• Democracies Becoming Less Stable in Recent Decades
    60 replies, posted
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451498]Nationalism is always going to be the basic human state unless you want to argue that humans aren't primates.[/QUOTE] Globalism is something of a buzzword but hardly anyone is thinking that we're going to be a monocultural people under one global government
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451498]Nationalism is always going to be the basic human state unless you want to argue that humans aren't primates.[/QUOTE] This doesnt make sense
Democracy doesn't work well when people aren't educated and candidates lie and manipulate
[QUOTE=Cructo;51451558]hey man i see you can look into the future can you give me the lotto numbers for 2017[/QUOTE] not bringing back those jobs he promised will do a number on those approval ratings considering how he harped on bringing those back, even though they dont really exist
[QUOTE=Cructo;51451558]hey man i see you can look into the future can you give me the lotto numbers for 2017[/QUOTE] There's literally a thread in popular threads right now that states Trump elected a multimillionaire with no government experience and was partially responsible for the 2008 market crash to secretary of treasury
[QUOTE=Cructo;51451558]hey man i see you can look into the future can you give me the lotto numbers for 2017[/QUOTE] It's also pretty well known that there is a cycle of booms and busts in capitalist economies, and there really isn't much you can do about it besides slow and mitigate it. The average of these cycles is about 6 years, and you can say that like 4-7 is a reasonable range to expect it to happen. Guess what we're kind of overdue for?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451273]Yeah the great progress of having a completely vanilla, monoculture world that's completely dominated by multinational corporate power. Too bad pesky nationalism is getting in the way![/QUOTE] because the true gripes of western world are totally informed criticisms of globalism and not an irrational fear of those brown people and the invisible boogeyman overseas. right.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451498]Nationalism is always going to be the basic human state unless you want to argue that humans aren't primates.[/QUOTE] yes of course. we've known this for a long time, after carefully studying the multitude of monkey nations that currently exist on the global scale
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451498]Nationalism is always going to be the basic human state unless you want to argue that humans aren't primates.[/QUOTE] Isn't nationalism as we know it something that's only been around for a few hundred years at most?
[QUOTE=Anderan;51452459]Isn't nationalism as we know it something that's only been around for a few hundred years at most?[/QUOTE] nationalism goes back all the way to early human civilization. It dates back to the Romans conquering all the barbarian tribes in Europe, because they thought they were superior, wanted to 'civilize' the barbarians and spread their culture everywhere. That is the nationalism, the perceived superiority of ones culture and nation above all others.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51452483]nationalism goes back all the way to early human civilization. It dates back to the Romans conquering all the barbarian tribes in Europe, because they thought they were superior, wanted to 'civilize' the barbarians and spread their culture everywhere. That is the nationalism, the perceived superiority of ones culture and nation above all others.[/QUOTE] Every definition of modern nationalism I can find states it emerged in the 19th century. Nationalism is not simply the perceived superiority to ones culture, it involves a shared communal feeling with the culture of ones nation. It's hard to connect to a nation when the concept of a nation arguably didn't even exist until the 19th century. Bits and pieces of what we know as nationalism have for a long time, but again nationalism [B]as we know it[/B] is a fairly new concept. Your average roman soldier likely didn't give a shit about Rome itself, and more often than not their loyalty was to their leader, not Rome itself. Nationalism would mean there was some communal feeling between Roman citizens in Iberia or Gaul and say the people of Rome itself. Embracing a culture doesn't mean you feel any connection or give a shit about other people in that same culture.
