News The future - A question of opinion

[ramollari]

There are claims that we hear everyday that with the free trade, globalization, and the spread of liberal values, the borders between the nations are gradually disappearing and the concept of a nation will gradually vanish, that the world will eventually become a global village speaking one language.
What is your thought, is this true? Or are people becoming more and more conscious of their national identity?

 

[russ_watters]

It is certainly true and the emergence of the EU is the clearest evidence of it. I had a course in college called "nations and nationalism" and the era of nationalism mostly ended with WWII. It sort of re-emerged with the fall of the USSR, but really, that was a response to Soviet oppression and the anarchy that followed its dissipation. Europe is now coalescing fairly rapidly.

Now, as far as ever becomming a nationless world (it'll probably happen, but it may take a few more centuries to eradicate despotism), speaking a single language - I'm not sure about the nationless world, but the world already speaks one language for international business: English.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't think it'll happen. The EU is actual clear evidence that it won't happen on a large scale. When it comes down to it, your eventually being told that you, as a nation, no longer matter and that you must hand over all decision making to a higher authority that you hold a decreasingly smaller say in. There are many incidents where nations of the EU have serious problems against some of the rules and regulations brought about by joining it. This problem would also become hugely more apparent once you leave Europe. The idea of Russia joining hte EU poses problems because there's huge differences in the countries that just don't create hte environment for a homogeneous culture. Now think of what might happen when you tried to bring in the middle east. The only real reason the EU has been able to do it is because of their common... i dunno... killing of a few million of each other every few generations... and anti-religious ideals. Putting 2 people together, one whos atheist, one whos religious can itself obviously bring huge troubles as we've all experienced in our lives. God (or not lol) knows what would happen if you tried to actually turn 2 nations, one highly religious, one anti-religion, into 1 single entity. Centuries may very well give way to millennia of trying.

To get it to work, the rules would have to be far more lax then they are in the EU and you'd have to inevitably go away from "one nation" and give people some autonomy and soverignty in order for it to work. I think the EU is just a fluke. You got a bunch of countries with cultures that readily give into authority. Plus you got a lot of nations that are just ruined by dictatorships. They'll see how the "international community" has ignored them and let dictators kill em by the millions. I really doubt after that, they would be ready and willing to sign up for the cause.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Pengwuino, do you actually know anything about the EU, the way it works, what it does...?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, don't you? You haven't seen the rules brought down on a few countries that they couldn't cope with? And what about Russias objections to a lot of the EU rules. For the global village, you'd need the EU + a whole lot more rules (thats mainly what i was pointing out) in order to create a "one nation" world. The EU is an example of hte idea with far less rules yet still some people can't cope with em. Expand it to the whole world and you'd need more rules to deal with the diversity of the entire world which, if we look at current peoples reactions to the current rules in place, won't be taken very easily if at all.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

First off, pengwuino, every nation in the EU has the ability to vote on, lobby against, opt out and even veto entirely rules that would comprimise them. It is usually here that any bad blood occurs, not afterwards. But yes, from time to time a country gets the short straw, but luckily for them they have a diplomatic platform upon which they can make their case, on top of which they have democratically elected representatives to lobby for or against those laws which benefit or comprimise them, on top of which they have the freedom to hold referenda to decide if and how they act in accord, on top of which every nation has the privilege of throwing in the towel (and yet they don't...). The picture you paint is of some unaccountable entity oppressing the people who have no say whatsoever. The opposite is true. There's lots of trial and error, but at the end of the day it is the same people who make their own national laws that make or accept european ones. I can only think it is the limited voice you have in your own country that leads you to assume other countries are entirely unable to practise their politics in such a way that they can balance their own interests with those of others, and that when somebody loses out the rest would turn a blind eye. The EU's success at supporting the economic and political interests of its existing member states and simultaneously expanding to include and cater for new members who seem all too eager to join this failure of a system you mention (TEN new members) is no mean feat, and you are entirely ignorant to somehow deem it as an example of failure. You come across as a xenophobe. Maybe that's why you can't conceive of a place where cultural and religious diversity does not conflict with progress.

As for the middle east, let's see what happens when Turkey join up. You seem to have decided that the whole system's going to pack up. But then this is no doubt the same logic that made you decide the origins of the EU lie in member states 'killing each other' and holding 'anti-religious' views.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ouch did i touch a nerve? What you obviously fail to even comprehend based on your pre-biased notion towards hte situation is that my posts have been based on the expansion of a "global community" outwards of Europe. As you obviously know, nations have been rejected for EU membership and some even refused to join. The problem with the EU is that its not nearly a "global community" as mainly, only economic interests are all "on the same page" (and even that's not true). How you misconstrue this to be deemed as a "failure" is entirely beyond me, i sense you simply had a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't agree with and must result to insults to make yourself feel better. You are entirely ignorant of the whole situation this thread has possesed and obviously know nothinga bout the US (as most Europeans seemingly dont); we are not on call to our government and our government does not tell us how much we can make, what we can and can not have, what news we hear, etc etc.

You obviously show yoru own ignorance to world cultures. You can simply look a few thousand miles south i assume and you can see where religious diversity conflicts with progress. You also seem to be ignorant of the EU's internal dissent amongst some people of most nations. And you must admit, the EU was formed out of pretty much the idea that they wanted to stop killing each other off. Look at the attempts from up to a hundred years before, all to stop bloodshed. And according to most other European citizens i speak to, Europe is fairly anti-religion. Again, i must point you to the actual topic of this thread and not your silly bias and political ideology. We're talking about a one nation world. The EU is by no means, 1 nation as they have a sizeable army in their nation-states yet have access to less then 100,000 men, all of which don't have to go if they don't want to. They also don't have a common currency either; far, far from the ideal of a true 1 nation-world. So please place your bias and ignorance aside and return to the actual subject at hand.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

"The problem with the EU is that its not nearly a "global community" "
- No, nor was it set up to be, which makes your inclusion, and then debunking, of it as an example in this thread bizarre to say the least.

"How you misconstrue this to be deemed as a "failure" is entirely beyond me"
- Well, your citation of it as a reason why a global community won't work for one thing; your explanation that the EU only hangs together due to "killing each other" and "anti-religious views" another; your doomsaying about what will happen when it opens up to more diverse cultures a third. In fact, you had nothing positive to say about the EU at all... it sounded despotic and on the verge of collapse by your analysis.

"and obviously know nothinga bout the US (as most Europeans seemingly dont)"
- When did I say anything about the US? You see, unlike you, I am not going to start damning an institution on issues I know nothing about. I think the US is safe from me. When you start stating facts about Europe and the EU, rather than venting some xenophobic, religion-fulled theories you dreamed up, then complain I know nothing about the US.

"You can simply look a few thousand miles south i assume and you can see where religious diversity conflicts with progress"
- You certainly can, and no-one is going to debate that, but we were talking about the EU, not the world in general. I want evidence of this inability to respect diversity within the EU that's going to somehow balls up the whole thing.

"the EU was formed out of pretty much the idea that they wanted to stop killing each other off"
- While the post-WWII climate made it highly desirable to conceive of a diplomatic platform upon which nations could help one another, the origins of the EU itself actually lie in steel and coal trade. It had little, well - nothing - to do with politics or even trade as a whole. As it grew in success, more countries wanted in and at the same time it made sense to include more aspects of trade, economy and eventually politics as a whole. A more important consequence of the war was that those nations that had been fighting the good fight from pretty much the start were so incredibly bankrupt. It was want for peace, not war, and need for financial consolidation that led to the EU. Religion certainly had nothing to do with it. The entire raison d'etre of the EU seems to have escaped you.

"You also seem to be ignorant of the EU's internal dissent amongst some people of most nations"
- This might go over your head a bit, but... here dissent is believed to be A GOOD THING! We don't much like the idea of not being able to voice our concerns. Yes, it can get pretty scrappy, but that's good. The more dissent, the better. It's like a relationship... the arguments can be pretty heated but the make-up shag makes it all worthwhile.

