Nationalism

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

One important thing that happened around 1993 was the collapse of the ERM. By many accounts this proved the catalyst for economic growth in the UK and probably in Ireland. Nor am I sure that Gemma Hussey, a former education minister, is the best commentator on economics.

The ERM didn't collapse, but the UK did fall out of it. The UK entered the ERM with sterling at far too high a rate, with the inevitable dampening effect on the economy. Thatcher had insisted on the high rate if the UK was to go in at all - she never had any understanding of economics, and the sterling rate was, to her, the measure of the UK's Greatness Quotient. Once the defence the value was overwhelmed - with the transfer from the Treasury to Soros and other speculators of untold billions (untold because it's still secret) - the economy improved enormously. And the Tories tried to take the credit! That dog just would not hunt anymore. This was in September '92, as I recall.

This would have had an effect on the Irish economy, since about a third of Irish exports went to the UK at that time. About half went to the rest of the EU. That was the reverse of the situation in '73.

Gemma Hussey:graduated with a degree in economics and political science; ten years as an entrepreneur; leader of Irish women's movement; election to Senate. The book was very well received and had excellent reviews, which is one reason I bought it. The rapid changes in Ireland in the 90's do draw one's attention, at that point good information and insightful analysis is what one looks for. I found it.

The brightest and best of the population continued to leave in droves for two decades after EU accession.

A feature of Ireland in the 90's has been the return of recent emigrants who see opportunities in Ireland. Just as America provided greater scope than Ireland in the 19thCE, Ireland offers more scope today, or at least has done recently. It's business backwardness provided opportunities that didn't exist any more in a mature US business environment.

And I'll repeat that Germany's malodorous decline has also happened in context of the EU.

And we could argue about that decline, and Ireland, and who knows what else. Sorry, but we're kind of getting off-track and bogged down in detail here.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Does it have to?

We have a tendency to write our history in terms of conflicts that mark turning points and it's easy to get the impression that change must be paid for in blood, but aren't there also reforms that happen quietly, without war?

Yes Sir: Every four years or so we change government. No blood spilled , plenty of Rhetoric tho.

 

[CapelDodger]

What we can learn from the EU:

Sovereignty can be compromised voluntarily.
National currencies can be surrendered voluntarily.
Free trade boosts efficiency and flexibility.
Ideas can be realised.

It isn't heaven on earth (in mine, Firefly was never cancelled, for a start), but neither has the US ever been. There are things we can learn from the US experiment:

All of the above.
There'll be a problem if anyone thinks they can take sovereignty back.

The Constitution was, after all, a product of diplomacy. It's actually a Treaty between sovereign states, arguably. Like most diplomacy it was a bit of a con-job. It can be read in enough different ways to apparently satisfy everyone, but it doesn't actually resolve the differences. The Civil War resulted, when lawyers and diplomats had to stand aside while their clients slugged it out. This is something best avoided.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It isn't heaven on earth (in mine, Firefly was never cancelled, for a start), but neither has the US ever been. There are things we can learn from the US experiment:

You liked that show too? I thought I was the only one.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
The ERM didn't collapse, but the UK did fall out of it.

Right, and that parrot in "Monthy Python" was asleep after all.

The UK entered the ERM with sterling at far too high a rate, with the inevitable dampening effect on the economy. Thatcher had insisted on the high rate if the UK was to go in at all - she never had any understanding of economics

Neither do you, I think. The problem is that it's nigh impossible to set optimal rates for X number of countries.

This would have had an effect on the Irish economy, since about a third of Irish exports went to the UK at that time. About half went to the rest of the EU. That was the reverse of the situation in '73.

I doubt it


Don't forget where our imports come from

Gemma Hussey:graduated with a degree in economics and political science; ten years as an entrepreneur; leader of Irish women's movement;

So what would I have bought from Gemma Hussey lately?

The book was very well received and had excellent reviews,

Yet strangely absent from the bookstores I've browsed in lately.

A feature of Ireland in the 90's has been the return of recent emigrants who see opportunities in Ireland. Just as America provided greater scope than Ireland in the 19thCE, Ireland offers more scope today, or at least has done recently. It's business backwardness provided opportunities that didn't exist any more in a mature US business environment.

So you're saying that business opportunities didn't exist in the American economy during the 1990's?

And we could argue about that decline, and Ireland, and who knows what else. Sorry, but we're kind of getting off-track and bogged down in detail here.

