PDA

View Full Version : OMFG! Globalization!!1!


Oliver
14th December 2007, 08:38 AM
We already talked about the NWO a lot - but the Issue I'd like
to raise here is opposing distrust and angst about Globalization
as a whole.

In another Forum I made the following argumentations and I'd
like to hear from "Truthers" and "Debunkers" what their opinions
are - rather than ridiculing the other side.

So turn on your brain and think before you post:

When was the last time your Neighbors Family robbed you or a
Wolf ate you? Historically that was a good argument - and it's still
a good one concerning problems we're able to solve nowadays in
a much more effective way thanks to Unions.

It is completely natural for the human nature - thanks to the
human intellect - or in other words: The human Brains capabilities
concerning what we call: learning.

- First there was no Union whatsoever besides the Family/couple.
(Which historically was the smallest natural Union of Individuals)

- Then Families built Family-Unions (Clans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clans)/Villages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villages)). This way they
shared their work like hunting, farming - and they were more
dominant against all natural enemies. And they learned from each
others, got new Ideas, had time to experiment with their Ideas
which led to science.

- Unfortunately, there were other Clans - and they weren't friendly.
So the Clans transformed into Clan-Unions (Monarchies/Kingdoms)
to protect themselves.

- Then many of those Monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms#Demise_of_monarchies) disappeared for many reasons,
including kicking the Monarchs ass - and Countries replaced those
Monarchies.

- Then some countries had the stupid Idea that uniting their
efforts would be good for the economy, much easier concerning
international trade and would make war between the member-
states much more unlikely. So they built the EU.

This is a rough compilation of the History of Unions.
It certainly is no Conspiracy once you understand the pattern
and how one thing led to another.

So is globalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization)Good or Bad? We don't know - history
will decide. All I say is that this isn't in any way a "Global Elite
will enslave us into FEMA-camps Conspiracy" - something some
people actually believe in.

I really wonder why those Anti-Globalists people love the Internet
so much - it's the biggest Globalization tool the world has ever seen.
Otherwise I wouldn't be able to post this very message from Germany
in a virtual global Union called the "Ron Paul Forum", hosted on the
other side of the planet.

The Internet removes national hurdles. Both of us talking about
it in an Internet Forum with people from ten or more other countries
is the best evidence for that. So people are getting closer to each other,
learn about each others Ideas, share their knowledge and so on.

That's a huge step towards Globalization and building Unions - not
the other way around.

Why? Because the Internet drastically pushes the Ideology of a
Global Community. There is no "those evil Arabs or Germans" - in the
Internet there is only "You, Me, Wong, Rob, Fatma, Francesca
and all the other people."

And this trend will finally eliminate the Ideology of nationalism.

From historical point of view, America itself is the best evidence
for that. They came from all over the world to the new continent
and somehow managed to come along and call themselves
AMERICANS, no matter where they came from.

And Americans feel the same way. Paul doesn't say he's German
because his Grandpa came from there. He honestly says, feels
and thinks that he's an American. Which is his definition of
where he feels he belongs to.

The Internet is the same thing. Once people don't feel that they
are part of a Nation anymore but rather part of a global community,
and this change is already happening, then there is no reason to
have sovereign nations or nationalistic Ideologies anymore.

It's just a matter of how people think about the world they live in.

And the Internet is changing that rapidly what people think about
other Nations - thanks to exchange of Ideas and Goods. No matter
if you like it or not:

It's speeding up Globalization.

Welcome to the New Age.

And as a side note: Ron is supporting "trade, talk to each other, be
friends with people and nations" - and he supports the Internet
without limitations. To me this sounds pro-globalism - with the limitation
that he opposes other Governments influence and efforts.

To me, all of this is related.

Anyway: Being skeptical, I see no way to stop Globalism. Just like it's
impossible to go back to anarchy or moving Americans back to the
countries they came from.

So why care or being worried about that anyway?
No conspiracy here. Just evolution.


Your serious thoughts?