And yes, you touched a nerve. Laying into an institution you know nothing about with absolutely balls theories you just made up is liable to upset people. Stick to what you know.

 

[Pengwuino]

"The problem with the EU is that its not nearly a "global community" "
- No, nor was it set up to be, which makes your inclusion, and then debunking, of it as an example in this thread bizarre to say the least.

Russ was the first one to bring the EU as an example, i was simply building upon it, which I think you completely missed which is causing the big problem here.

"How you misconstrue this to be deemed as a "failure" is entirely beyond me"
- Well, your citation of it as a reason why a global community won't work for one thing; your explanation that the EU only hangs together due to "killing each other" and "anti-religious views" another; your doomsaying about what will happen when it opens up to more diverse cultures a third. In fact, you had nothing positive to say about the EU at all... it sounded despotic and on the verge of collapse by your analysis.

I said it was built because they were killing each other off. Look at the 100+ year history of a "unified Europe" and you'll see why I say that. You are again going way over the line and seemingly basing your argument off passionate rhetoric instead of the facts of this argument. I never said the EU was a failure. I said a global community based off an expansion of the EU's principles was going to inevitably be a failure for the reasons i cited. The EU right now might flourish or crash or whatever for all I know. But the one thing that is far more obvious is that if you try to expand the EU and its ways outside of Europe, your going to run into seemingly insurmountable problems.

"and obviously know nothinga bout the US (as most Europeans seemingly dont)"
- When did I say anything about the US? You see, unlike you, I am not going to start damning an institution on issues I know nothing about. I think the US is safe from me. When you start stating facts about Europe and the EU, rather than venting some xenophobic, religion-fulled theories you dreamed up, then complain I know nothing about the US.

I can only think it is the limited voice you have in your own country that leads you to assume other countries are entirely unable to practise their politics in such a way that they can balance their own interests with those of others - Yes you did say something about the US that is completely fabricated, thank you very much. And it is not some theory you dream up kiddo, if you've ever left your house, you'd realize there are a rather large number of religions in the world and religions can hold a great deal of importance in someones life. Hell in the US, a large group of people hold religious associated or belief in god thereof in high priority (pro and con) when choosing who runs their cities or states or, to a point, their country. And we're not even close to the biggest case of this. Sure it seems illogical that a country would not want to join because of religious regions but damn if that's not going to turn out to be a case when you try to spread the concept to the middle east or africa or south america.

"You can simply look a few thousand miles south i assume and you can see where religious diversity conflicts with progress"
- You certainly can, and no-one is going to debate that, but we were talking about the EU, not the world in general. I want evidence of this inability to respect diversity within the EU that's going to somehow balls up the whole thing.

See, this is where we're going off topic. I've been trying to expand this argument to the whole world like the thread topic asked and your just trying to contract the world down to Europe as if Europe is all the world is composed of.

"the EU was formed out of pretty much the idea that they wanted to stop killing each other off"
- While the post-WWII climate made it highly desirable to conceive of a diplomatic platform upon which nations could help one another, the origins of the EU itself actually lie in steel and coal trade. It had little, well - nothing - to do with politics or even trade as a whole. As it grew in success, more countries wanted in and at the same time it made sense to include more aspects of trade, economy and eventually politics as a whole. A more important consequence of the war was that those nations that had been fighting the good fight from pretty much the start were so incredibly bankrupt. It was want for peace, not war, and need for financial consolidation that led to the EU. Religion certainly had nothing to do with it. The entire raison d'etre of the EU seems to have escaped you.

The attempts at the EU before WW2 pretty much lay in the reason i brought forth. There were other attempts to unify europe before WW2 you know .

"You also seem to be ignorant of the EU's internal dissent amongst some people of most nations"
- This might go over your head a bit, but... here dissent is believed to be A GOOD THING! We don't much like the idea of not being able to voice our concerns. Yes, it can get pretty scrappy, but that's good. The more dissent, the better. It's like a relationship... the arguments can be pretty heated but the make-up shag makes it all worthwhile.

Oh that sure as hell isn't going to work on a global scale. Look at the Soviet Union, dissent lead to the breaking up of the union. Dissent is relatively safe in democratic, de-centralized governments. A "global village" on the other hand, would be democratic (we hope), centralized government. I say it has to be this because a de-centralized government kind of negates the idea of the world being a "village". Maybe you could make a global federation? Why bother, it already exists today, the UN overseeing loosely its 190 or so nations all having almost absolutely soveirgn control over itself. Therefor, a truly global village would have to be centralized which would leave itself vulnerable to dissent getting out of control. Your bringing the whole world together, a world that has had way too much violence for everyoen to just come together and forget the past. It may be easy for countries like france and germany as their close proximity through the centuries has lead to a kind of ... i dunno, brotherhood maybe, not sure what the word would be. But in other cases where wars were fought against enemies from far away... thered be no reason to forget about the past.

Plus of cousre we just have the overall greed inherint to human beings. That'll toss any process around for a ride for sure.

And yes, you touched a nerve. Laying into an institution you know nothing about with absolutely balls theories you just made up is liable to upset people. Stick to what you know.

Im sorry that you had such a knee-jerk reaction when you misread my post. Remember, you attempted to do the same in return and showed your obvious blind love for the idea of teh EU that it ruins your logical thought process for expanding it to the rest of the world. That, or you just don't understand what the topic is about.

 

[loseyourname]

A global community is still fairly inconceivable to me. The cultural divide between different groups of people is far too powerful, even now. The EU is evidence that peoples with a history of western liberal ideals and culture can come together out of common economic interest. That isn't entirely too surprising. As Russ said, nationalism grew largely as a response to colonialism (except in Europe, where it grew in opposition to dynasticism), which no longer exists for the most part. National identities are not as strong as they were in their heyday, but that doesn't mean that the average person on this planet identifies himself as 'human' first. 'European,' 'Christian,' 'Muslim,' 'Japanese,' 'Latin American,' are still far stronger identities. The idea of the entire world westernizing and becoming a global community has been weakened by examples of cultures and nations that have modernized without westernizing. It is tempting to think that, out of economic self-interest, the world at large will eventually embrace capitalism fully, which seems to presuppose certain western ideals of individualism and libertarianism. In practice, however, it doesn't seem to work that way. I wonder sometimes if the only thing that can ever unite the entire human species would be a threat from an extraterrestrial species. Humans have always defined themselves, at least in part, negatively, in opposition to those who are not part of the in-group. Perhaps a non-human group to stand in contrast to humanity could at least provide the psychology possibility of unification. Beats me; I probably just watched too much Star Trek growing up.

 

[Pengwuino]

I wonder how the human race would react in case of alien invasion...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Except for a major war or catastrophe happening before then I think it is inevitable. Perhaps a major war or catastrophe would even speed the process up depending. More and more people are becoming less and less concerned with their racial and religious identities. They seem very close to getting past their differances and there are quite a few organizations trying to help that along.
I really don't understand why so many people think the world is going to hell in a hand basket when really it seems everything is getting better. Every generation has had someone playing chicken little. It's nothing new and they aren't special.

 

[fourier jr]

There are claims that we hear everyday that with the free trade, globalization, and the spread of liberal values, the borders between the nations are gradually disappearing and the concept of a nation will gradually vanish, that the world will eventually become a global village speaking one language.
What is your thought, is this true? Or are people becoming more and more conscious of their national identity?

being Canadian & living next door to the most powerful & aggressive nation the world has seen since the 1930s, & a country whose economy is almost totally dominated by non-residents i would say that people (here, anyway) are becoming very much more conscious of their identity (esp. since 9/11/01). i would say that with the dominoes falling all over the hemisphere (cuba, venezuela, argentina, uruguay, now ecuador & soon mexico) people down there are rejecting what people call globalization (more specifically a form of economic integration) & becoming more aware of their identities.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think the fact that people still conduct genocides over religion or ethnicity shows that we are by no means nearing globalization but I must stress as someone earlier went way overboard because he missed the idea that just because globalization is looking unrealistic doesn't mean the world as a whole is going to go down the toilet. The two are completely unrelated and by no means does 1's success have to do with the others success.

