Our could not be imagined without the dynamics

critique concerning the political ontology of enmity and the naturalization of
enmity reveals our methodological trajectory. Following the well-known
orientation (“always historicize”) our intention is to affirm the nation
consequently as the collective entity, or as the horizon of collectivity within
capitalism: the nation and its ideological strategical articulation, namely,
nationalism is overdetermined by the structural
laws of capitalism. The fact of overdeterminatedness means that the crucial
institutions of capitalism such as the property-relations, statehood (“nation-state”),
culturalism, the interpenetration of politics and economy etc. exert influence
on the nation and its forms. For example, there is no opportunity to account
adequately on nationalism without its references to the state. Besides, capitalism
presents the social measure of the wealth
(the capital is the social form of the creating and measuring of the wealth
expressing in commodities): enmities (national enmities as well) are directly
or indirectly conditioned by the conflicts and contradictions connected to the
acquiring and controlling of the wealth. The commodity-wealth is politico-economical category and essential
reference for the politics of enmity. Without approaching the aspects of wealth
there is no theoretical path toward the nationally mediated enmities.

      As a
matter of fact, the intelligibility of the nation could not be imagined without
the dynamics of capitalism. According to Karl Polanyi, the emergence of national
markets was not spontaneous; the comprehensive role of nationalism and national
frame was important for “the making of markets”. At the same time, there is a
theoretical task to think the non-functionality
of nationalism in relation to capitalism: our goal is to settle at least the
indispensable conditions for this non-functionality. There are widespread
discussions on the (eventual) benefits of nationalism (national movements, for
example in Latin America) for the emancipation even on the left, but the
critical picture on the moral indexation of nationalism should be sharp: the
debate on the good or bad, benign and malign nationalism in the perspective of
enmity is completely sterile, and
directs us toward theoretical impasseS1  (see Mayerfield, 1998, Clift, Woll, 2012,
Carayon, 2002). Nationalism often shows that protests, resistance and disagreement
can lead to the final agreement and adjustment. Thus, what is needed is to
present the structural opportunity of
enmity in the nation contrasting to the: a) the moralizing representation of
nation, b) violence of normativity1
in relation to the nation. In certain sense we are in line with Schmitt’s

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

1 This is, at least partially,
a Foucaldian issue.

 S1Ako ima
widespread disuccsions and debates, onda navesti neke izvore i autore


I'm Johnny!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out