Disentangling our conceptions of state and nation

I guess it is relatively easy, especially for someone on the political left, to agree with what I say about society being primarily an ENVIRONMENT for the exploitation of, when it comes to our capitalist economy. But when it comes to the state, although it is equally true, it is much more difficult to recognise, especially for someone on the political left, who sees the state as an instrument for realizing their liberal, socialist, humanist, or whatever, ideals.

Ever since it arose, the state has clothed itself in the mantle of nationhood and demanded for itself the loyalty we evolved to feel towards our original tribe, so it's no wonder that state and nation are seen by most as being one and the same.

It is vitally important, however, that we disentangle them, first conceptually and then emotionally, thus putting ourselves in a position to tackle the difficult task of disentangling them in practice, i.e. politically.

Until we have disentangled them, at least intellectually, any discussion of "citizen ethics" is pretty much a waste of time and energy.

Distinguishing between national and state ethics

In his forward to the Guardian pamphlet, Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis, published in the Guardian, Philip Pullman makes frequent reference to the "nation" - as well he might, since it is to one's tribe and nation (the natural extension of one's tribe) that ethics, not solely, but primarily, relate, since here, after all, within and between closely related tribes, is where human nature (emotions and behaviour patterns) evolved.

Philip Pullman, however, makes the usual mistake of conflating state and nation, as if the two were synonymous. They are NOT.

In contrast to the purpose nation, which is to serve its people as justly as possible, that of the of the state is to facilitate society's self-exploitation, as a human ENVIRONMENT, to the advantage of wealth, power and privilege.

Philip Pullman, as a "successful" author, is served very well by the state in this respect, so he is perfectly happy to accept the state in place of a genuine nation. But quite different ethics apply to the two.