Advertisement
by Militant Costco » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:32 pm
Pope Joan wrote:I oppose globalism economically; it dilutes the effect of our environmental and labor laws.
by Chan Island » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:40 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Yugoslav Memes wrote:"It's not time yet" is an answer too
"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Greed and Death » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:00 pm
by Sanctissima » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:17 pm
Neu Leonstein wrote:Sanctissima wrote:"Human" is not a cultural identity. If you wanted to create a global federation that would last, you'd also need to create a global cultural identity that would go along with it.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. We all tell ourselves narratives about who we are, why we do what we do and so on. For most people, something about how they understand their national heritage is part of that narrative. It is for me too.
But that doesn't have to translate into anything more than that. There is no need to go from that personal narrative to a political system. I can happily say that I was born in Germany, and that my approach to life (including to politics) is influenced by where and how I grew up and the history of Germans as a people. But I've spent half my life in other places, don't really know that many Germans anymore besides family and certainly don't feel the need to have my identity validated by being surrounded by Germans. I can be who I am just fine while surrounded by people with different nationalities (and, to a degree, different personal narratives altogether).
I think that's the fundamental, psychological, divide between what I think of as globalists and nationalists. If you get your narrative and the validation thereof internally, or at least from behaviours that aren't nation-specific*, then it doesn't bug you that much where you live and who else lives there. If your narrative is in some sense externally validated and gets a big part of its meaning to you from being shared with the people around you, then I suppose you would feel somehow out of place if you weren't surrounded by people of your own "kind". And if that is true for a lot of people, and those people react with discomfort, anger or even authoritarian politics, then we've got a problem. Two different ways of how people understand themselves, which can't both be accommodated at the same time.
The 21st century, with this whole new scale of interconnectivity between different parts of the world, shows this up in stark contrast. I'm not really interested in arguing about the economics of globalisation at this point... they've been shown to be irrelevant to the political debate. I'm interested in how we can deal with a situation in which some proportion x of the world wants to experience the whole world, pick a place to make their lives regardless of national boundaries, and some proportion (1-x) wants to keep their corner of the world the way they know it and stop too many new arrivals from changing it. Right now we are doing a fantastically shitty job of reconciling these... (1-x) is hitting out by cheering policies of unnecessarily vindictive cruelty, and x is going into an impotent rage about those same policies while offering little to address the concerns of the (1-x) besides "suck it up". So I'm interested in a better solution and what that might look like.
* like, I could say that I am a coffee snob hipster and like to surround myself with other coffee snob hipsters... but I can do that in Sydney, or in Singapore, or in London, or in Austin - nationality is not that important
by Seraven » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:12 pm
Minzerland II wrote:Seraven wrote:
Guess we should totally ignore America's hispanic culture, asian culture, even african culture, right?
You realise they're tearing one another apart, right? America is tearing itself apart.Conserative Morality wrote:Ignore them.
No, really. Don't entertain their delusions. They imagine themselves on the winning side for the moment. Let them celebrate. Let them show the public a taste of what they actually want to do. And let the public recoil from the actual consequences of a less-connected less-free world.
That is quite the prediction.
The Alma Mater wrote:Seraven wrote:I know right! Whites enslaved the natives, they killed them, they converted them forcibly, they acted like a better human beings than the Muslims.
An excellent example of why allowing unrestricted immigration of people with a very different culture might not be the best idea ever :P
by Neu Leonstein » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:11 am
Sanctissima wrote:Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.
The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.
by Sanctissima » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:57 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:Sanctissima wrote:Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say there was no unifying national identity pre-1871 (or maybe 1848). I would dispute that in this particular case, but if you're right, then how did Germany become a thing at all? Isn't the answer that a group identity was formed after the political change, and proved strong enough to last?
The point is that humans love to join tribes. We all do it, all the time. We literally attach ourselves to tribes based on people in coloured shirts kicking a ball. It makes a primitive kind of sense, it's what helped us survive the steppes of Africa.
