the art of international justice, and why there is more for some and less for others

[(Shovel)]

An example is how he is against GM Food, picturing it as some form of American sponsored corporate takeover of the world, yet the reality is many people are starving and the technology will help immensly, who gives a shit if some America makes a stack of cash over it all, that sort of thing goes on all the time.

Only if you take the view that GM food is a "no brainer" though. Yes, reading his books and his books alone could leave you with some pretty skewed views, but no more so than reading a broadsheet newspaper. - By which I mean people who choose to read up on such things, should read more, not to imply that being comparable to a newspaper makes it ok to be skewed.

I found AoC an interesting read, it proposes a "whole new system". It's never, ever going to happen (or at least, not in my lifetime, and I'm only 19 after all), but that doesn't stop it being interesting. Having finished it, I'm after a book with its feet a little more on the ground - I might try compiling your forum posts together Xane...

I guess the point, though you'll naturally respond that this is a result of reading too many Monbiot books, is that choosing the obviously best thing right now is all very well, but what if there's a realistic risk of having that choice taken away at on a later, even bigger issue.
I'm not prepared to commit on "which" issues they might be, cause I'm underread

 

[xane]

Monboit is one of many people who simply can't accept the failure of socialist ideals and the subsequent success of capitalist ones.

I might be an old pro-Marxist Lefty Utopian like George, but I can see a world where capitalism has brought far more wealth, freedom and prosperity than any socialist dogma ever did, after the fall of "communism" it was abvious to anyone that marxist style idealism is not going to solve world problems, simply because people are greedy and abuse the system.

Monboit counters GM Food claims by proposing some kind of "land sharing" agreement with organic farming, a typical communist style response laden with a bureaucratic monster lurking behind it, he fails to realise that without using modern biotechnology you will ultimately need more land area to feed an growing population, so it's not "land sharing" more like "land taking", and we are back to old soviet principle of stealing people's property "for the common good".

I dispair capitalism's excesses like the next bearded socialist, but the reality in the world is different and more suited to a selfish protocol. We can wring our hands about how corporate driven globalisation is spreading greed and exploitation, but at the end of the day it's the system that works and gets people on a far better footing than any socialist or community driven polemic opposing it.

Credit to Monboit for suggesting an alternative, but he's just woeful of how socialist principles always lead to exploitation in far greater amounts than capitalism ever can, it's pure utopianism which has never worked, and never will.

As I said, America is the capitalist entity here, and as such receieves most of the critical attention from the left-wingers, its a purely political driven argument with no real concern for the general population at large. China and Russia represent the draconian communist (or ex-communist) ideology that people like Monboit prefer to forget about, criticising them is virtually admitting that extreme socialist policy fails. George would rather stick a GM Cucumber up his bum than address that issue, but he's got a newspaper column to fill.

 

[(Shovel)]

The way I'm seeing the world at the moment, is that countries like our own have developed on the back of exploitation. For centuries that was in the form of a ruler exploting his own people, be that slavery or simply allowing poverty to prevail amoungst the local population.
People got wise to this, and over years of protest, or revolution, rights are established and codified.
Eventually we arrive here where any party wishing to govern has to promote causes for the poorest.

However, since capitalism cannot survive in an equal (or even attempted equal) environment, someone else has to take the flack. Governments on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that if you allow foreigners to be exploited rather than your own people, your own people don't connect with them enough to care/act. I personally wonder if that is one of the reasons for US attitudes to be encouraged to be even more patriotic, encouraging people to look on the world as second class to fit in with the actions. That's just personal mumblings though.
The problem for those nations now suffering for western gain however, is that they don't have anyone to march to. They are very specifically separated from the rest of global society - there are very few people (this thread excluded) who know/care enough to really do something about it. Even those of us who do, find it an awful lot easier to sit around and have a talking shop on the net. Raising a 'popular protest' on a global scale, is rather harder to do that, say, organising the Chartist or Civil Rights movements.

One of the things that that author wrote, was about how institutions like the World Bank are used not to genuinely help 3rd world countries, but to keep them in a spiral of debt so as to keep them available for exploitation.
Western politicians are very keen to stress that the only way that countries will ever become as great as 'us' is by openning themselves up to the free market - which is bollocks. The UK and US both came to their economic power by being as protectionist as the next man. The move to the free market is only beneficial once the nation is established. As unrealistic as many "new world order" proposals may be, I would very much like to shit on the World Bank.

Interestingly, the breakdowns of recent world trade talks - which is obviously all the fault of the bloody third world nations who don't know what's good for them, has come about as poor nations begin to act on the obvious truth that they are being screwed: Rich World makes promises, Poor World makes concessions. Rich World screws Poor World, breaks promises, invites Poor World for another round of trade talks. Sooner or later, it's going to click that the system doesn't work.

With that in mind, maybe the system will sort itself out, there's only so much intolerance that people can take after all

 

[Stazbumpa]

The rich have always screwed the poor. It has always happened and will always happen. The world will not work any other way. Wealth cannot be evenly distributed because of human nature (ie: failure of communism as mentioned by xane). Given that this is the case, I would therefore personally like to see the rich nations staying rich, given that I/we live in one.


edit: I would also like to see us staying best mates with the one nation that is capable of doing anything without being hogtied by the rest of the planets political bollocks and oar-sticking.

 

[Tom]

Nature

People often think of the 'natural world' as one that is populated with fluffy rabbits, lions, badgers, funny fish, and strange monkeys, all getting along together in a rosy little world.

What bullshit. Every one of those fuckers is looking out for itself. They protect members of their own species, and certain symbiotic relationships between species have developed, where one protects the other, but only if there is a mutual benefit - ie you live if you stay near the big fish with the sharp teeth. The real natural world is a savage, cold, painful affair.

It couldn't work any other way. Competition between the species helps evolution to chug along, which is one reason why we (humans) came to be. We're only slightly removed from our animal origins, we're almost entirely controlled by instinct, and we're all as greedy as each other (no matter how we like to disguise it).

The challenge for mankind is to overcome this, and devise a common solution where we can all be happy, spread our genes around a bit more, and not live in pain. Personally, I believe such things may be much easier once we find an inexhaustable, cheap supply of energy, such as fusion power.

And some flying cars. Now that would be cool.

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by Tom
And some flying cars. Now that would be cool.

Agreed. Flying cars are the future! They'd save all the road problems.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

But then we would have to have floating traffic lights, and like get all congested in the air like

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
But then we would have to have floating traffic lights, and like get all congested in the air like

Damn. Good point. So what if we made the flying cars really expensive so only the rich people had them?

 

[(Shovel)]

Ok, but we have to have the patent in all of our names, so that we're all rich enough to have one, so as to buy the support of everyone in this thread...

 

[Deadmanwalking]

I patent the names Cdr and Deadmanwalking.

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
Ok, but we have to have the patent in all of our names, so that we're all rich enough to have one, so as to buy the support of everyone in this thread...

Good plan. I'll get on to it right away.

 

[(Shovel)]

Because, I like all the best "state of the nation" whingers, can be bought