Oliver
14th December 2007, 08:41 AM
Please note that I started this topic to explicitly ask
you Debunkers and Conspiracy Theorists. Especially the
people who are afraid of a global conspiracy.

Brainster
14th December 2007, 08:47 AM
I have very little interest in seeing a global government. Cooperation between nations is fine, free trade is beneficial, etc. But we can see with the EU how extremely difficult it is to harmonize things in areas that have been separately governed for centuries. The benefit of having separate nation states is that if you don't like things in your own state, you can vote with your feet and move to another. Once the world government takes over, there's no place to move, and no competition.

And I suspect your hero, Dr. Paul, would agree with me.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 08:53 AM
I have very little interest in seeing a global government. Cooperation between nations is fine, free trade is beneficial, etc. But we can see with the EU how extremely difficult it is to harmonize things in areas that have been separately governed for centuries. The benefit of having separate nation states is that if you don't like things in your own state, you can vote with your feet and move to another. Once the world government takes over, there's no place to move, and no competition.

And I suspect your hero, Dr. Paul, would agree with me.


He isn't a hero to me - just someone who is honest in a dishonest
world. But that's another story.

As I pointed out in the OP, it's Human Nature and Social Behavior
that we're heading towards Globalization since the first time our
DNA appeared.

So what's your stance on the History of Unions. Don't you agree
that humanity is doomed to be one Government in the Future,
despite the historical evidence that there were always people
opposing Unions?

That's nothing new - but I already see who will finally win this
fight about Ideologies...

Horatius
14th December 2007, 09:13 AM
Don't you agree
that humanity is doomed to be one Government in the Future,
despite the historical evidence that there were always people
opposing Unions?




Nah. There's no way the Belters will let a bunch of Groundhogs tell them what to do.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 09:21 AM
I have very little interest in seeing a global government. Cooperation between nations is fine, free trade is beneficial, etc. But we can see with the EU how extremely difficult it is to harmonize things in areas that have been separately governed for centuries. The benefit of having separate nation states is that if you don't like things in your own state, you can vote with your feet and move to another. Once the world government takes over, there's no place to move, and no competition.

And I suspect your hero, Dr. Paul, would agree with me.


Let me clarify your post.

You say that there will be no competition once there will be
a "World Government". How is that true if this Government
is based on a free market?

Sure, the competition between Governments would end - but
not the competition concerning the Free Market. People would
still try to get their goods from good and cheap sources. So
this wouldn't eliminate competition in any way. Even if markets
would shift based on things like "a minimum wage".

The question is - what Kind of World-Government would be
the most democratic one? One that controls all the Member-
countries - or one that works like in the US: Parts are being
handled on District-, parts on State-, parts on Federal- and
Parts on Worldwide level.

It works the same way in the EU. On multinational Issues,
the EU and their members decide. Concerning domestic Issues,
the individual Country makes the decision.

It's just a matter of sharing governments power - and how
to distribute those powers amongst all levels.

I'm not afraid of this Idea in any way. Why should I?

Oliver
14th December 2007, 09:22 AM
Nah. There's no way the Belters will let a bunch of Groundhogs tell them what to do.


Said the King ... days before his execution. (No kidding: That's a historical fact)

danielk
14th December 2007, 09:28 AM
Globalization is good. And it doesn't necessarily imply global government. And at the moment I don't see politics going into that direction anyway. Politics is decades behind the business at being global.

Oliver, if you're brave you might want to read Immanuel Kant's "Zum ewigen Frieden" (http://www.textlog.de/kant_frieden.html). At this point I will have to admit that I haven't actually read it myself yet, but only secondary literature. However, I do know that Kant opposed the idea of a global government and argued for a federation of nation states. Thus I think it might interest you. And it would also keep you busy for a while. :)

Oops, did I just uncover one of Oliver's posts? I need to train my self-control.

Arkan_Wolfshade
14th December 2007, 09:32 AM
The most common rational argument I've seen against globalization in the US is that we (the US) have a number of views on what are inherent freedoms that are not commonly held by other nations; firearms ownership comes to mind as one of the largest. The fear is that globalization would cause the US to have to adopt policies that would restrict such freedoms. Give the history of the US, how it came to independence, its "maturity" as a nation, etc; it is not unreasonable that such views would be held. That said, I've not seen sufficient evidence to substantiate this fear.