Well I do apologise. After all details are of little importance when discussing the abandonment of established and successful political systems for Ed only knows what. Silly for me to presume that you might explain what's going on in Germany when you have Ireland and the UK completely sussed.

 

[Skeptic]

ust wanted to respond to this part of Skeptic's usual hysteria:

Well, of course. I disagree with the OWG idea, noting it would end in catastrophe, so I am hysterical.

Well, this, too, has precedent in the world of the utopians: mental hospitals were full of dissidents under the Soviet regime--I mean, they actually dobuted the dictatorship of the proletariat is good idea, so they must be insane, right?

You still haven't answered my question, though, DD. I will oppose such a OWG by force. What will the OWG do with me, now that you conceded it has the "right to self-defense" and an will have an army to do so?

Please give some details, so we'll see the other side of your plan, the part which tells us how the wonderful, just, and beautiful OWG deals with the insane, violent nationalist that still oppose its goodness, for some reason.

 

[Skeptic]

from Skeptic:


Just like Israel.

(Forgive me people, this is against my normal policy, but when something sits up and begs like that ...)

Well, not really.

Never mind that you don't know a damn thing about israel, never having been to the middle east, let alone israel, in your entire life.

(For some reason, the less people know about israel, and the farther away they are from it physically, the more cocksure they are in their opinion about how awful it is. The two worst israel-bashers in this forum, for instance, are Australians...)

But let's play along, and say israel is all the awful things you believe about it put together. zionism never tried to solve the world's problems, and has nothing at all to do with, say, Malaysians or Argentinians or Spaniards or 99.9% of the world's population--whether for good or for ill.

Compare this to the "world revolution" movements whose goal is some utopia: the Nazis, the Communists, the Islamists, or any other version of "one world government"-ism. For them, nothing is off-limits; there are only areas of the world that are already "liberated" (e.g., living under their boot) and those that are not yet so (e.g., targets for attack). They must stifle all dissent in their countries, lest the attack on the rest of the world will be weakened.

See the difference? One-World-Government revolutionaries are not only invariably fanatics, but a world menace.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You still haven't answered my question, though, DD. I will oppose such a OWG by force. What will the OWG do with me, now that you conceded it has the "right to self-defense" and an will have an army to do so?

Skeptic, just as an aside, I'd be interested in your opinion:

If such a thing as a OWG could come into being not as a violent revolution, but as the result of natural social evolution taking place over decades or centuries, would it still be a bad thing?

Isn't it possible for someone to hold a "utopian" ideal, but be against imposing it on anyone? To be content to work towards it in baby-steps, through international alliances and trade agreements, believing that when it becomes a reality it will be a good thing even if it's not realized within his lifetime?

 

[Skeptic]

If a OWG comes about through gradual change of hundreds of years, that means it would be the result of human nature gradually changing so as to make the world stable enough and peaceful enough for it. In that case, I would have no objection... since if human nature changed that much, probably its tyrannical drives have mellowed, too. (Although I consider such a possiblity extremely unlikely.)

If, however, the OWG is created in order to make peace in a world still wracked by wars and conflict, and is given enough power to do so (at least initially), it would merely be a "super-state" in all but name, and would almost certainly become corrupt and tyrannical. It is obvious that the kind of OWG DD & co. propose is of the second kind: a "Super-state" to force the other, weaker states to make peace. They might as well campaign directly for Orwell's "Big Brother" and save everybody the pretense.

But, as you would note, DD--and most other advocates of a OWG--do not believe a word they say about how the OWG will not be corrupted by power. Just consider their view of the USA: now that it is unquestionalby the most powerful nation on earth, we hear little from the OWG advocates except for how it is (supposedly) controlled by a tiny elite of businessmen and evil Republican puppers, how everybody in it (except those who agree with them) is "brainwashed", how it is "really" a theocratic dictatorship, etc., etc. Clearly they think power irredeemebly corrupted the USA and made it, in about ten or twenty years, a dictatorship in all but name. Yet, in order to solve the problem of such "rogue" powerful nations, they are suggesting a far more powerful OWG--and are convinced that it will NOT be corrupted?

They had either a). not thought this "OWG" thing through before campaigning for it, or b). are advocating the OWG out of spite, as an fantasy "alternative" to the "bad" USA.

