How Nationalism Will Beat Modern Liberalism

[TBerg]

Man cannot live by ideology alone. There must be a family to care for him. There must be a neighborhood of opportunity. And there must be a society of trust. All three of these levels of reality have manifested to create a situation in which people can feel themselves appropriately part of something greater than themselves, lest they become atoms seeming to be flung aimlessly into space.

Proponents of modern liberalism, an ideology underpinned by notions of modernity applied to the state and postmodernity applied to individuals, claim that certain absolute ideas, abstracted from human rationality, could manifest themselves as Platonic forms coming down from heaven. These Platonic forms could describe the logic and form of reality, but they cannot animate reality itself. For that, we must inquire not only into the realm of matter, but also the realm of soul.

For atoms operate by the laws of physics, molecules operate by the laws of chemistry, and life operates by the laws of biology. Thus we see that logic, operating as it does by mathematical precision, can be used to describe things in motion, but it cannot propel things on its own. For that, the laws must manifest themselves within us. We can describe heaven, but we must operate by the laws of the earth.

Thus we can see how abstract notions cannot be simply imposed upon society. Rather than enhancing life, abstractions could deaden it, as a logical recipe could fail contact with the taste pallet. Then imagine we add requirements that obviate all ingredients in the recipe. Let us add the demands of equality and diversity. Thus, not only do we add every single ingredient in the pantry, we ensure that it all becomes homogenized in our tasteless melting pot. This does not even touch upon the inherent contradictions between equality and diversity in the first place. Even in their heavenly mindset, there cannot be the diversity of difference coinciding with the sameness of equality.

Thus we cannot simply leave the earth and abandon our families, as the Divine One would have of us, but we must find within us the impulse to survive, maintain, and reproduce, so that the natural order around us does not atrophy out of ascetic abstraction. We know that it is dishonorable and self-destructive to abandon one's family in battle, so it must also to varying degrees be dishonorable and self-destructive to abandon one's neighborhood and society in battle. Whether for good or ill, you have depended upon them, and it cannot be maintained by freeloaders.

As the current ideological dialectic takes place, we know which side coincides with nature. Modern liberalism will not survive the superior fitness of nationalism. Only one of them knows how to survive.

https://libercolumbia.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/how-nationalism-will-beat-modern-liberalism/

 

[Sinny91]

I'm pro nationalism in the face of Globalism, and you know... Fascist superstates.

But my preferred brand of nationalism is like centre/left or summin.

 

[Intolerable]

I'm pro nationalism in the face of Globalism, and you know... Fascist superstates.

But my preferred brand of nationalism is like centre/left or summin.

It's nowhere near that complicated. It's not a tight rope.

People either own their future or they don't. What globalism represents is slavery the world over. We should all be against it.

People wrongfully view Nationalism like they do Fascism and the Nazi analogy is never far behind. That's just the 2% fighting the psyche war. People need to turn off their emotions on the matter.

 

[Black Rose]

As the current ideological dialectic takes place, we know which side coincides with nature. Modern liberalism will not survive the superior fitness of nationalism. Only one of them knows how to survive.

So the rural areas will survive but the urban centers will not?

The reason we even have differences in ideology is because of biology. Self-selection happens because people migrate to those places that match their personality.

If we are to be against cultural marxism that says biology is a cultural construct then you have failed Tberg to understand the symbiosis of the city and the countryside.

Cities are the absolute cause of liberalism and if the cities fail, then 98 percent of the country is dead within a year.

You can't win Tberg, cities will always exist. Humanities survival depends on it.

Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties

Using Census data, we've figured out that half of the United States population is clustered in just the 146 biggest counties out of over 3000.

Here's the map, with said counties shaded in. Below the map is the list of all the counties, so you can see if you live in one of them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9

 

[EyeSeeCold]

[bIMGx=500]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png[/bIMGx]

Why is culture missing from your physics-chemistry-biology appeal to nature metaphor? And why do you reject the social evolution of homo sapiens to value equality, diversity, and liberalism as a valid indicator of Darwinian progress in animals? You should be careful of redefining fitness because by definition if we've evolved to value these things then they are logically fit qualities to have had at least up til now; i.e. the dialectic of human evolution so far has been social dignity and cohesion.


Also, for the record, I have to wonder why you post your blog in the lounge rather than in politics or creations? At this point it's soapboxing, really.

 

[Cognisant]

China and Russia are rising economic powers and now that the US no longer stands alone as a superpower the independant countries are starting to act a lot more... independent.

Globalism isn’t a creed it's the reality that no one nation is an island, except Australia (our economy is based almost entirely on exports) so the US can threaten to take its ball and go home and the rest of us will keep playing because now we've got balls too.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think the opening conflates nationalism with marriage and parenting. There's also a conflation of neoliberalism as a geopolitical ideology, defined by NATO and the eastern hemisphere trade deals, and liberalism that's found in the domestic sphere of the US, defined by gender equality and rights, and socialistic, big government programs.

Besides that I think the entire post is just a ranting about the 'liberals' as an abstract noun.

 

[Sinny91]

It's nowhere near that complicated. It's not a tight rope.

I didnt realise that what I said was complicated...

People either own their future or they don't. What globalism represents is slavery the world over. We should all be against it.

People wrongfully view Nationalism like they do Fascism and the Nazi analogy is never far behind. That's just the 2% fighting the psyche war. People need to turn off their emotions on the matter.

 

[Redfire]

tl;dr
Nations exist. They matter. Nations trump (pun intended) modern liberalism.

A nation (and I'm talking about nations: not nation-states, not countries) is an extension of the family. People gather around in tribes because that's the way you survive: by not being killed by other tribes. As time went on nations got larger and larger, with some countries being host to multiple nations, new nations being formed as a combination of previously existing nations, etc. At this point it got so massively large that people just forgot that they are part of a nation.

Liberalism is simply an abstract notion, which holds only as long as the current global balance of power defined after WWII holds. It's an ideology imposed by the West upon the rest of the world. It did have many benefits, especially when it comes to trade. But it mostly worked out for the richest 1% cohort of each part of the world; at the expense of the people of each country. Some countries managed to reap the benefits of globalization without suffering the consequences; Japan being the best example. But in most western countries the consequences were suffered: whole nations being devastated by them. Foreign hordes invading them, the military and police force limited by human rights, the unity of the family itself being destroyed along with everything else that makes a nation what a nation is.

So what could possibly happen?

It's simple really: the West invented liberalism. Liberalism destroyed the West. Western nations are now reacting against liberalism. If they didn't react, other cultures (as in: China and the Islamic nations) take over the world. And then a worldwide nightmare follows (other cultures don't really give a damn about human rights: they pretend they do only because they fear Western powers).

I'm just trying to point out a very obvious thing: you don't have to be a genius to know that things can't simply go on they way they've been going. It's just not going to work, for the same reason communism didn't work. You can't just impose an abstract notion not based on reality (i.e: not based on how nations really work, on how humans really work) and just expect everything to fall in line.

Plus: you don't have to take my word for it, or TBerg's word for that matter. Just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
And that's just one work upon many who touch on this matter.

 

[Tannhauser]

But on the other hand, one might contend that purely abstract principles is what built the western world and that we cannot live without them. Classical liberalism, which might be said to be the basis of the western world, is purely a collection of abstract ideas. Or the concept of democracy of the old Greeks – who were arguably the pioneers of abstract thought.

But abstract ideas might differ in the way they align themselves with our nature and sense of aesthetics. Maybe modern liberalism simply is a set of abstract ideas that is not in line with human nature enough (in addition, of course, to all its incongruencies and self-contradictions)?

 

[Redfire]

Sure. So then: ideas work as long as they fall in line with human nature. Economically, there are two reasons the western world flourished: globalization and technological progress. Both have benefits and consequences.

So what about the long-term? That's another interesting question, if we assume the great modern liberal project failed.

The way I see it, as globalization recedes, two things can happen long-term:
1- A new age of rapid technological progress (some kind of Third Industrial Revolution or something).
2- Malthusian competition for limited resources (i.e: WWIII). Even in the worst case scenario though, I somehow doubt the world would get totally destroyed; I don't think humans are THAT stupid. But it would end up in some sort of new dark age.

Why? Because as population grows, you have the same (or less) resources for a larger and larger number of people. The reason Malthus has been wrong so far is that he didn't account for technological progress. But we haven't seen much progress in technology (outside of IT and finance) since the 60s (Tesla Motors is one exception: I think once they release Model 3 they will be really succesful and profitable; even more so when they perfect the self-driving capabilities).

I might be wrong. And I know it might seem contradictory, I might need to further elaborate the concept. The thing is: I'm not against modern liberalism and globalization per se. I just think there's no possible way it goes on forever. We'll surely retain SOME aspects of globalization (e.g: internet, widespread use of English, etc); but others will be gone.

I guess a third option could be:
3- Halting population growth like they did in China, with very strong policies? I'm not sure that could work though. I mean: China did it and their population is still growing like crazy. And in places like India it's impossible to apply: the country is too broken to get organized and do something like that (or not? sorry, don't know much about India actually; just something I read).

