North Africa in flux, the model of the Nation-State is challenged as the Latin American

revolution spreads across the Atlantic. The political anachronism channeling popular shepherd
tendencies through a web of laissez-faire enterprise in newly recognized forms, such as socialist
states acting as capitalist players, as for China, or Cuba, or even Venezuela, has been recognized
as a homage to a nostalgic perception of predictability afforded by the old model, already
obsolete by the early 1980s as the financial ties of the global insurance state (or as I prefer to call
it, the fiat money or fiduciary state of usury), which replaced the old model, allowed
circumnavigation about these historical barriers to plunder. For three decades, the paper assets
have relocated between banks with the speed of electronic transfers, accumulating “profit” in
climates most favorable (least adverse) to the practice. The amounts dwarf the economies of all
but the largest vestiges of nation-states, which try to persist as representative of the populations
of which they are comprised. The more socially responsible nations above still compete with one
another in a capitalist arena of resource plunder on a global scale; my natural gas for your iron
ore for his agrarian supply, and sadly, her water. But what is happening in North Africa is
recognized as classist, more democratic, and pan-national. It is not theocratic, despite fretful
capitalist characterizations, promoted by those recognizing less pockets to pick in the near future.
It is not national, although all existing nations will desperately cling to preservation of the
current globally recognized structure. It is an image of the future, the last awakening before a
global uprising establishes a single global government (to be followed inevitably into a
disintegration after more or less time), but not the actual one.
It is instructive to examine how the nation state model has emerged and been preserved.
Replacing the empires, dynasties, and monarchies, the nation state similarly recognized other
nation states sovereignty within their respective borders, but differed in that the territories were
no longer to be swapped through marriage or other aristocratic whim. The terrain itself became
elevated and infused with “nationality”. Nations shared economic, social, and cultural unity in a
world becoming decidedly capitalistic. As the social alliances of communist and socialist players
in this arena confronted economic warfare, i.e., “trade”, they too unified in “national” policies of
tariff and excise, while abolishing internal customs and tolls. This served to unify their
populations as national entities vis-à-vis other nations. Where ethnic, linguistic, and cultural
differences might divide the citizens of the nation, they were (more or less) unified in
international relations. The inevitable flaws of capitalisms’ need for new markets to exploit soon
confronted the zero-sum borders of nations, and expansion was fueled in international trade,
which relied upon exploitation of other nations’ capital or labor wealth. The income divide
between entrepreneurs and laborers widened, until now, where large sectors of the globe’s
population are removed from the land that formerly fed them (urbanization) without means to
subsist. Rather than acknowledge the technological advance that could afford increased leisure
for the people of the world, a perverse situation emerged, foreseen by many, where labor, a
commodity divorced from the person who performed it, was in oversupply compared to demand.
Market law of course reduced its’ value, and having but labor to offer, the masses sought more
labor to increase their income. This resulted in unemployment, or underemployment, where the
masses could not find enough need for their sub-valued labor to support their subsistence. The
classist divide widened, and collapse became imminent. Guns, germs, or steel might change the
outcome, but here we are confronting this now.
 Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, and Egypt in a period of two weeks erupted in protests,
and the situations in Lebanon and Albania could follow in kind. In all cases, rejection of national
governments by disenfranchised, underemployed, lower class, predominately Arab peoples have
shown the emergence of what must be acknowledged as a precedent of class revolution, although
pan-Arab sentiment has been effectively thwarted within the framework of existing nation states.
The Egyptian (largest) revolution is the most instructive for the impediments to the evolution of
global governance. Prided with millennia of “Egyptian” identity, the masses embrace the
“nation” model vigorously, rather than allying with other nearby nations, thus preserving the
status quo of nation states. Truly, Machiavellian “divide and conquer” tactics have preserved the
status quotient of the international community of nation states, but possibly for of the last time.
As long as the proletariat see themselves as Egyptian oppressed, and Tunisian oppressed, they
will not see themselves as exploited oppressed. The international status quotient preserving
global capitalist exploitation has grown comfortable with the nation-state model, and will likely
vigorously oppose real globalization or internationalism.
What follows the nation state, if not decay to societal collapse or anarchy, is envisioned
by some to be internationalism in which the concept of sovereignty itself is outdated impediment
to capitalist exploitation, thus removing the sacrosanct nature in the terrain itself, and allowing,
perhaps, outright terrain purchase by corporate interests enforcing corporate law over their
jurisdictions. Others see a single global government. Neoconservatives and neoliberals have to
marvel at the Bolivarian revolution of South America as a factor to be reckoned with. Social
responsibility there is still shepherded by national leaders, rather than a regional government
nearly united in language, and any possible exploitation by outsiders via the nation state model is
vigorously pursued to preserve known market conditions. But the message is clear: These poor
people might unite, and then the rich are screwed. The interconnectivity afforded by modern
telecommunications offers an unprecedented opportunity for unification, and those becoming
wealthy by preservation of cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and national identities that might be pitted
one against another to “divide and conquer” are aware of the threat. Ironically, the
“nationalization” of capital resources is seen by the wealthy as the ultimate threat to the capitalist
exploitation they practice, but in fact serves their long-term interests in support of the soon to be
historic concept of a globe comprised of nations. A single global government almost presupposes
a basis in human rights. This would certainly be an impediment to exploitation of the labor
market. For this reason, the capitalists might favor an international system of currency, but
certainly not a global government. To this end, the warfare of guns and steel has maintained the
nation state model, but don’t be surprised if germs come to play. The exploitive system of
capitalism would receive a revitalizing boost with a population reduction. Scarcity of labor
would raise its’ value again above subsistence, and the remnants of the masses might once again
be sold the dream of success as were the early industrialists of the 19th century. Surplus progeny
affordable once again, the cycle would repeat.
So, to prevent a pan-Arab revolution unifying with the precedent of the Bolivarian
awakening, don’t be surprised at any efforts to preserve the identity of Nations as geopolitical
units over the threat of a truly global awakening. A global governance flaunts the zero-sum limits
of the biosphere in the face of exploitative practice. Divisional rule by the wealthy, currently
masking itself as theocratic opposition (Islamic versus Christian versus Judaic versus Hindi
versus any Opiate identity) might succeed in establishing a religious state successor to the nation
state, or exploit a plague, but will resist globalization heartily. The fact you’ve seen the crowds
in Cairo's Tahrir Square indicates this is not the revolution of globalization, or communism, or
anarchy, but a bump on the historical road toward those end state scenarios. The revolution will
not be televised.