Do I think we'll end up with a world gov't a la Star Trek? Not too likely. More likely, globalization will be economically driven and individual states will bend to economic pressures but still retain their sovereignty. Just my US$0.02.

Pardalis
14th December 2007, 09:32 AM
I don't understand Oliver, you're making fun of people who are afraid of the NWO/one world government now?

As it's been said to you over and over again in the Paulitics subforum, Ron Paul is such a person.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 09:45 AM
I don't understand Oliver, you're making fun of people who are afraid of the NWO/one world government now?

As it's been said to you over and over again in the Paulitics subforum, Ron Paul is such a person.


No, I'm not making fun but rather trying to find out why people are
scared about Globalization - which, IHMO, is a natural human process
that can't be stopped according the Humans History - a process that
started looooooooong before someone came up with a Bible.

Are you a pro- or contra-Globalization? - And why?

Pardalis
14th December 2007, 09:53 AM
No, I'm not making fun but rather trying to find out why people are scared about Globalization - which, IHMO, is a natural human process that can't be stopped according the Humans History - a process that
started looooooooong before someone came up with a Bible.

Then you disagree with Paul on a major issue. It's quite troubling that you don't see that.

Are you a pro- or contra-Globalization? - And why?

I'm not much of an economist, but given the internet and the increasing ease by which we can travel and transport goods around makes globalization unavoidable. How we can control and make sure it is just is another matter, and I think we should be careful, like with anything else.

But as far as the one world government conspiracy theory, it's complete bunk.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 09:57 AM
The most common rational argument I've seen against globalization in the US is that we (the US) have a number of views on what are inherent freedoms that are not commonly held by other nations; firearms ownership comes to mind as one of the largest. The fear is that globalization would cause the US to have to adopt policies that would restrict such freedoms. Give the history of the US, how it came to independence, its "maturity" as a nation, etc; it is not unreasonable that such views would be held. That said, I've not seen sufficient evidence to substantiate this fear.

Do I think we'll end up with a world gov't a la Star Trek? Not too likely. More likely, globalization will be economically driven and individual states will bend to economic pressures but still retain their sovereignty. Just my US$0.02.


And I agree with you - concerning the second amendment, people
probably should be scared to lose their right of bearing arms.

Why is it important anyway hundred of years after the fact? I
never had it - I never missed it - I don't see any relevance in
this right.

But this doesn't have to be a "global governments issue" - the
solution would be national constitutions and world-wide ones,
depending on what the multi-national governments functions
should be.

In the EU, the EU-Government doesn't dictate Germany in all
Issues - only in Issues that all Member-States agreed on. Which
mostly are economical things. However - the individual Countries
didn't gave up their function yet and we still have our constitution
here, even if the trend is going to a European-wide constitution.

Now it depends on what will be within this EU-Constitution to
finally come to the conclusion if it's a good or bad thing. But
being afraid doesn't sound rational in any way. So the fears
seem to be out of Mis-information or lack of Information in
general.

You're probably right concerning how it will end up concerning
economical interests ruling over national interests - even if I like
the Star-Trek idea - which seems to be pretty far away from now.

But all in all - I'm realistic about it, it's an unstoppable process
anyway.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 10:02 AM
Then you disagree with Paul on a major issue. It's quite troubling that you don't see that.

I'm not much of an economist, but given the internet and the increasing ease by which we can travel and transport goods around makes globalization unavoidable. How we can control and make sure it is just is another matter, and I think we should be careful, like with anything else.

But as far as the one world government conspiracy theory, it's complete bunk.


Not really. I agree with Paul's stance that "trading, talk and being
friends with people" is the quite honest way to act with others.
But I disagree that this isn't actually furthering Globalization as
a whole. You know - trading and talking to Iran does eliminate
any Woo to declare them as being Evildoer Regimes.

