Is the decline of the West inevitable?

[jollytiddlywink]

actually, the patterns of the west as a civilisation are very similar to that of Rome. may i ask on what you are basing your *one-line* arguments - do you have any academic back-up?

Simple reading, observation and reasoning.

i wrote my dissertation on the concept of civilisation and the potential decline of the west - there's no need to get offensive.

So, I'll reiterate my question more simply, and step by step, since you have both misunderstood it and failed to answer it.

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it?


Rome was an empire. It conquered its lands either by battle or by threat. The entire empire was largely controlled by a body of representatives in Rome. The empire receded from the fringes, much as one would expect, over a period of time.

Foo, if somebody has misunderstood your question, as you allege, then they can hardly have also failed to answer it, so your rather rude suggestion that repeating it more simply is entirely unnecessary.
But please note that your "simple reading, observation and reasoning" aren't getting very far here. Fluffy, it seems, both understood and answered your question. Foo, you are arguing two entirely different things. 'The West' is a civilisation, as I already noted, and while it isn't ruled by one nation, neither was Rome. Rome had nothing whatsoever to do with nationality. If you want to correct your terminology and suggest that Rome had one political entity which ruled over it, then you would have a coherent point. But please note that, even in that case, 'the West',
while it lacks a single overarching political rule, is remarkably similar in format in all instances. All 'western' governments are Parliamentary democracies, elected by universal suffrage. Details of whether a constitutional monarchy, or a President, etc, are head of state are entirely minor points: the governments look remarkably similar.
So there is clearly extensive congruence in the government of 'the west'.

Foo, please also note that the Roman Empire was not ruled by a representative body, but by an Emperor. The Senate may have continued to exist, but it was almost purely window-dressing. The Roman Republic had actual rule by the Senate, but that was before the Empire. No doubt an ancient historian can be more precise than this, but these are the essential facts.




I still feel that the West is in no urgent danger of decline. The worst I can foresee is a decline relative to its current position, but not relative to any other power-grouping in the world, in the case of pandemic or global warming, which will hit everyone about equally, except that states with the best position at the start are likely to survive such things with less trouble than others, and so, while 'the West' in 2030 might be weaker than the West now, the West of 2030 will still be just as dominant over the non-West then as it is now.

[the Empress]

re: jollytiddlywink: 'in the case of pandemic or global warming, which will hit everyone about equally'. That's not actually true, especially for climate change (NB a significant long term change in expected averge weather patterns -> better term than global warming due to variable regional effects) - the effects are highly regional. For example the UK will get wetter but the drying effects in say the Sahara or Australia will have a much higher relative impact (regardless of the area's socioeconomic status). This is a good website to explore: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/

[fluffy]

Haunted: PLEASE READ PREVIOUS POSTS - no one is suggesting rome and the west are basically the same. the whole reason rome came up, as i explained earlier, was in response to foo's point that history wouldn't explain anything because the west is a unique case. THE REASON ROME CAME UP - NOT AS A SUGGESTION THAT ROME AND THE WEST ARE BASICALLY THE SAME, BUT BECAUSE IT GLOBALISED, LIKE THE WEST HAS DONE and therefore the west is not such a unique case as foo is suggesting.

[the Empress]

So I did a quick google check on fluffy’s recommended reading so we’d all be on the same page (and here's where Rome seems to fit in). . . . they seem to be interesting volumes for debate.

Toynbee ‘a study of history’ --> Toynbee and Spengler believed there were strong parallels between contemporary Europe and ancient Greco-Roman civilization. Toynbee saw the rise and fall of civilizations in spiritual terms, employing myth and metaphor as models. Civilizations arose in response to extreme challenges (physical or social), where ‘creative minorities; inspire unprecedented effort to solve society’s problems. Civilizations underwent two major phases: a "universal state" (e.g. the Roman Empire, arising from troubled times) and an "interregnum" dominated by a higher religion or "Volkerwanderung" (migration) of barbarians in a heroic age. Civilization broke down via 3 stages: : 1) creative failure by creative minority; 2) withdrawal of ruling minority allegiance by the majority; 3) the consequent loss of social unity. Effective critiques have been written, including Pieter Geyl, also Hugh Trevor-Roper; the latter's article "Arnold Toynbee's Millennium’ described Toynbee's work as a 'philosophy of mish-mash'. Personaly I’d question the relevance of a ruling creative minority to meritocracies.

