# We Are Witnessing The Return of Empires & The END of Nations | Aaron Bastani Meets Rana Dasgupta Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo88imJNWkU Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/Mo88imJNWkU Generated: 2026-03-08T19:30:29.106+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The conversation concludes that the modern nation-state, a recent construct finalized in the 18th and 19th centuries and historically reliant on imperial extraction to fund internal liberal achievements like democracy, is now facing divergence between state interests and popular interests, mirroring 18th-century Britain as economic production moves away from the general population, suggesting the post-WWII era of liberal democratic success correlated with Western industrial dominance is ending. **Key Points:** - The nation-state is a modern governmental form, finalized in the 18th and 19th centuries, relying on financial and technological achievements, including a monopoly over violence and propaganda to build shared nationhood. - Many celebrated achievements of the nation-state, like democracy and human rights, were initially funded by extracting wealth from the rest of the world, creating a paradox where Western rights depended on depriving others. - The Glorious Revolution in Britain (1688) initiated the capitalist liberal state, prioritizing free markets and property rights for a commercial elite over universal suffrage, which arrived centuries later. - Contemporary America increasingly resembles 18th-century Britain where state interests diverge from the people's interests because AI and outsourcing mean the economy 'does not involve a lot of Americans' or benefit them. - Radical critiques, such as those from Sayyid Qutb, view the secular liberal state as idolatrous or polytheistic because it demands allegiance due only to God, positioning Islamist critiques as enduring problems for the nation-state system. - The historical correlation between massive industrialization in the West and democracy is breaking down; de-industrialization and AI suggest different political corollaries where the state may not need or benefit from broad popular political participation. **Context:** The discussion features host Aaron Bastani interviewing Rana Dasgupta about his book, "After Nations: The Making and Unmaking of a World Order," which explores the historical origins, architecture, and potential demise of the nation-state system. The conversation delves into how nation-states, which are relatively new institutions, were formed by imperial powers like France and Britain, examining the religious and financial foundations underpinning their authority, and contrasting the British trajectory following the 1688 Glorious Revolution with the more theologically charged formation of the French state. ## Detailed Analysis The analysis centers on the nation-state as a recent European invention, perfected in the 18th and 19th centuries, built upon financial power, military monopoly, and propaganda to foster a sense of mystical national community, exemplified in France by Louis IX's purchase of the Crown of Thorns to establish quasi-religious authority for the monarchy. The book argues that early liberal achievements like democracy in Britain and France were paradoxically funded by extracting resources from colonized territories, meaning internal rights were conditional on external deprivation. The British model diverged from the French due to the 1688 Glorious Revolution, which installed a state amenable to the commercial elite, prioritizing property rights over political rights, leading to a long period where the population was politically excluded because overseas accumulation, not domestic labor, drove economic growth. Today, the argument posits that America is entering an analogous 18th-century situation: as production moves overseas and AI reshapes labor, the state's interests diverge from the populace, leading to political withdrawal despite high literacy and organization capabilities among citizens, which are checked by state monopoly on violence and corporate control over information flows. Furthermore, the discussion highlights enduring critiques from religious movements, noting that radical Islamists like Sayyid Qutb reject the secular state as blasphemous idolatry, a critique echoing historical European figures like Charles Maurras who sought a return to a Catholic, theocratic state, suggesting that post-liberal political challenges often stem from religious rejection of state sovereignty. ### Nation-State Genesis and Structure - The nation-state is a modern government form finalized in the 18th/19th centuries, requiring monopoly over violence and propaganda to build nationhood - It was invented by imperial powers like France and Britain, using technological advances to generate and recycle profit. ### The French State's Religious Foundation - The French nation-state evolved through theological means, starting with Louis IX purchasing the Crown of Thorns in 1238 to grant the king quasi-divine political authority, creating allegiance of a quasi-religious nature. ### The British Liberal Exception - The 1688 Glorious Revolution established a state governed by a bourgeois capitalist elite, prioritizing property law and financial institutions over feudal kingship, leading to a state apparatus for capitalism that imposed property laws globally. ### The Paradox of Western Liberalism - Democracy and human rights in leading 19th-century states were funded by extracting wealth from the rest of the world, meaning the rights of some depended on the deprivation of others. ### Contemporary American Parallel - The US is increasingly resembling 18th-century Britain, where AI and de-industrialization mean the economy excludes many Americans, causing state interests to diverge from popular interests regarding taxes and military actions. ### Religious Critiques of Secular Sovereignty - Radical Islamists like Sayyid Qutb view the liberal state as idolatrous because it demands religious allegiance, asserting that 'no sovereignty but God's,' echoing earlier European critiques like Charles Maurras who advocated for a Catholic theocratic state.