But that's the political side which may be off-topic in CT.

Of course the "FEMA camps global Government" is a hoax - and
I agree that the process is undoable/unstoppable. So why should
someone be afraid of it?

Maybe the Truthers who strongly oppose Nafta, Superhighways
and Globalization in general are able to explain it to me.

So far, it's no conspiracy to me at all.

Pardalis
14th December 2007, 10:08 AM
Not really. I agree with Paul's stance that "trading, talk and being friends with people" is the quite honest way to act with others.

Which has nothing to do with his views on globalization and NWO.

But I disagree that this isn't actually furthering Globalization as a whole.

I don't know what that means.

You know - trading and talking to Iran does eliminate any Woo to declare them as being Evildoer Regimes.

Which has nothing to do with his views on globalization and NWO.

brodski
14th December 2007, 10:10 AM
thread moved to social issues as it's not discussing a conspiracy theory

Diagoras
14th December 2007, 10:13 AM
As a former conspiracy nut, I can tell you that that is not what I thought of when I thought of globalization. I saw globalization as the concentration of more and more of the world's resources and power into the hands of a few rich American men. I had no problem with things like the Internet and the EU and the UN. It was obvious to me even back then that increased communication and hopefully cooperation would happen between the nations of the world. I had no desire to keep the nations separate, or to stop any kind of global community from emerging.

To a lot of conspiracy theorists, globalization is itself a conspiracy. A conspiracy by the leaders of the first world to usurp the third world and its resources to benefit themselves. 9/11, I sincerely believed, was part of this process. I thought Bush staged the attacks to give himself an excuse to invade Afghanistan and gain more control over the Middle East.

I still disagree with a lot of the way things are going down in the world of globalization, but I no longer think anybody's consciously conspiring to oppress people and make their lives miserable.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 10:37 AM
As a former conspiracy nut, I can tell you that that is not what I thought of when I thought of globalization. I saw globalization as the concentration of more and more of the world's resources and power into the hands of a few rich American men. I had no problem with things like the Internet and the EU and the UN. It was obvious to me even back then that increased communication and hopefully cooperation would happen between the nations of the world. I had no desire to keep the nations separate, or to stop any kind of global community from emerging.

To a lot of conspiracy theorists, globalization is itself a conspiracy. A conspiracy by the leaders of the first world to usurp the third world and its resources to benefit themselves. 9/11, I sincerely believed, was part of this process. I thought Bush staged the attacks to give himself an excuse to invade Afghanistan and gain more control over the Middle East.

I still disagree with a lot of the way things are going down in the world of globalization, but I no longer think anybody's consciously conspiring to oppress people and make their lives miserable.


That's a wise change of mind - even if I may side with the
Truthers opinion that Globalization is more about cooperate
power than "the peoples power".

But you may be a bad example for someone who actually
fears the NWO-Globalization thoughts.

About 9/11 and Wars. I rather tend to think that this is a
US-Empire issue rather than a Global Conspiracy. So from this
point of view, a global Government would prevent this kind
of imperialistic policies in the first place.

Minadin
14th December 2007, 10:38 AM
It seems to me that a lot of non-US (such as European) supporters of Ron Paul are basically 1-issue voters, similar to the fundamentalist Christians here in the US whose only concern is a candidate's stance on abortion. They'll ignore every other policy stance that a politician will take in favor of one that's not even very likely to be acted upon. Yeah, he'll pull us out of Iraq, or try to, immediately, if elected, but have you looked at any of his other policies? It's very odd to me.

Ron Paul is essentially a xenophobe when it comes to foreign policy, and would not be supportive of any efforts to participate in world political affairs whatsoever, whether the cause is humanitarian, peacekeeping, environmental accords, or anything else that the UN member nations tend to be in agreement that it's a good thing / just cause. So any sort of increased globalization is pretty much out of the question with him.