Kagan ‘the end of history and the return of dreams’ --> believes in a 21st century division between autocracies and democracies, favouring confrontation over European Union approach (human rights proviso for membership) or UN (include everyone, negotiation within). However, if democracy actually contributes to economic and social strength, then Chinese and Russian economic growth is unlikely to continue long-term without it.

Koch & Smith ‘Death of the West’ --> couldn’t find it.

[munchingfoo]

Haunted: PLEASE READ PREVIOUS POSTS - no one is suggesting Rome and the west are basically the same. the whole reason Rome came up, as i explained earlier, was in response to foo's point that history wouldn't explain anything because the west is a unique case. THE REASON ROME CAME UP - NOT AS A SUGGESTION THAT ROME AND THE WEST ARE BASICALLY THE SAME, BUT BECAUSE IT GLOBALISED, LIKE THE WEST HAS DONE and therefore the west is not such a unique case as foo is suggesting.

This isn't a response to you previous comments because I'm still working on a reply to those, but on these matters:

Rome was mentioned before I posted on this thread. Unless you have a fantastic time machine, the point, "the whole reason Rome came up, as i explained earlier, was in response to foo's point that history wouldn't explain anything because the west is a unique case." is not true.

At no point have I made the comment that, "history wouldn't explain anything". I merely stated that it is silly to rely purely on historical evidence given that the West is so entirely different to anything we have seen previously. This latter point is obviously something that is up for debate, hence the longevity of this thread.

I believe LonelyPilgrim explicitly stated that the west and Rome are the same, although in many more words.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Foo - Those 'many more' words are rather important. I remember stating that ancient Rome wouldn't fit very well into the West of today. I also seem to recall referring to Rome as the West's antecedent. In simpler terms: Rome was our parent civilisation. Cultures and civilisations are not static - the US of 1800 would not qualify as a Western nation today, what with it's slave holding, property requirements for voting, and genocidal war against indigenous populations - and yet are we to conclude that in 1800 the US was not a member of Western civilisation? In 350 AD, Rome was the West. Since then, time has happened. To project our standards back onto Rome, conclude that Rome doesn't measure up, and therefore can't be a Western civilisation is to commit modernism.

Haunted - Seriously? The Law Code of Hammurabi is what you are referring to? It barely survived Hammurabi. Roman Law was in an entirely different class: it sought to be rational and just, rather than the will of a ruler. Further, Rome developed an idea of citizenship that transcended national identity and elevated the individual out of subjecthood. Admittedly it wasn't universally applied, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Have some of the concepts and institutions developed in Rome been developed elsewhere? Yes. I never claimed that Rome was unique in the world, only that these institutions in the West owe their existence to Rome. Hammurabi's Law Code has no bearing on Black's Law Dictionary.

More generally - Rome was an empire because a core territory exercised political power over a periphery, not because it had an emperor. The Republic was as imperial as the Empire. Even under the Empire, the emperor was not all-powerful like an eastern despot. The Senate still existed and exercised considerable power - the emperor couldn't be everywhere at once, and provinces were designated as Imperial or Senatorial: generally speaking the emperor only held absolute power in border provinces, the interior was administered by the Senate.

