Flare Sci-Fi Forums: DT, Internationalism?

This is topic DT, Internationalism? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/356.html

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Please, explain what you mean when you use this term.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Internationalism is key to socialism.

Essentially, it is the opposite of nationalism. Instead of identifying oneself as part of a nation, you identify oneself as part of the international workers. It is the abandonment of such petty ideas as racism and nationalism and patriotism in favour of such ideas as helping those around the world.

Now, I still think waving the Union Jack at an Oasis concert is cool!

------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana

Posted by RW (Member # 27) on :

So many lies AND keeping a straight face, truly, you are an artist.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

DT: IMO, that doesn't work. People feel the need to set them apart from others, and if they do so on a national basis, it avoids internal conflicts and problems like racism.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Then you end up with just another division, between the workers and the... what is that word, bourgoise? (For some reason every time I hear that word and "proletariat" my "naivety detector" bleeps, though I have no rationale for it.)

Class divisions instead of the other kind.. what fun. So what actually changes?

He's right, you know. Human beings seem to have innate needs for 1) Classification of things into groups, 2) Setting themselves apart in some way, and 3) The accumulation of "stuff."

Changing these ideas will take thousands of years and a new, powerful religion, (which by its very nature will also be divisive) and probably nothing else would work. And you'll still have the differences between those who subscribe to the concept, and those who don't, right up to the bitter end.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Actually 1of2, It is my contention that humans need to associate themselves with a group. This goes back to our ancestory when we grouped together for survival. This is innate. But, unfortunately, when forming a group, humans develop a fear of the 'other', those who are not in the group. This has carried with us throughout human history. It has led to conflicts, wars, racism...etc.

What I believe needs to be done is that when we associate ourselves with a group, the group shouldn't be a small group, like blacks, whites, purples, Chinese, Uzbekistani, etc. but the entire human race. If we can extend the group we separate ourselves into to everyone, then the fear of the 'other', along with racism and the like will disappear because there will be NO 'other'.

I agree, that this will take a long time for this to happen. Too many of the fears that separate us are prevalent in too many people.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Correct. The idea of a community is the basis of human civilisation, and why humans are so different from animals.

However, I don't think that groups automatically fear other groups. More often, groups will have conflicting ideals.

And the "human race" isn't a group, because there's no larger entity to define it.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

Those things break down into greed and fear.
Unfortunately, it'd be real hard to get rid of them. The problem is not nationalism, but the greed (selfishness)that people promote with it. If we eliminate greed from nationalism we would be ok.

------------------
With 17 hours of class, guess what I'm doing.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

One can identify with a local group or even a national group; however I believe that there is a primacy of humanity over all of hatred that nationalism can bring. In other words I can believe that being from California is good and that even being from the United States is good on many levels (regardless of all the bashing we get). Yet when I hear that American coporations are intent on futher exploiting small countries do to the fact that they do not have the worker protections that American workers do, I can be angry about that. Angry about the idea that profit is more important that humanity.

Or I can be upset with the concept that coporate profit is more important that the world that we live on. Screw the whales and the sea turtles if it means a bigger house for me. Ozone, schmozone...give me a bigger car. These are some of the things that are primary over being from Los Angeles. Moreover, the concept of human defined borders, rather new in the scheme of history, by necessity it provides an artifical "us vs. them" mentality further seperating, in a new world of global economics, that haves from the have nots.

------------------
If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!
~C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

See, I read a lot of defeatism here.

Man does NOT need to identify with groups. You say this because it is all history has shown, but it does not make it true. I am sure that when man was hunched over, the International Committee of the Third International of Neanderthal Scientific Socialists was grunting about how we would one day walk erect!

Nationalism is not an all powerful force. Look back through man's history. "Americans" have only existed for about 130 years. Where were the French before Charlemagne? The English before Charles the Conquerer? German nationalism existed, but only vaguely (and it was based on a COMMON language) until Bismarck formed a new country. Austrians have existed only since WWII. Ukranian is a new term. Yugoslavian was a powerful term for decades. Before that, Europeans generally identified themselves with a king, or their lord. Before that, they were subjects of the Roman Empire, although not Roman.
NOTE ON RACISM: This is just general nationalism.

Now, as to First's comment, identifying oneselves amongst the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is more accurate. What do I have in common with Bill Gates? What do I have in common with the young black man from the inner city? The latter you can answer more than the former.