In my own opinion, however, I don't necessarily see increased global cooperation as a bad thing. Raising standards for wages and working conditions in developing countries, having some sort of consistency in the laws from country to country, a basic general agreement on the standards of human rights - I don't really see how these things would be detrimental in the long term at all. However, I think we should let this process happen incrementally, at its own natural pace, rather than trying to force it. If you try to implement sweeping changes in world government while many people aren't ready or willing, you'll cause a lot of resentment.

With regard to the people who are ardently pro-globalization, I don't think that there's any conspiracy here. They don't seem to be working in secret, and I don't see their purposes as being particularly nefarious. They honestly believe that it's in the best interests of most of the people and that's why they're championing that cause. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

danielk
14th December 2007, 10:40 AM
What's really weird is that the guy is supposedly libertarian.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 10:43 AM
It seems to me that a lot of non-US (such as European) supporters of Ron Paul are basically 1-issue voters, similar to the fundamentalist Christians here in the US whose only concern is a candidate's stance on abortion. They'll ignore every other policy stance that a politician will take in favor of one that's not even very likely to be acted upon. Yeah, he'll pull us out of Iraq, or try to, immediately, if elected, but have you looked at any of his other policies? It's very odd to me.

Ron Paul is essentially a xenophobe when it comes to foreign policy, and would not be supportive of any efforts to participate in world political affairs whatsoever, whether the cause is humanitarian, peacekeeping, environmental accords, or anything else that the UN member nations tend to be in agreement that it's a good thing / just cause. So any sort of increased globalization is pretty much out of the question with him.

In my own opinion, however, I don't necessarily see increased global cooperation as a bad thing. Raising standards for wages and working conditions in developing countries, having some sort of consistency in the laws from country to country, a basic general agreement on the standards of human rights - I don't really see how these things would be detrimental in the long term at all. However, I think we should let this process happen incrementally, at its own natural pace, rather than trying to force it. If you try to implement sweeping changes in world government while many people aren't ready or willing, you'll cause a lot of resentment.

With regard to the people who are ardently pro-globalization, I don't think that there's any conspiracy here. They don't seem to be working in secret, and I don't see their purposes as being particularly nefarious. They honestly believe that it's in the best interests of most of the people and that's why they're championing that cause. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.



I disagree. And it's off-topic.

Nevertheless - I will reply to your false assumptions if you
start a related thread in politics.

Minadin
14th December 2007, 10:46 AM
Off-topic? Wrong forum? How could you even make those accusations in this of all threads?

In any case I disagree with you as well.

Brainster
14th December 2007, 10:55 AM
Let me clarify your post.

You say that there will be no competition once there will be
a "World Government". How is that true if this Government
is based on a free market?

Sure, the competition between Governments would end - but
not the competition concerning the Free Market. People would
still try to get their goods from good and cheap sources. So
this wouldn't eliminate competition in any way. Even if markets
would shift based on things like "a minimum wage".

My point is that there would be no competition between governments, not in the private sector.

The question is - what Kind of World-Government would be
the most democratic one? One that controls all the Member-
countries - or one that works like in the US: Parts are being
handled on District-, parts on State-, parts on Federal- and
Parts on Worldwide level.

It works the same way in the EU. On multinational Issues,
the EU and their members decide. Concerning domestic Issues,
the individual Country makes the decision.

But of course it is the figuring out what exactly is domestic and what is multinational that is causing all the problem in the EU. The French want to keep their small family farms, but the only way to do that is to have tariffs on food imports. But that means that (since the flow of goods is free from tariff within the EU) that the entire EU must agree to those tariffs. But why should the Italians be forced to subsidize French farmers?

D'rok
14th December 2007, 11:58 AM
He isn't a hero to me - just someone who is honest in a dishonest
world. But that's another story.

As I pointed out in the OP, it's Human Nature and Social Behavior
that we're heading towards Globalization since the first time our
DNA appeared.

So what's your stance on the History of Unions. Don't you agree
that humanity is doomed to be one Government in the Future,
despite the historical evidence that there were always people
opposing Unions?

it's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'm wondering if your perspective is coloured by recent experiences such as German unification and the EU in general? (Don't forget that that smaller union - Germany - came about after the dissolution of a larger union - the USSR).