I think the realistic ones are one and two. Sorry: I totally derailed the conversation. But in my mind the topics are connected somehow.

 

[ElvenVeil]

not sure I understand any part of the opening post. but ignoring that, and just talking about nationalism and globalization:

In the west we are seeing increasing nationalism, e.g brexit and Trump. Economically globalization has been a boon for far more than it has been a bad thing. The amount of poor people in the world, has gone down and that is despite enormous population growth, and toughened requirements to be labelled as not poor. This is is huge, and an undeniable fact of what globalization means on average.

So what makes people want protectionism ? To me, the major factor is ignorance. Not saying this as a blame, but more that to "understand" the world today, you need a *lot* of knowledge, which simply leaves out a huge amount of people. Very few people in europe knows much about the EU despite it affecting them deeply. Lack of education in regards to modern systems and workings is an issue I believe.

Loss of cultural heritage is another serious matter, which seems to be a natural bi-product of globalization. I do not see globalization dying out, that seems basically impossible in my head. But a backlash is going on at the moment, and we will most likely see a lot more countries in the future following the UK and US

 

[Absurdity]

Depends on your social stratum. In the US, highly educated coastal liberals have more in common with highly educated residents of foreign countries than with the blue collar workers the next town over. Nationalism appeals to the losers of the social dominance game.

 

[Intolerable]

not sure I understand any part of the opening post. but ignoring that, and just talking about nationalism and globalization:

In the west we are seeing increasing nationalism, e.g brexit and Trump. Economically globalization has been a boon for far more than it has been a bad thing. The amount of poor people in the world, has gone down and that is despite enormous population growth, and toughened requirements to be labelled as not poor. This is is huge, and an undeniable fact of what globalization means on average.

So what makes people want protectionism ? To me, the major factor is ignorance. Not saying this as a blame, but more that to "understand" the world today, you need a *lot* of knowledge, which simply leaves out a huge amount of people. Very few people in europe knows much about the EU despite it affecting them deeply. Lack of education in regards to modern systems and workings is an issue I believe.

Loss of cultural heritage is another serious matter, which seems to be a natural bi-product of globalization. I do not see globalization dying out, that seems basically impossible in my head. But a backlash is going on at the moment, and we will most likely see a lot more countries in the future following the UK and US

You talk of ignorance but to not know the root evils of globalism is truly ignorant. Sorry, not having a go at you but really all you need to do is look up the documented negative affects of globalization. Particularly how polarized income has become the world over. It's only gotten better for the 2% and worse for the rest of us.

 

[Redfire]

There certainly were some economic benefits to globalization, but if you think about it, what are they really?
1- Cheap labour. Both in host countries through offshoring (China, India), and through hiring immigrants, since you have to pay them less. Who benefits here? Very poor people (although only mildly: they're still dirt poor) and elites. Who pays the consequences? Western working class (in the larger sense of the word; if you don't own the means of production, then you're working class.)
2- Access to low-cost goods from across the globe. And who can manufacture such goods? Transnational companies who use cheap labour all over the world and outcompete the rest. So they benefit. Who pays? Smaller companies, and the people who work for them. Again: Western working class is hurt again.

Is it really a wonder that working class Americans vote for Trump then?

Those are the big ones I'd say. There are many claimed ones, such as spreading democracy around the world. That's total bs: in Latin America the US has been actively working against democratic governments for decades now. All major dictators around here were financed and trained by USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

Plus, it's a vicious circle. As western countries become weaker economically, they rely more on social democracy and benefits, which makes them even weaker.

Also: economics isn't everything. There are other factors, and one of the most overlooked ones is ethnic cohesion. As individuals stop feeling part of a group, the group gets weaker. And as ethnic groups who are too different immigrate in mass to western nations, conflict arises between the locals and the foreigners. An Italian may adapt to living in France; an ethnic Nigerian will never truly be part of the French nation, if only for the fact that most frenchmen won't recognize him as such.

However: the economic question has been discussed to death many times. Whereas talk of ethnic cohesion, racial identity, etc; are taboo nowadays. Even though they're crucial factors when analyzing societies. People assume the West will always rule the world; when in fact we're losing ground year by year if only for demographic reasons. Islam in particular is growing like crazy, whereas Christianity is dying out. I went to a talk by Michel Houellebecq some days ago (he came to Buenos Aires), and he mentioned something interesting: you need a spiritual power to defeat another spiritual power. And I'm still an atheist; but you can't deny that culturally, European nations without Christianity are mere specters of what they used to be. That's why Houellebecq predicts an eventual Islamic victory.

So what makes people want protectionism ? To me, the major factor is ignorance. Not saying this as a blame, but more that to "understand" the world today, you need a *lot* of knowledge, which simply leaves out a huge amount of people. Very few people in europe knows much about the EU despite it affecting them deeply. Lack of education in regards to modern systems and workings is an issue I believe.

You don't have to be a genius to assess your economic situation. You can simply ask your grandparents how easily they could get a job on their times, and compare it to how hard it is to do that now. There are simply less jobs, and those are harder to get.

Loss of cultural heritage is another serious matter, which seems to be a natural bi-product of globalization. I do not see globalization dying out, that seems basically impossible in my head. But a backlash is going on at the moment, and we will most likely see a lot more countries in the future following the UK and US

I think it will slowly recede, not die out.

 

[ElvenVeil]

if you would claim that only the top 1% of the income benefits from trade and globalization, then you largely seem to deny or ignore that extreme poverty has been in a constant decrease. If you accept this fact, you will also have to accept that a lot more than just the top 1% has benefitted.

@Redfire

we have a lot more winners and a lot fewer losers than you describe. There is one group losing from globalization, and that is the group who performed jobs that are now outsourced, and whom are not able (or having a very hard time with) to find a new job. These blue collared workers are the people who surely lose something.

Who benefits from cheaper labor? certainly the groups you describe, but so does the rest of us. The middle class today is the absolute biggest winner I would say, if you look at how well off modern middle class is. Decrease in cost of production means decrease in prices and that affects all. In the west we today specialize a lot more, so people still have jobs, they earn more and can afford more. There is only one losing group which probably mostly is a here and now thing, and that is the blue collared workers.

Are you truly worse off than your grandparents? or their parents? You would be a very odd one out if they had better oppertunities or were generally more wealthy. The economic case almost doesn't exist, it is the cultural that to me is a lot more reasonable.

oh and finally, all the top of the wealthy 1%. Yes there is a wealthy elite in the world, but that doesn't mean they stole it from others like this thread almost seem to suggest. Wealth is not a static thing. There is a lot more value in the world than ever before, and the people who really generate this also get very wealthy themselves. But almost everyone benefits, directly or indirectly.

edit: let's say that you grandparents had an easier time finding a job. (don't know whether that is true but let's just pretend) . That in itself is pretty uninteresting. What matters is what you are getting paid.. and what you can get for that money.
(forgot to respond to this part)

 

[Sinny91]

Poverty, decreasing?

Here in the UK it's drastically increasing.. where the fuck are you getting your stats? Out of ur ass?

 

[OmoInisa]

if you would claim that only the top 1% of the income benefits from trade and globalization, then you largely seem to deny or ignore that extreme poverty has been in a constant decrease. If you accept this fact, you will also have to accept that a lot more than just the top 1% has benefitted.

@Redfire

we have a lot more winners and a lot fewer losers than you describe. There is one group losing from globalization, and that is the group who performed jobs that are now outsourced, and whom are not able (or having a very hard time with) to find a new job. These blue collared workers are the people who surely lose something.

Who benefits from cheaper labor? certainly the groups you describe, but so does the rest of us. The middle class today is the absolute biggest winner I would say, if you look at how well off modern middle class is. Decrease in cost of production means decrease in prices and that affects all. In the west we today specialize a lot more, so people still have jobs, they earn more and can afford more. There is only one losing group which probably mostly is a here and now thing, and that is the blue collared workers.

Are you truly worse off than your grandparents? or their parents? You would be a very odd one out if they had better oppertunities or were generally more wealthy. The economic case almost doesn't exist, it is the cultural that to me is a lot more reasonable.

oh and finally, all the top of the wealthy 1%. Yes there is a wealthy elite in the world, but that doesn't mean they stole it from others like this thread almost seem to suggest. Wealth is not a static thing. There is a lot more value in the world than ever before, and the people who really generate this also get very wealthy themselves. But almost everyone benefits, directly or indirectly.

edit: let's say that you grandparents had an easier time finding a job. (don't know whether that is true but let's just pretend) . That in itself is pretty uninteresting. What matters is what you are getting paid.. and what you can get for that money.
(forgot to respond to this part)

Very good

 

[Intolerable]

if you would claim that only the top 1% of the income benefits from trade and globalization, then you largely seem to deny or ignore that extreme poverty has been in a constant decrease. If you accept this fact, you will also have to accept that a lot more than just the top 1% has benefitted.

Extreme poverty measured by what? Are you going to chuck in cell phone proliferation to mask income inequality?

