means of defining the ‘state’ once. I will go on to ask Wikipedia, as it is a very widely used source of knowledge that has been dubbed dubious by those who stand to gain from Wikipedia’s smearing.

“A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or territory.”

Behold, ladies, gentlemen and bees of the ‘N’ variety, stupidity. Well, not quite, but then also very much stupidity.

In reality, the concept of ‘the nation’, as it is known in modernity (as defined by yours truly in the start of this essay) is the unhinged expansion of a Medieval University tradition. Unfortunately, some decided to do this expanding, and things led up to the current state of things.

Now, frankly, the nation, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, and the definition provided almost manages to make it appear reasonable. However, well, it fails in a few aspects which I will list.

Firstly, it is important to point out that the number of things that have been presented as possible features upon which to base a nation (nationality) is strangely obtuse. The examples provided are, some of them, very loose. A language being the foundation for a nation? A culture that is foundational for a nation? Territory?

Let’s talk about this. Does the nation require that a member of said nation possesses at least a certain number of those features, or does the possession of at least one of those features mark a person as belonging to that nation?

Obviously, the answer must be yes, otherwise knowing the language and wielding it renders me an Englishman, an Australian, a Canadian and an American (USA citizen), all at once. But how many of those need to be covered?

If the minimum of features had in common was two, then I would still qualify as an American (USA variety), due to the fact that I share, or have been forced into adopting, the culture of the USA. Or, perhaps, I understand said culture, or at least know of it. Does that indicate that I am culturally a USA-ean? That, in and of itself, falls into an entirely different can of worms, pertaining to culture and the ownership of it, so let’s avoid that debacle.

Then the minimum can not be two features. What if the minimum was three features? Well, unfortunately, how does one define history as being shared? Why, of course, we do share a history. I’ve knowledge of the events that have transpired in the past, and so do you, dear reader. These events are all the same, regardless of our nationality… Or are they?

Could it be that history is shaped by the nation (state/country) that is in charge of teaching said history to the people (who are members or prospects of the nation)? I will provide an example. In the eyes of the Greek ‘nation’, Macedonia is Greek. Reasons are provided, most exemplary being the backing of history.

In the eyes of North Macedonia, which happens to also, supposedly, constitute a nation (existing for… 30-ish years), Macedonia is its own thing. That’s backed up by… History?

Perhaps that is far too loaded an example, but every single nation that still exists, and exists in the form of a country/state, has the capacity, and is making good use of it, to teach history in a most biased manner. These fellows were, actually, naughty and bad, but then when asked, these fellows will inform us that their history shows that those fellows, who originally pinned it on these fellows, were the naughty and bad.

So history is a very problematic field, much like culture, because how does one define a history is had in common? Is it decided by one’s predecessors? I have a history in common with certain other members of my nation because my father’s grandfather was a member of said nation, much like the grandfathers of the fathers of my peers were also members of ‘my’ nation? That’s very lackluster, I’ll have to admit.

And when it comes to ethnicity, that’s just a wrong way of looking at things. It’s horrendously inappropriate. The nation of the USA is… It’s shared ethnicity is… You can see the problem. I need not go on any further.

What about territory? Are the people who lived on the island of Crimea, prior to its annexation by Russia, now Russian nationals? Or are they still Ukrainian nationals? They happen to have similar history to the Russians, based on the fact that they’re neighboring states, based on the fact that they’ve been part of the same ‘big state’; They happen to have the language down squat - because if one knows Ukrainian, one can understand Russian just fine, and vice versa. What about ethnicity? I forgot we should not talk about that, but are they not slapped with the term ‘slavs’? What of their cultures, which have been influencing one another for hundreds of years?

Territory is no indication of one’s nationality. Or, perhaps, the conditions here, regarding ALL the things I just mentioned and pointed at as bad, are specific. Territory only matters in regards to the temporal relation you and the nation (country/state) have with it… But then it really doesn’t, even if I try to bend over backwards.

Whatever comes of this is not a good meme (respectfully), and is, actually, a wretched thing, because it promotes a very important, very intriguing little detail.

Separation. Segregation, if you will. There’s US, those who are members of the nation, and there’s THEM, those who are not members of the nation… Those who are the OTHERS. Naturally, the OTHERS are bad by default, because the reasons we are members of our nation - history, culture, ethnicity, language, territory - make us know one another and give us knowledge. The OTHERS, who have a supposedly different culture, ethnicity, language, history and territory… We don’t know much about them. They’re unknown.

And because we don’t know them, nor do we know much about them, they CAN be dangerous.

In modern times, something that CAN be dangerous is treated as dangerous, rather than potentially dangerous. In addition to that, the solution to that potential danger is the equivalent to a solution that would be made use of in the case of actual danger. See the USA’s foreign policy.

Lastly, let us take a look at the concept of ‘country’. Upon asking, the Mirriam Webster presents the following:

‘A political state or nation or its territory’

Immediately, we see, once again, the word ‘political’. Not only that, but we are bombarded with other terms - such as ‘state’ and ‘nation’ - which also require definition. As is known, you can not define something through a concept that requires definition, because in that case you are not defining anything at all.