What i woudl like to know is how ( or if) mass communication has had on nationalism and globalization. Do we know or have we seen trends of telecommunication bringing nationalism out of people or are we seeing trends of it bringing people to join up into other nations.

 

[loseyourname]

being Canadian & living next door to the most powerful & aggressive nation the world has seen since the 1930s, & a country whose economy is almost totally dominated by non-residents i would say that people (here, anyway) are becoming very much more conscious of their identity (esp. since 9/11/01). i would say that with the dominoes falling all over the hemisphere (cuba, venezuela, argentina, uruguay, now ecuador & soon mexico) people down there are rejecting what people call globalization (more specifically a form of economic integration) & becoming more aware of their identities.

I would like to add to this that I don't believe one becomes 'aware' of an identity. One constructs his identity. This construction is not necessarily voluntarily; that is, we don't all have the identity we do because we wanted it. Nonetheless, identity is for the most part an arbitary construct. Just because you were born in Cuba and live there doesn't mean you have to identify yourself as a Cuban first and a human second. It can be the other way around and it can be that way for anyone. All indications point that the world is going in the other direction, becoming as you say it is, but I certainly don't think that it has to be that way.

 

[Pengwuino]

I would like to add to this that I don't believe one becomes 'aware' of an identity. One constructs his identity. This construction is not necessarily voluntarily; that is, we don't all have the identity we do because we wanted it. Nonetheless, identity is for the most part an arbitary construct. Just because you were born in Cuba and live there doesn't mean you have to identify yourself as a Cuban first and a human second. It can be the other way around and it can be that way for anyone. All indications point that the world is going in the other direction, becoming as you say it is, but I certainly don't think that it has to be that way.

I do think you can become "aware". You could say, live in the dark all your life and then get a lot of your national heritage thrust at you and you seemingly naturally acquire it. Maybe its how our brains work that demand we associate with a closer knit group of people (nationalism) then the alternative (globalization). Didn't we naturally evolve to separate into close-knit groups of people? All this being true, I am still pretty sure we can overcome it if we are able to absolutely erase any trace of nationalism or localism because i bet we would instantly grasp at that idea instead of the whole global thing.

 

[ramollari]

I do think you can become "aware". You could say, live in the dark all your life and then get a lot of your national heritage thrust at you and you seemingly naturally acquire it. Maybe its how our brains work that demand we associate with a closer knit group of people (nationalism) then the alternative (globalization). Didn't we naturally evolve to separate into close-knit groups of people? All this being true, I am still pretty sure we can overcome it if we are able to absolutely erase any trace of nationalism or localism because i bet we would instantly grasp at that idea instead of the whole global thing.

No Pengwino, you become more "aware" when you observe the other cultures and the differences that they have with yours, which is being more possible with "globalization". I see nationalism as a means of protecting the interests of a big group of people in comparison with other groups. And the current trend seems to be an increase in the strength of national feelings and the nations themselves. Why don't we have such a thing as free circulation of goods? of people? Crossing the national borders is becoming more and more restricted especially to the western industrialized countries. Feelings of ethnic and religional racism seem to grow. Since the end of the Cold War we've seen an increase in bloody ethnic and religious conflicts. What do you think of this?

 

[Pengwuino]

whats the reason for hte increase in ethnic and religious conflicts?

 

[ramollari]

I would think it is because of the collapse of competition between the major ideologies namely communism and capitalism, which had overshadowed national, racial, and religious differences.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Pengwuino, you are so full of it. None of my posts had anything to do with the notion that "just because globalization is looking unrealistic doesn't mean the world as a whole is going to go down the toilet". Where the hell did you get that idea? I was just making sure that someone almost as stupid as you are didn't read what you wrote and actually thought it had any basis. My point was not about globalisation - it was about you not knowing the first frickin thing about the EU.

Mass communication to further nationalism: this is propoganda. See North Korea. Mass communication to further globalisation. Do you mean of the capitalist, Darwinian, McDonaldisation-of-the-world variety? Propoganda again. Use of image and rhetoric to make you believe that you want something that you don't have, thus creating a demand. The market follows. Or do you mean a more EU-style economic convergence? Well, look at the overwhelming results of the Czech referendum. Why did the majority of people of one country want what another had? Simple awareness of the economic strength of other nations, i.e. international news, makes economic convergence desirable.

Nationalism vs globalisation: nationalism loses (on a long enough time scale). Why? Because the national identity is based on current values and institutions. These themselves change from generation to generation, so our nationalist children will be defending slightly different institutions to those of our current generation. Take the pound sterling for instance - British nationalists strive to keep this currency (fighting against the Euro) because it comprises the British identity. What doesn't occur to them is that this currency is not the same as that of the previous pre-decimalisation generations. Nationalism has no memory. The moment any ground is given, and it always is, the national identity is rewritten by a generation or two to fit the current values and institutions.

Religion vs globalisation: it is very rare that there is a conflict here. Take Ireland, for instance. You get protestant adults terrorizing catholic children making their way to school, and catholic militants bombing protestant areas. Two more intolerant factions you'd be hard pressed to find in the western world. And yet this never conflicts with the country's economic interest. Yes, you put two people of differing religions in the same room and they start a fight, but when you provoke them about farming subsidies they suddenly team up on you. Oh, but of course Europe is ANTI-religion, isn't it? Yeah, the Roman Catholic church comes from Mars (actually, that's possible...). Now I know the Middle East was more of a concern, and I point out again that Turkey is waiting in the margins, ready to unite with Europe. It has been an associate of the EU for decades, and has gradually been changing its homeland policies, most particularly concerning human rights (banning death penalty for instance, something the US hasn't progressed to yet(and technically neither has the UK for that matter)) so that full integration will become a dead cert. Now, how can an almost entirely Muslim country be so determined to unite with an almost entirely non-Muslim institution, and how can that institution bend over backwards to do everything possible to help that Muslim country? Because religious diversity and economics are not mutually exclusive - you can have both. All that is required is the will to do so.

Political differences vs globalisation: again, Turkey. Look at their relations with Russia. These two countries hated one another. Now their relations are becoming more and more friendly. Trade between the two countries has boomed over the last few years. Russia went from growling at Turkey's entry into the EU to welcoming it with open arms in the space of one year. Trade makes all cultural differences disappear, even though the biggest areas of contention, Cyprus and Chechnya, have not reached a final resolution. Historical animosity, like religion, does not stop convergence. The English still hate the French, the French still hate the English (the Scottish and Welsh do too and they're in the same country), but when it comes down to it, no-one wants to lose out on a good deal for any reason, be it religious differences or historical run-ins. In Europe at least. In America it seems that improving relations between countries is no reason not to go on television and call one of the 'evil', setting diplomatic relations back a decade or two. [sigh]

 

[kat]

. Since the end of the Cold War we've seen an increase in bloody ethnic and religious conflicts. What do you think of this?

Mmm, what I think is that it's not supportable.
According to the CDI's defense monitor annual reports on "The World at war" it's decreased since the end of the cold war with the all time low of world conflicts at 21 in 1998 and now at the end of 2004 beginning of 2005 a slight increase putting it at 22.

 

[fourier jr]

I would think it is because of the collapse of competition between the major ideologies namely communism and capitalism, which had overshadowed national, racial, and religious differences.

again, there are the south american countries mentioned earlier, & scandinavia, etc. socialism/communism is alive & well & better than ever, and as i said it recently spread to ecuador & is heading to mexico next. hopefully it will keep moving north to Canada. most of the countries that elect socialist leaders are unhappy with the neoliberal globalization/integrationist policies of the anticommunist parties in their countries.

here's a list of countries that have 'gone communist' since the collapse of the soviet union:
http://members.aol.com/essays6/manfly.htm

 

[Joel]

Finland is not socialistic or communistic. Social Democratic, sure, but that's not the same thing.