Two things can be true here. Access to convenient items has exploded over the last two generations and income has been more polarized over the same amount of time. Think about that.

we have a lot more winners and a lot fewer losers than you describe. There is one group losing from globalization, and that is the group who performed jobs that are now outsourced, and whom are not able (or having a very hard time with) to find a new job. These blue collared workers are the people who surely lose something.

No there are many groups losing to globalization all over the world. The 2% can afford to macro crush all small companies that have to micromanage their affairs. With lax border rules this is even more pronounced.

2% in America help the 2% in Mexico cannibalize the competition and vice versa. This is all documented. If politicians in America can be bought then politicians in Mexico surely can be bought.

Who benefits from cheaper labor? certainly the groups you describe, but so does the rest of us. The middle class today is the absolute biggest winner I would say, if you look at how well off modern middle class is. Decrease in cost of production means decrease in prices and that affects all. In the west we today specialize a lot more, so people still have jobs, they earn more and can afford more. There is only one losing group which probably mostly is a here and now thing, and that is the blue collared workers.

Sorry but no it doesn't work that way. The government has insisted on not punishing slave labor from the global economy and so such a thing has been made normal. The people are not the final arbiter in what labor standards should be. The government of the people working in the interests of the people ought to be.

Are you truly worse off than your grandparents? or their parents? You would be a very odd one out if they had better oppertunities or were generally more wealthy. The economic case almost doesn't exist, it is the cultural that to me is a lot more reasonable.

Yes we are worse off as a matter of fact. My grandfather made enough to where my grandmother could stay at home and raise my mother and her siblings. He made more than enough to own a home and raise six children with her.

Today men and women both work like dogs and have almost no children and you think we're equally as wealthy as they were? Fuck dude. Look around you.

Also my grandfather was no rocket scientist. He was a pastor and before that a coal miner.

oh and finally, all the top of the wealthy 1%. Yes there is a wealthy elite in the world, but that doesn't mean they stole it from others like this thread almost seem to suggest. Wealth is not a static thing. There is a lot more value in the world than ever before, and the people who really generate this also get very wealthy themselves. But almost everyone benefits, directly or indirectly.

It is theft when you break and bend rules to get ahead. When you crush honest competition to corner a market you effectively force people to buy your goods. That isn't free market. That is crony capitalism. It is the antithesis of free.

edit: let's say that you grandparents had an easier time finding a job. (don't know whether that is true but let's just pretend) . That in itself is pretty uninteresting. What matters is what you are getting paid.. and what you can get for that money.
(forgot to respond to this part)

Oh right. I earn almost six figures today. By comparison adjusting for inflation I make almost what my dad made doing truck deliveries. Literally no different. He also had a rougher time making ends meet than my grandfather did.

And I'm considered to be better off than most working class today. Figure that out.

 

[Redfire]

we have a lot more winners and a lot fewer losers than you describe. There is one group losing from globalization, and that is the group who performed jobs that are now outsourced, and whom are not able (or having a very hard time with) to find a new job. These blue collared workers are the people who surely lose something.

Who benefits from cheaper labor? certainly the groups you describe, but so does the rest of us. The middle class today is the absolute biggest winner I would say, if you look at how well off modern middle class is. Decrease in cost of production means decrease in prices and that affects all. In the west we today specialize a lot more, so people still have jobs, they earn more and can afford more. There is only one losing group which probably mostly is a here and now thing, and that is the blue collared workers.

There are many other losers. Argentina's industry, just to name an example, was absolutely devastated by cheap products coming from abroad. That happened in many countries. There are countless examples, some of them easy to see. e.g: Starbucks outcompeting small cafés. That's something I witnessed myself here in my country, and was actually part of it (I always loved Starbucks and supported the whole thing from the beggining; but I'm not on the losing side).

Are you truly worse off than your grandparents? or their parents? You would be a very odd one out if they had better oppertunities or were generally more wealthy. The economic case almost doesn't exist, it is the cultural that to me is a lot more reasonable.

In my grandparents time, there was a lot more social mobility: working class people could work their way up to the middle class (and that is precisely what they did). That's much more difficult nowadays. People today are mostly living off their families or state; the market is incredibly tough in all sectors outside IT. Just think about it: millennials as a whole are very unlikely to be better off financially than their parents. Most of them will at the most inherit their families' success and not lose it. And I don't even think globalization is the main factor. Technological progress is the main driver creating new jobs, and we had that roughly from 1750 to 1970. As it decreased, there are fewer jobs.

oh and finally, all the top of the wealthy 1%. Yes there is a wealthy elite in the world, but that doesn't mean they stole it from others like this thread almost seem to suggest. Wealth is not a static thing. There is a lot more value in the world than ever before, and the people who really generate this also get very wealthy themselves. But almost everyone benefits, directly or indirectly.

I'm usually on the other side of this argument. It depends on each company's case, and while I don't like big capitalists getting demonized; they are certainly no angels. Have you ever researched sweat shops and child labour? Many big companies succeed doing this kind of practices. Nike is a famous example. And there is indeed more value in the world but I don't think it relates solely or even mostly to globalization; it's mostly technological progress.
Sorry to repeat the technology thing again and again, but I think that actually, the only successful companies that don't use shady practices are technology companies. Everyone else just can't afford to be nice: you succeed by doing things like paying your employees as little as possible, and taking over new markets. Or having some arrangement with the state (think petroleum companies). Construction is also quite famously shady.

edit: let's say that you grandparents had an easier time finding a job. (don't know whether that is true but let's just pretend) . That in itself is pretty uninteresting. What matters is what you are getting paid.. and what you can get for that money.
(forgot to respond to this part)

So you think a waiter, adjusting for inflation, gets paid more nowadays than 50 years ago? I can guarantee you that is not the case. Wages have been stagnant if not decreasing, since the 1970s.

Poverty, decreasing?

Here in the UK it's drastically increasing.. where the fuck are you getting your stats? Out of ur ass?

Ok, let's keep it nice. But yes: poverty is increasing both locally and globally. In central and northern Europe it's mostly offset by social democracy; but that's definitely not a good sign. If you need to redistribute more and more to keep people out of poverty, and you are not truly growing economically, that can't possibly have a positive ending. And that's a very small part of the world btw, what about Greece? Latin America is definitely getting worse too, and again: only offset in some countries (e.g: Bolivia) by social democracy.

 

[ElvenVeil]

There are many other losers. Argentina's industry, just to name an example, was absolutely devastated by cheap products coming from abroad. That happened in many countries. There are countless examples, some of them easy to see. e.g: Starbucks outcompeting small cafés. That's something I witnessed myself here in my country, and was actually part of it (I always loved Starbucks and supported the whole thing from the beggining; but I'm not on the losing side).

Ofc lowered prices themselves don't smash an economy, so to me the interesting question is whether markets can be opened up too quickly for a country and whether governments do enough to redistribute the wealth generated.

In my grandparents time, there was a lot more social mobility: working class people could work their way up to the middle class (and that is precisely what they did). That's much more difficult nowadays. People today are mostly living off their families or state; the market is incredibly tough in all sectors outside IT. Just think about it: millennials as a whole are very unlikely to be better off financially than their parents. Most of them will at the most inherit their families' success and not lose it. And I don't even think globalization is the main factor. Technological progress is the main driver creating new jobs, and we had that roughly from 1750 to 1970. As it decreased, there are fewer jobs.

Why are they unlikely to generate more wealth than their parents? (maybe you are just talking about argentinians). But though I would always think of technological growth, trade and globalization as interlinked concepts, I completely agree that technology is a big factor in elemninating and creating new jobs. I think the specific examples are very nice, as they do give both an image of real life situations, and something more concrete to debate from.

So you think a waiter, adjusting for inflation, gets paid more nowadays than 50 years ago? I can guarantee you that is not the case. Wages have been stagnant if not decreasing, since the 1970s.

To be honest I can't answer such a question. In theory, if the economy has been growing, and she was able to do other jobs than being a waitress, then her salary would go up to stay competive with other salaries. But a specific case like argentina I can't say. Argentina is a rather special case of the world as I come to understand. There is a rather fun quote by kuznits

“There are four kinds of countries in the world: developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan and Argentina.”

but it seems from what I gather when reading about it some more, that argentina has been unlucky on multiple frontiers, such as foreign policy and lack of proper institutions in the country to make effective and needed policies

 

[Redfire]

Ofc lowered prices themselves don't smash an economy, so to me the interesting question is whether markets can be opened up too quickly for a country and whether governments do enough to redistribute the wealth generated.

In the end it's just different groups with different interests; but you are just assuming than all in all liberalism is the best economic system for everyone.

Why are they unlikely to generate more wealth than their parents? (maybe you are just talking about argentinians). But though I would always think of technological growth, trade and globalization as interlinked concepts, I completely agree that technology is a big factor in elemninating and creating new jobs. I think the specific examples are very nice, as they do give both an image of real life situations, and something more concrete to debate from.

Because there are less jobs, those jobs pay less when adjusting for inflation and all industries are receding except for IT. There are countless examples to illustrate this. Just off the top of my head, if you study STEM nowadays it's extremely hard to find any job that is not related to IT. So what's left for people who study other less technical fields, or who have no degree at all?

