Arminius wrote:Talking about the END OF STATES.
There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled "Talking about the END OF HISTORY" I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials. Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations, and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.
What do you think about the end of states?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Talking about the END OF STATES.
There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. And also in my thread titled "Talking about the END OF HISTORY" I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials. Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations, and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.
What do you think about the end of states?
The design is that not only will the states disappear, but even the nations as the new order of boundaries gets installed. All of North America is to be one "nation" with newly assigned regions, equivalent to "states" or provinces. No more USA or Constitutions. In Europe, the countries are to be melted into a new regional map also under one reign.
obe wrote:The idea behind that, Arminius, is that with the dissolution of natural states will follow the dissolution of states of mind, vis. consciousness.(self)
Now the end of history represents nationalistic wars ad infinitum, with regional jealousies, conflicts of sovereign power relating to those jealousies.
At the present time, it has been realized, that the corruption of power is still within the realm of possibility, yet, conflict resolution is not within the context of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Among those who hold to this view, the possibility of war under these circumstances is not preferable to a conventional age, where such distinctions could still be held in check.
Gorbachev and Reagan realized this; and the incalculable pain that would result. What sayYou to this form of argument?
Moreno wrote:The West no longer has states or nations.
Moreno wrote:I think some of the third world have nations, to a degree, but these nations are controlled wherever the interest is there from the big players, who are not nations.
Moreno wrote:Russia and China seem to exist, still, irritating the big Players.
obe wrote:This makes sense, however the de-identification as a trend, as pointed out by French existentialists as early as the end of ww2, laid the existential foundations to de territorialization
Was the emergence of international corporations, free trade zones, quick access world communication the coexistent process, by which the thoughts of such previously discussed men as H.G. Wells & Co. could be accommodated and brought into fruition?
If so, political fiat was just the de-jure imprimatur of those, who sought just such a program?
Can a linear analysis suffice, without taking into consideration the quantum, existentially jumped over, of all the other factors?
Arminius wrote:obe wrote:This makes sense, however the de-identification as a trend, as pointed out by French existentialists as early as the end of ww2, laid the existential foundations to de territorialization
Was the emergence of international corporations, free trade zones, quick access world communication the coexistent process, by which the thoughts of such previously discussed men as H.G. Wells & Co. could be accommodated and brought into fruition?
If so, political fiat was just the de-jure imprimatur of those, who sought just such a program?
Can a linear analysis suffice, without taking into consideration the quantum, existentially jumped over, of all the other factors?
Which factors do you mean?
I am generally on the polemical side on this issue, because I think on some level most people know/fear this to be the case and I think the bald statement is better than getting into degrees. I really have no way to estimate and I am not sure what criteria I would want to begin suggesting metrics around. To me I see and interlocking oligarchy making the decisions they want, generally.Arminius wrote:To a degree. The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states ore nationshave not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.
It's because they are not centers from which to control, so they are not useful tools or threats. If they get in the way of Shell or something they will get their people slapped, but there is no need to merge with their damaged in any case governmental infrastructure. Why get into that when you can still make them pay for GM seeds and eventually their own water?Yes. That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.
OK, in practical terms, for me as a non-Russian, non-Chinese, this doesn't matter. I guess the US would have been an empire also, then.Yes. But Russia and China are more empires than nations.
Yeah, I was pretty lazy. I understand the distinction, but I just plowed on through to make my main points.But note (again): Nations and states do not mean the same. Talking about the END OF STATES is the topic of this thread.
Arminius wrote:A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manage the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation can't exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.
How much do you think the various Empires had to do with this - Roman, English and American come to mind. The last is a nation that came to be identified in practical rather than cultural terms. Any culture could function here as long as it respected the bureaucracies of the ever practical concept of nationhood. Just as anyone could become a roman and then in general any empire inevitably integrates, through various processes, those it colonizes. OH, yes and the US is also responsible for corporate personhood. That eliminated state control of corporations except to the extent that it could create them and does.Arminius wrote:When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.
What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.
Moreno wrote:How much do you think the various Empires had to do with this - Roman, English and American come to mind. The last is a nation that came to be identified in practical rather than cultural terms. Any culture could function here as long as it respected the bureaucracies of the ever practical concept of nationhood. Just as anyone could become a roman and then in general any empire inevitably integrates, through various processes, those it colonizes. OH, yes and the US is also responsible for corporate personhood. That eliminated state control of corporations except to the extent that it could create them and does.
Of course nations are not innocent. I mean, they were often nationed via the royalty. Talk about BS. From there their histories were just more propaganda.
I am no globalist, but it seems to me we will have to deal with this, because the lies have to unravel and they were not going to internally. And by the way, I am not using 'have to' in moral terms. Though there is a hint of practical terms...we need to.
I am more of a tribalist so for me the nation builders were just early globalists working with the transportation and communications systems they had to determine their goals. I weep not for the death of nations, though I have concerns about what it will lead to.
Me I liked it back when the person who led well, got to lead the tribe and if people lost confidence, well there went the job. And there was a lot of discussion and organic decision making, with the leader almost a focal point and not a leader.
Governmentally, things have been going downhill from there.
Arminius wrote:The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I'm sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? (1) Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality. (2) "Communal particles" or "SAM" ("Social Anentropic Molecule") Corporations? Perhaps. (3) A mix of empires and communal particles? Maybe, and if so, then in a more globalistic way. (4) Other social forms? With the untmost probability: No; but perhaps in the future, after the globalists will have disappered, and: if the machines will not have taken over. With the utmost probability all other social forms will not be possible anymore because they will have been destroyed totally then.
Arminius wrote:History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.
History can't have ended yet because the „historical existentials“ haven't ended.Arminius wrote:According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me (or
):
• Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
• Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
• Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
• Classes;
• State;
• Great War;
• City and country as contrast;
• Education, especially in schools and universities;
• Science;
• Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
• Historiography / awareness of history!
There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.
Since the beginning of the Western modern times:
1. Religion has been becoming a more secular, more powerful religion, a modern religion, thus an ideology; so religion has been expanding.
2. Rule (leadership, a.s.o.) has been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric, more powerful one; so rule has been expanding.
3. Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.) has also been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric, more powerful one; so nobleness has been expanding.
4. Classes have been changing: a richer becoming upper class, a shrinking middle class, an increasing lower class; so classes have been changing badly.
5. State has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear.
6. Great war has been becoming smaller but much more wars and threatening; so we still can't say much about the end of this historical existential.
7. City and country as contrast have been changing by expanding cities and shrinking countries; so the contrast will perhaps disappear.
8. Education, especially in schools and universities, has been becoming a catastrophic issue; so education has been changing very badly.
9. Science has been becoming a new religion for the most part; so science has been changing very badly.
10. Order of sexulality / demographics, economics has been becoming a catastrophic issue too; so this order has been becoming a disorder.
11. Historiography / awareness of history has been getting under ideological (modern religious) control; so historography has been changing badly.
So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don't know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive.
|=> #
Arminius wrote:It is somehow scary that the state has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear (=> 5.). What do you think about that?
Zero_Sum wrote:The more I look at the modern state versus anarchy or anarchism I am coming to the conclusion that they are essentially the same thing. This might of not been the case with states of the past ( especially our ancient past) but again certainly can be said of the modern ones. Modern states are becoming more chaotic, disorderly, unorganized, self destructive, and socially conflicting internally. These are the kind of things you would expect in an existence of anarchy and not that of a governed state of society that prides itself on social order.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: polishyouthgotipbanned