 

[2CentsWorth]

The world is a global community from a technological, economical, and environmental (including resource) perspective. Technology alone is a very recent advent in human history that has greatly accelerated globalization. However, beyond this I would agree with loseyourname that a common cause would be required, such as alien invasion before all the peoples and nations of the Earth would unite. Using recent events in the US as an example, 9-11 invoked tremendous nationalism, yet at the same time policy on how to deal with terrorism has contributed to polarization between the red and blue states. People who believe in globalization probably hold that belief with a neocon vision--one in which the ever powerful US will address hot spots one after another until all the world is in it's image. Right.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Pengwuino, you are so full of it. None of my posts had anything to do with the notion that "just because globalization is looking unrealistic doesn't mean the world as a whole is going to go down the toilet". Where the hell did you get that idea? I was just making sure that someone almost as stupid as you are didn't read what you wrote and actually thought it had any basis. My point was not about globalisation - it was about you not knowing the first frickin thing about the EU.

HAHAHAHA! I'm not entirely sure but I believe Pengwuino was referring to my comment.

And if you were Pengwuino then I wasn't really referring to them as being mutaully exclusive. I was just commenting about how so many people seem to think the world is getting worse and worse when from my perspective it's actually getting better. I'd say the biggest argument against globalization, aside from simply saying it's impossible, comes from those that think the world is getting worse.
As far as conflict that is occurring due to ethnic and religious problems do you seriously think these things are any worse than they used to be? Do you not think that there is far less of it than there used to be? In only the last few centuries we have seen campaigns against ethnic and religious groups in several countries all over the world. There are several countries where these things have occurred where they are most likely never going to occur again.
And I don't think there will be a stable gobal community anytime soon. Even when it does come, if it does, there will most likely still be individuality and people who have pride for where they came from. There most likely will never be a purely global mindset. What football teams would there be if there was one? ;-p

 

[Pengwuino]

Invisible, you need to calm down adn go read what your getting all steamed up about. Your blind ignorance places any negative in the same paragraph as your beloved EU and you have to go batty thinking someone may have just said something bad about your precious EU. I am done arguing with you since your rhetoric is rather annoying. Ask most europeans and they dislike the religious state of the US. Turkey has also faced terrorist attacks because of their willingness to join the EU. There are also European nations that have refused to even apply to the EU (or can this just not be the case at all and everyone loves the EU blindly like you think they do?).

To conclude the religious aspect, i'll again point out your absolute ignorance of the question being posed on this thread and the actual structure of the EU. A global village would be a world of 1 belief/economy/judicial system. The EU is faaaaaaaar from the idea of a global village (and just because i say that doesn't mean the EU is bad even though your egocentric mind seems to take it that way) and all I have been commenting on is how globalization in its true 'global village' sense would be almost impossible. You are just completely drowning in the idea that economic parity is the only thing involved in life and that everyone just loves Europe (even though they enslaved a continent and extorted others). I hope your not as ignorant and a knee-jerk reactionist in real life like you are implying you are here.

 

[Pengwuino]

The world is a global community from a technological, economical, and environmental (including resource) perspective. Technology alone is a very recent advent in human history that has greatly accelerated globalization. However, beyond this I would agree with loseyourname that a common cause would be required, such as alien invasion before all the peoples and nations of the Earth would unite. Using recent events in the US as an example, 9-11 invoked tremendous nationalism, yet at the same time policy on how to deal with terrorism has contributed to polarization between the red and blue states. People who believe in globalization probably hold that belief with a neocon vision--one in which the ever powerful US will address hot spots one after another until all the world is in it's image. Right.

Technology is by no means the source of a global community. Many african and south american nations/villages do not participate in the technological inventions that have come out of the last century. Technology also has been around a fair amount of time in many peoples opinions starting with things such as the printing press.

And the actual "neo-con" view is the US not doing anything with countries. The liberal view... i don't know actually... what instances have European nations come to remove a dictator or similar 'evil' thing? Or do they subscribe to the view that people in countries like that should just be left alone and have them fend for themselves.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Invisible, you need to calm down adn go read what your getting all steamed up about. Your blind ignorance places any negative in the same paragraph as your beloved EU and you have to go batty thinking someone may have just said something bad about your precious EU. I am done arguing with you since your rhetoric is rather annoying. Ask most europeans and they dislike the religious state of the US. Turkey has also faced terrorist attacks because of their willingness to join the EU. There are also European nations that have refused to even apply to the EU (or can this just not be the case at all and everyone loves the EU blindly like you think they do?).

To conclude the religious aspect, i'll again point out your absolute ignorance of the question being posed on this thread and the actual structure of the EU. A global village would be a world of 1 belief/economy/judicial system. The EU is faaaaaaaar from the idea of a global village (and just because i say that doesn't mean the EU is bad even though your egocentric mind seems to take it that way) and all I have been commenting on is how globalization in its true 'global village' sense would be almost impossible. You are just completely drowning in the idea that economic parity is the only thing involved in life and that everyone just loves Europe (even though they enslaved a continent and extorted others). I hope your not as ignorant and a knee-jerk reactionist in real life like you are implying you are here.

Well, once again penguin brain, I must remind you I was neither proposing the EU as a global village or championing it on its own terms, but merely attempting to make it clear to anyone reading your post that you are speaking with seeming authority about something you know absolutely nothing about. YOU, not I, cited the EU as both the nearest to a global village we have and also an example of why such a structure would not work. Of the latter, you used religious differences as why such a system couldn't possibly work, displaying a gross ignorance of current international affairs. Your statement that the EU only works because Europeans are genocidal and intolerant of religion was plain and simply brain dead and offensive.

Your assumption that a global village must have one belief system can only be a consequence of your own faith, and your own inability to respect the beliefs of others. The separation of religion and politics (you know, like not letting your religion influence the rights of people that conflict with it, such as... I dunno... homosexuals) is a much more sensible and likely solution to religious diversity, and a common language (on top of the common language of money) is similarly more feasible than a single language. If every CAN talk to one another and not step on each other's toes, then your fascistic sounding model for a global village is redundant. Not 1 belief, but 0 belief across the village as a whole. A global village does not necessitate the eradication of personal belief, opinion, etc.

"you need to calm down adn go read what your getting all steamed up about. Your blind ignorance places any negative in the same paragraph as your beloved EU and you have to go batty thinking someone may have just said something bad about your precious EU."
You wish to have go learn some sentence structure.

"Ask most europeans and they dislike the religious state of the US."
Well, Judaism is a major religion in the US. Are you saying Europeans dislike Jews in America? I guess we hate them damn Buddhists in the east too. You're also making a sweeping generalisation about a people because some of them make sweeping generalisations about you. I think current anti-Americanism in Europe lies more in US foreign policy than what they get up to on a Sunday.

"There are also European nations that have refused to even apply to the EU"
How do you REFUSE to apply? Do you think the EU go door to door and harrass people into joinging up? This ain't a draft.

"I am done arguing with you since your rhetoric is rather annoying."
So why did you post back? And then go on to write another paragraph?!? My rhetoric is annoying? Your stating as fact of idiotic notions made up by yourself about things you know absolutely zero about is annoying.

"You are just completely drowning in the idea that economic parity is the only thing involved in life"
It's the most important, and the basis of all foreign affairs. The origin of any global village will lie in commerce.

"(even though they enslaved a continent and extorted others)"
Are you twelve?

"I hope your not as ignorant and a knee-jerk reactionist in real life like you are implying you are here."
I hope you're not as xenophobic and bible-bashing in real life too.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, once again penguin brain, I must remind you I was neither proposing the EU as a global village or championing it on its own terms, but merely attempting to make it clear to anyone reading your post that you are speaking with seeming authority about something you know absolutely nothing about. YOU, not I, cited the EU as both the nearest to a global village we have and also an example of why such a structure would not work. Of the latter, you used religious differences as why such a system couldn't possibly work, displaying a gross ignorance of current international affairs. Your statement that the EU only works because Europeans are genocidal and intolerant of religion was plain and simply brain dead and offensive.

