The beast, the state and the empire

The ‘beast’ is raging all across the lands. By the ‘beast’ we mean the ‘mass,’ foot stepping the tradition of the founding fathers of the United States of America (Thomas Jefferson). To be sure, these erudite scholars were not employing the word lightly just in jest. They earnestly wanted a shorthand expression for what they perceived to be a perplexing behavior of the then undifferentiated ‘mass’! It is not for idle reasons, the phrases ‘mob justice’, ‘mob psychology’, ‘ mob rule’, ‘mob etc’ were coined. Be that as it may, why is the ‘beast’ on the rampage today?
For a start, the world of today has a whole lot of two-legged beasts on the hoof, about 7 billion of them, compared to 3.5 billion only half a century ago. Naturally, the available forage per capita has accordingly declined. Moreover, because of increased exposure, education, enlightenment, empowerment, e, e, etc that accompanied technological advancement, the beast gradually came to expect the unexpected! Today it demands, not only freedom from hunger and misery, but also substantive freedom of expression, assembly, etc. At the same time, states failed to notice the ascendance of such beastly aspirations. If recent trends are anything to go by, the beast is determined to go back to its elements, the open meadow rather than the grand parliaments; the barn instead of the state house, etc! Enclosures that are based on structures/institutions, it decries, are cramping its style. What is to be done?
To say states are in a fix is an understatement of sophistic proportions. Since the inception of the ‘interstate system’ over 350 years ago in Westphalia, the states have managed to handle and sometimes deflect various challenges directed at them. Today’s batteries of demands and claims that are put on them, both by the beast and empire, might also prove to be no different. Only time will tell! From below, the beast is bent on undermining the traditional institutions/structures (mass organizations/civil societies, parties, etc) that were laid between itself and the state to help mediate/ameliorate explosive situations. At the same time, nation-states have to grabble with the demands of global institutions/structures that mostly cater for the interests of empire. The imposition of empire has forced these nation-states to improvise and compromise the very interests of their local beasts. Some of these institutions wear velvet gloves, (UN, and other international NGO’s) while others sport boxing ones (IMF, WB, WTO, NATO, etc.).  
Between the rage of the beast and the saber rattling of empire, the state finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Frankly speaking, the state is really out of its wits. Even when collectivized, the weak states don’t punch their weight. For example, what is one to make of the Libyan situation? As we can see, the African Union’s and Arab League’s position on Libya is not necessarily the same as empire, but it seems theirs’ don’t really matter. In Libya the state has failed to serve a significant number of the beasts properly, while fattening few amongst them. But does that mean empire has the right to dismember it? (See Bennis’ article on page 50.) “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in Libya’s direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.” Tayyip Erdogan, PM of Turkey (NATO member) snubbing the overzealous ambition of France in the Libyan affair. Can a state always deliver what the beast wants?
We believe the beast is not always irrational. Some of its demands are quite rational and tangible. For a start, it doesn’t want sacred cows bestowed on it. Moreover, the exploitation of its forage by parasitic elements from within and from without is not a proposition it is going to welcome indefinitely. In other words, the beast is tired of being the ‘beast of burden.’ This to us is tangible. Recently, the beast has branded itself with: “Reclaim the state!” But we ask our characteristic stupid questions: From whom do the beasts want to take back their states and most importantly, to what end? Is it only from corrupt dictators (monarchial or otherwise) and their cronies whose shallow conception of life is exemplified by their gluttonous grabbing of the beast’s billions? Or is it only from totalitarian nationalists whose searing experience is still zeroed only on growing productive forces? Or is it only from confused developmentalists who have lost their ideological gearings? Or is it only from compradorized buffoons, always at the service of empire, stuck in the never ending game of electoral politics? (See Feffer’s take on the matter, next column.) Are the above slightly intangible? We thought so! Nonetheless, without clarity on the above, the continuous sacrifice the beast is willing to pay might all be in vain.
The ‘father of the US constitution’ in his deep and honest reflections, was ‘as good as they come,’ despite his proposed final solution to the Native American question and slavery. “Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to…the general prey of the rich on the poor.”  He was also acutely aware that injustice can only prevail for a while, without consequences, when he said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson. Good Day!