To be honest I can't answer such a question. In theory, if the economy has been growing, and she was able to do other jobs than being a waitress, then her salary would go up to stay competive with other salaries. But a specific case like argentina I can't say. Argentina is a rather special case of the world as I come to understand. There is a rather fun quote by kuznits

“There are four kinds of countries in the world: developed countries, undeveloped countries, Japan and Argentina.”

but it seems from what I gather when reading about it some more, that argentina has been unlucky on multiple frontiers, such as foreign policy and lack of proper institutions in the country to make effective and needed policies

Why did you change the gender of my example-waiter? :P

The point was: you always need waiters and waitresses. But someone doing that same job today gets paid less, when adjusting for inflation. By grandfather came to Argentina to work as a waiter, and with that salary he could support his two kids and wife; that's unimaginable nowadays. A whole family being supported just on a waiter's salary? Where have you seen that? Certainly Argentina is a very special case, for countless reasons; but I really doubt a waiter in say, UK, can nowadays support a wife and two children just on that salary. Wages all over the world have been stagnant if not receding; they only increase through labor laws. A worker may get paid a lot if his union is really strong, but I repeat: it's not a good sign. When there's true progress, you don't need unions; there are no "programmer unions" that I'm aware of.

We're talking about too many topics at the same time though. To my mind they are:

1- Technological progress driving growth initially in the West and then all over the world from 1750 to 1970; then receding.
2- Economic effects of globalization on different countries and social groups.
3- Cultural effects of globalization on different countries and social groups.

My view on such topics is:

1- If the technological engine is not somehow restarted (and I don't mean in some specific industry: I mean something equivalent to the industrial revolutions) then we are likely to see increasing competition for resources and redistribution. There's no story where that ends well for anyone.
2- Globalization has had winners and losers. First world nations got to where they are because of it, since their companies could sell their products to new opened up markets, and that created a lot of jobs. But even those jobs are mostly gone now due to offshoring, and it's not like those offshoring destinations like China or India are going to be picked up from misery by it. The absolute winners are those people who own this multinational companies. If you add how overfinancialized our world has become, it's even more complicated than that, as people in finance are basically playing tricks on society as a whole and getting rich through that. They may be (sometimes) legal tricks based on speculating; but they definitely depend upon globalization. In a non-globalized world, people working in finance simply become less powerful.
3- Ethnic cohesion in a society is much more important than people realize. It's not all about optimizing profits.
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62DV7WddHPE

And it's not just a romantic thing either; the whole modern liberal projects depends upon western military might, which in turn depends on ethnic, national and religious cohesion. Why do you think soldiers go to war? They go to war to defend their families, their religion and their nations. So if western countries start retreating from this globalist project, as UK did with Brexit and USA will do with Trump; the whole project can never succeed. We are witnessing the end of a long humanist process started in the Enlightment, whose logical endpoint was a one-world government ruled by financial elites. It's not a conspiracy or anything either; it's just the way things turned out. And now it seems the whole thing is changing.

 

[Sinny91]

Ok, let's keep it nice.

Anything for you

Well said on the rest.

 

[ElvenVeil]

Why did you change the gender of my example-waiter? :P

decided to leave it in for the fun of it

Because there are less jobs, those jobs pay less when adjusting for inflation and all industries are receding except for IT.

don't know where you get these ideas from. If it was true that jobs are getting fewer and fewer, it would follow that unemployment rates would be on a constant rise too. That is not the case. (naturally there is a danger in talking about such things too generally, as you can ofc find examples that because of one reason or another goes against the general (argentina for example)). Real wages have also gone up if you compare today with say a 100 years ago. Some western countries today are experiencing only a very slight increase in real wages.

The point was: you always need waiters and waitresses. But someone doing that same job today gets paid less, when adjusting for inflation. By grandfather came to Argentina to work as a waiter, and with that salary he could support his two kids and wife; that's unimaginable nowadays.

He could support a family and in your case it might also be true, but be careful when making such a comparison. The commodity basket today looks vastly different at your grandfathers working days than they do today.

Globalization has had winners and losers. First world nations got to where they are because of it, since their companies could sell their products to new opened up markets, and that created a lot of jobs. But even those jobs are mostly gone now due to offshoring, and it's not like those offshoring destinations like China or India are going to be picked up from misery by it. The absolute winners are those people who own this multinational companies. If you add how overfinancialized our world has become, it's even more complicated than that, as people in finance are basically playing tricks on society as a whole and getting rich through that.

The jobs claim has been commented above. China and india not better off ?.. ????. China has been the fastest growing economy in the world. You almost seem to be just making things up on the go (sorry if it sounds too harsh).
Finance are many things.. It is supporting projects (generating new weath and jobs), but also betting against your own currency : p (UK example).

We are witnessing the end of a long humanist process started in the Enlightment, whose logical endpoint was a one-world government ruled by financial elites. It's not a conspiracy or anything either; it's just the way things turned out. And now it seems the whole thing is changing.

I am sorry but this is absurd.. logical endpoint ? The enlightenment had nothing to do with economics. History is not a neat little timeline with logical conequences, but a mess of random (used broadly) events. What exactly this financial elite rules over, I am also a bit clueless about.

I will leave the economic aspect discussed so far, because it hurts me a little when what I consider to me factually incorrect, is tossed around a bit too freely. On the plus side it has been interesting learning about Argentina (making me research it more because of this thread, and again sorry if the above is a bit too rude).

But yeah cultural unity is probably super important. In europe we can sadly only see hindsight whether the way we deal with the problems today are good. Though more strict border control is reasonable, too harsh treatment of muslims that are good and nice people makes the lessons learned after the second world war ring hollow. will watch the youtube link now : )

 

[OmoInisa]

Two things can be true here. Access to convenient items has exploded over the last two generations and income has been more polarized over the same amount of time. Think about that.

Both things are very true. And the implications of both are also profound. I sense you imagine the first to be trivial and the second to be of great importance.

No there are many groups losing to globalization all over the world. The 2% can afford to macro crush all small companies that have to micromanage their affairs. With lax border rules this is even more pronounced.

Is this to say that 2% of the global population are living in comfort and 98% in misery (measured by comparison to their previous condition, since any absolute measure of happiness or prosperity is meaningless)?
When we break down these popular 1%/2% slogans, they amount to very little more than the anxious venting of those in the developed world (across the political spectrum) who feel particularly traumatised by the new globalised reality.
Wealth concentration is a pressing issue for the human future, but not in the ways assumed by this mode of thought.

The government has insisted on not punishing slave labor from the global economy and so such a thing has been made normal. The people are not the final arbiter in what labor standards should be. The government of the people working in the interests of the people ought to be.

Punishing whom? Corporations that take advantage of a newly available global pool of skilled labour? Or those skilled labourers for having the temerity to encroach on "our" privileges?
Slave labour according to whom? I assure you that those "slaves" would not work those jobs if they weren't relatively lucrative for them. Here we have a typical collision of economic assumptions. Of course for someone used to a much higher standard of living more easily attained, it is slavery. That's no judgement on either party; it's simply an economic reality.

Yes we are worse off as a matter of fact. My grandfather made enough to where my grandmother could stay at home and raise my mother and her siblings. He made more than enough to own a home and raise six children with her.

Today men and women both work like dogs and have almost no children and you think we're equally as wealthy as they were? Fuck dude. Look around you.

I cannot say how truly worse off you are. But let me lay out a few issues to you and you can decide if your image of a past golden age is accurate.

The expectations your grandfather and his family had of what was necessary for a good life were different from yours. We have all sorts of things now that we assume we must have as a baseline of good living. Few of them are truly necessary (not that they're frivolous).

We have access to all sorts of tangible and intangible things now through our commons that make our lives richer, which were not available to your grandfather and his family. We may work more, but our existence is "higher" and more dynamic, both in and away from work. We're simply more advanced.

He existed in a social system that privileged him over women and negroes. He was likely paid more than his job was actually worth, so he was able to comfortably support a wife and kids and afford luxuries of the time. A woman doing the same job would have been paid less than the job was worth, and wouldn't have been able to support a family on the same terms. And ditto a negro.
The above is actually a rough microcosm of the global economy at the time. What has happened now is that his privileges have been gradually removed, and the woman and the negro now undercut him... You get the gist. Simplistic but actually fairly descriptive.

Also my grandfather was no rocket scientist. He was a pastor and before that a coal miner.

Actually a pastor today can become far wealthier than has ever been possible, so long as he's good-looking and charismatic. He just has to go where the demand is...
Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[OmoInisa]

Because there are less jobs, those jobs pay less when adjusting for inflation and all industries are receding except for IT. There are countless examples to illustrate this. Just off the top of my head, if you study STEM nowadays it's extremely hard to find any job that is not related to IT. So what's left for people who study other less technical fields, or who have no degree at all?

There's no real crisis here. More and more people work in "IT" and ancillary fields because we live in the information age.