---------

I suppose I should address the original question: Throw Huntington away, events have overcome his theory. He is far too optimistic. Western civilisation is in decline - at least relatively, possibly absolutely - but it doesn't matter. The international system, based upon state sovereignty, which has protected the world from the worst excesses of anarchy for the last 360 years is collapsing under the twin assaults of pre-emptive war and humanitarian intervention. Whether it is replaced by a system as robust or whether the result is chaos and the breakdown of international law remains to be seen. What I'm certain of is that we are living in a time of fundamental transition in the way states relate to each other and to international institutions such as the UN or the IMF and World Bank and trying to judge who will come out top, if anyone, is virtually impossible while the old system is still in the process of collapse. The West might weather changes better... but then again the modifications made to the old system post-1945 were designed to the West's extreme benefit, and if those supports are stripped away and you get international financial system reform into something more just, for example, the West might not be adaptive enough to avoid serious economic issues that make the current recession look like a mild overcast day. Time will tell.

[Anon.]

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it?

The USA, in 1944/45 - in some cases directly, as with Japan and mainland Europe, and in some cases indirectly by economic dependence, as with Britain. And though there's no actual ruling body, no country in "the West" is seriously going to disregard what America says.

[theshadowhost]

this video proves that the decline of the west is inevitable.

[munchingfoo]

Which nation conquered "the west" and has a ruling body over it?

The USA, in 1944/45 - in some cases directly, as with Japan and mainland Europe, and in some cases indirectly by economic dependence, as with Britain. And though there's no actual ruling body, no country in "the West" is seriously going to disregard what America says.

Are not Canada and Australia in the West? East Germany? Could not we argue that microelectronics and computer gaming is a product of Japan, and not America? Where would a large slice of current western civilisation be if Japan stopped exporting goods and services tomorrow?

I suppose the major western countries that told America and Britain they were wrong for attacking Iraq in 2003 and refused to give any military support for the action are just a slight anomaly in your point? If someone can successfully convince me that America controls the west in a similar way to the way in which Rome controlled the Roman empire then I'd change my point of view.

When America initiated the lend lease act with Britain, was there a caveat about Britain buying 6 million copies of each new friends series as they came out to indoctrinate the British public into American culture?

The decline of Roman civilisation was directly related to the decline of the Roman Empire. This is why it might seem in my previous posts I was confusing the two terms.

In order to use Rome as an example of why the west will inevitably now fall I feel that we need the same correlation between nations and culture. If I am convinced that America is similar to the ruling power of Rome, then certainly I'd feel that the decline of America would result in the decline of the west. I don't think I'll easily be convinced that the west has a leader. The above video certainly demonstrates the decline of America so if we can also make the nation/culture link then you'd be home free.

I believe the west to be unique amongst cultures in this sense. It is the first, to my knowledge (any more examples I can look into, or an explanation that Rome was infact also a leaderless entity?), example of a globalised culture that has not proliferated by war and assimilation and does not have a cohesive central power.

The trouble with central powers is that, when they decline the rest declines with it.

[the Empress]

you could probably find a couple of models for western decline if you looked at historical trade relations between nations rather than single conceptual entities such as an empire (I'd look, but I'm supposed to be working).

[Delts]

Easy answer, no.

Since no one here is a soothsayer as far as I know then none of you can know if anything is inevitable, other than death.

[jollytiddlywink]

Foo - Those 'many more' words are rather important. I remember stating that ancient Rome wouldn't fit very well into the West of today. I also seem to recall referring to Rome as the West's antecedent.
......
---------

I suppose I should address the original question: Throw Huntington away, events have overcome his theory. He is far too optimistic. Western civilisation is in decline - at least relatively, possibly absolutely - but it doesn't matter. The international system, based upon state sovereignty, which has protected the world from the worst excesses of anarchy for the last 360 years is collapsing under the twin assaults of pre-emptive war and humanitarian intervention. Whether it is replaced by a system as robust or whether the result is chaos and the breakdown of international law remains to be seen. What I'm certain of is that we are living in a time of fundamental transition in the way states relate to each other and to international institutions such as the UN or the IMF and World Bank and trying to judge who will come out top, if anyone, is virtually impossible while the old system is still in the process of collapse. The West might weather changes better... but then again the modifications made to the old system post-1945 were designed to the West's extreme benefit, and if those supports are stripped away and you get international financial system reform into something more just, for example, the West might not be adaptive enough to avoid serious economic issues that make the current recession look like a mild overcast day. Time will tell.