However, it is very handy to know that at least one thing has made it through. One thing - in this case the word ‘territory’. Country, then, refers to the territory of a state or nation.

SO, then, ladies, gentlemen and bees of the N variety, we have finally discovered what these three ‘terms’ mean, and we have also uncovered that they are all monstrously and demonstrably flawed.

We have come to know that the ‘state’ should refer to a directly democratic government of a city or town - ala city state - and that the current use of the term ‘state’ is malicious at best, due to the fact that it is merged with the concept of the ‘nation’.

We have found out that the ‘nation’ is a horrendously inadequate means of defining anything, as the pointers one would utilize to figure out whether X is part of the nation or not are so lackluster - or downright horrendous from a sapient point of view - that nothing should be termed a ‘nation’.

Lastly, we were disappointed to find out that the concept of ‘country’ applies to territory, which territory is owned by a state or, rather, a nation. The definition for ‘country’ also misleads us into thinking there is territory that is not owned or part of a state/nation through the use of the distinction that the state/nation in question must be political.

These issues are not the entirety of what a country/state/nation is, of course. They are not exclusively bound to bad things - such as the segregation of humanity based on totally arbitrary concepts - but the bad far outweighs the good, due to one simple fact that was previously mentioned.

Violence, dear reader. Power, as stated, is what defines the modern state - the government that is the state. That power is mainly practiced through violence, or the threat thereof. The laws that are imposed by the government present the threat of violence, in the event that these laws are not followed.

So, then, if the main means for a state to exist is through violence, how does that state interact with other states? Presumably, the government, the state, seeks to better itself, to make things better for its subjects, which subjects are, as previously pointed out, arbitrarily appointed (through the medium of nationality).

That state will seek to enrich its subjects lives, for through doing that, the state, itself, will be enriched. The means of doing so, however, are through violence. The state needs to procure wealth, which wealth it may then use to enrich the lives of its subjects.

In that idealized, true state that was mentioned - the one ruled through a direct democracy, which has an upper limit to how many people may be part of it for highest efficiency - the subjects of the state would be the ones dictating how their lives are enriched, and due to that fact they will have far more incentive, which incentive is not even dependent on violence, to provide wealth for the state in the form of taxes.

In the bad, misshapen states that we are forced to live in, the ones that are not ruled through direct democracy, we, the subjects of said states, are forced to accept the idea that the state will enrich our lives. How so, we can not be certain, because those who are in charge - even if elected by us - are capable of operating with nigh-total impunity. Our input, then, extends only so far as to who we allow to hold the power, who gets to wield violence unrestricted.

This only worsens. Naturally, the wealth the state possesses is, still, obtained through taxation. However, that taxation is procured THROUGH the threat of violence. If you don’t pay your taxes, well… You’re going to have your freedom, home, livelihood or privileges (read: rights) taken away. The idea we are forced to believe in - that the wealth the state accumulates through the collection of taxes is going to be used to better the lives of its subjects - remains an idea. A pipe dream.

We’ve no warranty that our lives are actually going to be improved. We’ve even got no warranty that our lives are not going to worsen! All we have is the illusion that the one/(s) in power is in power for a good reason - because WE elected said fellow/party to be in power - which then means we deserve to reap the consequences of our choice.

Nevermind the fact that said fellow/party could have been blatantly lying.

Let’s not get into that, though. See, one of the other things that the state does, due to the fact that it has a monopoly on violence, an exclusive right to it, even, is that the state gets to wage war. Who does the state wage war against? Other states.

And said other states exist in the exact same manner as the hypothetically actual state that was being so-far described.

So, then, due to the fact that a state has the right to wage war - owed to their exclusive access to violence - that means that all other states, in the pursuit of bettering the lives of their subjects, or at least not making them worse, are forced to also prepare themselves for war - be it as a means of preventing the worsening of their subjects’ lives as a result of a lost war, or be it as a means of bettering their subjects’ lives as a result of a victorious war.

After all, a victorious war means more resources that can be exploited, the exploitation of which resources either directly betters the lives of a state’s subjects or indirectly betters them, through the increase of capital (wealth) that flows into the country (territory of the state). Not only that, but if more territory was acquired as a result of this victorious war, suddenly there are more people. More subjects for the state.

More tax to be extracted from them.

However, due to the fact that these people are different - because they were born in a different state, because they speak a different language and because they might have a different skin color - these people don’t actually get to be treated as actual people. Tax them more heavily than the other people. Maybe use them as a workforce that does not require good amenities.

After all, you (the state) have demonstrated that your power is greater than theirs, and as a result you get to make use of them.

Oh, wait, no, that’s bad. The state, of course, does not actually care. In fact, that’s GOOD for the state - at least that twisted version of the state that we exist with.

So then, ladies, gentlemen and N-bees… Are you sure that the state/nation/country that you live in is actually good? Are you sure it has your best interests at heart? Are you certain that it is, undoubtedly, the best thing you and your neighbors can manage?

I’d say it is not. I’d say we, humans, can do a lot better…

And that all ‘empire management’ games are ontologically bad because they focus on countries/states/nations which really like going to war.