States can’t declare themselves monetary sovereigns because it involves a going back to the logic of “this NEW sovereign will solve things” and involves an assumption of power over the ppl which they didn’t have previously whereas state sovereignty solves bcuz the state is expected to die for the ppl, means they link into Townsend and causing violence—what’s important is the state, which already has that power, ceding it.

What does Bataille mean by sovereignty? How can an ultra-leftist be so passionate about a notion that is so closely associated with the power of monarchy? Bataille’s concern is not the sovereignty of nation states enshrined in international law; nor is it monarchic sovereignty: it is not the sovereign but the experience of sovereignty that fascinates him. Bataille hoped for a new sense of universal sovereignty which would reveal priestly and monarchic forms to be ‘an enormous failure . . . we can only go further, without imagining for a moment the possibility of going back’ (1991, p. 228). Nevertheless, Bataille’s position depends on a reading of monarchic power and sacred kingship, particularly in the feudal era, that departs sharply from Marxist and communist modes of understanding sovereignty and of power more generally. Sacred kingship should not be confused with the ‘divine right’ of the kings of European states; instead it refers to the tragic status of kings who are expected and required to die or be sacrificed on behalf of their people (see Girard, 1977; De Heusch, 1985; Bataille, 1986). Bataille’s arguments on the nature of sovereignty remain inimical to the liberal left and continue to be presented as ‘evidence’ of the failure of his political positions (Habermas, 1987, pp. 211–223; Nancy, 1991, pp. 16–42; Agamben, 1998, pp. 61–62, 112–114; Arppe, 2009).

It is not difficult to present what Bataille means by sovereignty in general outline. It is that which is opposed to servility, utility and subordination: ‘Life beyond utility is the domain of sovereignty’ (Bataille, 1991, p. 198). Bataille even presents an extensive list of things sovereign:

Laughter, tears, poetry, tragedy and comedy – and more generally, every art form involving tragic, comic or poetic aspects – play, anger, intoxication, ecstasy, dance, music, combat, the funereal horror, the magic of childhood, the sacred – of which sacrifice is the most intense aspect – the divine and the diabolical, eroticism (individual or not, spiritual or sensual, corrupt, cerebral or violent, or delicate) beauty (most often linked to all the forms previously enumerated and whose opposite possesses an equally an equally intense power), crime, cruelty, fear, disgust.

(Bataille, 1991, p. 230)