Yes, you did refer to Rome as the "direct antecedent" of the West, but you also said, in the same post, "Rome is the West," which it most emphatically is not.

Do you really think that the international system of state sovereignty has protected the world against any excesses of anarchy, let alone the worst of them? I know that strictly speaking, anarchy is simply the lack of central government, but please explain to me how the 60+ million dead from genocide in the 20th century,* not to mention the roughly 85 million killed directly by WWI and WWII, fit into your idea that states are anything other than extremely violent. Indeed, the central theme of modern scholarship on the Holocaust, and indeed other episodes of genocide, like that in Armenia during WWI, is that such genocidal violence is inextricably bound up with the modern state, and could not occur outwith a modern state. Needless to say, total wars can't be waged by anything other than states. So I think that suggesting that the state system has managed to spare anyone the worst excesses of anything is deeply problematic.

And why do you think the West is in decline? This may no longer be 1899, when a British force at Omdurman could kill 10,000 Ansar and take 5,000 prisoners while losing not even 50 men killed, but the results will be similar if any Western force today takes on a non-Western force. Even first-rank Western powers taking on second-rank 'westernised' powers produce similar results: the conventional phases of Gulf War I and II are good examples.
I cannot claim to be an economist (thankfully :-), but from what I can gather, while other economic powerhouses (like China) are rising, but I can't see this being a serious threat to the West for 50 years or so... after all, Britain had begun a relative economic decline by roughly 1900, but Britain, while no longer a Power of the first rank, has hardly sunk into oblivion on the world scene. And there is plenty of 'the West' that would have to decline. North America, Australia, Japan, not to mention virtually the entirety of Europe... this might not add up to quite a billion people, but the technological and economic lead, not to mention strong military superiority, the West has over China makes population distinctly secondary.

And to address Haunted, who suggested that the United States succeeded in conquering the West in 1944/45, I would like to point out that you are wrong. The most that the US achieved, along with considerable support from British, Commonwealth, Free European forces, and others, was to prevent western Europe from being over-run by the Red Army. If anyone conquered and imposed themselves on large swathes of territory, it was the USSR, which is not part of the west. That isn't to say that the West didn't survive, or was diminished (swapping Nazi dominion for Soviet dominion left the West relatively strengthened), but I take issue with the idea that the US 'conquered' the West. THe most that could be said is that it succeeded in making itself primus inter pares.


*(Mann, Michael. ‘The Dark Side of Democracy. The Modern Definition of Ethnic and Political Cleansing.’ The New Left Review)

[LonelyPilgrim]

Do you really think that the international system of state sovereignty has protected the world against any excesses of anarchy, let alone the worst of them? I know that strictly speaking, anarchy is simply the lack of central government, but please explain to me how the 60+ million dead from genocide in the 20th century,* not to mention the roughly 85 million killed directly by WWI and WWII, fit into your idea that states are anything other than extremely violent. Indeed, the central theme of modern scholarship on the Holocaust, and indeed other episodes of genocide, like that in Armenia during WWI, is that such genocidal violence is inextricably bound up with the modern state, and could not occur outwith a modern state. Needless to say, total wars can't be waged by anything other than states. So I think that suggesting that the state system has managed to spare anyone the worst excesses of anything is deeply problematic.

Our international system was designed to safeguard against a particular type of threat - empire. Specifically it was designed to break the political power of the Church and bring about an end to religious wars within Christian Europe. It has succeeded admirably in that regard. But the system was designed in a 17th and 18th century legal and social climate and you are absolutely right: the system is failing. The refinements made after the Napoleonic Wars kept the general peace for a century. The refinements made after WWI kept the peace for a mere 20 years. The refinements after WWII created an environment where interstate war became rare (also thanks to nuclear weapons), but when combined with decolonisation, gave rise to civil wars and genocide on a scale previously un-seen. The system does not work because its fundamentals were crafted during very different times that could not have foreseen the capabilities of the modern state or decolonisation or the destructiveness of modern weaponry.