anarchy baby
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451498]Nationalism is always going to be the basic human state unless you want to argue that humans aren't primates.[/QUOTE] How big can a nation get? How is possible for 320 million people to share the same nation, but not 7 billion? Or more than a billion in China or India? I don't think we'll get a global "nation" anytime soon, but I also don't think it will spawn a "monoculture". If we Danes wanted keep our identity so badly we wouldn't be adopting half the English language as our own. Nations influence each other, inevitably.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51452619]How big can a nation get? How is possible for 320 million people to share the same nation, but not 7 billion? Or more than a billion in China or India? I don't think we'll get a global "nation" anytime soon, but I also don't think it will spawn a "monoculture". If we Danes wanted keep our identity so badly we wouldn't be adopting half the English language as our own. Nations influence each other, inevitably.[/QUOTE] A century ago it would be impossible for our nation to host 320 million people I think, we had only a third of population and most of our states were still just territories or newly established. Telecommunication has connected us in ways that our ancestors could only begin to fathom. I can text someone on the other side of the country and get a response in seconds, through live tv and the internet I can watch events like the war in Syria and natural disasters on the west coast unfold before my very eyes without being there. As technology advances and the ability to share information with each other becomes more advanced it is easier to connect to different societies and spread culture. Not just information and telecommunication, but trade as well. The EU is a prime example, through the combination of information technology, telecommunication, trade, the states that waged war with one another in Europe for over a millennia have found peace. They can travel freely without being obstructed. A french man can travel to Germany or Spain without hassle. A century from now we could see a federalized Europe, or perhaps even Canada and the U.S becoming one single entity. Do you think the nation states of the 18th century expected the birth of the United States of America? Of various colonies suddenly becoming their own independent entity, colonists who each carry their own ethnic heritage and joining together under one common identity? The U.S serves as an example of what is to come, multiple cultures mixing under one banner and one culture that develops by learning from other cultures. Do you think anyone in the early 20th century expected the European Union? What today may seem impossible may become reality tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Anderan;51452459]Isn't nationalism as we know it something that's only been around for a few hundred years at most?[/QUOTE] Nationalism even in the modern sense has existed for thousands of years. Look at the Romans, the Greek cities, even something like Persia where the national identity was built up through association with the king. It exists every single society, even in the smallest and most remote tribal societies we have ever seen who are usually fiercely insular and connect their identity strongly to their family/tribe. It existed throughout medieval times as an identity with one's religion. We saw just how fierce and "nationalistic" people really were back then about their religious affiliations. The term itself is new because it took a new form in the 19th Century and that's when political theorists started writing about it more directly. [QUOTE=LtKyle2;51452483]nationalism goes back all the way to early human civilization. It dates back to the Romans conquering all the barbarian tribes in Europe, because they thought they were superior, wanted to 'civilize' the barbarians and spread their culture everywhere. That is the nationalism, the perceived superiority of ones culture and nation above all others.[/QUOTE] Doesn't have to be violent. Nationalism in a nation like, say, Iceland would involve a pacifistic attitude. What causes violence is the constant social alienation that comes from globalism and the actual wars launched by neoliberals all the time. [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51451647]yes of course. we've known this for a long time, after carefully studying the multitude of monkey nations that currently exist on the global scale[/QUOTE] Funny you joke about this but our closest primate relatives are extremely tribal and will rip outsiders limb if they ever come close to their territory. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51452619]How big can a nation get? How is possible for 320 million people to share the same nation, but not 7 billion? Or more than a billion in China or India? I don't think we'll get a global "nation" anytime soon, but I also don't think it will spawn a "monoculture". If we Danes wanted keep our identity so badly we wouldn't be adopting half the English language as our own. Nations influence each other, inevitably.[/QUOTE] You just listed 3 countries (US, China, and India) that have always had and continue to have large-scale social problems located at the fringes of group identity.
The only way globalism would work is if everyone had the same skin color, same religion, same political beliefs and etc etc and some threat against humanity that can unite us. This certainly isn't the right millennium for it. Just showing how much chaos and divided the refugee tide have left Europe the last 2 years is proof of that.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51453111]Funny you joke about this but our closest primate relatives are extremely tribal and will rip outsiders limb if they ever come close to their territory.[/QUOTE] There's a huge difference between tribalism where the sense of belonging comes from personally interacting with all of the tribe's members and nationalism where it comes from more loose and arbitrarily defined concepts such as language and culture.