However, the goal of scientific socialism is to eventually eliminate classes. This will take time, much time, of course, but isn't it worth it? Imagine if people in the 1400s had not slowly pushed on the concept of how needless religion is? We would not be so close to the subjugation of religion? And what if no one had begun speaking out against slavery? Or feudalism? Or monarchies? Sure, we'll never have a socialist country in my life time, and classes will likely exist for centuries to come. But, if I can create a better life for others, than mine was worth it. Afterall, isn't that one of the main ideas behind revolutionary socialism? To help others?

------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Of course people want to identify with groups. People are not all the same, but many are similar. I'd much rather be around people I have something in common with, which is why I'm posting on a Star Trek forum and not a snowboarding forum or something.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Than in my classless society, DS9 fans and B5 fans will fight holy wars.

------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Exactly. And form nations based on whether they like DS9 or B5 more.

Well, not really, but it's along the same line of thinking.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :

Human nature is difficult to quantify, difficult to fully comprehend in all it's complexity, and very likely impossible to bring under such complete control as Marxism suggests. If Karl Marx had tried to reconcile the differences between the sexes, he would probably have been a bit more conservative in his theory that communism is inevitable.

For communism to work, you have to completely subjugate ordinary human self-interest. You have to do that without exception for every human being. I have seen no trend in human history towards a lessening of the impulse toward self-interest. Anything you might point out as such is only a better understanding of how one's self interest can be expanded to one's "group".

Expanding one's "group" to include all humanity is quite impossible. I've noticed that people who claim to have done this don't seem to include others who disagree with them, so they haven't done it yet.

--Baloo

------------------
"If knowledge is power, then willful misinformation is the work of the Devil."
-- Barbara "the man who sought Liberty's talents" Mikkelson
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Things like communism won't work for everyone. But if people are dedicated to something, such as their nation (ahem), then it would be viable.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

I firmly believe we can educate people to that point. I believe the evolutionary process of mankind is still continuing, and not as near end development as some people seem to think. Just because something is not done or will be for milleniums, why can't it happen?

Incidentally, it seems I'm the only one here who is giving any hope for the future. Come now my pessimistic friends, please enlighten me as to how we're going to end the world's problems. Afterall, isn't working towards a goal that is perhaps unattainable better than working towards no goal at all?

------------------
"Look on the bright side is suicide" - Kurt Cobain
Milk It, Nirvana

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Ending the world's problems involves more conflict and suffering! Or so says the Shadow.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually. I believe globalism is also inevitable, but I don't believe communism necessarily is, although I could be wrong. I also believe the path is going to get harder before it gets easier.

Our tendency to form strong loyalty bonds to our groups IS present throughout history and worldwide, from the earliest "my family" and "my tribe" days up to "my king," "my God," and "my nation" days. Although the groups seem to be growing larger, it's not without difficulty, as evidenced both by the problems within the European Community as well as certain "US out of UN!" rabid nationalists in the USA.

More and more people are discovering a loyalty to "Earth" or "Humanity," -- although very few of them are actually sure what that means. (and of course, should the Vulcans land, people are likely to have the same problem with THEM, should they identify TOO closely with Mankind.)

and... don't you know that there ARE rabid B5 vs Trek people out there? And people who are STILL ballistic against any series other than TOS (or TNG or DS9, depending on their personal taste?)
Loonies.

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, just because they have an opinion doesn't mean that they're "loonies."

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

If you're gold colored, and worth .60 some american cents, and have the queen on your back then you're a loonie.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

I agree.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Being eleven-sided helps.

And you'be worth 67.8794 US cents. Or 66.3858 Eurocents.

------------------
"Is this real life? Is this just fantasy?"
-Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody

[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited December 06, 1999).]

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Frank, you seem to view military, economic or racial (etc) conflict as one of the basis points of evolution. What if you were to consider the fact that the highest form of conflict is reasoning and or logic. Sure conflict is essential, but only if both parties are willing to move to the same end goals can any form of conflict bring about universal satisfaction. This being people using their brains and coming up with solutions, scientific, political or otherwise.

You're harping on about the 'group' mentality. Well of course we have it! We are by mature pack animals. That fuindamental part of our nature allowed us to come to global domination. However a more significant binding force - potentially- is the fact that we are all on this big blue ball together and like it or not we ARE the same species. All of us. If we were to have more compassion for individuals, instead of institutions things things can and will start to change.

I agree when DT says education is the key, though this workers revolution stuff is getting a bit thin... . We need evolution, the slow process of building, rather than revolution. The throw it in overnight and hope for the best system.