If you thought I was lamenting the collapse of a system that makes it impossible for most developing countries to develop over time, and which therefore fuels a cycle of violence and genocide, you misunderstood me. The new ethos of humanitarianism is undermining the old idea of absolute state sovereignty and is putting pre-requisites on states' right to non-interference. And the movement is gaining serious momentum. And guess what? I work in the field. I'm chief operating officer for an international relief agency, which means I'm one of the people trying to dismantle the old system and replace it with one that is more nuanced and more responsive to human rights and human development.

And I think the West is in relative decline because it has to be. The economic prosperity of the West has been maintained since 1946 and especially since the reforms following the Mexican Debt Crisis on the systematic exploitation and manipulation of the developing world. The only non-western countries which have managed to prosper have been those that have been fortunate enough to have had sufficient stability and foresight to diversify their economies and escape from relying on raw materials production. Even so, they are on shaky ground.

Before any sort of progress in human security can be made in large tracts of the world, the whole international financial system has to be made less preferential to the US and Europe - the international currency market needs to be re-regulated above all else, but development loans from the IMF and World Bank also need to come with less demands for central planning in the recipient economies (and they are starting to, finally). Given a more equal playing field, the West can't help but see standards of living fall - but they won't fall as dramatically as continuing down the current path would see. If we keep doing what we have been doing, we will drive an increasing percentage of the developing world into emulations of Somalia or the DRC, interrupting our resource supply and driving up world commodity prices, with all the corresponding economic fall-out. It's time for economic decolonisation and we can take the British example from political decolonisation and we can manage our decline, and come out doing okay... or we can follow the other European powers' examples and try to deny the inevitable and bankrupt ourselves, trashing our economies in the process.

Either way, it means Western decline - but we will maintain a military and technological edge for the next several decades. That said, political and moral will and social cohesion are more important, and if we take the hard way out, we will probably see hard times in that regard which won't let us leverage our military and technological advantages like we could. Look at how quickly political and social troubles in the former USSR led to the collapse of the old Soviet military might. We aren't immune here to the same sort of thing, and it needn't be anywhere nearly as severe to cause a dramatic dilapidation in our war-fighting capabilities. Don't get taken in by our appearance of strength: Rome was still pretty when Alaric was at the gates. The Sultan still had a magnificent harem when Ataturk came along. You have to look deeper to see the internal rot.

If I had to guess, I'd say the future belongs to India and Brazil. :-)

[ragamuffinartist]

this video proves that the decline of the west is inevitable.

When I have a free half hour to read all these posts and respond more intelligently, I will. But for now, I'd definitely like to take a brief moment to counter Theshadowhost with an argument of my own to suggest that the West is perhaps at its apex. Or, if not, then at least provide a reason to be happy to be a part of the West:



(sorry, not sure how to actually embed a video)

Mod edit: you just put the video ID (-yPjv9211XY) between the [youtube] tags.

[the Empress]

Do you really think that the international system of state sovereignty has protected the world against any excesses of anarchy, let alone the worst of them? I know that strictly speaking, anarchy is simply the lack of central government, but please explain to me how the 60+ million dead from genocide in the 20th century,* not to mention the roughly 85 million killed directly by WWI and WWII, fit into your idea that states are anything other than extremely violent. Indeed, the central theme of modern scholarship on the Holocaust, and indeed other episodes of genocide, like that in Armenia during WWI, is that such genocidal violence is inextricably bound up with the modern state, and could not occur outwith a modern state. Needless to say, total wars can't be waged by anything other than states. So I think that suggesting that the state system has managed to spare anyone the worst excesses of anything is deeply problematic.

So, you're suggesting that genocide cannot occur outwith the modern state (I'm assuming you're classing this as what, post-sixteenth century?) or that you cannot have a modern state without a genocidal event? Unlikely. You've taken two events - WWI & WWI - and extrapolated that 'the state system has [not] managed to spare anyone the worst excesses of anything.' Neatly excluding improvements in education, health and welfare within those states . . . more importantly, what is the non-state alternative for comparison?

