Internationalism: Where can I find some?!

[Kirkrapine]

It seems like the only consistently internationalist political movement of the past 100 years was the Communists. (In doctrine, at least; Communists in power always seemed to govern like nationalists, putting their own countries' interests before any international movement.) And now they're all discredited and stuff -- a few Communist states hang on, but nobody seems to seriously believe, any more, that they represent the wave of the future. The name of Marx has lost its power to conjure.

But it was not too long ago that the obvious necessity of a world government was . . . never a majority idea, but at any rate an idea utterly familiar to all politically sophisticated persons, including non-Communists. See "Wells, Hitler and the World State," by George Orwell (1941).

(N.B.: Internationalism is not the same thing as economic globalism; a marketplace is not a state.)

Is there anything else out there?! Any movement, of the right or left or otherwise, that is ready to step into the Commies' internationalist shoes?!

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, because that shit is stupid and dangerous.

 

[Kirkrapine]

No, because that shit is stupid and dangerous.

It was not stupid and dangerous for the American states to unite.

 

[DMBFFF]

Didn't Khomeini—perhaps borrowing from Mao—say he'd rather Iran burn if it meant the rest of the world was Islamic?



environmentalists
anarchists
many brands of libertarianism
Islamacists
some Christian evangelists—particularly Roman Catholicism

 

[BotanyBoy]

It was not stupid and dangerous for the American states to unite.

LOL....well the stupid part depends on who you ask.

The dangerous part was very clearly untrue as it's unity was the most costly events in the history of the US.

And yea it is, too many people and POV's to try and have global rule.

The EU and the US aren't even close to global and they can't barely keep their shit together, no way were going global.

Maybe one day our planet will function that way, but not in our lifetimes.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The dangerous part was very clearly untrue as it's unity was the most costly events in the history of the US.

Not, I daresay, more costly than disunity would have been.

 

[Kirkrapine]

And yea it is, too many people and POV's to try and have global rule.

Not if it took the form of something closer to the EU than to the USA.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not, I daresay, more costly than disunity would have been.

The only think disunity would have cost would have been an "Ok, you do you then. " from the US.

No war.

Not if it took the form of something closer to the EU than to the USA.

Yea that's flying apart at the seams too for the same reason.

 

[bellisarius]

The only think disunity would have cost would have been an "Ok, you do you then. " from the US.

No war.



Yea that's flying apart at the seams too for the same reason.

Exactly. The EU is coming apart at the seams. Russia only has 5 more years, 10 tops, to do anything of consequence. China, for all the talk that it's the 'up and comer' has shot itself in the foot with it's one child policy. They aren't going away, but lean times are coming quickly.

Canada is in deep shit and it'll get worse if Ottawa pisses Alberta off enough to execute on separation. So what does that leave? And if Trudeau thinks China is their savior he's as stupid as he is naive.

The UK, Australia/NZ, Malaysia, Japan/S. Korea, Argentina, India, Mexico, and maybe Chile. A few others as well but that's about it.

The US? We'll do just fine. We have the food, the energy (I think we reach energy independence next year), the infrastructure, and two oceans between us and the failing states.

The reason that so much US industry is repatriating back to native soil is not solely due to Trump or the tax cut. They can read the demographic profiles just as well as anyone else and they don't want to have all their eggs sitting on foreign shores when the shit hits the fan.

As far as Communism goes, it's a failed philosophy that just doesn't have the good grace to die out. It's a notion that appeals to the lowest common denominator of any given society and cannot exist outside of a totalitarian state. Socialism hasn't fared much better. It just experiences a more protracted death.

 

[Oblimo]

A sovereign entity cannot exist without other sovereign entities to recognize it and interact with it. So, until there are independent nationstates on the Moon or Mars or out to invade us from Dimension X, there will be never be a united world government.

 

[Kirkrapine]

China, for all the talk that it's the 'up and comer' has shot itself in the foot with it's one child policy.

How? They don't seem to have any labor shortage.

 

[OldJourno]

How? They don't seem to have any labor shortage.