Yes, you arent proposing the EU as a global village and that's your problem. Thats what this thread si about and that's what I've been trying to talk about for the longest time. You are the one acting as if you know something where you know absolutely nothing. And also, we both pretty much implied the EU is the cloest to the global village because it should be fairly obvious that its been the only major consolidation of nations in modern times. And yes, the structure wouldn't work because its not a true global village structure at all. And you again seem to ignore historical facts that prove attempts to bring europe to 'one nation' have all been out of responses to large scale wars. I am sorry that you can't seem to connect to this obvious fact. And you are the one whos obviously shown horrible ignorance as to how international affairs are. Do you even read? have a tv? Do you even know what the middle east is? Theres a rather large group of people practically advocating another holy war. Thinking religion would be an insignificant factor shows your lack of konwledge in international affairs.

Your assumption that a global village must have one belief system can only be a consequence of your own faith, and your own inability to respect the beliefs of others. The separation of religion and politics (you know, like not letting your religion influence the rights of people that conflict with it, such as... I dunno... homosexuals) is a much more sensible and likely solution to religious diversity, and a common language (on top of the common language of money) is similarly more feasible than a single language. If every CAN talk to one another and not step on each other's toes, then your fascistic sounding model for a global village is redundant. Not 1 belief, but 0 belief across the village as a whole. A global village does not necessitate the eradication of personal belief, opinion, etc.

Oddly enough i don't believe I've ever said anything about my personal religion (and this is odd that you later call me anti-religous). I am going to attempt to understand what in gods name you actually said in the rest of the paragraph... so let's see... Oh so your basically saying you can just eradicate all religion? How exactly do you think people are going to react to that? Oh I am sure they just can't wait to give up their beliefs.

"Ask most europeans and they dislike the religious state of the US."
Well, Judaism is a major religion in the US. Are you saying Europeans dislike Jews in America? I guess we hate them damn Buddhists in the east too. You're also making a sweeping generalisation about a people because some of them make sweeping generalisations about you. I think current anti-Americanism in Europe lies more in US foreign policy than what they get up to on a Sunday.

What do jews have to do with this? I mean all religions. And funny how all you do is make generalizations and then you have the nerve to tell me that I am making generalizations.

"There are also European nations that have refused to even apply to the EU"
How do you REFUSE to apply? Do you think the EU go door to door and harrass people into joinging up? This ain't a draft.

You know what I am sayen. They don't even want to join your little super perfect society. Obviously, your system isn't as perfect in real life as it is in your brain.

"I am done arguing with you since your rhetoric is rather annoying."
So why did you post back? And then go on to write another paragraph?!? My rhetoric is annoying? Your stating as fact of idiotic notions made up by yourself about things you know absolutely zero about is annoying.

Its addicting, what can i say. Your the one making up facts and just hiding behind your imagined view of reality and lack of understanding of history. Hell in your mind, you must be absolutely confused as to why some muslims hate some christians who hate some jews who hate some christians and any other combonation of the sorts seeing as you don't think anyones ever had any problems with each other in the past.

"You are just completely drowning in the idea that economic parity is the only thing involved in life"
It's the most important, and the basis of all foreign affairs. The origin of any global village will lie in commerce.

The origin will, but its failure will lie in other areas. Plus of course, many under-developed nations have villages/regions that completely denounce the materialistic view Europeans have on the world. There are nations such as the !Kung bushmen of Africa who's "work day" would look like a guy who inherited a million bucks from his parents and they have very few material goods. Obvious, they have chosen leisure over "luxuries". How do you account for people like this? Absolutely happy with the world and probably wouldn't even thinka bout joining the economic rules and regulations a global village would present.

"(even though they enslaved a continent and extorted others)"
Are you twelve?

So, what, are you denying it happened? You seem to have a major disconnect with the past and seem to require the reading of a thing called a "history book". [/QUOTE]

"I hope your not as ignorant and a knee-jerk reactionist in real life like you are implying you are here."
I hope you're not as xenophobic and bible-bashing in real life too.

I hope your not as blind to the facts of life and the past in real life. I also hope next argument you don't contradict yourself by calling them a religious zealot and then a few paragraphs later, calling them anti-religious. Makes you look silly

 

[2CentsWorth]

Technology is by no means the source of a global community. Many african and south american nations/villages do not participate in the technological inventions that have come out of the last century. Technology also has been around a fair amount of time in many peoples opinions starting with things such as the printing press.

Though I mentioned other forms of globalization, technology is one of the main sources of globalization, if by communication/information alone. Did you know that the Massai in Africa gave a cow to the people of New York upon hearing the tragic news about the WTC?

And the actual "neo-con" view is the US not doing anything with countries. The liberal view... i don't know actually... what instances have European nations come to remove a dictator or similar 'evil' thing? Or do they subscribe to the view that people in countries like that should just be left alone and have them fend for themselves.

Do you really believe the US has a foreign policy of removing 'evil' dictators? If you do, you are very uninformed. What other way might problems in the world be addressed? I was just watching a program last night about UN (the other 'evil' in the world) and their efforts in Liberia, from which such a leader was removed:

In August 2003, a comprehensive peace agreement ended 14 years of civil war and prompted the resignation of former president Charles TAYLOR, who was exiled to Nigeria. The National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) - composed of rebel, government, and civil society groups - assumed control in October 2003. Chairman Gyude BRYANT, who was given a two-year mandate to oversee efforts to rebuild Liberia, heads the new government. The United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), which maintains a strong presence throughout the country, completed a disarmament program for former combatants in late 2004, but the security situation is still volatile and the process of rebuilding the social and economic structure of this war-torn country remains sluggish.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html

Sounds like Iraq, only this was done without tremendous loss of life, and with the purpose clearly established and accepted by the rest of the world.

 

[Pengwuino]

Please disregard the first sentence in that first section you quoted. I have no idea why i would have said that... must have been at like 4am.

http://abuja.usembassy.gov/wwwhp100203a.html

Sounds like the UN wasnt even responsible for creating the cease fire or am i misreading something? Why did the UN sit by and do nothing but make little annual reports on how many people were being killed in iraq before the war? Whats their excuse for that? And how was the situation in Syria bad? And when did I say in that quote that the US foreign policy is to go around the world removing dictators? Maybe that's Bush's plan... i dunno... unless you can prove its not then well we're both obviously uninformed or something.

 

[SOS2008]

...And when did I say in that quote that the US foreign policy is to go around the world removing dictators? Maybe that's Bush's plan... i dunno... unless you can prove its not then well we're both obviously uninformed or something.

What you said was:

And the actual "neo-con" view is the US not doing anything with countries. The liberal view... i don't know actually... what instances have European nations come to remove a dictator or similar 'evil' thing? Or do they subscribe to the view that people in countries like that should just be left alone and have them fend for themselves.

It seems you are saying that unlike the European nations (and liberals) the U.S. has at least taken action "to remove a dictator or similar 'evil' thing," which would be in line with your previous remarks in GD about Hitler, etc. I am responding to this because you and I debated this in GD, likewise I've debated this before in this forum and provided the list of dictators in the world the U.S. has supported (at some time or another), to show it is not our policy to remove dictators. I have also made the case that if it was the U.S. policy to remove all evil dictators (or even just the current "axis of evil" list of countries), the U.S. would soon go under from military/economic over-extension. Therefore, the neocon vision is unrealistic (I assume you know what the philosophy is since you refer to it in your quote). No one has substantiated the viability of the neocon vision, so it would be nice to move on to new topics.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes but the left of our country has been in power a majority of the time since WW2 which i bet accounts for a majority of those situations. Plus of course you need to take things case by case and look deeper. FDR negotiated and helped Stalin in WW2... he was a dictator... but by no means is anyone going around saying the US was bad for doing that. Also, the idea of removing a large number of dictators does not have to have any short-term time table that would cauase an over-extension. One military operation per presidential term would be a decent amount. Plus if the UN would actaully get off its butt and create peace in the world and not just write reports... it wouldn't hurt us as much. The whole idea of how the UN works is weird. A majority of their 'actions' are creating reports on stuff and debating over economic policies of Europe. Its kind of like as if the police decided to just sita round and write reports about crime while only sending a couple cops out on the streets and spending a whole lot more effort into planning the next ball with the mayor.