As much as human nature pulls us together, it also sets us against each other. For every historical force that unites us, another vitiates union. Take a look around you. Nationalism is still going strong, especially ethnic nationalism. Religion still divides even when it conquers. Nation-states are constantly appearing, disappearing, changing their borders, etc.

There is nothing inevitable about history. You are committing the same fallacy of post-diction that your more famous historicist countrymen have done before you. (Hegel and Marx). You have looked at what has happened and said "well, obviously it had to have happened that way". This then gets extrapolated to the future - i.e., post-diction becomes prediction.

Hegel and Marx were wrong. Dead wrong. So was Kojeve and so was Fukuyama.

My own country, one of the most prosperous and peaceful on the planet, is perennially under threat of dissolution from ethnic nationalism. America and Russia are threatening our territory in the Arctic. Nothing significant has changed.

That's nothing new - but I already see who will finally win this
fight about Ideologies...You would not be the first to make that prediction and you will likely not be the last. At lest you formulated it rationally. Most of the anti-NWO and anti-NAU crowd are unable to do that. Instead they just see bogeymen everywhere.

Undesired Walrus
14th December 2007, 12:07 PM
It's quite natural that we ejaculate into the womb, but we now use contraception.

Should we throw off that because it is what our DNA wants?

Oliver
14th December 2007, 01:30 PM
It's quite natural that we ejaculate into the womb, but we now use contraception.

Should we throw off that because it is what our DNA wants?


We don't have a Sex-Forum yet. So what are you talking about?
The DNA doesn't want anything. I just meant that the DNA is
responsible for what we are - not what we do.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 01:31 PM
Off-topic? Wrong forum? How could you even make those accusations in this of all threads?

In any case I disagree with you as well.


...because I think that in contrast to you, I think that ...

Oliver
14th December 2007, 01:36 PM
it's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I'm wondering if your perspective is coloured by recent experiences such as German unification and the EU in general? (Don't forget that that smaller union - Germany - came about after the dissolution of a larger union - the USSR).

As much as human nature pulls us together, it also sets us against each other. For every historical force that unites us, another vitiates union. Take a look around you. Nationalism is still going strong, especially ethnic nationalism. Religion still divides even when it conquers. Nation-states are constantly appearing, disappearing, changing their borders, etc.

There is nothing inevitable about history. You are committing the same fallacy of post-diction that your more famous historicist countrymen have done before you. (Hegel and Marx). You have looked at what has happened and said "well, obviously it had to have happened that way". This then gets extrapolated to the future - i.e., post-diction becomes prediction.

Hegel and Marx were wrong. Dead wrong. So was Kojeve and so was Fukuyama.

My own country, one of the most prosperous and peaceful on the planet, is perennially under threat of dissolution from ethnic nationalism. America and Russia are threatening our territory in the Arctic. Nothing significant has changed.

You would not be the first to make that prediction and you will likely not be the last. At lest you formulated it rationally. Most of the anti-NWO and anti-NAU crowd are unable to do that. Instead they just see bogeymen everywhere.


And you have a point concerning "it also pulls us apart".
History acknowledges this - but the winner throughout history
always was Pro-Union.

So why do you think that people are afraid about Globalization
and based on those unfounded emotions, highly opposed to it?

And I apologize, but I fail to see what Nation you belong to
saying that "My own country, one of the most prosperous and
peaceful on the planet, is perennially under threat of dissolution
from ethnic nationalism. America and Russia are threatening our
territory in the Arctic."

Added: I see - Canada. Does it deserve an own thread or
is this still on topic according to the tight rules in here?

Oliver
14th December 2007, 01:37 PM
*doublepost*

Oliver
14th December 2007, 01:43 PM
My point is that there would be no competition between governments, not in the private sector.

But of course it is the figuring out what exactly is domestic and what is multinational that is causing all the problem in the EU. The French want to keep their small family farms, but the only way to do that is to have tariffs on food imports. But that means that (since the flow of goods is free from tariff within the EU) that the entire EU must agree to those tariffs. But why should the Italians be forced to subsidize French farmers?