1- Technological progress driving growth initially in the West and then all over the world from 1750 to 1970; then receding.
2- Economic effects of globalization on different countries and social groups.
3- Cultural effects of globalization on different countries and social groups.

All three go hand in hand. Changes in technological paradigm lead to changes in economic paradigm, which leads to cultural changes.
Your conception of "technology" seems to be narrowly focused on the technology of the industrial era (unsurprising, given your cognitive disposition towards that period in history). Technology is simply an innovation that allows us to do something that was previously beyond our reach. There was technology in the agricultural era, there was technology in the industrial era, and there is certainly technology now in the information era.

1- If the technological engine is not somehow restarted (and I don't mean in some specific industry: I mean something equivalent to the industrial revolutions) then we are likely to see increasing competition for resources and redistribution. There's no story where that ends well for anyone.

Go back to the industrial era? I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Not that factories have disappeared or will disappear. Just as the passing of the agricultural era didn't mean farms would cease to exist. But the pre-eminence of that sphere of activity in human enterprise has ceased. And attempting to wish it back is pointless.

2- Globalization has had winners and losers. First world nations got to where they are because of it, since their companies could sell their products to new opened up markets, and that created a lot of jobs. But even those jobs are mostly gone now due to offshoring, and it's not like those offshoring destinations like China or India are going to be picked up from misery by it.

Millions in China and India have indeed been picked up from misery by it (and the ancillary economic and cultural effects).
What's more, as their condition is elevated, so are their expectations - with important implications.
Sure, globalisation has had winners and losers; all commerce does, whether we're looking at the village economy or the global marketplace.

3- Ethnic cohesion in a society is much more important than people realize. It's not all about optimizing profits.

And it's not just a romantic thing either; the whole modern liberal projects depends upon western military might, which in turn depends on ethnic, national and religious cohesion. Why do you think soldiers go to war? They go to war to defend their families, their religion and their nations. So if western countries start retreating from this globalist project, as UK did with Brexit and USA will do with Trump; the whole project can never succeed. We are witnessing the end of a long humanist process started in the Enlightment, whose logical endpoint was a one-world government ruled by financial elites. It's not a conspiracy or anything either; it's just the way things turned out. And now it seems the whole thing is changing.

The less exposed and educated people are, the more significant tribal identity is. Especially the baser forms of identity - ethnicity and religion.
It's also the case that people have a tendency to retreat into these base forms of identity when they feel threatened by a seemingly coherent threat external to that identity group. This fact has been made use of by demagogues throughout history.
However, it relies on an easily identifiable "other".
It's simply becoming less and less easy for us to see people, even those on the other side of the world, as "other". That is perhaps the greatest victory of globalisation.
Tribal identification so virulent as to justify killing someone else on the basis of their tribal identification is becoming increasing uncommon.

More relevant to the more serious challenges that we face as a whole human race in this globalised reality is that it will become harder to see people, even those on the other side of the world, as "other" enough to justify assuming they deserve a lesser condition than oneself or one's identity group.
And that is the endgame I look forward to. That is when we begin to work towards solutions that solve global challenges, rather than tribal ones. And it's not really a serious choice in the end. We will all survive together or perish together.

When it's all said and done, the fundamental divide that underlies threads like this is that global versus tribal orientation.

 

[Sinny91]

We're totally pro tribalism here in the UK.

Spoiler

 

[OmoInisa]

We're totally pro tribalism here in the UK.

A statement no less absurd than if it had been said of the USA by a Trump loyalist.

 

[Sinny91]

What's absurd about it, you ignoramus?

The only people interested in maintaining Great Britain and Northern Ireland are those loyal to the crown...and conquest.

The United Kingdom is anything but.

Spoiler

 

[Intolerable]

Both things are very true. And the implications of both are also profound. I sense you imagine the first to be trivial and the second to be of great importance.

Actually I think the growth of technology throughout human society has been so pronounced that it has led to conversations like these where people can look at egregious wealth disparities with dismissal.

Is this to say that 2% of the global population are living in comfort and 98% in misery (measured by comparison to their previous condition, since any absolute measure of happiness or prosperity is meaningless)?
When we break down these popular 1%/2% slogans, they amount to very little more than the anxious venting of those in the developed world (across the political spectrum) who feel particularly traumatised by the new globalised reality.
Wealth concentration is a pressing issue for the human future, but not in the ways assumed by this mode of thought.

Here you're being exhibit A to my first point. What defines wealth? A Keurig? An ipad?

Wealth to me is mobility and security. Being able to survive more than one downturn or bad outcome is key. Quality of life is different. It can be very good in a vacuum. One or two circumstances change and quality of life goes south very fast.

Many, many people today live in more comfort than ever before but comfort as stated does not define wealth. Mobility and security do. Should something rather marginal happen to the circumstances of the many like a pay cut or interest rate hikes you can be sure many people will be less comfortable tomorrow by a lot. The key is always in how you adapt and poor people cannot afford to adapt.

Punishing whom? Corporations that take advantage of a newly available global pool of skilled labour? Or those skilled labourers for having the temerity to encroach on "our" privileges?

Corporations themselves aren't the problem. Company B wanting to move to Mexico for cheaper production to stay in business against Company A isn't immoral for wanting to do so. The real blame sits at the feet of our representative republic for it clearly has failed to represent us in this regard.

As usual the government of the people is the final arbiter in these affairs and instead of punishing outsourcing they've promoted it. Through agreements like NAFTA.

Slave labour according to whom? I assure you that those "slaves" would not work those jobs if they weren't relatively lucrative for them. Here we have a typical collision of economic assumptions. Of course for someone used to a much higher standard of living more easily attained, it is slavery. That's no judgement on either party; it's simply an economic reality.

You cannot work people in America 24/7 on slave wages. Chinese sweat shops and Mexican sweat shops are well known. They work people 12+ hours a day for 30 dollars a week. Just enough to keep them there. Those people hate those jobs but they do them because otherwise they'll starve. They'll starve because American agriculture crushed their farm trade.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24609829.html

It's all by design. That's just one example.

I cannot say how truly worse off you are. But let me lay out a few issues to you and you can decide if your image of a past golden age is accurate.

The expectations your grandfather and his family had of what was necessary for a good life were different from yours. We have all sorts of things now that we assume we must have as a baseline of good living. Few of them are truly necessary (not that they're frivolous).

Yes they were different. They didn't enjoy the comforts we have today because those comforts didn't yet exist. But they had more security for sure. Illustrated in the fact his wife could stay home all day and raise many children. All children clothed and cared for.

Had the comforts existed that we enjoy today they would have had them, too.

We have access to all sorts of tangible and intangible things now through our commons that make our lives richer, which were not available to your grandfather and his family. We may work more, but our existence is "higher" and more dynamic, both in and away from work. We're simply more advanced.

You're exhibit A again..

Comfort is not security.

He existed in a social system that privileged him over women and negroes. He was likely paid more than his job was actually worth, so he was able to comfortably support a wife and kids and afford luxuries of the time. A woman doing the same job would have been paid less than the job was worth, and wouldn't have been able to support a family on the same terms. And ditto a negro.

The above is actually a rough microcosm of the global economy at the time. What has happened now is that his privileges have been gradually removed, and the woman and the negro now undercut him... You get the gist. Simplistic but actually fairly descriptive.

And who benefited from men and women openly competing with each other for the same job? Women?

Please tell me you don't think so. It's plain evident to me who profited off of that arrangement. Double the workforce. Who benefits?

Blacks represented back then a tiny fraction of the US population. They're a higher representation now so that addition however pronounced it was in media was insignificant.

Actually a pastor today can become far wealthier than has ever been possible, so long as he's good-looking and charismatic. He just has to go where the demand is...
Sorry, couldn't resist

My granddad was neither. Well maybe charismatic. All of that is before my time.

I think he was pastor because as a very devout Christian and relatively tall man people looked up to him (pun not intended).

 

[Redfire]

don't know where you get these ideas from. If it was true that jobs are getting fewer and fewer, it would follow that unemployment rates would be on a constant rise too. That is not the case. (naturally there is a danger in talking about such things too generally, as you can ofc find examples that because of one reason or another goes against the general (argentina for example)). Real wages have also gone up if you compare today with say a 100 years ago. Some western countries today are experiencing only a very slight increase in real wages.

I didn't compare it to 100 years ago. I compared it to 50 years ago. And real wages have not gone up since then; they're stagnant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages#United_States

"Real wages in the United States, have stagnated since the mid-1970s[5] contrary to expectations that real wages should raise in line with increases in productivity.[6] Between 1973 and 2013 productivity in the United States grew by 74% whilst compensation for workers grew by 9% in the same period.[6] The stagnation of real hourly wages has resulted in a Middle-class squeeze as increases in inflation and the cost of living exceeds the growth of real wages for members of the middle and lower classes.[7][8]"

And keep in mind: Americans have it way better than many other nations.

He could support a family and in your case it might also be true, but be careful when making such a comparison. The commodity basket today looks vastly different at your grandfathers working days than they do today.

How so?