 

[loseyourname]

I am responding to this because you and I debated this in GD, likewise I've debated this before in this forum and provided the list of dictators in the world the U.S. has supported (at some time or another), to show it is not our policy to remove dictators.

Is there really such a thing as a continuous US foreign policy over all of these years and covering all of these examples? As far as I know, each new administration institutes its own foreign policy. If it follows the policy of the previous administration, that is by choice, and not by decree that US foreign policy remain the same over any span of time. It seems to me that it would be more accurate for Pengwuino to say that at least the Bush administration did something about the Iraq situation and acted to remove a dictator while the rest of the world stood by. In order to make this seem like an act of hypocrisy, showing that former administration had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes equal to or more brutal than Saddam's is not enough. You must show that the current administration had done so.

I'm just making a point about the gaps in your current argument, by the way. For all I know, maybe you can show that the Bush II administration has supported brutal dictators and your conclusion is, in fact, correct. I am an argumentative formalist more than a politics buff, though.

 

[SOS2008]

Is there really such a thing as a continuous US foreign policy over all of these years and covering all of these examples? As far as I know, each new administration institutes its own foreign policy. If it follows the policy of the previous administration, that is by choice, and not by decree that US foreign policy remain the same over any span of time.

Studies have shown that over time U.S. foreign policy does not change much from administration to administration (i.e., regardless of party affiliation). Limitations on presidential terms could well contribute to this.

It seems to me that it would be more accurate for Pengwuino to say that at least the Bush administration did something about the Iraq situation and acted to remove a dictator while the rest of the world stood by. In order to make this seem like an act of hypocrisy, showing that former administration had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes equal to or more brutal than Saddam's is not enough. You must show that the current administration had done so.

As already stated in this thread by various members, first the issue of removing a dictator was a smoke screen, and when used as such, a higher moral ground can't be claimed. Likewise, inconsistencies of the Bush administration have been shown, but if you really want to, you could find more instances.

I am an argumentative formalist more than a politics buff, though.

This is not directed at anyone in particular--But no matter how well some may argue (with what they may believe is their intellectual superiority) references will still be expected, especially in academic/scientific environments. Otherwise one would be no different than those Democrat contrarians we've heard about.

 

[loseyourname]

Studies have shown that over time U.S. foreign policy does not change much from administration to administration (i.e., regardless of party affiliation). Limitations on presidential terms could well contribute to this.

That still doesn't make the current administration responsible for the actions or policies of past administrations.

As already stated in this thread by various members, first the issue of removing a dictator was a smoke screen, and when used as such, a higher moral ground can't be claimed.

Does stating it make it so?

Likewise, inconsistencies of the Bush administration have been shown, but if you really want to, you could find more instances.

This has been addressed to some extent in the other thread where I posted this same argument.

This is not directed at anyone in particular--But no matter how well some may argue (with what they may believe is their intellectual superiority) references will still be expected, especially in academic/scientific environments. Otherwise one would be no different than those Democrat contrarians we've heard about.

The only virtue in logic is consistency. From that virtue alone springs forth all of the formal laws as to what constitutes a valid argument and what does not. That said, the errors made in these threads are mostly informal errors. They should be pointed out whenever found, for everyone's sake.

By the way, what possible references can I provide? For one thing, I'm not making the claiming that the current administration has been completely consistent in all of its actions and stated policies. I'm only making the claim that what has been posted in this thread does not demonstrate any inconsistency on their part. Furthermore, if I were to make the claim that the administration's actions and policies were all consistent, think of what it would take for me to substantiate that claim. I would have to list out literally every action it has ever taken and every policy statement it has ever made. It should be obvious that I cannot do that, which I why I'm not making that claim. I'm not in the business of making claims I can't back up.

 

[SOS2008]

That still doesn't make the current administration responsible for the actions or policies of past administrations.

My point has been that the U.S. does not have a foreign policy of removing dictators. Even if Saddam was removed because he was a bad dictator, the Bush administration does not claim a foreign policy of removing dictators. If there are any such claims, please show this.

Does stating it make it so?

This is good example of logical deduction and consistency you seem to favor. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of knowledge knew there was no connection between 9-11 and Saddam (logic). Likewise, when reasoning and justification is constantly changed by a political leader/administration, it will affect the merit of anything else that is said/done (lack of consistency).

I'm not in the business of making claims I can't back up.

If I am in a college class and I require another student to back up a claim during debate, I would be expected to substantiate why I question their position as well. The burden of proof lies on both sides of debate.

 

[russ_watters]

If I am in a college class and I require another student to back up a claim during debate, I would be expected to substantiate why I question their position as well. The burden of proof lies on both sides of debate.

This ain't a debate class. In debate classes, issues are binary and the burden of proof is intended to be equal: ie, Issue x: good or bad. Though I'd like to keep it scientific since this is a science forum, it isn't necessarily scientific criteria either. Regardless, Burnsys and others have made a very direct claim and the counterclaim is simply that they haven't substantiated the claim (and it must be because as loseyourname pointed out, proving a negative requires an infinite amount of evidence and is therefore not possible). Does that make the burden of proof lopsided to view it that way? Yes. Is that right - sorry, but it is.

 

[SOS2008]

This ain't a debate class. In debate classes, issues are binary and the burden of proof is intended to be equal: ie, Issue x: good or bad. Though I'd like to keep it scientific since this is a science forum, it isn't necessarily scientific criteria either. Regardless, Burnsys and others have made a very direct claim and the counterclaim is simply that they haven't substantiated the claim (and it must be because as loseyourname pointed out, proving a negative requires an infinite amount of evidence and is therefore not possible). Does that make the burden of proof lopsided to view it that way? Yes. Is that right - sorry, but it is.

I didn't say this is a debate class. It is an academic forum, and for those who've studied in the social sciences, all classes have these requirements for participation. It would seem other members have taken note of this as well, and why for example, the thread on objectivity was posted.

No one member is an authority, and even when they are, such as alexandra about Marxist theory, they will still need to provide references. However, when members have supported claims with reliable sources, often it is just disregarded, and/or the responses are petty and demanding of more proof--rather than making a case in reply (with references). Over-coming an opponent with sheer exhaustion and in a purely argumentative way is not right. Sorry, but it's not.

 

[alexandra]

There are claims that we hear everyday that with the free trade, globalization, and the spread of liberal values, the borders between the nations are gradually disappearing and the concept of a nation will gradually vanish, that the world will eventually become a global village speaking one language.
What is your thought, is this true? Or are people becoming more and more conscious of their national identity?

Here's one perspective on this question: the term 'globalisation' is misleading, as it is too loosely defined to be of any use. When I am trying to understand the 'globalisation' phenomenon, I think of it in terms of the eradication of borders in certain areas, particularly in economics/trade.

It is a feature of capitalism that it must seek new markets, cheap resources, and cheap labour if capitalists are to increase their profits (or expand their capital). Colonialism can be seen as one result of the need for capital to expand. The current phase of capitalist development has demanded an eradication of barriers to the ability of capital to be shifted in an instant to those places where it can be invested most profitably - so where money is concerned, 'globalisation' has occurred and investment can be shifted with very little trouble out of countries where profits are eroded by workers' demands for a decent living wage, or areas where environmental laws add to the expenditure (and cut into the profit margins) of industry. Capital goes 'off-shore', to countries where impoverished workers are not unionised (and don't have a history of unionism) and therefore cannot secure decent wages. Capital is also invested in countries that have no environmental legislation so that multinational/transnational companies can circumvent requirements that they operate in a way that is socially responsible.

