What Political Persuasion Are You?

[loveme4whoiam]

I don't know about that. The fact that he's put Imperialism with Globalism makes me go "Hmm, he want's to take over the world" *cue the obviosu stroking of a white cat*. I don't think MBs missed the point much, although perhaps it could have been better phrased.

 

I think internationalism is, in the extreme long-term, an inevitability. But in the meantime its very much a minority belief, and frankly the performance of the UN to enforce the "views of a global nation" and restrain our wayward American cousins doesn't inspire confidence in the idea.

[VladimIr V Y]

"I am Zoltar, of the media sector of the New One World Planet Spaceship Earth Economy (United States). Kashyyk of the assembly line sector of the New One World Planet Spaceship Earth Economy (South America), do my dishes, or I will call in a security guard from the defense sector of the New One World Planet Spaceship Earth Economy (Africa)... To destroy you! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"

 

(If your argument can read like the plot of bad sci-fi, so can my rebuttal.)

 

Actually, that doesn't sound bad.

Reminds me of Isaac Azimov's "I, Robot". A book, not an action movie, what have about 1% left from Asimov's story. There was pretty much same idea, but it is a very good sci-fi. I think you should read it, to get general idea of what I am speaking. It will be good if you read Ivan Efremov's books, but they wasn't translated to English, as far as I know. They are a bit utopian, but good nontheless.

 

I think what he's trying to say is "We are all citizens of the world" i.e. international barriers will come down as - alledgedly - they have in Europe, and people will gradually place less importance in their sense of national heritage, and begin to feel more as one with other nations.

 

This is it!

Sorry, but I rarely speak English, so I find it hard to convert my thoughts from Russian, at times.

 

I, for example have for many years considered myself "European" as opposed to British or Spanish, in part because I do not feel that my personality and way of thinking coincide directly with either. )Incidentally, this is why I STILL haven't voted on this forum, as I have yet to be convinced that any of these 'labels' actually apply to me.) I am proud of certain aspects of my heritage and (somewhat mixed) culture, but other facets of them disgust me.

 

True global unity is surely an unattainable utopia, but I would like to think that the world will one day consist of people of like minds, rather than being cast together due to nationality.

 

I agree to this. But I think what such union is unattainable in the world's present state. The world is moving faster, so everything may change in a few decades or even several years. In 1945 on one imagined, that mighty Soviet Union will crumble under it's own weight by 1991.

 

I think internationalism is, in the extreme long-term, an inevitability. But in the meantime its very much a minority belief, and frankly the performance of the UN to enforce the "views of a global nation" and restrain our wayward American cousins doesn't inspire confidence in the idea.

 

Well said. But there is not only politic situation what matter, but economic too. The world main powers starting to get more and more dependant on others. Right now I viewing the forum through ViewSonic 19 inch LCD monitor :P. It's an American brand, but monitor itself is made in China. A good percent of gas what heats Europe is coming from Russian or other ex-Soviet Union country. Even now most of the world is tied together with economic relations, and number of ties is increasing. Soon it will be evident, what waging war(including "cold" war) to another country is like severing own's arm or leg, or head.

[Marxist ßastard]

Soon it will be evident, what waging war(including "cold" war) to another country is like severing own's arm or leg, or head.

 

Question: In Russia, how is gangrene treated?

[VladimIr V Y]

Question: In Russia, how is gangrene treated?

 

Like in every civilzed country - by applying antibiotics.

Just don't tell me, what in US you just hack off limbs, without administering some kind of medicine first. :D

[Marxist ßastard]

Antibiotics delivered how, precisely? There's no bloodflow in the affected area.

[VladimIr V Y]

Antibiotics delivered how, precisely? There's no bloodflow in the affected area.

 

By hypodermic syringe.

This is test of my medical knowledge? I am an economist, not a doctor.

By the way, what country you can possiby want to cut off from the world?

[Marxist ßastard]

I told you, there's no bloodflow. The tissue is all ischemic. If you give the patient antibiotics, they'll go everywhere except where you need them to be.

[loveme4whoiam]

Off the subject of medical practices for a moment (I take your point MB, but lets keep this moving eh?), I understand a bit more what you are saying VladimIr. But still, Imperialism is Imperialism in my book, and boils down to being told to do something by someone else because they have a gun pointed at your head (major oversimplification, but you get my point). Perhaps you could explain how Globalism and Imperialism could mix without coming down to that?

 

Soon it will be evident, what waging war(including "cold" war) to another country is like severing own's arm or leg, or head.

 

This is true, but only of the bigger economic producers. For example, I heard a while ago that China owns something like one fifth of all ships afloat on the worlds oceans (or something like that). I doubt America will ever go to war with China (because they'd get their asses kicked, but also) since they and the rest of the world rely on China too much for them to cut off everything they produce.