The jobs claim has been commented above. China and india not better off ?.. ????. China has been the fastest growing economy in the world. You almost seem to be just making things up on the go (sorry if it sounds too harsh).

China's GDP is growing. That doesn't automatically make people's lives better. Besides: you've seriously never read about Chinese economic numbers being manipulated?
I didn't say it's not growing though: what I said was that even though they benefit from globalization (could be considered to be among the "winning side"); they're still poor.

Finance are many things.. It is supporting projects (generating new weath and jobs), but also betting against your own currency : p (UK example).

Exactly

I am sorry but this is absurd.. logical endpoint ? The enlightenment had nothing to do with economics. History is not a neat little timeline with logical conequences, but a mess of random (used broadly) events. What exactly this financial elite rules over, I am also a bit clueless about.

This is just a total lack of vision. The Enlightment was the intellectual movement that spawned the modern liberal world and it's globalist project. Why the hell do you think American nations got their independence? Do you think things just happen without any sort of human agency?

EVERYTHING has to do with economics. The economic reason for the American Revolutionary War (inspired, yes, by Enlightment thinkers) was high taxes imposed by the British crown. The economic reason for the Argentine Revolutionary War (again: intellectually inspired by Enlightment thinkers, and only made possible by Napoleon's war with Spain) was that the Spanish crown didn't allow goods to be legally traded through the Buenos Aires port. And where do you think Napoleon got his ideas?

Do you even know what the term "modern age" refers to? Do you know about the rise of capitalist economies in Italian republics? That gave rise to mercantilism and their ideas ended up taking over Europe and then the world. That wasn't a "mess of random events". That was the birth and expansion of capitalism. And capitalism in its current form couldn't have developed without globalization, which in turn is ideologically based on modern ideals.

I will leave the economic aspect discussed so far, because it hurts me a little when what I consider to me factually incorrect, is tossed around a bit too freely. On the plus side it has been interesting learning about Argentina (making me research it more because of this thread, and again sorry if the above is a bit too rude).

I don't mind rude; but I do find it puzzling that you lack an understanding of such basic philosophical and historical concepts. I didn't know I was supposed to spell out such basic things.

But yeah cultural unity is probably super important. In europe we can sadly only see hindsight whether the way we deal with the problems today are good. Though more strict border control is reasonable, too harsh treatment of muslims that are good and nice people makes the lessons learned after the second world war ring hollow. will watch the youtube link now : )

We are in agreement then. And it's not an unfair example, the antiglobalist, antimodern ideas when taken to the opposite extreme, end up in something similar to Nazism. But since 1945 the world has been pretty much organized in opposition to such ideals; people are unbelievably sensitive to any talk of racial identity, for example. Being racist today is like being an atheist in 16th century Spain; you are supposed to hide it. Where do you think that sensitivity comes from? Human agency is motivated by their ideologies.

 

[Redfire]

There's no real crisis here. More and more people work in "IT" and ancillary fields because we live in the information age.

And it's called the "information age" because there's nothing else important going on technologically. Progress in transport, for example, is stagnant. Progress in energy is stagnant as well (Elon Musk may be in the way of changing that but hasn't yet). "Technology" used to mean much more than just computers and software. Weapons are technology too; how are weapons different from 50 years ago? Compare that to the invention of the nuclear bomb; and you may see the big picture.

All three go hand in hand. Changes in technological paradigm lead to changes in economic paradigm, which leads to cultural changes.
Your conception of "technology" seems to be narrowly focused on the technology of the industrial era (unsurprising, given your cognitive disposition towards that period in history). Technology is simply an innovation that allows us to do something that was previously beyond our reach. There was technology in the agricultural era, there was technology in the industrial era, and there is certainly technology now in the information era.

So technology is just always present in different forms to the same degrees? My argument there is: technological stagnation outside of IT since the 1970s; when compared to the progress seen from 1750 to 1970. Would you mind giving me an argument for the opposite, if you don't agree? Or will you just keep talking about my cognitive dispositions?

Go back to the industrial era? I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Not that factories have disappeared or will disappear. Just as the passing of the agricultural era didn't mean farms would cease to exist. But the pre-eminence of that sphere of activity in human enterprise has ceased. And attempting to wish it back is pointless.

It wouldn't be going back to the industrial era; it would be a new industrial era. And it CAN happen if there is sufficient technological progress to back it up. Just off the top of my mind, 3D printing could become widespread and completely change the way goods are distributed worldwide.

Millions in China and India have indeed been picked up from misery by it (and the ancillary economic and cultural effects).
What's more, as their condition is elevated, so are their expectations - with important implications.
Sure, globalisation has had winners and losers; all commerce does, whether we're looking at the village economy or the global marketplace.

Ok. So: that was the point. ElvenVeil's previous argument was the the losers are negligible if any; and that globalization is without a doubt a good thing on net for everyone.

The less exposed and educated people are, the more significant tribal identity is. Especially the baser forms of identity - ethnicity and religion.
It's also the case that people have a tendency to retreat into these base forms of identity when they feel threatened by a seemingly coherent threat external to that identity group. This fact has been made use of by demagogues throughout history.
However, it relies on an easily identifiable "other".
It's simply becoming less and less easy for us to see people, even those on the other side of the world, as "other". That is perhaps the greatest victory of globalisation.
Tribal identification so virulent as to justify killing someone else on the basis of their tribal identification is becoming increasing uncommon.

More relevant to the more serious challenges that we face as a whole human race in this globalised reality is that it will become harder to see people, even those on the other side of the world, as "other" enough to justify assuming they deserve a lesser condition than oneself or one's identity group.
And that is the endgame I look forward to. That is when we begin to work towards solutions that solve global challenges, rather than tribal ones. And it's not really a serious choice in the end. We will all survive together or perish together.

When it's all said and done, the fundamental divide that underlies threads like this is that global versus tribal orientation.

So, in other words: people who care about race or nation are stupid. But you are not, you are enlightened (pun intended).

 

[Grayman]

Globalization isn't the transcendence of tribal thinking. It is the swallowing of smaller tribes into one large tribe that is western type thinking. The global tribe forces people to think certain ways, forces them to adopt our way of government, and forces them to rape their land for the benefit of this larger tribe.

 

[Analyzer]

Nationalism is a joke and no, globalism which is just nationalism at the global level is not the only alternative. It's funny how people want to resort to this mode of thinking in an age where information is spread throughout the world instantly. To me it seems like these people are reactionary and can't deal with the changes in the world around them so like other exploitative factions in history they want to use the mechanics of the State for their own interests. Perhaps before it was at least understandable for the uneducated, but those who were educated have always been aware of total arbitrariness of political boundaries along with the fictitious authority which sets them up. Look up the "Republic of Letters".

Even the mass fool now has access to information and networks from anywhere around the world defeating the whole purpose of sustaining yourself within the confines of an imposed boundary. The only real distinction between groups of people is culture, which is set by language differences. It's a non-sequitur to assume you need a nation-state to keep culture an active process in society.

 

[Sinny91]

Who said anything about "need" ?

What about what people WANT.

We want our little tribes, the rest of you can FEK OURF, with your Tower of Babble.

 

[Analyzer]

Who said anything about "need" ?

What about what people WANT.

We want our little tribes, the rest of you can FEK OURF, with your Tower of Babble.

Many proponents of nationalism believe that we need this arbitrary authority in order for society to function from Aristotelian philosophers to Aquinas and of course Hobbes.

As long those who want to live in an imposed political boundary stay out of the affairs of those who do not, I see no issue. Which comes to the crux of this whole thing— voluntarism vs force.

 

[Intolerable]

Steve Bannon who many liberals hate explained this problem back in 2011:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nTd2ZAX_tc

That is what the fight is about. It's about shutting down globalism and the political class entrenched in their affairs.

 

[Grayman]

To me nationalism is and should be like family but on the scale of the nation. In a family you prioritize each others needs and you look out for each other and seek to move forward as unit toward success. To me the president should be the head of that family. He really is a servant in that his needs come last and his priority is always to the needs of his family. To me there is a lot of strength and bonding in family. But this all hinges on understanding, knowing, and fighting for a healthy family relationship where everyone has a certain amount of responsibility to their family.

Really community is like this as well. Nation is just a large scale community. I really want to see Trump do well for our family and to do well for our African-American brothers and sisters. I want to see him take away the fear that American-Muslims face by consoling them and telling them that they are a part of us and they well not be forgotten or ignored or judged when we fight against radicalism. But Trump lacks the empathy to do such a thing. Trump is a strong leader I really like this about him but I wish that he could gather up some empathy for our fellow Americans and make life better for them and strengthen their hearts.

 

[Redfire]

Nationalism is a joke and no, globalism which is just nationalism at the global level is not the only alternative. It's funny how people want to resort to this mode of thinking in an age where information is spread throughout the world instantly. To me it seems like these people are reactionary and can't deal with the changes in the world around them so like other exploitative factions in history they want to use the mechanics of the State for their own interests. Perhaps before it was at least understandable for the uneducated, but those who were educated have always been aware of total arbitrariness of political boundaries along with the fictitious authority which sets them up. Look up the "Republic of Letters".