 

[BillyTK]

Which we could more suitably blame upon the Foreign Office, or imperialism, rather than nationalism or the nation state.

Um, no; if we're examining the ideologies which precipitated these things, then wrt the British Empire, it's nationalism which preceded imperialism. Compare and contrast the British Empire with the Ottoman Empire, for instance.

Couldn't care less about that either!

My name's still not Yugoslavia.

Redundant how exactly? And how would the failure of relatively artificial states in Africa make Irish nationhood futile?

Because the necessary pre-conditions for successful nation-statism don't inevitably end in nation-statism; but those conditions are typically arrived at via conquest and oppression, which imo isn't a good thing. And don't mix up my words; I said the project of nation-statism is futile, not Irish nationhood, which IMO is preferable to the constant English meddling that Ireland suffered under; albeit there's still that stuff in the north to sort out. Considering this, how is the Republic any less artificial than the relatively artificial states in Africa?

How about the Napoleonic empire, Soviet Empire, or the Nazi empire?

How about the UK? Three and a bit countries living in relative harmony? My objection to the use of empires as trans-national governments is that they were achieved through force and at the expense of the sovereignty of the subjugated; not exactly great examples of the kind of one world government we've been discussing here.

I think you'll find that Ireland did fulfill many of the concepts of nationhood in ancient and medieval times - a common language, common customs and a common system of law.

How about centralised government, sovereignty and a national identity? And how did that common language, the customs and system of law come about?

Edited for tidiness.

 

[BillyTK]

You liked that show too? I thought I was the only one.

I'm still mourning the end of Angel, but looking forward to a more popular channel than Sci-Fi picking up Firefly... but I digress.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Mycroft:

You liked that show too? I thought I was the only one.

Best damn thing I've ever seen on TV. Loved it. I gather there's a film being made to tie up some of the loose ends.

This is, of course, relevant since at the heart of the story is the imposition of rule by the Core planets - for the common good, as ever.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

Neither do you, I think. The problem is that it's nigh impossible to set optimal rates for X number of countries.

The Bretton Woods arrangements worked for a goodly period, until the crisis of the early 70's. The ERM didn't collapse in 1992, the pound and the lira dropped out, the peseta devalued (as allowed for within the ERM) and the temporary speculative onslaught on other curencies was resisted by co-ordinated action. The pound was over-valued, and the UK had been pressed to devalue within the ERM rules but refused. The lira was always a little different, like Italian banking (which I did get my head around for one project, giving the lie to your first point). The ERM continued and the Euro came into existence at the beginning of 1999 - unlikely if the ERM had "collapsed" in '92. And another step towards a trans-national state. A system of fixed exchange rates has lasted even longer between the US states.

After all details are of little importance when discussing the abandonment of established and successful political systems for Ed only knows what.

This is, I suppose, an example of the loyalty which a system can generate after less than 70 years existence.

"And always keep a hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse" (AA Milne?)

The current model won't last for ever, there is nothing climactic in the nation-state. I've mentioned how globalisation is reducing the power of nation-states already, with open recognition by some governments (US, UK) which even welcome it. Another voluntary surrender of sovereignty.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Skeptic:

If a OWG comes about through gradual change of hundreds of years, that means it would be the result of human nature gradually changing so as to make the world stable enough and peaceful enough for it.

There's no evidence that human nature changed while tribal systems were replaced by feudal, monarchical, imperial, national, federal and latterly democratic ones. Nation-states are not the natural state of things, towards which the human race has been groping over the last 10,000 years. As intelligent beings we can examine the models that have been tried, we can study human behaviour, we can formulate a set of human rights that should be guaranteed, and we can design a system that attempts to deliver those rights. Your claims that the result will be dystopian aren't impressive. The US may be regarded as a failure by some, but in a few months the right-wing clique that currently runs it could be voted out peacefully and legally. Just as the first Bush regime was. This is after two hundred years of the basic system, which itself was designed for only 13 states. Checks and balances, and public scrutiny - for which they relied on the printing-press - have worked remarkably well. We have the InterNet, and the sort of intelligent observers we find on these forums. The chances of the system being taken over by shady characters will be far less than in the US, especially as there will be no excuse of "national security" to conceal what's really going on.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:

Well, of course. I disagree with the OWG idea, noting it would end in catastrophe, so I am hysterical.

Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step.

