The European Union

[yung.carl.jung]

Without the EU and with a more protectionist/isolationist US, there won't be any globalization.

Globalization has always been there and will always be there as long as humans can breed. The Silk Road was part of globalization. I'm not saying we should not try and slow down globalization, but stopping it is impossible. I'm confused as to why anyone would question that.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I am surprised that no one has even mentioned what I think is the most important function and biggest achievement of the EU - Keeping the peace in EUrope (sorry Crimea :X). I won't talk about economics in this post since I am not so well versed on the subject, but would rather speak on the behalf of solidarity. Only thing I say is that I fully agree with Christos in regard to the Greek economic crisis, though I also think Germany managed it badly.

Of course one could make a point that even if the EU did not exist there would have not been a war. Certainly, that might be true. But it would be hard to make an argument that the EU is not at the very least a big deterrent for any martial actions taken in Europe, no? I think it was Zizek that said in times of perceived "crisis", financial crisis, refugee crisis, political crisis, the values that the EU upholds or used to uphold gain even more significance. We should stand for a strong Europe, which is best protrayed by a strong EU. Now, personally I don't believe in crackpot ideas like "European values", but sometimes you have to uphold a sign even if you don't completely agree. Certainly, unlike some other posters who I won't name here, I am sure that the refugees coming to Europe will embrace some of our values, while maybe shunning others. The most important thing is that we ourselves have to consciously live these values. A parent that tells you one thing, but does another will only make his kid mimic his behaviour.

In a sense I agree with Kyriakos. I think having de-facto dictatures in the EU is a problem that has been completely silenced and needs to be brought up. I also think that the racist sentiments should be publicly brought up and condemned. If I remember correctly not only EU election observers, but also human rights NGOs came to the conclusion that the elections in Poland were not democratic in nature. I'm not necessarily asking for sanctions, but we should reach out one way or the other. Same goes for the other proto-fascist governments.

In all logic, she SHOULD lose the referendum.
Now, we have people fed up with "the system" and the 1% exploiting them, who voted for Trump, we have people (in this very thread) considering that a bunch of scattered smaller countries would be better able to defend worker's rights than by working together, and we have one of the most social-minded country in the world having a Thatcherist as the most probable future president.
So from here we can draw that :
- People are idiots.
- Logic has little room in politics.

If I remember correctly, wasn't it the Brits that kept vetoing improvements to worker's rights, because it would "harm their economy"? I personally see Brexit as an opportunity to reform

I am not nearly as anti-Merkel as most people itt and consider her a good chancellor, though I do not agree with (some of) the changes the EU underwent during her long reign. As of now German politics are a little stale and our alternative SPD candidate is not a person I really see reforming..

Kind of sad, if you ask me. Our green party is getting stronger every single year, but the Left (the party left of the social democrats) is losing votes to AfD. If we had both a strong green party and a strong leftist party (SPD is almost center-right at this point..) I think change would definitely be possible, nationwide and perhaps EU-wide.

If current trends continue our green party will be the strongest single party in about a decade

 

[Agent327]

Well, not if it ís 'losing votes to AfD', as you claim. I'm not sure how the AfD would gain votes from any green party, as they don't really tend to overlap. (Perhaps you meant: the greens are losing votes, while the AfD is gaining them?)

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You misread the post, I actually said "the Left" (The name of the Party. It is "Die Linke" in German) is losing votes to the AfD, not the Greens (who are steadily gaining votes), which is almost provably true. This mostly happens in eastern Germany where Die Linke is traditionally strong, but has been getting weaker the last two years while the AfD gained votes. I personally know of a lot of people that directly admitted from switching from "leftist extremism" to "far-right extremism", if you want to phrase it that way. It is not uncommon, as odd as it may seem. A good chunk of those people are GDR nostalgists who finally broke with their party.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Globalization has always been there and will always be there as long as humans can breed. The Silk Road was part of globalization. I'm not saying we should not try and slow down globalization, but stopping it is impossible. I'm confused as to why anyone would question that.