At the same time that the powerful have secured the free movement of capital to where profits can be increased, ethnic and religious conflicts are deliberately being encouraged to divide people along nationalistic/religious/ ethnic lines. The media and academics are complicit in this, spreading an ideology of division and dissent (Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations' is an excellent example of this).

The reason for this is obvious: it would not suit the economically powerful for ordinary people to unite on a global scale because if they did they would have the power to challenge the status quo. So, for example, if the working class organised internationally so that workers all over the world refused to work for less than a decent minimum wage, this would cut into the profits of the multinational coroporations, etc. Individual countries are also instituting repressive local legislation that is aimed at not only silencing dissent within each country but is also aimed at more tightly controlling the movement of ordinary people around the globe (wealthy people, of course, face no such obstacles: the world is their playground). So, on the pretext of the 'terrorist threat', in some countries (eg. the UK) ordinary people will now be required to carry identity cards and are subjected to hours of waiting in airport customs queues - this makes one think twice about going anywhere else. Then there's the whole issue of 'illegal migrants', and how (if you're poor) you are not welcome in certain countries (whereas if you're rich, 'come right in, buddy!'). So globalisation does not apply where the movement of ordinary people is concerned.

As for the future of the nation-state... Because of the globalisation of capital and the productive forces, nationalism is an anomaly - it contradicts what is happening to the forces of production. However, the economically and politically powerful are going to try their damndest to keep fanning the flames of 'nationalism' while they sit back and make their profits wherever - because the kinds of conflicts that nationalism result in pre-empts the only threat to these people's power: the collective power of ordinary people at a global level. Whether or not the powerful will be successful in 'containing' globalisation for their purposes is another question... I don't think that they will succeed in the long term.

 

[alexandra]

No one member is an authority, and even when they are, such as alexandra about Marxist theory, they will still need to provide references. However, when members have supported claims with reliable sources, often it is just disregarded, and/or the responses are petty and demanding of more proof--rather than making a case in reply (with references). Over-coming an opponent with sheer exhaustion and in a purely argumentative way is not right. Sorry, but it's not.

Hmm, I have read a lot of Marxist theory, but there is still so much to learn... Anyway, SOS, I just wanted to confirm your final point and give my personal experience regarding this: sometimes I feel like just 'giving up' the argument out of sheer exhaustion because it feels like no matter how much evidence I present it won't be accepted. But then I read what's being written and I just can't resist engaging 'battle' again...

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

my 2 cents:

A huge war initiated by a group of organized individuals that manipulate the overall mood of populations of many different countries via constant and relentless persuasion over the course of decades would move humanity towards globalization. This global war may take a long time to set up, but it would have to be done in that manner in order to not be recognized by the public of any involved nation.

As an example: My old computer science teacher told us about when she took psychology class in college, her and her classmates conditioned the teacher to behave in a certain way without the teacher even realizing it. They all agreed to look as if what the teacher was saying was very interesting when the teacher walked in a particular spot in the room, and when the teacher is in the opposite side of the room, the class would act as if what the teacher was saying was very boring. At the end of the semester, the teacher was standing in the corner for the whole class period (completely oblivious to the fact that he was producing the desired behavior of the class).

All that must be done is a similar type of conditioning to those who operate major countries (USA being a main player). Small differences in thought can produce vary large differences in behavior... For example, what if the constitution stated that freedom was granted to every individual by the nation (rather than by God)? Then every citizen owes their freedom to the nation, and thus every citizen is a serf! One small change in political thought, and bam! Feudalism!

What if, after this global war, the nation that wins everybody's hearts says "We'll help you rebuild if you join us, and if you don't then we couldn't care less", but at the same token, the winning nation is so powerful by then that nobody can survive long on their own, so pretty much everyone agrees to join (as the invite offers a better living standard than trying to make in on their own). This is kind of like when the Roman Empire would take over a town and the people of the town would actually view it as a good thing, that they would be part of a strong nation. At this point, all the nation has to do is make a small change in their constitution, and bam, all of the world is living in despotism.

My only offering in this post is that globalization could be the worst thing that has ever occurred to humanity.

 

[alexandra]

What if, after this global war, the nation that wins everybody's hearts says "We'll help you rebuild if you join us, and if you don't then we couldn't care less", but at the same token, the winning nation is so powerful by then that nobody can survive long on their own, so pretty much everyone agrees to join (as the invite offers a better living standard than trying to make in on their own). This is kind of like when the Roman Empire would take over a town and the people of the town would actually view it as a good thing, that they would be part of a strong nation. At this point, all the nation has to do is make a small change in their constitution, and bam, all of the world is living in despotism.

An interesting hypothesis, Jonny - but look what happened to the Roman Empire ultimately Winning people's 'hearts' is very difficult to do when you kill innocent civilians, including children, and ruin the very fabric of the societies that have been attacked.

My only offering in this post is that globalization could be the worst thing that has ever occurred to humanity.

I think globalisation is both inevitable and can be progressive - depending on the details of how it works out. A true globalisation on every score, where the world literally becomes a 'global village' in every sense of the word, would be an incredibly advanced form of civilisation. Imagine if we didn't have to deal with national and economic rivalries and similar sectarian obstacles to doing something about saving the environment, for example. Frankly, I think this is humanity's only chance: we're either going to get the globalisation thing right or we won't survive as a species (and will take out a lot of other species as well in the process).

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, I have read a lot of Marxist theory, but there is still so much to learn... Anyway, SOS, I just wanted to confirm your final point and give my personal experience regarding this: sometimes I feel like just 'giving up' the argument out of sheer exhaustion because it feels like no matter how much evidence I present it won't be accepted. But then I read what's being written and I just can't resist engaging 'battle' again...

After the mess you made with the poverty issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a claim. In fact, you have admitted your own position on the issue is changing - how are we supposed to accept arguments that are so poorly developed that they change during the course of the argument? Heck, you seem to think you are well versed on Marxism and its implications for capitalism - how can that be true if you have such a tenuous understanding of its most important premise? Your arguments remind me of a recent discussion I had with my boss about "Darwin's Black Box" and Intelligent Design. Its a well-written book that people just read and accept without thinking about it. If we're giving you so much trouble here, it implies to me that you need to apply some critical thinking to your reading. Don't just "read a lot of Marxism" - think about Marxism.

 

[Informal Logic]

Regardless, Burnsys and others have made a very direct claim and the counterclaim is simply that they haven't substantiated the claim (and it must be because as loseyourname pointed out, proving a negative requires an infinite amount of evidence and is therefore not possible).

Who is all for 'PF Patrol' and ground rules? If one wanted to quantify this matter (counting posts by certain members and measuring the content) we would find that there are those who do provide sources in reply to claims that are not substantiated, and/or make their own case in response, and do it all the time. So I disagree with this reasoning (or should we say, excuse?).

After the mess you made with the poverty issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a claim. In fact, you have admitted your own position on the issue is changing - how are we supposed to accept arguments that are so poorly developed that they change during the course of the argument? Heck, you seem to think you are well versed on Marxism and its implications for capitalism - how can that be true if you have such a tenuous understanding of its most important premise?

Since you are an economist and have studied political theories, I suppose you are an expert on poverty and Marxism and therefore are in a position to make this assessment?

Don't just "read a lot of Marxism" - think about Marxism.

Before you think about Marxism, read about it.

 

[hypatia]

people still conduct genocides over religion or ethnicity shows that we are by no means nearing globalization

Yes we are a longs ways off, by the time we realize we need a united world for the sake of the planet's survival{ours too} it just may be too late.

 

[alexandra]

After the mess you made with the poverty issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a claim.

Russ, it's called 'integrity' and 'intellectual honesty'. I made an honest error, and I was honest enough to admit it. That's what one does if one is arguing intelligently. I explained that in the heat of our arguments I did not stop to think enough and I answered some posts thoughtlessly and I agreed with definitions that were false. This does NOT imply your next claim...