 

But for the smaller countries, which only have raw materials that can be taken, they are at the mercy of the larger countries. In order for them to work within a "global community" they must be secure in the knowledge that no-one is going to try and take their resources, which Imperialism certainly wouldn't give. It would more say "You WILL give us your oil, or we shall invade your skinny little country and beat them out of you." A global economy and community must work on a foundation of voluntary co-operation, not forced co-operation.

 

But I think what such union is unattainable in the world's present state.

 

Completely agree. People are too divided by the many, many, many stupid reasons for disliking someone else. And unfortunately, I can't see that changing, no matter how fast things may be changing. If anything, its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

[VladimIr V Y]

But still, Imperialism is Imperialism in my book, and boils down to being told to do something by someone else because they have a gun pointed at your head (major oversimplification, but you get my point). Perhaps you could explain how Globalism and Imperialism could mix without coming down to that?

 

The Modern imperialism or Marxist theory of Imperialism is exactly what you tell. A better name for it is a "Robber imperialism".

But it is not the true imperialism. One true world's empire - is Chinese empire, standing around for some 3600 years, under rule of one or another dynasty, in different borders. Another good try was the Russian Empire.

An important notes - both empires never resorted to conquesting weak. Quite the opposite, everyone was trying to conquest them. Both was conquested by mongols (Russia wasn't an empire by that time, but united for the first time to drive off the occupation force), but was able to free themselfs, partially absorbing the enemy culture and people.

 

True empire is not one what conquer everything, than run from one it's corner to another, fighting rebels and discontent(Roman empire is a good example, Soviet Union is another and US will will be the third), but empire that absorbs the enemy to the point where enemy become part of empire. That empire will emerge from the war stronger than it was before.

That hapened to Russian Empire during Napoleonic wars in Europe and during the WW2. Weak from the begining, by the end of war it's become an unstopable force. Too bad the Russia was corrupted by communist rule and started to rely on same imperialistical methods as US, which led to it's fall.

 

China is much wiser. It's like a multi-stage rocket. They used a Soviet Union in it's prime (the late 40-s and 50-s) as a rocket trusters, and then the fuel was exhaunted, they detached, and continued the flight as independant rocket, reaching even greater velocity with own's engines.

 

But for the smaller countries, which only have raw materials that can be taken, they are at the mercy of the larger countries. In order for them to work within a "global community" they must be secure in the knowledge that no-one is going to try and take their resources, which Imperialism certainly wouldn't give. It would more say "You WILL give us your oil, or we shall invade your skinny little country and beat them out of you." A global economy and community must work on a foundation of voluntary co-operation, not forced co-operation.

 

That's where UN must come forward and say: "Keep your ambitions to yourselfs, if you don't want to be mashed like a bug". :)

 

Completely agree. People are too divided by the many, many, many stupid reasons for disliking someone else. And unfortunately, I can't see that changing, no matter how fast things may be changing. If anything, its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

 

An external threat would be very nice as a uniting force. But this is a bad sci-fi. :)

[loveme4whoiam]

empire that absorbs the enemy to the point where enemy become part of empire.

 

Hmm. Voluntary entry into an Empire... Maybe I'm just being put off by a label, but Imperialsm still sounds like "You will do things the Empires way or you will do them not at all". To use a really poor example of how things could work would be the UN. Each country still has their own laws etc, but are bound up by international law and convention which are supposedly kept to by all. An example of how Imperialism might work in this day and age might be the EU. Everyone in the EU has to do things Brussel's way, lest they get a smack on the hand in diplomatic terms.

 

China is much wiser. It's like a multi-stage rocket. They used a Soviet Union in it's prime (the late 40-s and 50-s) as a rocket trusters, and then the fuel was exhaunted, they detached, and continued the flight as independant rocket, reaching even greater velocity with own's engines.

 

Interesting metaphor. I wonder when they'll start to tip over and descend.

 

That's where UN must come forward and say: "Keep your ambitions to yourselfs, if you don't want to be mashed like a bug". :)

 

;D ;D Oh, sorry, but that's just hilarious. I'm pretty sure I've said this before in this thread, but I'll say it again just as an example of why that's funny. The UN has asked the US twelve times to remove its blockade of Cuba, and what have the Americans done? Diddly squat. China and the US and another other country can simply ignore the UN because they don't have the will or the capacity to stop them. They are just like the League of Nations that they tried to replace after WWII - that body was singularly useless in stopping Italian and German military excursions (I don't remember the specifics of these, but I seem to recall Italy invaded the Sudan or some part of Eastern Africa). The UN is a useless body as far as preventing a country from doing something that every other country on Earth does not want to happen.

 

An external threat would be very nice as a uniting force. But this is a bad sci-fi. :)

 

Yes indeed :D But frankly it shouldn't take that - if people would only wake up to the mass of internal problems the peoples of the world has we would be so much better off. But in the UK (obviously can't speak for any other country) people are getting driven more and more into supporting the divisions of society and the degrading and degenerative aspects that they bring. Like I said, a whole lot worse before we even start to get better.