We know that there are several channels designed to maintain accountability among the triad of the state, capital, and nation. Two of these channels are particularly dominant: democracy and the rule of law. These principles function to balance the three components, placing the nation, often the weakest and most fragile, at the center to support it against the overwhelming power of the other two. Within this framework, the nation can be assessed both individually and class-wise. Different ideologies
We know that there are several channels designed to maintain accountability among the triad of the state, capital, and nation. Two of these channels are particularly dominant: democracy and the rule of law. These principles function to balance the three components, placing the nation, often the weakest and most fragile, at the center to support it against the overwhelming power of the other two. Within this framework, the nation can be assessed both individually and class-wise. Different ideologies find their focal points accordingly; for example, conservatives view the nation organically, liberals focus on the individual, and socialists center on class.
When the tools of democracy and the rule of law are skillfully employed, a reasonable and acceptable balance can be achieved between the realms of freedom and security. This balance can significantly relieve individuals, lower classes, and ultimately the nation. Historically, there have been periods when this balance has been successfully achieved, often highlighted in the West's list of achievements.
However, this model operates in a closed system. When it comes to relationships between states, nations, and capital on a global scale, the situation changes drastically. Balancing these three components within a nation is challenging but not impossible. Yet, on a global scale, everything tends to reverse.
The caste system is most authentically associated with India and Brahmanism. History has always operated in an unequal and hierarchical manner. There is little difference in status between Rome’s slaves, feudal serfs, and Indian pariahs. The issue is one of permeability. Slaves, for instance, could be manumitted and become free individuals. Though rare, this door was open. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire’s devshirme system allowed individuals from subordinate communities to rise to high positions if they had talent. In contrast, a pariah could never imagine such mobility. Brahmanism thus represents the harshest face of unequal human relationships. European aristocratic privileges, similarly rigid, also come close to Brahmanism, differing mainly in that aristocracy is based on bloodline rather than theological justification.
In the modern world, bourgeois dynamics through nation-building have shown a strong commitment to the principle of equality. The bourgeois notion of equality, opposed to traditional privileges, encourages permeability for individuals and, later, classes. This permeability, at least in theory, is significantly promoted in law because it plays a crucial role in capital accumulation. The assumption is that individuals, given opportunities, will enhance their effectiveness and entrepreneurial spirit, contributing to the growth of capital. While capital accumulation has been generously supported, its distribution has been much more stingy. However, prolonged struggles on the class front have led to the lower classes evolving into the middle class, creating a practice of permeability.
While this permeability, proven possible to some degree within a nation, does not find a counterpart on a global scale. The processes of capital expansion are far more ruthless than those of accumulation. While accumulation processes have been somewhat reformed through distribution dynamics, expansion processes remain unaffected. Here, certain cultural hegemonic codes play a highly functional role. Dominant powers flaunt their success to semi-central and peripheral worlds, encouraging them with a “look, we succeeded, you can too” attitude. Among those lacking in capital accumulation, countries like Japan and Russia, driven by historical delay, have paid every conceivable price to succeed, later joined by South Korea and China. Recently, countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Türkiye have made some progress. However, peculiar trends are noticeable.
The structure of football leagues helps illustrate this situation. Leagues like La Liga, Premier League, Serie A, Bundesliga, and Türkiye’s Super League feature the brightest teams. Even within these leagues, there are super teams. Championships are typically contested among these top teams, with the others acting as participants in their rivalry. For example, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Juventus, Bayern Munich, and Paris Saint-Germain are the most formidable teams. Occasionally, surprises happen, but championships usually go to one of these top teams. The remaining teams’ hopes are far-fetched, and merely staying in the league is considered a success for them. In Türkiye, Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray, and Beşiktaş dominate, with Trabzonspor and Başakşehir occasionally breaking through. However, some feel the league loses its charm when such teams win. These elite leagues reflect the G20. The G7 forms the elite within this league. The USA, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan are the Real Madrid and Barcelona of the economic league. For them, the economic league has also lost its charm as new contenders, like China, emerge. Although China produces more than most G7 countries combined, it isn’t included in the G7. Even South Korea’s inclusion is resisted. Their regret over admitting China to the WTO is evident. Thus, the G7 is becoming more like a caste, a closed group. The recent invitations to India, Venezuela, and Türkiye aim to mask this caste-like nature. In summary, the relationships between geopolitics, geoeconomics, and geoculture are in a state of upheaval.