But because we are so super keen to form tribes based on just about anything, there is no reason that the primary tribe has to be the nation. Aside from all the tribal allegiances that most people consider more important than the nation they belong to already, it is also possible to form strong identities based on little more than political philosophy. Think of the United States. When the first settlers arrived, even just those coming from England, they didn't have much in common. But 200-odd years later, a shared commitment to disliking taxes and Republican radicalism was enough to form what turned out to be a lasting national project. And that's not even beginning to count settlers from everywhere else (French, Spanish, Chinese... lots and lots of African slaves obviously - and ultimately even the surviving Native Americans) who found that they liked the same philosophy and took part in it.The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.
The political philosophy behind cosmopolitan governance and lifestyle already exists. Lots and lots of people who consider national boundaries from a practical perspective (i.e. inconvenient barriers in their lives) already exist. I mean, go to any decent university with a globally recognised name and look around the student body. Or like half the population of cities like New York or London. Or Davos. The US was not founded on a lot more than that.
by Neu Leonstein » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:29 pm
Sanctissima wrote:I'm not contradicting myself. It takes a concerted effort to establish a cultural identity in the short-term (i.e: several decades). Germany exists today despite having lost two world wars precisely because a concerted effort was made to establish a German culture. You can thank Bismarck for that.
The Unites States, in contrast, made very little effort to properly establish an American cultural identity, so it is true that such an identity can gradually develop on its own over time. It's worth noting, however, that due to this lack of a concerted effort to establish an American identity, the country was, on several occasions, on the precipice of not existing at all (War of 1812, Civil War, etc.).
What you and other posters are essentially advocating is a type of global federation that would go down the same route as the early United States. I assure you that the odds of such a federation surviving would be very, very low. Least of all because, when push would come to shove, I really doubt the leadership of such a federation would have the same willpower as that of the early US presidents. Would you be willing to fight a civil war to keep your federation together? Would you be willing to damn popular sovereignty and force your federation upon unwilling nations? Would you be willing to trample over human rights and even murder political dissidents to preserve the stability of your federation?
If your answer to any of these questions is no, then your federation would not survive.
by Republic of the Cristo » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:58 pm
by PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:04 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:19 pm
PaNTuXIa wrote:Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.
by PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:20 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:22 pm
by Republic of the Cristo » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:27 pm
by Kerbodine » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:30 pm
Bit late, but in general Gen Z is more conservative in a lot of ways than the generations before. (For example, church attendance is at like 40%, while even Baby Boomers were only like 25% when they were that age, and the two in between were maybe 20%)Community Values wrote:Kerbodine wrote:I'm by no means a globalist, but to the globalists here (since I think this is a very open discussion): don't be too overly optimistic about the future being more 'pro-globalist'. The youngest generation shows some very interesting trends, many of which are non-globalist.
Interesting trends that are found where? I mean, I live in the most Republican town in my state, and I can say a lot about the political trends in my school.
by Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:33 pm
by Neu Leonstein » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:34 pm
Republic of the Cristo wrote:But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.
by Republic of the Cristo » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:35 pm
by Conserative Morality » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:36 pm
[/quote]Kerbodine wrote:Bit late, but in general Gen Z is more conservative in a lot of ways than the generations before. (For example, church attendance is at like 40%, while even Baby Boomers were only like 25% when they were that age, and the two in between were maybe 20%)
Wikipedia has a page on Gen Z, including basic trends; not a bad place to glimpse at it.
by PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:44 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:47 pm
by PaNTuXIa » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:48 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:
Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.
All fall in line with the globalist expansion.
No, all of those are goals on expanding national power. Globalism may have been an excuse for things say, America installing pro American democracies, but it's no more globalist then invading a country for oil
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cyptopir, Keltionialang, Landbang Rkipo Islands, MERIZoC, Phoeniae, Reverend Norv, Sarduri, Shrillland, Soviet Haaregrad, Tricorniolis, Tungstan
Advertisement