No Nationalism without Exclusion: On the Left’s Return to the Nation-State
by Valentina Ausserladscheider
09.04.2026
Does the nation-state offer democratic protection in an age of crisis – or does it reproduce the exclusions that helped generate those crises in the first place? In this article, economic sociologist Valentina Ausserladscheider examines why moments of economic and political dislocation repeatedly revive demands for national sovereignty – even on the left. While many contemporary left accounts portray the nation-state as the last viable site of social protection and democratic control, she argues that this move risks recoding rather than questioning the national form of the state itself. Drawing on debates in political theory, sociology, and critical political economy, the article argues that nationalism is never a neutral instrument: defining a political community always entails drawing boundaries of belonging and exclusion. At stake, then, is not only the resurgence of the far right, but a broader political convergence around nationalist frameworks of protection – but according to Ausserladscheider, there is also a democratic politics that can move beyond them.
Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation remains indispensable because it diagnosed how the collapse of liberal market society generated a widespread desire for protection. Historically, however, this demand did not produce an emancipatory response. Instead, the search for protection gave rise to nationalist spatial-political regimes. Most catastrophically through fascism and National Socialism, these regimes restored political control within bordered nation-state containers. The crucial lesson is that the crisis of liberal globalization did not simply produce “more state,” but a turn to national sovereignty through exclusion as the dominant horizon of response. That lesson matters today as the ascent of the far right openly couples social protection to chauvinism and nationalist exclusion. More surprisingly, even sections of the left increasingly flirt with the idea that democratic protection, welfare, and planning can only be recovered within nationally bounded forms. What this underestimates is that nationalism is never a neutral instrument. Once protection is framed nationally, exclusion is no longer a side effect but part and parcel of the political logic itself – an issue this blog post seeks to examine.
The Deceptive Appeal of the Nation-State
In the wake of recent developments such as increasing financial instability, ecological breakdown, geopolitical fragmentation, inflation, and the exhaustion of neoliberal globalization, a range of left and heterodox-economic accounts have renewed the case for the nation-state as the primary site of democratic agency, economic regulation, and social protection. These accounts locate both the crises and our inability to address them in the disembedding effects of globalized neoliberalism. Costas Lapavitsas, Professor of Economics at SOAS, for example, has made “the left case against the EU,” casting it as a neoliberal citadel from which nation-states must be defended through popular and national sovereignty. Another instance is Wolfgang Streeck, former Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, who – after his famous critiques of the EU´s austerity and neoliberal policy – moved toward controversial arguments about borders and immigration control as a last defense of the European welfare state. Streeck also became politically active in his support for Sahra Wagenknecht and her left-conservative, migration-critical party BSW. From this perspective, the sovereign nation-state has re-emerged as the last credible site from which market power might be restrained, political accountability restored, and planning capacities reconstituted.
This argument has real force. Transnational markets have escaped democratic control, while supranational institutions have insulated economic governance from popular contestation. The appeal of the nation-state lies not only in its familiarity, but in its concentration of fiscal, legal, territorial, and administrative power. The left return to the nation-state is therefore not simply nostalgic, but a response to a genuine institutional problem. In these accounts, the state is seen as the most capable institutions for constraining capital, organizing redistribution, and sustaining democratic solidarity – an argument that deserves serious engagement. Indeed, democratic institutions require a demos, which historically been organized within bounded political communities. Abstract cosmopolitanism, however, has thus far offered little concrete institutional approaches for redistribution, decarbonization, or decommodification.
The pitfall of this argument, however, is that it leaves the conventional understanding of the state as the nation-state intact, without adequate scrutiny. Since these approaches do not question the national framing of the state, the problem concerns not only institutional power but also the bounded and exclusionary community that such power is assumed to represent, a logic intrinsic to nationalism. Nationalism is not merely representative of a national political community; it is also a way of drawing boundaries around political membership. In that sense, there is no nationalism without exclusion. The nation-state is thus not a neutral scale of governance. It is a historically sedimented form of political belonging organized through the distinction between members and non-members. Even in its civic or universalist variants, nationalism presupposes a bounded community in whose name decisions are taken and distributive claims justified. Therefore, the nation-state remains exclusionary.