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51453359]The only way globalism would work is if everyone had the same skin color, same religion, same political beliefs and etc etc and some threat against humanity that can unite us. This certainly isn't the right millennium for it. Just showing how much chaos and divided the refugee tide have left Europe the last 2 years is proof of that.[/QUOTE] or how about if everyone didn't give a shit about skin color, religion, and harmless opinions/ideas
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51453359]The only way globalism would work is if everyone had the same skin color, same religion, same political beliefs and etc etc and some threat against humanity that can unite us. This certainly isn't the right millennium for it. Just showing how much chaos and divided the refugee tide have left Europe the last 2 years is proof of that.[/QUOTE] Don't really see where all that chaos is. It seems there is division because of gullible people who genuinely believe the arrival of refugees caused unprecedented chaos but chaos per se?
if everyone had the same opinions and skin color, then idiots would find other reasons to single people out, like physical fitness, gender, emotional state. you know, things people still do even though the person they're attacking is the same race and opinions
[QUOTE=!LORD M!;51453359]The only way globalism would work is if everyone had the same skin color, same religion, same political beliefs and etc etc and some threat against humanity that can unite us. This certainly isn't the right millennium for it. Just showing how much chaos and divided the refugee tide have left Europe the last 2 years is proof of that.[/QUOTE] You know globalism isn't quite "zap every border instantly." Globalism rn is just a tighter integration of the world, but not a total integration of the world, and over time this is actually helping those problems go away. The fact that you can describe the refugee crisis like that really says something about how nice our lives are. Also turning to nationalism won't help the skin color and religion shit lol. If anything that'll make it worse.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51451273]Yeah the great progress of having a completely vanilla, monoculture world that's completely dominated by multinational corporate power. Too bad pesky nationalism is getting in the way![/QUOTE] The human race will never become monoculture. We're too big for that to be possible. Also multinational corporate power? What are you on? Modern capitalism is unsustainable in the long term, I find it very unlikely that we'll ever find ourselves ruled by corporations. Also nationalism is an ideology that has consistently, throughout all of human history, ironically led to the decline of the nation that practiced it. [editline]30th November 2016[/editline] Also globalism is an inevitability due to the exponential increase in technology we've been experiencing in the past 100 years. The fact that people can instantly communicate across the entire planet is gonna cause that to happen. Same with having literally the entirety of human knowledge at your fingertips anywhere in the world.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51452698]A century ago it would be impossible for our nation to host 320 million people I think, we had only a third of population and most of our states were still just territories or newly established. Telecommunication has connected us in ways that our ancestors could only begin to fathom. I can text someone on the other side of the country and get a response in seconds, through live tv and the internet I can watch events like the war in Syria and natural disasters on the west coast unfold before my very eyes without being there. As technology advances and the ability to share information with each other becomes more advanced it is easier to connect to different societies and spread culture. Not just information and telecommunication, but trade as well. The EU is a prime example, through the combination of information technology, telecommunication, trade, the states that waged war with one another in Europe for over a millennia have found peace. They can travel freely without being obstructed. A french man can travel to Germany or Spain without hassle. A century from now we could see a federalized Europe, or perhaps even Canada and the U.S becoming one single entity. Do you think the nation states of the 18th century expected the birth of the United States of America? Of various colonies suddenly becoming their own independent entity, colonists who each carry their own ethnic heritage and joining together under one common identity? The U.S serves as an example of what is to come, multiple cultures mixing under one banner and one culture that develops by learning from other cultures. Do you think anyone in the early 20th century expected the European Union? What today may seem impossible may become reality tomorrow.[/QUOTE] I think you might've misunderstood what I wrote - I don't see why we couldn't in theory have a single nation here on Earth down the line.
It's realism in axtion, we've lived in an equilibrium for about 70 years or so. We're headed back to empire, and empire breeds war.
[QUOTE=Swilly;51456184]It's realism in axtion, we've lived in an equilibrium for about 70 years or so. We're headed back to empire, and empire breeds war.[/QUOTE] Empires are much less feasible in the modern day though. Unless you count consensual unions like the EU as empires. European countries didn't give up Africa because they were forced to. They did it because the resentment it created just wasn't worth dealing with, when they could instead just trade with the independent nations. War is also much less feasible with how much softer people have become and how intertwined our economies are. We'll dickwave all we want but actual war would be a disaster for those in power and the countries themselves. There's still lots many small conflicts, the majority of which are internal, but we don't see large nations going at it.
I love my country, warts n all, I just hate the people in charge of it.
i feel like the more election the US got, the more stupid and dumber they get and the most controversial and the result are more and more contested.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.