I don't think the silk road was part of globalization. It has to be more than just trade, as it's a political and cultural thing, too. I'd run with organizations like the East India Company being early contributors to globalization because of the colonization and hegemony that came with them in the age of exploration/discovery, but I think true globalization began in the 19th century.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I don't think the silk road was part of globalization. It has to be more than just trade, as it's a political and cultural thing, too. I'd run with organizations like the East India Company being early contributors to globalization because of the colonization and hegemony that came with them in the age of exploration/discovery, but I think true globalization began in the 19th century.

I see the point you are making, but in the end these are pretty arbitrary restrictions on what does and what does not count as globalization. Either way, I don't feel like having this argument now and I suppose we can agree that, with us now having the internet, airplanes, cars, smartphones and so forth, and all those things being incredibly hard to reverse, we have to accept that globalization is happening and will continue to happen, without us being able to stop it.

 

[innonimatu]

The question of what is "globalization" is very important for politics in our age, so I think we really should clear that up. What I am going to argue is that globalization is exclusively a political concept. It makes claims to other concepts: international trade, exchange of knowledge, etc, to make its claims, to justify itself: see, all this is happening, thus globalization. All those other things exist by themselves and have existed for a long time. Globalization is a political concept by itself and should be viewed as such: a tool in political operations to bend people's will. It is the political weapon behind ideas such as Fukuyama's End of History.

Fascism operated ideologically by comparing the individual or the groups within the country with the nation, and telling them: see, you're small, you really must go along with the will of the nation (of which we who tell you this just happen to be the arbitrators because we are in government); it is right and inevitable it should be so, to go against it, to wish to operate independently, is illogical, would not work and so we cannot allow it.

Globalization operates in the same way, but globally. The groups now include entire national communities, and this is great for those who wield this political weapon because it has neutered the greatest achievement of the plebs in the 20th century: universal suffrage. Yes, they may have their one person, one vote, But what they elect will have its powers so constrained that the elections won't have much meaning. All that is necessary is to convince them that, "because globalization", their elected governments cannot act. Compare the country with the Globe and tell them: you're small, you really must go along with the trends of the world - of which we who tell you this just happen to be the rightful interpreters because we are in think thanks and international organizations, we are the global technocracy and the experts; it is right and natural that you go along with global trends, to go against it, against out prescriptions, is illogical, would not work, and will result in [insert picture of catastrophe targeted to the fears of that public] so it should not be allowed.

Globalization is politically a more ambitious form of fascism. And my immediate concern is that these "rightful interpreters" are moving from the "should not be allowed" to the outright cannot allow. Already entire countries are subject to blackmail and government are toppled and replaced by new, appointed ones.

 

[Agent327]

The question of what is "globalization" is very important for politics in our age, so I think we really should clear that up. What I am going to argue is that globalization is exclusively a political concept. It makes claims to other concepts: international trade, exchange of knowledge, etc, to make its claims, to justify itself: see, all this is happening, thus globalization.

Well, there you go off the road. You see, globalization isn't a political concept. It's an economic concept. (Apart from that 'globalization makes claims' is a rather nonsensical statement.)

It does explain why you don't understand how the Silk Road is a relatively early example of globalization. Earlier examples would be Romans trading with India overseas - and beyond.

You misread the post, I actually said "the Left" (The name of the Party. It is "Die Linke" in German) is losing votes to the AfD, not the Greens (who are steadily gaining votes), which is almost provably true. This mostly happens in eastern Germany where Die Linke is traditionally strong, but has been getting weaker the last two years while the AfD gained votes. I personally know of a lot of people that directly admitted from switching from "leftist extremism" to "far-right extremism", if you want to phrase it that way. It is not uncommon, as odd as it may seem. A good chunk of those people are GDR nostalgists who finally broke with their party.

I do apologize. Ossi Linke supporters might well switch to AfD. That does make a lot more sense.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think the silk road was part of globalization. It has to be more than just trade, as it's a political and cultural thing, too.

Between the Cingissids and the Hui, I'd say the Silk Road has that covered.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Between the Cingissids and the Hui, I'd say the Silk Road has that covered.

So, that's globalization without the global, I guess. You're left with ization. That's just trade and the manifests of trade.