Well, this, too, has precedent in the world of the utopians: mental hospitals were full of dissidents under the Soviet regime--I mean, they actually dobuted the dictatorship of the proletariat is good idea, so they must be insane, right?

Uh...?

You still haven't answered my question, though, DD. I will oppose such a OWG by force. What will the OWG do with me, now that you conceded it has the "right to self-defense" and an will have an army to do so?

Well, if you are a citizen of the OWG, i.e. your country has willingly joined, you will be treated in accordance with the criminal laws democraticly passed in the OWG. If you attacked from outside the OWG, the OWG would defend iself as appropriate.

Please give some details, so we'll see the other side of your plan, the part which tells us how the wonderful, just, and beautiful OWG deals with the insane, violent nationalist that still oppose its goodness, for some reason.

Tell me if you need further details, and I'll see what I can do.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:

If a OWG comes about through gradual change of hundreds of years, that means it would be the result of human nature gradually changing so as to make the world stable enough and peaceful enough for it. In that case, I would have no objection... since if human nature changed that much, probably its tyrannical drives have mellowed, too. (Although I consider such a possiblity extremely unlikely.)

Human nature won't change in a few hundred years and it won't need to. Even today, humans will willingly join an organization which will benefit them.

If, however, the OWG is created in order to make peace in a world still wracked by wars and conflict, and is given enough power to do so (at least initially), it would merely be a "super-state" in all but name, and would almost certainly become corrupt and tyrannical. It is obvious that the kind of OWG DD & co. propose is of the second kind: a "Super-state" to force the other, weaker states to make peace. They might as well campaign directly for Orwell's "Big Brother" and save everybody the pretense.

Have you been reading my posts at all?

But, as you would note, DD--and most other advocates of a OWG--do not believe a word they say about how the OWG will not be corrupted by power. Just consider their view of the USA: now that it is unquestionalby the most powerful nation on earth, we hear little from the OWG advocates except for how it is (supposedly) controlled by a tiny elite of businessmen and evil Republican puppers, how everybody in it (except those who agree with them) is "brainwashed", how it is "really" a theocratic dictatorship, etc., etc. Clearly they think power irredeemebly corrupted the USA and made it, in about ten or twenty years, a dictatorship in all but name. Yet, in order to solve the problem of such "rogue" powerful nations, they are suggesting a far more powerful OWG--and are convinced that it will NOT be corrupted?

Under Clinton, the perception of the US as a rogue bully was not very widespread. Even under Bush Sr., a coalition was quickly gathered to repel Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Under Bush Jr though....

 

[Skeptic]

Uh...?

Well, under most "one world government in progress" rules--Communism and Fascism come to mind--those who disagreed with the OWG idea had three options:

1). Usually, they were simply killed or imprisoned.

2). Sometimes, the OWGers decided that the opposition to the OWG was a result of them being "ignorant", so they were sent to "reeducation camps".

3). When the OWGers were feeling especially lenient, they mercifully claimed the opposition to their wonderful ideal was a sign of mental illness, or, as you put it in my case, of "hysteria". So they put the dissident into a mental hospital to be cured of their dangerous nationalistic or burgenois delusions.

Apparently, you consider me in to be one of those in the third group: you don't think my opposition to your wonderful, wondeful OWG idea is because I am naturally evil, or a secret agent of dark forces, but due to my general weakness of mind, my mental imbalance, my "hysteria".

So you probably would not kill me outright for opposing the OWG, if you could avoid it, but only put me in a mental hospital until I love Big Brothe... I mean, until I am cured of my "hysteria". Thanks; it's better than the alternative, I guess.

Well, if you are a citizen of the OWG, i.e. your country has willingly joined, you will be treated in accordance with the criminal laws democraticly passed in the OWG.

Translation: "You will be imprisoned".

If you attacked from outside the OWG, the OWG would defend iself as appropriate.

Translation: "You will be killed".

But you see, DD, I will not be alone. There are hundreds of millions of of people (at least) who feel like me, and would never accept a OWG and always fight it. So the OWG, in order to "democratically protect itself" will, in practice, have to kill, or imprison, hundreds of millions of people, myself among them.

Yes, I know, I know: the OWG wouldn't have to kill and imprison all those hundreds of millions who think like me if they would just give up their stupid and irrational--I mean, "hysterical"-- opposition to the OWG, so it's all their fault.