Well, that's when democracy comes into play. If the other
countries oppose France, France basically can whine all
day long since they agreed that this very issue is one they
give away to a multi-national vote instead a national one.

To make this clear: Countries should think very clearly about
what rights they are willing to give away. The Idea of voting
about multi-national issues itself isn't a bad thing if nations
agree that some Issues are indeed more suitable for a multi-
national vote since it affects all member-states.

D'rok
14th December 2007, 02:57 PM
And you have a point concerning "it also pulls us apart".
History acknowledges this - but the winner throughout history
always was Pro-Union.

Tell that to Gorbachev and the USSR. Tell that to Czechoslovakia. Tell that to Kosovo. Tell that to Kurdistan. Tell that to India and Pakistan. Tell that to Belgium. I could go on and on.

So why do you think that people are afraid about Globalization
and based on those unfounded emotions, highly opposed to it?

Tribal instincts run deep. Nationalism is alive and well.

Oliver
14th December 2007, 03:34 PM
Tell that to Gorbachev and the USSR. Tell that to Czechoslovakia. Tell that to Kosovo. Tell that to Kurdistan. Tell that to India and Pakistan. Tell that to Belgium. I could go on and on.

Tribal instincts run deep. Nationalism is alive and well.


While Nationalism will die - as it did throughout history
in all it's different names, the USSR wasn't thinking globally
in any way.

So yes - they opposed Globalization - and failed. Just
like human history predicted. Nothing new or extraordinary.

D'rok
14th December 2007, 03:43 PM
While Nationalism will die - as it did throughout history
in all it's different names, the USSR wasn't thinking globally
in any way.

So yes - they opposed Globalization - and failed. Just
like human history predicted. Nothing new or extraordinary.

:eye-poppi




:eye-poppi




:jaw-dropp

mr rosewater
14th December 2007, 05:08 PM
While Nationalism will die - as it did throughout history
in all it's different names, the USSR wasn't thinking globally
in any way.

So yes - they opposed Globalization - and failed. Just
like human history predicted. Nothing new or extraordinary.

WOW, What drugs are you on, I want some.

gtc
14th December 2007, 06:19 PM
There is a general tendency towards globalisation (which I will define as more trade and communication and cooperation across greater distances). As I see it, better transport and communication links makes globalization easier, while greater wealth and industrialisation drives demand for long distance trade and communication.

I think that the process of globalisation will continue so long as it keeps becoming easier to trade and communicate over long distances.

Having said that, globalisation is not inevitable. There have been times (lasting centuries) when the trend went against globalisation.

After the Roman Empire broke up it became much harder to trade and communicate over long distances. Roads broke down as did the ability of people to travel safely over long distances (without being robbed or having goods confiscated by the local ruler). On the demand side, fewer people could afford to purchase the products of people in far off lands.

In China and Japan up until recent times, government rules limited international trade and communication. The same thing occurred in the West where the relatively free trade of the 1800s was replaced by trade barriers in the 20th century.

In the very readable book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' it is suggested that the fragmented and competing nations of Europe were more open to globalisation after the 1500s than the strong central government of China.

At the moment free trade and co-operation seems to be increasing within regional blocks (NAFTA, EU etc). I suspect the EU will eventually resemble something like a very weak national government (with the individual countries resembling very strong state governments). I also suspect that this process will lead to the break up of several existing countries. The advent of the EU, NATO and the UN means there is not much more benefit for Scotland to be a part of the UK than there is for West Virginia to have remained a part of Virginia.

The other question is whether the barriers to trade and commerce between regional blocks will decrease.

As far as the CT is concerned, I have seen no evidence that anyone is planning to expand NAFTA into some kind of North American Union. People who campaign against the NAU have either fallen for a CT or are trying to exploit people's anxieties.

D'rok
16th December 2007, 04:55 PM
Bolivia seems blissfully unaware of Oliver's historical determinism:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/12/15/bolivia.unrest/?iref=mpstoryview