Even the mass fool now has access to information and networks from anywhere around the world defeating the whole purpose of sustaining yourself within the confines of an imposed boundary. The only real distinction between groups of people is culture, which is set by language differences. It's a non-sequitur to assume you need a nation-state to keep culture an active process in society.

Really? The ONLY distinction? So religion and race play no role at all?
Argentines are way closer to Italians than Bolivians; and yet they're closer to us geographically and speak the same language.

How is globalism nationalism at the global level? I agree that the West has imposed its ideas across the world, but "the West" is not a nation.

The republic of letters was simply an intellectual group based on Enlightment ideas. The whole point of this thread is that those ideas dominated Western thinking for a long time and we are now seeing a reaction. The world had been moving steadily in a globalist direction since 1945 and it's now turning the other way around.

What's really pissing me off about people in this forum lately is that you turn on the aggressiveness with no arguments to back it up at all. When are you going to contribute ANYTHING at all to this discussion? If you want to be rude that's fine, but you need to do that AFTER making your arguments. If you just spout your crap and don't back it up, there's just no way the conversation can move forward.

The same thing happened here: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=25287

"Trump is a joke"
"Why?"
"Because he is a joke"
"What are your arguments?"
"He's a joke! This conversation has gone off long enough, bye"

edit:

Let's take ONE narrow part of this thread as an example. I was arguing that technological progress has stagnated since the 70s. I already quoted a statistic showing that wages have been stagnant, and countless examples where technology has not progressed. When is any of you going to offer a counterargument? And again: if you want to be rude while you're doing that, it's fine. I have a thick skin, I don't mind. But if you don't contribute anything then this is just a total waste of time; for you, me, and anyone else reading this.

In other words: Intolerable had already offered anecdotal evidence for that; and I had as well. Everyone feels like people are working more for less. But it's true; anecdotal evidence is not enough. So I just offered a statistic. What did you offer at all besides condescension? Where are your arguments?

 

[Analyzer]

Really? The ONLY distinction? So religion and race play no role at all?
Argentines are way closer to Italians than Bolivians; and yet they're closer to us geographically and speak the same language.

The most fundamental distinction between groups, hardest to seperate. Language and literature=culture. Religion, ethnicity, and other values can have a more individual variation than languages.

Race doesn't separate people as much as you think. Brazil is a highly mixed race country which is united by it's language more than anything else. They don't share anything in common with other Latin American countries besides geography and being originally colonized by Iberians. Argentinians are closer to Italians because there is more of a European influence from immigrants which have spoken Spanish than Bolivia which is mostly indigenous along with other nations in Latin America even though those countries have Spanish as the official language. Don't even get started with the the fallacy of the Hispanic/Latino race, North Americans are clueless about everyone "south of the border" and just put them into one group, probably for some Eugenics agenda.

How is globalism nationalism at the global level? I agree that the West has imposed its ideas across the world, but "the West" is not a nation.

All these terms are just different flavors of toothpastes along with fascism, communism, socialism... all essentially come down to a collectivist ideology. Nationalism says the State should control a geographical area based on certain shared values (usually language) while globalism is all about having the State control the entire world. Which of course never happens, it's nothing new. This conflict stems back to Ancient Greece tribes trying to organize into a "global" league in the Aegean Sea.

The republic of letters was simply an intellectual group based on Enlightment ideas. The whole point of this thread is that those ideas dominated Western thinking for a long time and we are now seeing a reaction. The world had been moving steadily in a globalist direction since 1945 and it's now turning the other way around.

The group transcended borders, they didn't have any allegiance to the spot on a map they found themselves in. I do agree we have been moving in a globalist direction since the 20th century and now we are seeing a nationalist revival trend. I believe both visions are short-sighted and fatal as they have no theory or understanding of political history.

The classical liberals like Bastiat were well aware when they said "if goods don't cross borders soldiers will".

 

[Redfire]

The most fundamental distinction between groups, hardest to seperate. Language and literature=culture. Religion, ethnicity, and other values can have a more individual variation than languages.

Race doesn't separate people as much as you think. Brazil is a highly mixed race country which is united by it's language more than anything else. They don't share anything in common with other Latin American countries besides geography and being originally colonized by Iberians. Argentinians are closer to Italians because there is more of a European influence from immigrants which have spoken Spanish than Bolivia which is mostly indigenous along with other nations in Latin America even though those countries have Spanish as the official language. Don't even get started with the the fallacy of the Hispanic/Latino race, North Americans are clueless about everyone "south of the border" and just put them into one group, probably for some Eugenics agenda.

lol, you're going to school me in South American demographics now? You do know I'm Argentinian, right?

Brazil shares many things in common with us. Soccer, for one thing. More important than you realize, too. I guess you wouldn't know that our president, Macri, started his political career by being president of our most important soccer club, Boca Juniors. You also wouldn't know that Brazil, being a highly mixed race country, is also quite racially segregated. Whites are mostly congregated in southern Brazil (some villages are entirely white there) and in urban centers such as Sao Paulo. Race is actually more important there than here, since we are mostly white so people don't really think about it that much. I would know too since my high school girlfriend is Brazilian. We are closer to Italians for many reasons. There is the obvious ethnic reason (Italians were the biggest cohort of immigrants); but that has left marks all over our culture. In food, in politics, in language, in race; in all sorts of ways.

So basically: no. Language is not the most fundamental distinction between groups. It's one very important element among many. I certainly share way more with my Brazilian ex-girlfriend than with a Mexican. And I share absolutely nothing with a favelado living some kms away from her house, in Sao Paulo.


And what about Uruguay? Separate political entity, the same way Bolivia or Paraguay are separate political entities; but identical to Argentinians in any other respect.

Check this out, will translate some parts for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXrVUZZ5Ing

"Some time ago it seemed like a joke
Being a chicano is fashionable now
If my grandpa Arsenio were to see me (my grandfather's brother is actually called Arsenio and came from Asturias; you go figure)
Singing with a caribeño accent"

"I can't dance cumbia or salsa
I didn't escape from Cuba in a raft
My mom gave birth to me in Montevideo
I don't want to live in Miami"

"In Colombia I was called a gringo
or a German in Santo Domingo
And in Honduras, Panama and Venezuela
They don't even know where Uruguay is"

"I rather speak with a Swedish philosopher
Than with a Guatemalan indian
And I have more in common with a Romanian
Than with a Bolivian"

So, you see? Language is not everything. I would in fact argue that race is way more important than language. Language can be learned. Religion can be dropped, or you can convert to another one. Race is fixed.

Jeez, I hadn't schooled anyone like this in a long time :P
I hope you at least turn around; my experience is that it seldom happens. People just don't want to admit they're wrong, they prefer arguing forever.

All these terms are just different flavors of toothpastes along with fascism, communism, socialism... all essentially come down to a collectivist ideology. Nationalism says the State should control a geographical area based on certain shared values (usually language) while globalism is all about having the State control the entire world. Which of course never happens, it's nothing new. This conflict stems back to Ancient Greece tribes trying to organize into a "global" league in the Aegean Sea.

Certainly. So what do you propose then?

States do not form based on some kind of abstract "social contract" as the Enlightment thinkers argued. It's way more complicated than that. Each state has its own history, and you go figure: the most stable ones are those that are ethnically cohesive. Such as Japan. They even have an official policy in which they avoid giving Muslims citizenship or integrating them into their society in any way. It begs the question: why did Trump then get all that bad press from suggesting a ban on Muslims? Could it be that Western nations are the only ones criticized from trying to hold on to any kind of ethnic identity? Every other nation; they don't think about it that much. Ethnic identity to them is as real to them as the sun, or water.

You know: there's a reason why libertarianism has never, NEVER been implemented anywhere in the world. That is simply not how states are constructed; you need some kind of agreement between people. A REAL agreement, not an abstract "social contract". If you are really keen on individualism you can try it though, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland
Serbia and Croatia are real nations. "Liberland" is an abstract concept. So you see: you are always part of some nation whether you like it or not. At the very least you depend on their army to protect you, on their police to guarantee your rights, and so on. You depend entirely on those "dumb collectivists".

The group transcended borders, they didn't have any allegiance to the spot on a map they found themselves in.

INTPf also transcends borders, and most people here are quite individualistic. You think we have any chance of doing anything meaningful politically through this forum?

I do agree we have been moving in a globalist direction since the 20th century and now we are seeing a nationalist revival trend. I believe both visions are short-sighted and fatal as they have no theory or understanding of political history.

The classical liberals like Bastiat were well aware when they said "if goods don't cross borders soldiers will".

Well: if they don't have any understanding, please enlighten us then, oh mighty Analyzer. What is it you understand about political history, that's so crucial as to dismiss those trends?

Classical liberalism works as long as someone enforces it. People here in Argentina had some different ideas for a while. Something about having our own industry, distributing wealth, etc. So USA trained and financed a group, which then gave a coup, and killed 30,000 people. Then liberalism was restored. That worked out pretty well for USA since we had to buy their products as we didn't have an industry anymore.
And you know what? I actually think it really wasn't such a bad idea to implement liberalism here. But at least I see WHO enforces it. Why they enforce it. Who benefits, who doesn't.