Besides, given the dispute over what is or is not genocide, I'm curious about these claims -> should there be an intention for genocide or is it an accidental outcome -->examples of mass population failure due to partially to poor relief systems/misguided decision making are the Great Irish famine and the famines of late nineteenth century India. There was no intention for this outcome, but the humanitarian burden was huge, complex and misunderstood. But these have been variously called genocide and holocausts. Debateable.

If the 'west' is entering into a humanitarian phase, in which aid is coupled with a level playing field (international trade and monetary agreements), then these nations cannot be in decline, because we're no longer measuring success in monetary terms, but in moral terms.

[Ragamuffin_artist]

This post has become rather large. Having skimmed to get the gist of it all, I just have a few points/questions. Though perhaps unnecessary, I should preface this by saying IR is comparatively unfamiliar territory for me (I'm History of Art all the way):

As far as Rome being a parallel to the West, there are definitely some similarities. I think one significant difference is that Rome was not even remotely globalized to the extent that the West is. It merely encompassed the Mediterranean. Consequentially, I'm not sure if cataclysmic events in other civilizations would have have even a tiny ripple effect in the Roman empire at its hight. Just a thought.

On a somewhat related note, someone above mentioned that theoretically Japan could hold some significant clout if it were to suddenly stop exporting technology to the West [or the rest of the West, to be precise]. This is true, but that would obviously have a suicidal effect on Japans economy. The effect of the economic crisis on the Chinese economy (people are saving their money rather than buying stuff, which in turn has effected Chinese exports) seems to suggest that all civilizations are tangled together in a web of interdependence (particularly when oil is thrown into the mix). I simply bring this up to suggest that perhaps this interdependence is something of a deterrent to a single nation acting entirely unilaterally, and perhaps help maintain some sort of equilibrium.

I also wonder if rapid communication and the Internet will have some sort of effect in bringing about a culture where “East” and “West” are essentially meaningless terms. Perhaps the “decline” of the West might look nothing even infinitesimally like the fall of Rome, but it would simply evolve into a larger global culture. As an American writing this from Lansing, Michigan, I would suggest my current addiction to Britain's got Talent (admittedly largely...no...mostly due to Julia Naidenko), which I watch on my Toshiba laptop whilst drinking a Budweiser (now European owned) which I purchased by driving to a store using fuel imported from some country like Saudi Arabia, is a small example of this.

[Haunted]

And to address Haunted, who suggested that the United States succeeded in conquering the West in 1944/45

Come again?

[jollytiddlywink]

And to address Haunted, who suggested that the United States succeeded in conquering the West in 1944/45

Come again?

I beg your pardon... I was addressing 'anon.' I'm afraid I can't always remember the arguments AND who made them! Sorry for falsely attaching your name to something you didn't say.

[jollytiddlywink]

Do you really think that the international system of state sovereignty has protected the world against any excesses of anarchy, let alone the worst of them? I know that strictly speaking, anarchy is simply the lack of central government, but please explain to me how the 60+ million dead from genocide in the 20th century,* not to mention the roughly 85 million killed directly by WWI and WWII, fit into your idea that states are anything other than extremely violent. Indeed, the central theme of modern scholarship on the Holocaust, and indeed other episodes of genocide, like that in Armenia during WWI, is that such genocidal violence is inextricably bound up with the modern state, and could not occur outwith a modern state. Needless to say, total wars can't be waged by anything other than states. So I think that suggesting that the state system has managed to spare anyone the worst excesses of anything is deeply problematic.

So, you're suggesting that genocide cannot occur outwith the modern state (I'm assuming you're classing this as what, post-sixteenth century?) or that you cannot have a modern state without a genocidal event? Unlikely. You've taken two events - WWI & WWI - and extrapolated that 'the state system has [not] managed to spare anyone the worst excesses of anything.' Neatly excluding improvements in education, health and welfare within those states . . . more importantly, what is the non-state alternative for comparison?

