From: Josjoha@market.socialism.nl
On 2023-07-27, nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 9:21:20 AM UTC-5, Jos Boersema wrote:
>> On 2023-07-26, nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 6:14:59 AM UTC-5, Jos Boersema wrote:
>>>>On 2023-07-25, nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 6:45:15 AM UTC-5, Jos Boersema wrote:
>>>>>>On 2023-07-23, nickname unavailable wrote:
[...]
>>> free trade is one of the biggest drivers of climate change, let alone
>>> poverty creation. there are no international enforcement mechanism on
>>> capital. and please do not tell me the fairy tale about how all countries
>>> will band together for some sort of utopia, and make capital responsible,
>>> or eliminate them, ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> In the end, State Capitalism (such as Stalinist Communism), is also
>> Capitalism and also tries to plunder the Earth, just as Private
>> Capitalism does. Personally I see State Capitalism (Communism) as the
>> final stage of (Private / trade) Capitalism, where all Capital and power
>> has centralized in one Oligarchy, one clique or in theory one person.
>>
>> I think the only way to deal with environmental rape and plunder by
>> humans is to first set aside what nature needs to survive, and then have
>> a human society on the remainder. This is how my Constitution is also
>> written. This means the market is off a lot of land.
>>
>> However it remains a political decision, so it can be overturned. In
>> the end, it is up to the people to care about nature. There is no laws
>> or logic which is strong enough if a Nation or all of humanity simply
>> doesn't want to listen. They will then cause disasters, potentially
>> extinct themselves in the end, and that will perhaps correct the behavior
>> of humans.
>>
>> In any case, what alternative are you proposing ? I have the impression
>> you don't even know or understand what I am writing. Your answers are
>> too general and casual, shot from the hip and they miss the target by
>> too much. Example: I just argued the case for small Nations, but then
>> here above you think I would propose a banding together of Nations in
>> some sort of Utopia ? This shows me that you do not listen to what I am
>> writing. You don't seem to understand what I am proposing and why.
>
> if every country went your way, what you propose might work. but then that
> would be utopia.
You are repeating what Socialists / Communists have been saying
for a long time, which was possibly based on the defeat of the Paris
Commune, which was assaulted by overwhelming forces from the outside. At
that point they may have thought, correctly, they needed a larger amount
of people in the Revolution.
To think you need the entire world in your Revolution would be the most
radical form of this idea. The Communists have been on this bend for
generations. Everyone needed to follow their plan, or it wouldn't work
(be militarily destroyed I guess), even the whole world.
I disagree with this. It is exaggeration, it does not follow existing
precedent. It is defeatist. You will probably never get the whole
world on your side, and even if you could it would likely start with a
much smaller succesful effort. An example Nation if you will, such as
Israel, the Roman Republic and Swiss have been examples, and later even
the Netherlands was an example, France was an example after the French
Revolution, Germany became an example in 1848, etc. etc.
On the scale of the world, the positive system seems to be to do something
succesful and then get following. I guess it could be argued that a
negative form of the same is through conquest, which tends to happen
when a more succesful society becomes more corrupt and war hungry, such
as the USA today. Even then they still get following and victory based
in part of whole on the story of their successes. Many countries have
had fundamental changes on a much smaller scale than the entire world.
My country, the Netherlands, had the the 1566 Iconoclasm, starting in
what is now Belgium. Several million people in a corner of Europe turned
out to be enough to defeat the greatest Empire with the best trained
army of the time (Spain). It took a long war however (the "80 years
war"). I suppose this shows it isn't about how big you are, but how
determined you are.
While I do think you can be too small to have a succesful Sovereign
Revolution, you can do a lot of things without the need to overthrow or
fundamentally alter the existing Sovereignty where you live. If you
really wanted to, you could do perhaps everything you want even on a
village scale, if you went after it for long and determined enough.
> what we have in reality, and will for the far foreseeable
> future, is a lot of countries with borders, and their own currency.
Not really, most / all countries have been absorbed in the USA world
Empire, with its various components such as United Nations and its
repressive laws already more or less ratified (see UDHR-UN article
29 section 3), USA culture and business spreading all over the world,
global centers of power such as the Bank of International Settlements
and the corrupt central banking system which seems to work as one unit
more or less over the whole world, and an economy which is also global
down to the pots and pans people buy, and even the food (perishables).
The whole world is more or less one country. The World War, which the
ruling class wants to deal with their economic problems without being
overthrown, seems to be an organized affair between two of their
provinces, because Russia is not separate from the USA. Putin seems to
be a good friend with Kissinger (!), USA inflitrated Russia after 1989,
Russia is part of the UN, etc. This seems to change because they want a
war, and it might even split apart at some point, but you could view the
whole thing as an internal war within one bigger country.
No doubt the plans are ready to integrate and unite the world further
under the same Oligarchy after World War 3. They will use the
catastrophe they caused themselves.
> so trade crates debt, free trade creates massive debts and poverty,
> that debt is impossible to pay off without tariffs, and the poverty
> only accelerates.
Where is your logic ? If I grow kale on my land, and I give a bundle of
it to my neighbor, and he gives me a couple of tea bags for it, then
this is trade at the most basic level. Where is the debt ? Where is the
poverty ?
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
