Globalism

shit taste m8

That would require him to have enough goons to stand against a thunderstorm of recall votes rippling up the syndicates.

Better than the international equivalent, bleating in the toothless UN, followed by war.

This place is fucking gold.

nigga da fuck you talking about

check your taste son

hey if the global government was federated to the point of having strong democratic controls over local functions, maybe it could be acceptable eventually. Still dangerous imo

fuck off, the OP is clearly Holla Forums bait

The elite have no loyalty to their nation, they are shielded from the effect of globalism and they benefit from it.
globalization ignores the working class natives in the west and exploits the lower class in the third world

absolutely bourgeois. Read bookchin

maybe I should
seems idealist as fuck tho tbh

and another thing, arguing for a hypothetical world democracy =/= a massive conspiracy by "the elites" to put white christians in FEMA camps you fucking moron

It has to work or humanity is doomed. Socialism is meaningless if everyone dies from radiation.

...

Yes. This must explain the UN push to have us all eat bugs.

This is the bit I never get about materialist socialists. How do you split finite resources between infinite people?

we haven't blown ourselves up yet m8
but yeah we all should be afraid of ww3, but a one world government is not something that will happen in a LONG time if ever.

there's restricted access to most goods in socialism

Caught me off guard.

No. NWO/one-world-state suggests one common set of laws for all. There are too many diametrically opposed ideologies in the world right now. Any one world government would have to be authoritarian as hell to keep the peace. Not worth it IMO.

This stalemate wont last forever. Either we have this or only africans will be left after ww3.

So what SocDem said about 'everyone lifted to the same level' cannot be true then. It would take 4 earths for us all to live like americans. 3 for us to live like europeans. SO essentially those arguing for an instant global solution are making the case for taking from the richest half of the world and splitting it between the poorest. Surely left/pol/ can see why people in the west oppose this?

wut? I never said it was. However the practical problems of what a equitable one world government would look like are highlighted by this.

Yes and this is why we have to force this down your throat. I know that brown skin people are scary but the next generations will get used to them.

Yeah, hierarchical syndicalism is the way to go.

I don't think maintaining separate legislative and executive branches is a good idea, but there's no alternatives to the nation state. Without them, a power vacuum would just be filled by something worse, unless we were reduced to isolationist bronze-age villages.

The same is already the case inside existing nations, like the hierarchy of local, regional, state, and governments inside the federation of the US, each with a great diversity of laws. I think there's plenty of precedent for an even larger version simply binding together areas of law we all agree on, while leaving areas of disagreement untouched.

Globalism≠infinite population growth. Remember that the US and Europe were once wracked by starvation and poverty, with consequent fertility levels. Global fertility is already dropping, and under prosperous global socialism, it would only plummet faster.

Brilliant logic. Never mind the fact that muslims DO threaten the way of life in the west. For the greater good amirite?

Yes exactly that. 200 people a year dying from terrorism is a small cost to save billions of people.

I don't see how considering that they're currently implementing a similar system in Rojava

famrade, we need to talk

The more people living ujnder one system, the more dissent and infightng there will be. Surely this is self-evident. Look at the election this year and how divided the US is as a result. Now imagine an election where you have a hardline islamist vs a Chinese communist. I do think one world government is inevitable on a long enough timescale but the world is far too divided right now.

Can you give a couple of examples of laws you think could be standardized globally at this minute?

But as I've said above, if the current resources of the world were split we'd be far from prosperous in any sense. So you can argue that socialism would make the world much more efficient, but efficiency alone wouldn't be enough to bring prosperity to all.

Yes, we will now doubt live in harmony when we are all muslim. If I had the opportunity to wish such a world into existence tomorrow at zero cost I wouldn't. Fuck Islam.

There will always be some extremists groups doing terrorism but im not worried about that. Nuclear war between naytional states is what im worried about.

Do you also think big business turning into coops magically eliminates the need for pencil pushers and management?

I don't think people are really that divided, what's divided are the politicians, both parties of which have become deeply antipopulist since the 1970s. Prior to politicians' fanatical embrace of neoliberalism/neoconservatism, when both parties were more representative of popular opinion, things weren't so polarized.

Globally? Most every international treaty passed by the UN. Within particular economic "bands" of the global economy, however, most standards for industry and society are already shared, between Europe/USA/Canada/Japan/etc, for instance.

Obviously, by the point enough development happened in the 3rd-world for them to consume as many resources as us, their economies would be so powerful they would've massively increased the amount of resources.

