Internationalism: Where can I find some?

[pecksniff]

The most important internationalist movement of the past century was Communism, which is now pretty thoroughly discredited. (Communists in power always acted like nationalists anyway, putting their national interests above any concept of international working-class solidarity.) Neoliberal economic globalization does not appear to be trending toward a world political union. The NWO is only a fever-dream conspiracy theory. What else is there?

 

[pecksniff]

Actually, the New World Order is simply the post-Cold War international order. It is characterized by the Westphalian system of national sovereignty, only with more sovereign states than existed in Europe in 1648. Which takes us in exactly the wrong direction.

 

[pecksniff]

I sometimes find myself wishing Napoleon had won all his wars. Then there would have been a united Europe, at least. A bad Emperor is better than none.

 

[pecksniff]

..........................................

 

[pecksniff]

N.B.: Internationalism/world government is by no means a new or alien idea in American politics. See this thread.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

N.B.: Internationalism/world government is by no means a new or alien idea in American politics. See this thread.

Of course not, anti-American haters have always been around.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is nothing inherently Anti-American about a world government.

 

[pecksniff]

There is nothing inherently Anti-American about a world government.

No more than there is anything inherently anti-Florida about the United States.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

There is nothing inherently Anti-American about a world government.

Of course there is, we are a sovereign nation, ending that sovereignty by submitting to a world government and the will of our enemies, your authoritarian leftist comrades around the globe, is anti-American.

Not shocking you and peck are super big on Kim jung Un telling you how to live and think there is nothing anti-American about ending the USA.

 

[pecksniff]

Of course there is, we are a sovereign nation, ending that sovereignty by submitting to a world government and the will of our enemies, your authoritarian leftist comrades around the globe, is anti-American.

Not shocking you and peck are super big on Kim jung Un telling you how to live and think there is nothing anti-American about ending the USA.

See post #8.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

See post #8.

False equivalency.

Florida is not a sovereign nation and the USA is not the totalitarian communist trash government you're all hard for.

 

[pecksniff]

False equivalency.

Florida is not a sovereign nation and the USA is not the totalitarian communist trash government you're all hard for.

There is no reason at all to suspect a global union would be totalitarian or Communist.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

There is no reason at all to suspect a global union would be totalitarian or Communist.

If it doesn't have the authority to do shit, or bring us all under one rule then fuckin' what's the point? LOL

It will just be another UN.... a toothless and meaningless organization that writes nastygrams to nations who don't do what they say. Nobody will give a fuck about the stupid do nothing total bitch world "government".

 

[pecksniff]

If it doesn't have the authority to do shit, or bring us all under one rule then fuckin' what's the point? LOL

Every national government has that authority, but not all are totalitarian.

 

[pecksniff]

False equivalency.

No, it isn't. America would be to a world union as Florida is to the U.S. -- a constituent part with a say in the affairs of the whole.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Every national government has that authority, but not all are totalitarian.

No they don't... especially not ours....if they did they would be by definition, totalitarian LOL.

Words mean things peck.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is, because words mean things.

America would be to a world union as Florida is to the U.S. -- a constituent part with a say in the affairs of the whole.

Yes, submissive to it.....that's what's so anti-American about it. It would be the literal end of the USA.

And it's still false equivalency, because America isn't a state, it's a sovereign nation.... unlike Florida which is not a sovereign nation.

 

[pecksniff]

No they don't... especially not ours....if they did they would be by definition, totalitarian LOL.

Words mean things peck.

Every national government has the authority to bring the whole nation under its rule. That does not make it totalitarian.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Every national government has the authority to bring the whole nation under its rule.

No they don't, ours is a prime example. Our federal government is in fact rather restricted in it's authority.

That does not make it totalitarian.

I'm sorry but requiring complete subservience to a government does make it totalitarian. On a global level, even more so.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And it's still false equivalency, because America isn't a state, it's a sovereign nation.... unlike Florida which is not a sovereign nation.

Actually we are not a Nation if we are playing the "words mean things" game. We are a Nation State. Asgaurd is a nation. Islam claims to be a nation though I would argue there are at minimum three separate Islamic States. Catholics are definitely a nation as are Jews.

But real people don't use text book definitions.

 

[UltraMAGAKing]

Actually we are not a Nation if we are playing the "words mean things" game.

No, we aren't....we're too divided and share no common values of any kind.

We are a Nation State.

Correct.

But real people don't use text book definitions.

Of course they do.... we're called "educated", might want to look that up.

 

[pecksniff]

Actually we are not a Nation if we are playing the "words mean things" game. We are a Nation State. Asgaurd is a nation. Islam claims to be a nation though I would argue there are at minimum three separate Islamic States. Catholics are definitely a nation as are Jews.

But real people don't use text book definitions.

Jews, maybe, but not Catholics or Muslims. A nation is defined by shared blood as well as language and culture. At least, that's how the concept emerged in Europe in the 19th Century.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Jews, maybe, but not Catholics or Muslims. A nation is defined by shared blood as well as language and culture. At least, that's how the concept emerged in Europe in the 19th Century.

Pretty sure its technically OR. As in you could make the argument if you really wanted to that Spain and Mexico would still fit the definition of a 'nation'. To the extent that while Americans tend to use Hispanic and Latino interchangibly they are NOT actually synonyms.

I would tend to agree with you, at least in the modern sense but the real reason for not establishing a national religion wasn't that they gave a fuck about Muslims, Jews, so on and so forth. Its the same reason JFK's religion was brought into question. Can you be a genuine believer in the Catholic Faith and NOT follow whatever the Pope said? I would argue that's a valid fear by the by. I just think most people are actually agnostic cowards not actually religious. In the States anyway.

Back to the point Hispanic just means Spanish is the dominant language in your home country. Spainards would qualify just fine but because of how race is dealt with they kinda get a pass. The same one we ironically extend to Ukraine of "hey you're with us, we'll fudge the lines a tad. Or how Egypt can choose to be African or not.

And No Bot, we don't call you educated, we call you pompous assholes who are deeply dishonest. You are literally the only poster on this board who claims otherwise. I think you could probably make a halfway decent argument for Mormons too.

But I'm being a pedantic piece of shit.

 

[colddiesel]

The most important internationalist movement of the past century was Communism.

No it was not. Consumerism was far more important. It won, and mostly, is still winning.

 

[pecksniff]

No it was not. Consumerism was far more important. It won, and mostly, is still winning.

That is not an internationalist movement. It does not tend towards a global political union.

 

[colddiesel]

That is not an internationalist movement. It does not tend towards a global political union.

Who said anything about global or political? You didn't; if that was your intention, the first post should have defined your intent more carefully. In any event you could have made a decent argument that Consumerism was the downfall of Communism