Classical liberalism is an IDEOLOGY. Ideologies need to be enforced. So far it has mostly been enforced by USA, to the detriment of many nations, and many sectors within those nations. And you know what USA is? Oh, that's right, a NATION. So you see: you can't have any sort of political analysis without factoring in nationalism. That's what international politics is all about; relationships between different nations. And those nations are held together by the glue of nationalism; a shared group feeling which keeps up all their institutions.

 

[Analyzer]

lol, you're going to school me in South American demographics now? You do know I'm Argentinian, right?

Brazil shares many things in common with us. Soccer, for one thing. More important than you realize, too. I guess you wouldn't know that our president, Macri, started his political career by being president of our most important soccer club, Boca Juniors. You also wouldn't know that Brazil, being a highly mixed race country, is also quite racially segregated. Whites are mostly congregated in southern Brazil (some villages are entirely white there) and in urban centers such as Sao Paulo. Race is actually more important there than here, since we are mostly white so people don't really think about it that much. I would know too since my high school girlfriend is Brazilian. We are closer to Italians for many reasons. There is the obvious ethnic reason (Italians were the biggest cohort of immigrants); but that has left marks all over our culture. In food, in politics, in language, in race; in all sorts of ways.

So basically: no. Language is not the most fundamental distinction between groups. It's one very important element among many. I certainly share way more with my Brazilian ex-girlfriend than with a Mexican. And I share absolutely nothing with a favelado living some kms away from her house, in Sao Paulo.
...
So, you see? Language is not everything. I would in fact argue that race is way more important than language. Language can be learned. Religion can be dropped, or you can convert to another one. Race is fixed.

What about a mixed race person who was raised in a "white" community? Let's say a mulatto grows up in a predominantly white town in Santa Catarina. Will they have more in common with a mulatto in Cuba or some other white person in Rio de Janiero?

Race is based on self-identity. I know plenty of people who are considered a particular race but share more in common with how other people perceive another race to be. Basically there is high ambiguity in race compared to language. Let's say you are of Portuguese descent, it's highly likely you have mixtures of Moors(African), Celts(European) and middle eastern. Would these people be considered white?

Certainly. So what do you propose then?

States do not form based on some kind of abstract "social contract" as the Enlightment thinkers argued. It's way more complicated than that. Each state has its own history, and you go figure: the most stable ones are those that are ethnically cohesive. Such as Japan. They even have an official policy in which they avoid giving Muslims citizenship or integrating them into their society in any way. It begs the question: why did Trump then get all that bad press from suggesting a ban on Muslims? Could it be that Western nations are the only ones criticized from trying to hold on to any kind of ethnic identity? Every other nation; they don't think about it that much. Ethnic identity to them is as real to them as the sun, or water.

You know: there's a reason why libertarianism has never, NEVER been implemented anywhere in the world. That is simply not how states are constructed; you need some kind of agreement between people. A REAL agreement, not an abstract "social contract". If you are really keen on individualism you can try it though, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland
Serbia and Croatia are real nations. "Liberland" is an abstract concept. So you see: you are always part of some nation whether you like it or not. At the very least you depend on their army to protect you, on their police to guarantee your rights, and so on. You depend entirely on those "dumb collectivists".

States form due to conquest as explained by Oppenheimer and Nock in the early 20th century, the exact details will depend on the economic factors at hand in a given area.

The social contract theory is nonsense. In order for something to be a contract one has to explicitly agree to it. You say States are created by agreements between people but I have never heard of anyone consenting to any particular agreement with a State. Unless you believe agreement is implicit by your actions you partake in a country. But this begs the question what's the difference between that and being a slave or prisoner? The slave or prisoner is forced to used the services their "caretakers" provide. This would mean the Jews implicitly allowed themselves to be killed in Nazi Germany since it was deemed law and they had to agree to it since they lived under the conditions of their State.

Individuals don't depend on these state apparatus for their livelihood. It just exists without any say on mine or anyone elses part. In many parts of the world State services breakdown and one is left to their own devices or private systems. You have to work with what your given. Do what thou wilt.

INTPf also transcends borders, and most people here are quite individualistic. You think we have any chance of doing anything meaningful politically through this forum?

No, politics is futile. Il faut cultiver norte jardin.

Well: if they don't have any understanding, please enlighten us then, oh mighty Analyzer. What is it you understand about political history, that's so crucial as to dismiss those trends?

Classical liberalism works as long as someone enforces it. People here in Argentina had some different ideas for a while. Something about having our own industry, distributing wealth, etc. So USA trained and financed a group, which then gave a coup, and killed 30,000 people. Then liberalism was restored. That worked out pretty well for USA since we had to buy their products as we didn't have an industry anymore.
And you know what? I actually think it really wasn't such a bad idea to implement liberalism here. But at least I see WHO enforces it. Why they enforce it. Who benefits, who doesn't.

Classical liberalism is an IDEOLOGY. Ideologies need to be enforced. So far it has mostly been enforced by USA, to the detriment of many nations, and many sectors within those nations. And you know what USA is? Oh, that's right, a NATION. So you see: you can't have any sort of political analysis without factoring in nationalism. That's what international politics is all about; relationships between different nations. And those nations are held together by the glue of nationalism; a shared group feeling which keeps up all their institutions.

I believe classical liberalism is just as utopion as socialism, or any ideology for that matter it's all fallible. And you can't honestly believe the USA has been as bastion of classical liberalism. That train left since the constitutional coup convention of 1787.

In the international politics realm, anarchy is the natural state of things. There is no constant power dynamic. Empires rise and fall. The only thing which is real and constant is individual volition, which nobody has been able to control yet. Sure the masses get duped but there are always the alien spirits who while outwardly conforming to the requirements of civilization, are still concerned for the plain truth of things.

 

[billybbob18]

Social Justice Warriors. HAHAHAHAHA
I think their time is near. The death throws of a failed ideology abound.
Those who wrongfully rely on the state (all the productive ones) are in for a swift rude awakening.

PS. im new, how do i post an avatar? Is it done in settings, or does it need to be manually added with each post? A PM would be greatly appreciated!

 

[billybbob18]

It's all just labels with shiny chest pieces taking resources from people who have, to take a portion for themselves and give a little to those who don't have resources. That's as simple as I can put it, but I'm sure there's a little more to it than that. lol

 

[billybbob18]

That was a nice video, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'm 30, and I hope the darkness ahead isn't so bad.

 

[Intolerable]

It's all just labels with shiny chest pieces taking resources from people who have, to take a portion for themselves and give a little to those who don't have resources. That's as simple as I can put it, but I'm sure there's a little more to it than that. lol

No you pretty much hit on the issue. I'll put it another way though in case people looking don't get it.

Imagine a ladder race where the guy on the top of the ladder conspires with the guy on the bottom of the ladder to keep the guy in the middle from winning.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

No you pretty much hit on the issue. I'll put it another way though in case people looking don't get it.

Imagine a ladder race where the guy on the top of the ladder conspires with the guy on the bottom of the ladder to keep the guy in the middle from winning.

Mate, 'conspire' is pretty extreme don't you think?

Upper class:
Alright so you're going to live paycheck to paycheck in roach infested apartments without AC or heating and I'll buy the rights to all kinds of property, have controlling interest in many important stocks and lobby the hell out of the gov't. Deal?

Lower class:
Deal! The middle class won't know what hit them.


Is that what you think happens? By definition lower class is worse off than middle class.

 

[Intolerable]

Mate, 'conspire' is pretty extreme don't you think?

Upper class:
Alright so you're going to live paycheck to paycheck in roach infested apartments without AC or heating and I'll buy the rights to all kinds of property, have controlling interest in many important stocks and lobby the hell out of the gov't. Deal?

Lower class:
Deal! The middle class won't know what hit them.


Is that what you think happens? By definition lower class is worse off than middle class.

Not extreme. Just not done in the way you're thinking.

Upper class:

We'll cave to your social welfare programs by gutting the middle class on taxation while affording ourselves very elaborate loopholes. We'll award cradle to grave healthcare by raising healthcare premiums on the middle class while giving ourselves an out. Etc, etc.

Lower class:

We don't care where the money comes from but thank you for getting us what we need!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Not extreme. Just not done in the way you're thinking.

Upper class:

We'll cave to your social welfare programs by gutting the middle class on taxation while affording ourselves very elaborate loopholes. We'll award cradle to grave healthcare by raising healthcare premiums on the middle class while giving ourselves an out. Etc, etc.

Lower class:

We don't care where the money comes from but thank you for getting us what we need!

So a possible solution then is to properly tax the upper class and put the lower class to work in sustainable employment?

 

[Reluctantly]

So a possible solution then is to properly tax the upper class and put the lower class to work in sustainable employment?

imo, just ending tax loopholes for big business would be a great start. Would also help if we moved away from the paradigm of sustainable employment towards evolving employment.