I have made couple of this threads in Holla Forums but the usual answer is they prefer nuclear war over globalism.

In the twentieth century, I would've said better dead than Red. Well my outlook hasn't changed. People are continuing to be stripped of their humanity. Whatever happened to give me liberty or give me death?

Can you keep this discussion about your ideology in another thread?

a large faceless corporaton or government is not good
thats why people are against it
unaccountable and corrupt

Global capitalism is better than nuclear war. You can continue your struggle against capitalism but you cant if you and all you know are dead from radiation poisoning.

When I asked for examples of laws that could be globally harminsied I wasn't thinking trade rules but criminal and civil law.

So development of the third wolrd is a prerequisite? Well this I'd agree. But we are nowhere near there yet.

That's because if it somehow happened today, we'd very soon be under tyranny of teh majority, whether that majority was muslim or Chinese is the only real question.

Tyranny is a small problem compared to billions of dead people.

The two would come in steps of convergence. For instance, IMHO the EU's enlargement-mania would've worked fine if it had been coarsly segregated by standard of life, instead of being hijacked as a means of pushing neoliberalism.

As each member met economic/legal/political development goals, barriers would gradually be weakened and dropped, until all the lower tiers emptied out and vanished.

Also, I feel I have to single out the pic in for a faulty doom & gloom impression common among some environmentalists. Unconventional new (and old!) technology could easily eliminate vast swathes of waste from current consumption without decreasing or even halting the growth of living standards, and unlock limitless new resources for exploitation.

What about organizing things horizontally and locally? I don't see how you can be an anarchist and still want bureaucrats and hierarchy.

and when i made a globalism thread it got bumplocked ) =

The tyranny would like end in genocide anyway so your point is moot. I generally agree with your sentiment that needs of many greater than needs of few, but no situation I can imagine makes totalitarianism appealing to me.

How far above "bronze-age village"-level do you want to go?

terrible anarchist m8. Read more Kropotkin and Bookchin.

This genocide seems less realistic than this balance of horror we have now. And i thought communist would have better understanding about this cold war 2.0 but you sound exactly like Holla Forumsshits.

Holla Forums fears multiculturalism because they spend too much time in Holla Forums.

So what kind of steps are you thinking? What specifically can be done to speed along the development of Africa Asia and the ME?

I don't think it is too doom and gloom. That version came from the BBC but it was one that I'd heard a lot growing up, though at the time it was only three earths to support everyone like an american.

I can see we're in cold war 2.0 but I think Trump will put an end to it. The new cold war was the design of the neo-cons who owned bush (or he was one of them, same difference), and who still largely set foreign policy when Obama was king. Even if they do convince Trump that the US needs an enemy, chances are this new cold war won't go hot. But hey, if it does we've just solved the issue of too many people, not enough shit.

Back to pol. Nobody cant be this naive.

This thread again.
Because its being hijacked by corporatism. Its now the purest form of corporatism, its done SPECIFICALLY to remove any limits from MONOPOLIES.
It used to be more about community of nations instead. Democratic.

And yes globalism is very naive utopia but if we dont reach it all will be lost. Your white utopia and socialist utopia.

You can't have direct democracy for groups of thousands or millions of people, working together horizontally like a neighborhood PTA spread over all of Los Angeles.

There's nothing wrong with syndicates.

Oh, all the usual stuff. Stop shitting on them, stop rewarding fascism through neoliberalism, carrot-and-stick them with massive infrastructure/political foreign aid bribes in return for steady development… Also, for the short-term problem of more wartorn regions, set up an adequately-funded regional peacekeeping force to augment the UN.

I dunno, he's obviously going to back off from Russia, but will he also avoid picking fights with Iran or China? He seems to be capable of really going either way.

Im very immune to Holla Forums propaganda so Trump is just another populist full of empty promises.

That's right, we can't. That's why city states is the best way to organize society

But USA, Russia and other countries absolutely fucking NEED to threaten each other. Who is going to be blamed any time an embarrassing revelation is made otherwise? How to redirect anger without an outside ennemy?

I really wish i were wrong but the only good critique i get is silence. Its a scary thought thats why masses never talk about it.

The British method of harrying celebrities to let off steam seems like the safest approach.

You can always use the ppl whos job was to make that decision/advise as pawns. Why blame whole countries? Theres plenty of fucking think tanks to blame.

What is confederalism for 500.
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/ghost2.html

The problem is that states are the monopoly of violence. As long as there are different competing armies there is a risk of war. Without nuclear weapons i would be extremely happy to fight with a rifle but thats not how wars are fought today.