But, boy, have we heard THAT song before, haven't we, DD? After all, Jihadists wouldn't have to kill all those people if they stopped their stupid and irrational opposition to converting to Islam; Stalin wouldn't have to kill all those people if they'd stopped their stupid and irrationa opposition to the Communist revolution; Hitler wouldn't have to...

 

[Skeptic]

Skeptic:Human nature won't change in a few hundred years

I agree; this is why I said I consider such a possiblty extremely unlikely.

and it won't need to.

Oh, yes it will.

Have you been reading my posts at all?

Yes, I have. The problem is, you haven't been reading your own posts. Not really. You think they mean one thing, but in reality, they mean something else.

Think of it as the difference between a paytient's undestanding of red spots that appear on someone's skin and a physician's understanding of it. If the patient is totally ignorant of medicine, you might think: "Cool! I now look better with these beautiful spots!". A physician would say, however, "Uh-oh, these spots mean you're going to feel sick for a week pretty soon."

If the person is ignorant enough of medicine, he might be mad at the physician for being a spoilsport, even claim he is "hysterical" for thinking such beautiful spots might mean something bad when he's actually feeling fine right now.

Same thing here. You think to yourself, "Cool! This OWG idea shows I am an idealist, unselfish man concerned with the good of humanity". I am coming along and merely saying, "uh-oh, This OWG means you caught the 'utopia' disease. You're going to be killing people for thought crimes pretty soon."

You are naturally mad, thinking I am a spoilsport, and that I am "hysterical" for thinking such wonderful, wonderful ideas for the benefit of humanity might mean something bad, or that you will ever do such horrible things, when you don't feel like doing them at all right now.

But, history shows that I am correct: those who start with utopian one-world government and/or other "world saving" ideas usually do end up as murderers, for reasons I will not repeat here.

You already admitted, in a previous post, that if the OWG comes into being and I continue to oppose it, I will be killed or imprisoned. As there are hundred of millions like me, at least, this means that if the OWG ever comes into being, it will kill or imprison hundreds of millions.

See my problem? You are doing nothing but posting idealistic utopian ideas for the benefit of humanity now; but if the revolusion--sorry, the "democratically-elected OWG"--ever comes, you would be doing something a lot more sinister.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Um, no; if we're examining the ideologies which precipitated these things, then wrt the British Empire, it's nationalism which preceded imperialism. Compare and contrast the British Empire with the Ottoman Empire, for instance.

What exactly does this have to do with Ireland, or any other nation state?

My name's still not Yugoslavia.

Your parents had impeccable taste.

Because the necessary pre-conditions for successful nation-statism don't inevitably end in nation-statism; but those conditions are typically arrived at via conquest and oppression, which imo isn't a good thing.

Typically? Possibly, but context is important. Are modern states ethically dubious because of what happened in the 12th century?

I said the project of nation-statism is futile, not Irish nationhood

But surely the fact that Irish nationhood has been a relative success disproves the idea that nation-statism is futile?

Considering this, how is the Republic any less artificial than the relatively artificial states in Africa?

Ireland is predominantly populated by one tribe: the Irish.

How about the UK? Three and a bit countries living in relative harmony?

Yes, but England is absolutely predominant within the UK. The relative harmony

My objection to the use of empires as trans-national governments is that they were achieved through force and at the expense of the sovereignty of the subjugated; not exactly great examples of the kind of one world government we've been discussing here.

The examples given were historical attempts at OWG, while we are arguing in the hypothetical. It's just occured to me that the nearest historical equivalent to what we're discussing is the Austro-Hungarian empire, which if memory serves came about primarily due to marriage alliances, rather than military conquest. We should probably debate the merits of OWG using that example as a yardstick.

How about centralised government, sovereignty and a national identity?

Centralised government: There were High Kings of Ireland, although their power and influence varied.

And how did that common language, the customs and system of law come about?

Who knows, were taking about pre-history here.

 

[BillyTK]

A couple of points I feel compelled to make; firstly, I'm surprised that anyone with any attachment to critical thinking would use such a term as "human nature" in an unproblematic way; and secondly, the "big capitalism" thing with trans-national corporations is making the whole nation-state thing seem kind of redundant; it maybe the most that any government may do is (attempt to) safeguard its subject's rights (and do we need nation-states for that?) but considering the idea of market-place justice integral to neo-liberal economics, maybe not even that.