Besides, given the dispute over what is or is not genocide, I'm curious about these claims -> should there be an intention for genocide or is it an accidental outcome -->examples of mass population failure due to partially to poor relief systems/misguided decision making are the Great Irish famine and the famines of late nineteenth century India. There was no intention for this outcome, but the humanitarian burden was huge, complex and misunderstood. But these have been variously called genocide and holocausts. Debateable.

If the 'west' is entering into a humanitarian phase, in which aid is coupled with a level playing field (international trade and monetary agreements), then these nations cannot be in decline, because we're no longer measuring success in monetary terms, but in moral terms.

I will define my terms. The 'modern state' is post-1789, or even post-1900.
Genocide is a slippery term, but I would not include non-intentional mass-deaths from famine. Genocide is the deliberate attempt to kill the entirety of a group of people, ethnically, religiously or racially defined.

Where did I say that a modern state cannot exist without genocide? I did say that genocide is inextricably linked with the modern state, but that doesn't imply that the reverse is also true. Dismissing the First and Second World Wars as "two events" is needlessly flippant, and I have not 'extrapolated' from these events alone, I merely provided them as two of the most obvious and most well-known examples. I could provide literally dozens of others. The most cursory examination of these wars will make it clear that they would have been impossible without states to cause them and wage them. If you want the "non-state alternative for comparison," I will ask you if you can provide any example from the entirety of human history when a non-state has trained, armed, fed, organised and supplied several million men for four or five years at a time, and directed their energies to killing as many as possible of an opposing force. Which non-states can direct all of the industry and labour in any given territory to produce specific products? Which non-states can afford to buy destroyers or wings of Spitfires, let alone a fleet of dreadnoughts or an armoured division?

Please note that I didn't suggest that states haven't done anyone any good. A cursory look at social history will indicate that improvements have been made in health, education, welfare provision, and so on, as you point out. But these benefits are just part of the state legacy: wars and genocide are the flip-side of the coin. States can both educate and care for populations, and kill millions. My point, that states have not succeeded in sparing anyone such violence excesses, stands.

I, personally, am not suggesting that genocide cannot occur outwith a modern state (although I do agree with this view). I am stating the prevailing view (the overwhelmingly prevailing view) in the modern historiography of genocide and the Holocaust. Zygmunt Bauman has written more than one book on the subject, and plenty of other scholars have developed similar themes: that the Holocaust and other genocides, far from being something 'non-modern' or somehow atypical of ideas of nationalism, patriotism, rationality and democracy, are the Janus-faced flip-side of these things we all so commonly assume to be totally good. They are also explicitly clear that genocide is not conceivable except under the auspices of a state organisation. This is not to deny that violence can and does occur in areas with weak/failed states, but the Holocaust, for example, cannot be imagined without a state to coordinate it.

[the Empress]

OK, working through your posts, these are my main issues. The idea that the modern state is inextricably linked with genocide (NB this to me implies that if you have one you're going to have the other--> intextricable: impossible to disentangle- but for clarity, I'm going to assume a correlation) and total war comes down to a question of scale and not intent. Previously, there simply weren't millions of people and the techological capacity to do so. But the driving issues behind genocide - territory and race - they're still there in historical conflicts. So, given a state and a non-state with the same technology and the same population, would they act differently? I mean, I can see where you're coming from. A strong state provides the infrastructure for an efficient extermination, but . . . I'm not convinved that there's necessarily any causation, just because it's a state.

If you consider that people with disabilities and gay men were also killed in the Holocaust - that wasn't the first systematic attempt, there's a history of persecution and execution there. When you think of the missing women in some countries today, due to the preferential abortion of female children, that's a cultural rather than a state issue . . .

Also, I'm not clear on what a non-state is. If a state is territory occupied by a nation, then that's an almost all-encompassing group. Is a non-state nomadism? As a basis of comparison, non-state and states seem to be a very uneven grouping. Arguably genocides are often associated with historic conflicts that exist within a newly forming state (this would apply to modern states forming post-colonialism). But, I'm not an expert, so if you have research proving otherwise, OK.