Come to where the labor is. Maoboro country.
Home of Great Leap Forward athletic shoes.

 

[bellisarius]

Chinese Demographics.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I thought China rescinded the one-child policy.

 

[SpeareChucker]

How? They don't seem to have any labor shortage.

They have just the opposite. Not enough jobs to employ the labor.
Like North Korea, they have built cities that no one can afford to live in...

 

[Kirkrapine]

Of course, any nation with a working-age population deficit can always supply it by opening the door to immigration.

Which, I grant, is especially culturally difficult for the Chinese, who have always regarded the black-haired Han of the Old Hundred Surnames, the descendants of the Yellow Emperor, as "civilized people" and "human beings," to the exclusion of all lesser races and foreign barbarians -- and I don't suppose the Communists, for all their theoretical rationalism and modernity, have gone very far in erasing that attitude.

 

[bellisarius]

I thought China rescinded the one-child policy.

They did, too late to help them though. The new middle class and upper middle class Chinese are self restricting to one child. Remember, the fertility rate has to be 2.1 just to break even.

 

[Kirkrapine]

They did, too late to help them though. The new middle class and upper middle class Chinese are self restricting to one child. Remember, the fertility rate has to be 2.1 just to break even.

See post #16; they do have a shortage of women (because Chinese culture places such a high value on having sons that many couples abort or murder their daughters, or did when the one-child policy was in place), but they can always order Russian brides, if only they can learn to stomach them.

 

[bellisarius]

See post #16; they do have a shortage of women (because Chinese culture places such a high value on having sons that many couples abort or murder their daughters, or did when the one-child policy was in place), but they can always order Russian brides.

That issue was discussed here years ago. But the point is still valid. It is more likely that Chinese males will emigrate to find mates than females will immigrate to marry. For the time being most of those surplus males are in their military which is going to cause the Chinese another set of problems as those males age.

The Chinese leadership should have spent more time studying Western history than their own. Then again many Western leaders should have done the same. There is a direct relationship between standard of living and fertility rates. The higher the standard of living, the lower the fertility rate. This was first formally documented by the Romans. They resorted to awarding medals and cash to any woman that had 3 or more children. Didn't work for them. The Germans tried the same back in the 70's - 80's, didn't work for them either.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The Chinese leadership should have spent more time studying Western history than their own. Then again many Western leaders should have done the same. There is a direct relationship between standard of living and fertility rates. The higher the standard of living, the lower the fertility rate.

Which constitutes a non-problem, as soon as the "grayby boom" generation dies out.

This was first formally documented by the Romans. They resorted to awarding medals and cash to any woman that had 3 or more children. Didn't work for them. The Germans tried the same back in the 70's - 80's, didn't work for them either.

A few years ago, Putin tried summoning Russian teenagers to breeding camps in an effort to raise Russia's birthrate, which has been dangerously low for decades. I don't know if it helped. (And in Nazi Germany, Hitler Youth boys and BDM girls were placed in adjacent camps and encouraged to get together. This practice was widely unpopular -- most Germans still believed in traditional sexual morality -- but from the point of view of Nazi racial ideology it made perfect sense: increasing the number of pureblood Germans in the world was a much more important consideration. Unwed mothers were called "the Fuehrer's brides.")

But, we're getting sidetracked, for purposes of this discussion. The human world has no population shortage, and in fact really could use one.

 

[bellisarius]

Which constitutes a non-problem, as soon as the "grayby boom" generation dies out.



A few years ago, Putin tried summoning Russian teenagers to breeding camps in an effort to raise Russia's birthrate, which has been dangerously low for decades. I don't know if it helped. (And in Nazi Germany, Hitler Youth boys and BDM girls were placed in adjacent camps and encouraged to get together. This practice was widely unpopular -- most Germans still believed in traditional sexual morality -- but from the point of view of Nazi racial ideology it made perfect sense: increasing the number of pureblood Germans in the world was a much more important consideration. Unwed mothers were called "the Fuehrer's brides.)

But, we're getting sidetracked, for purposes of this discussion. The world has no population shortage, and in fact really could use one.