Possibly the most worrying part for me in all this is the trend towards thinking of the greater picture, in essence of the human race over each individual. That could be a fatal mistake. It will take a long time for our most primal instincts to be wiped out - or perhaps they will save us from ourselves *L*.

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Only military, economic, and cultural conflict, actually (certainly not racial).

If two groups agree on something, there's no conflict, obviously.

Humans are more than "pack animals"; they operate exclusively in groups.

Who cares if "we are the same species"? Few people are alike.

The "slow process of building" is applicable only if there are periods of revolution thrown in (shall I bring up the B5 example?).

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

*throws a can of gasoline onto the fire*

I can't agree with socialism. It doesn't work. Its based on the erroneous believe that man can overcome his desire(for some groups, its a need though) to exploit others. This will always go on, whether we believe it will or not.
Can people be educated enough to the point where this won't happen? I don't think so. Who would institute that education? If it was a socialistic society, where everyone recieved the same education, it would be more like brainwashing. There will always be dissent and people thinking differently(freedom of thought! that should be a guaranteed right). As long as people have the right to be different, then socialism will not work. Would you take away that right?

Besides, almost every case where socialism has been installed, it has just instituted another hierarchy, which it is supposed to be against. Its self-defeating.

Just so you know, DT, I am not attacking you, but the idea of Socialism. You have your right to believe what you want, and I respect that. But I won't stop myself from saying what I don't believe in :-).

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Socialism and communism might not work for you, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work for anybody.

Education is like brainwashing?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

If it came from one source, I believe it would be.

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, define "one source." Is the US's public education system also "brainwashing"?

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Ou tou kratountos h� polis nomizetai" - Creon

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :

Education is the future. It is the responsibility of any government or regime to ensure the continuation of such a future.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")

Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :

Jeff, you're showing your ignorance. Name to me one country where socialism was installed. You can't. It has NEVER happened. Moreover, you're presenting a conundrumic statement. Socialism CANNOT be installed in ONE country. Marx, Lenin, Engels, Trotsky, and pre-1923 Bukharin and Stalin all agreed on this. It is a fundemental tennent of socialism.

Moreover, you're too pessimistic. As the centuries go by, social mores change. We have little in common with Neanderthal man. In addition, your premise that man is inherently flawed is in and of itself inherintly flawed. That is based on the mythical belief developing out of Genesis.

------------------
"Oh no, I know a dirty word" - Kurt Cobain
Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Man is neither inherently good NOR inherently evil.

Control-based systems (Both "Conservative" AND "Liberal") assume he is inherently evil, and will do bad things if not controlled.

Socialism assumes he is inherently good, and will cooperate if given "proper" education and opportunity.

Which is why neither assumption works.

Man IS, however, inherently selfish, as are all living things. And it takes GREAT struggle to rise above that. (and even the struggle is selfish, if you believe struggling benefits you, as well.)

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

You're right, that there haven't been too many countries with true socialism(that of course, being that which came from Marx) installed, but I can name one.
Germany, 1918-1919, just after the war ended, the socialists overthrew the government and began to set up their socialist government...The problem? They didn't know what to do when they got there! They went and asked the very people they overthrew what to do! For six months they sat on their thumbs.

All the other nations that tried to install Marxist socialism, had to modify it for it to work in their country. Lenin had to modify socialism(Bolshevism) because, of course, Russia had very little industry at the time to appeal to the worker, but it did have a lot of farmers! Maoism is just a modified version of Bolshevism.

I take back my earlier statement, to say that nations that have tried to install socialism had to modify it. This has caused it to fail. The one nation that did install true socialism failed, because it didn't know what to do when it got there.

Also, I am not pessimistic. I am realistic. We do have MUCH in common with out ancient ancestors... Homo erectus was actually believed to share its food with a group. Back then they formed groups for survival, and we still continue forming groups for survival today. Very few of the basics have changed over the millenia.

I suppose that believing humans having the desire to exploit others is a flaw, then maybe I would be pessimistic...but alas, I see it as niether a flaw nor a quality. It is human nature, something we have to live with. Can we overcome it? I don't think so. That wouldn't make us human anymore then, would it?

Think about how things would be IF socialism was worldwide. You would have nothing to compare life to. No one would really truly know how crappy life is if they don't have anything to compare it to.
Plus, after socialism takes place, you would need a heirarchy to enforce the 'equality', thus creating that which socialism is supposed to overthrow.

Socialism cannot be installed without force. Enforcing equality would mean opressing dissention and getting rid of free thought(possibly other basic human rights). The government would control everything.

Give me capitalism and liberty anyday over being 'equal' and controlled.