No Nationalism Without Exclusion
Among the many accounts demonstrating that nationalism is inherently exclusionary, Meghan Tinsley´s critique of patriotism is exemplary: while patriotism has been represented as a supposed counterweight to ethnocultural nationalism, Tinsley argues that patriotism itself hardens racialized distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. Thomas Jeffrey Miley likewise stresses that “nation” is bound to the legitimation of “states” – a nexus that has shown strong affinities with racism and fascism. Bhambra and Holmwood, in turn, show that the liberal welfare state cannot be understood apart from European colonial exploitation. These boundaries are not incidental; they are constitutive. To define a people is always also to define those who do not belong.
Exclusion, then, is not a deviation from nationalism but one of its basic operations. Its forms vary – juridical, racial, cultural, territorial, colonial, administrative – but it is always present. Nationalism establishes a principle of priority for those recognized as members of the nation, structuring the distribution of rights, protections, and vulnerabilities. The outsider – migrant, refugee, minority, internal stranger, geopolitical rival – is therefore central, not secondary, to national politics.
This is where the historical record matters. A critique of the left’s renewed attachment to the nation-state does not require the crude claim that all nationalism is fascist, or that every defense of sovereignty culminates in authoritarianism. The stronger claim is that nationalism has repeatedly furnished the grammar through which crises of liberal order are translated into projects of closure, hierarchy, and restoration. Fascism does not emerge mechanically from nationalism, but nationalism supplies symbolic and institutional resources that fascist and reactionary movements can radicalize.
Because of this, the left cannot assume that it can mobilize the desire for protection in national terms without reproducing the terrain on which the far right possesses decisive advantages. This may be the central error of left-national or sovereigntist currents: they treat nationalism as if it were a progressive idiom detachable from its exclusionary history. Indeed, Daphne Halikiopoulou and Tim Vlandas warn against the hype around supposedly “new” issues such as immigration and cultural grievance when these often eclipse enduring economic concerns; reclaiming the discussion on inequality would be a more promising strategy for the left than entering a contest over national belonging.
Going Beyond the Dichotomy
None of this implies a defense of globalized neoliberalism, nor does it deny the importance of state institutions in any plausible project of transformation. The historical lesson is that nationalism is not an empty vessel waiting to be filled with progressive content. It is a mode of political belonging constituted through exclusion. The answer to current crises cannot be a left politics that re-legitimates the nation as the privileged horizon of protection. Solutions cannot be limited to either national or inter-, transnational. Global challenges such as climate change demand political solutions beyond this dichotomy – both within and beyond the state.
The problem with the left’s renewed attachment to nation-state sovereignty is not that state institutions are unimportant, but that state-centred strategies alone are inadequate to crises whose causes and dynamics exceed national borders. This does not mean we can ignore the familiar critiques of transnational governance – its democratic deficits, technocratic insulation, and subordination to market imperatives. The democratic failures of transnational governance are real as Robert Dahl so convincingly explained decades ago. But the answer to those failures cannot be a retreat into the nation-state as the final horizon of politics. The crises that define the present exceed that horizon and necessitates responses on all levels. With Jürgen Habermas’s death, we have also lost one of the most important thinkers who insisted that democracy need not end at the borders of the nation-state. The question, then, is not whether we can afford to think beyond the state, but whether we can afford not to.
Valentina Ausserladscheider is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Economic Sociology at the University of Vienna. Her research focuses, among other topics, on the relationship between neoliberalism and right-wing populism.
Further Readings
- Ausserladscheider, Valentina. (2024). Far-right populism and the making of the exclusionary neoliberal state. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Ausserladscheider, Valentina. (2024) Constructing a neoliberal exclusionary state: the role of far-right populism in economic policy change in post-war Austria. Comparative European Politics 22, 128–152.