In fact, you have admitted your own position on the issue is changing - how are we supposed to accept arguments that are so poorly developed that they change during the course of the argument?

No, absolutely not. I did NOT admit that my own position on the issue is changing. I admitted to having made a mistake. I am fair enough to accept that I have made mistakes - and I am confident enough to accept that I will not always be perfect, and that I will sometimes make mistakes. But this does not mean that I have admitted to any flaws in Marxism. All I admitted to was a flaw in my definition of ONE Marxist concept. It would have been stupid and dishonest of me not to admit to a mistake, and I don't work like that.

Heck, you seem to think you are well versed on Marxism and its implications for capitalism - how can that be true if you have such a tenuous understanding of its most important premise?

Poverty is NOT the Marxist perspective's most important premise. There are several important premises; poverty is one of the many key concepts.

Your arguments remind me of a recent discussion I had with my boss about "Darwin's Black Box" and Intelligent Design. Its a well-written book that people just read and accept without thinking about it. If we're giving you so much trouble here, it implies to me that you need to apply some critical thinking to your reading. Don't just "read a lot of Marxism" - think about Marxism.

I do, Russ - believe me, I think about Marxism all the time. I can't sleep for thinking about Marxism and the lessons it teaches me.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes we are a longs ways off, by the time we realize we need a united world for the sake of the planet's survival{ours too} it just may be too late.

What do you mean by a "united world"? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me...
Anyway, suppose there's a "sovereign" country abusing human rights - what should you, as a citizen of a democratic country, or your government, do about it?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, it's called 'integrity' and 'intellectual honesty'. I made an honest error, and I was honest enough to admit it. That's what one does if one is arguing intelligently. I explained that in the heat of our arguments I did not stop to think enough and I answered some posts thoughtlessly and I agreed with definitions that were false.

And I really meant to commend you on that. Its admirable and quite unexpected - its extremely rare here.

However...

This does NOT imply your next claim...

No, absolutely not. I did NOT admit that my own position on the issue is changing. I admitted to having made a mistake. I am fair enough to accept that I have made mistakes - and I am confident enough to accept that I will not always be perfect, and that I will sometimes make mistakes. But this does not mean that I have admitted to any flaws in Marxism. All I admitted to was a flaw in my definition of ONE Marxist concept. It would have been stupid and dishonest of me not to admit to a mistake, and I don't work like that.

Well, that's semantic, but as I see it as you've taken step 1 on a 3 step process: You've realized that what you thought was true about poverty was not. The next step is tougher: the acceptance that that one failure invalidates the starting premise for Marxism and thus eliminates its reason for existing. Its such a huge blow though, that I fully understand that it could take you years to come to terms with it.

The 3rd step would be abbandoning most Marxist principles, but few liberals ever do that. However, I have a good article I'll start a new thread on about that...

Poverty is NOT the Marxist perspective's most important premise. There are several important premises; poverty is one of the many key concepts.

Perhapes I should have said "starting premise", but again, that's semantics. Marx wrote his theory because of his assumption/prediction that capitalism causes poverty. If capitalism causes prosperity, then there is no basis for a Marxist revolution. You can argue the philosophical superiority of Marxism all you want, but its pointless: you can't have a revolution unless people are angry with their current situation.

I do, Russ - believe me, I think about Marxism all the time. I can't sleep for thinking about Marxism and the lessons it teaches me.

I can't understand how you could think about it all the time and miss such a key flaw. But again, maybe I worded the statement badly: when you think about it, do you question it? That's what I really meant: only by actively searching for flaws and failing (that is, in essence, the scientific process) can you be sure you have something worth believing.

 

[alexandra]

And I really meant to commend you on that. Its admirable and quite unexpected - its extremely rare here.

Yes, this does seem to be rare (people admitting to mistakes - not just here, in general). That's not very good, though - how are we ever to refine our understanding of things if we don't admit to mistakes? Sigh.

However... Well, that's semantic, but as I see it as you've taken step 1 on a 3 step process: You've realized that what you thought was true about poverty was not. The next step is tougher: the acceptance that that one failure invalidates the starting premise for Marxism and thus eliminates its reason for existing. Its such a huge blow though, that I fully understand that it could take you years to come to terms with it.

The next step is to refine my understanding of poverty, not to accept that one error on my part invalidates my overall knowledge of marxism, and even less that it invalidates the marxist perspective itself. Marxism is a complex analytical perspective, and I need to keep working at it. It took Marx his entire lifetime to develop it, and the economic parts of his theory especially (the most important parts) are incredibly difficult to master an understanding of. (Just as an aside here: how long does one have to study General Relativity to understand it, and can one understand it imperfectly and have to work on refining one's understanding over time? I assume the analogy is informative). And Russ, please don't be sarcastic - as in 'Its such a huge blow though, that I fully understand that it could take you years to come to terms with it'. That is quite an insult, you know - marxism is not a 'religion' (the view you are trying to express here) and I am no idiot.

The 3rd step would be abbandoning most Marxist principles, but few liberals ever do that.

Actually, I would like to make a definitional correction here: there's a huge difference between liberals and socialists/marxists. I am not a liberal: liberals believe that capitalism can be 'reformed' and that it can be 'benevolent'; I am under no such illusions. Perhaps liberals are defined differently in the US? Anyway, by my definitions I am much less likely to change my understanding of the world than a liberal is. The liberal perspective can be quite confusing and often contradicts itself; the marxist perspective is much clearer and more definite.

Perhapes I should have said "starting premise", but again, that's semantics. Marx wrote his theory because of his assumption/prediction that capitalism causes poverty.

Marx hailed capitalism as a progressive change from feudalism; he saw its role as positive, and capitalism itself as a necessary transitional social formation. Marx did not assume/predict that capitalism causes poverty (that was the stupid error I made in our other argument about this), but rather that it exacerbates relative inequalities in wealth (it leads to vastly unequal distributions of wealth) and, with that, that it increases alienation and presents severe barriers to human development. He also saw capitalism as containing the seeds of its own destruction in that it contains inherent contradictions that will eventually play themselves out and weaken its economic foundation: the private ownership of the means of production. This is the more technical, economic part of his theory.

If capitalism causes prosperity, then there is no basis for a Marxist revolution. You can argue the philosophical superiority of Marxism all you want, but its pointless: you can't have a revolution unless people are angry with their current situation.

I agree with you. People will not do anything about their living conditions unless they are forced to. It's just that I believe that things will get so bad that people *will* be forced to stand up for their right to live as human beings, and to stand up for the future generations' rights to a habitable planet (hopefully this will happen on time - the greatest risk I see is that people will not act on their knowledge until it is too late). Unlike me, you believe that everyone's lives are getting better and that there aren't any really serious environmental problems and that we have infinite time to sort out whatever minor environmental problems there are. Stalemate.

I can't understand how you could think about it all the time and miss such a key flaw. But again, maybe I worded the statement badly: when you think about it, do you question it? That's what I really meant: only by actively searching for flaws and failing (that is, in essence, the scientific process) can you be sure you have something worth believing.

This is good advice, Russ (to question one's beliefs)- but can you see that you (and others involved in political discussions) are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of here? Do you, honestly speaking, believe that your political thinking is scientifically based? Do you question the perspective from which you choose to analyse the world? Actually, Russ, I did question Marxism - for a long time, I tried to ignore it and what it shows me. You have no idea how uncomfortable it is being forced to see life and the world without blinkers - it makes my own personal life a lot more difficult and has had all sorts of personal and social implications that I really don't want to go into here. Believe me, I've tried to numb my brain in various ways (eg. watching mindless TV, going for days without reading news in an attempt to obliterate my awareness, etc). I guess I just can't do it: I can't skim the surface of life and pretend everything is fine and that I should just have a 'good time' and not worry about politics and the wider society. And there is no getting away from what marxism tells me; it's clear as day.