"zomg, Roman Empire policy and trade affected Yemen! Globalization!" no.

"zomg, Darius built a highway! Globalization!" no.

"zomg, Islam spread via trade routes to Indonesia! Globalization!" no.

You can take a round peg and pound it hard enough to "fit" through a square hole. That doesn't mean the round peg was square before you started pounding.

 

[innonimatu]

And good riddance to another eurocrat, Renzi is out.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

And good riddance to another eurocrat, Renzi is out.

Well, he can't. If he resigns, too many investors lose confidence in already fragile Italian banks. Tuesday morning, people will be crawling over each other to get their money out of banks, they'll have to put limits on withdraws so the institutions don't become insolvent. He needs to stand there, take it on the chin and complete his scheduled administration.

This is because it suddenly puts future policy in question, it creates a vacuum in sentiment. Big investment always comes with two things, your guy in the chair and stability. No one knows whose guy is going to be in the chair, nothing is stable. Give me my money, I want out. It becomes a race who can actually get all their money.

 

[innonimatu]

Democracy is not optional on what is good for the banks. That's why we call it a democracy, not a... how would one say a "bankocracy" in greek?
That kind of speech was already deployed in the run up to the referendum. The sky will fall. It failed. Again. Europeans are no longer afraid of it.

The rat did already resign. But don't worry, if the bankers are so concerted about stability they can ask the president to call a new election within a week. The current electoral law was even made by Renzi to give a majority bonus to the most voted party, because he assumed it would be his party.
And... oops, it doesn't look it will be, rather it may be the anti-euro party. Too bad for the eurocrats, isn't it?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Democracy is not optional on what is good for the banks. That's why we call it a democracy, not a... how would one say a "bankocracy" in greek?

The referendum was on political reform, not "to keep the guy". "The guy" stated if people don't vote in this manner, then , "I will quit". There's a difference here I don't think you're entirely seeing. He needs to realize his political career is over, but remain in his position until due process occurs, in the appropriately timely manner, that his replacement in appointed. That would help immensely.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

The rat did already resign.

Did he? That's awful. Source?

 

[innonimatu]

The referendum was on political reform, not "to keep the guy". "The guy" stated if people don't vote in this manner, then , "I will quit". There's a difference here I don't think you're entirely seeing. He needs to realize his political career is over, but remain in his position until due process occurs, in the appropriately timely manner, that his replacement in appointed. That would help immensely.

I have a problem with this logic. With the word appointed specifically. In democracies leaders are elected. Renzi was not elected in the first place. The guy didn't even run in the last general election election!

The powers that be in the EU liked him, of course. They hate democracy.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I have a problem with this logic. With the word appointed specifically. In democracies leaders are elected. Renzi was not elected in the first place. The guy didn't even run in the last general election election!

The powers that be in the EU liked him, of course. They hate democracy.

I can't think of a real "pure democracy" in a country with tens of millions of people. The USA is not some pure democracy, in spite of the worthless caterwauling people are doing here over the "popular vote", for example. This doesn't make them somehow "less democratic systems", but it illustrates there can be a variety of democratic processes.

This referendum was certainly a practice indicative of a democratic process. I, and I think many in the world, see it as favorable when such votes are put to the people. That does not mean every decision made will be, or even should be, made via this process.

 

[EnglishEdward]

This referendum was certainly a practice indicative of a democratic process.

Pardon me for shortening this to:

A referendum is democratic.

One of the reasons I firmed up for voting Leave the EU was being emphatically told in
person that Referendums were undemocratic and that the UK should not be holding one.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Pardon me for shortening this to:

A referendum is democratic.

One of the reasons I firmed up for voting Leave the EU was being emphatically told in
person that Referendums were undemocratic and that the UK should not be holding one.

Ok. We need to explain to him, though, how a country can still have leaders not voted in via referendum. Your Theresa May is in a very similar position, legislatively, as Matteo Renzi.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The failure of the referendeum was certanly a good thing. You don't need to be anti-EU to oppose such a blatant power grab.
As for Renzi, he has no one to blame but himself.