Gen X has a problem, they are the smallest generational demographic in the US and they're going to have to carry the load tax wise until they too retire.

The population problem is where it exists, in all the wrong places. In those nations the general population tends to be ignorant, violent, and culturally immiscible with the cultures of the developed nations. Those nations that are 'importing' bodies from those areas are asking for trouble, big trouble. And the reason they're importing those people is an attempt to prop up their welfare systems. My data is dated but not too long ago it took 4 German workers to sustain the welfare system. Obviously with a falling fertility rate that was unsustainable. Rather than cut back on the social safety nets they began importing labor, primarily from Turkey at first. While that did shore up their system they found that those imports were NOT assimilating. They were slowly becoming N. Turkey. Germany wasn't the only one, virtually all of the European nations were doing the same. The notion was to emulate the American Melting Pot. What they failed to realize is that in an ever interconnected world there was no incentive for those imports to assimilate.

You see the same thing happening in the US. Both in regard to assimilation and with regard to trying to prop up the welfare state. Fortunately we never went so far as the Europeans so while we still have a problem, it's no where near as critical.

In the US the democrats and the old line republicans are trying to follow the European model. Bring in hoards to prop up the welfare state. The problem is that we are rapidly entering the "Automation Revolution." There will be damn few upwardly mobile jobs for those people to fill. We don't need them labor wise. That being the case they'll be unemployed, not paying taxes, and a drain on the system as a whole. Trump, love him or hate him (there seems to be damn little middle ground there) appears to understand the problem. A rational approach to immigration based on skilled labor and national needs is part of the answer.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Trump, love him or hate him (there seems to be damn little middle ground there) appears to understand the problem.

"Understand" is really far too strong a word; his attitude on the subject, like that of his base, comes from a place much more primitive, and uninformed by any real economic or demographic arguments.

 

[bellisarius]

"Understand" is really far too strong a word; his attitude on the subject, like that of his base, comes from a place much more primitive, and uninformed by any real economic or demographic arguments.

You're entitled to you opinion and it seems you fall into the later category, but the fact remains that his proposal is rational.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You're entitled to you opinion and it seems you fall into the later category, but the fact remains that his proposal is rational.

No, it isn't. There is not a single immigrant population trying to get into this country whose children will fail to assimilate to our culture (and change it in the process, just as every previous wave of immigrants did). As for the job market -- when immigrants get frustrated in that regard, most of them simply leave. Nobody comes here for the social safety net, only for the job opportunities (or to escape oppression).

And, there is certainly nothing rational about his signature policies. A border wall will accomplish nothing present measures do not. Nor has Mexico any conceivable reason to pay for it.

 

[bellisarius]

No, it isn't. There is not a single immigrant population trying to get into this country whose children will fail to assimilate to our culture (and change it in the process, just as every previous wave of immigrants did). As for the job market -- when immigrants get frustrated in that regard, most of them simply leave. Nobody comes here for the social safety net, only for the job opportunities (or to escape oppression).

And, there is certainly nothing rational about his signature policies. A border wall will accomplish nothing present measures do not. Nor has Mexico any conceivable reason to pay for it.

You are wrong, dead wrong. They don't assimilate and they are a net drain on the economy. 90% of them fall into the lowest quintile and as such they pay NO income tax at all. Yeah, they get hammered with the payroll tax (The most regressive tax of all) and they pay state and local taxes. But not enough to cover their long term costs to the Republic.

Look around. In virtually every enclave of immigrants the children are still basically uneducated and a net drain. Yes, there are exceptions to the norm, some of which are outstanding, but you don't build an economy, or a tax base, on exceptions.

Certain cultures do better than others. The Asians and Indians are prime examples. The Latins, Middle Easterners,. and Africans not so much so.

The "Wall." It is needed in certain areas. I don't agree with a wall across the entire border, but he has said so as much himself. You have to stop and think about what a wall with gaps achieves. What I do know is the there are two flights a week out of my region deporting illegal immigrant felons and I live in one of the most sparsely populated regions in the nation not counting Alaska.

But who is digressing now?