Notices
Results 1 to 55 of 55

Thread: American Dominance

  1. #1 American Dominance 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I have a question: If America were to step down and stop imposing its will on the world, who would step in and take our place? Who would impose order if we didn't?

    Would Russia do it? (Seems they can barely handle their own internal problems)

    Would China do it? (Seems like they'd take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and probably India, leading to even greater nuclear instability world wide)

    Would the EU do it? (They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military. And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)

    Would the UN do it? (They're good about passing resolutions but.... not very good at enforcing anything on anybody, unless one of the Big 5 takes interest in it)

    If nobody did it, what would this do to the odds of the world continuing to avoid nuclear war? Is anarchy really better than the order imposed by an imperfect nations like the USA?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: American Dominance 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I have a question: If America were to step down and stop imposing its will on the world, who would step in and take our place? Who would impose order if we didn't?

    Would Russia do it? (Seems they can barely handle their own internal problems)

    Would China do it? (Seems like they'd take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and probably India, leading to even greater nuclear instability world wide)

    Would the EU do it? (They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military. And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)

    Would the UN do it? (They're good about passing resolutions but.... not very good at enforcing anything on anybody, unless one of the Big 5 takes interest in it)

    If nobody did it, what would this do to the odds of the world continuing to avoid nuclear war? Is anarchy really better than the order imposed by an imperfect nations like the USA?
    I thought about that a long time ago?
    My idea was to keep us from acting like a world cop.

    So I concluded that we should change the UN to United Democracies.

    All members donate the funds to the UD according to their ability to pay.
    Enough to have this organizatrion establish a well trained army of well payed volenteers under control by the UD president. An army of 100,000 troops.

    Only democracies would have memberships. No communist or religious nations would be allowed membership.
    The trading of goods would also be limited to members only.

    So this would relieve us of playing world cop.
    I know this would polarize the nations but who would want to trade with communists or religious fanatics.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, where would China figure in? They're kind of on the bridge between communist and capitalist right now. Technically they do have elections, and they appear to be credible, just not quite as direct as here in the USA. (Basically your local leaders elect the people in charge of the country, but you elect your local leaders)


    And then, what do you do with countries like Zimbabwe, where they hold elections, but if good ol' Mugabe doesn't like the way the election is turning out, he just hold a re-election and has his soldiers brutalize the supporters of the opposition?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: American Dominance 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Who would impose order if we didn't?
    Here is the start of the problem. You believe you are imposing order, do you? Hmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Would the EU do it? They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military.
    The EU spends approximately 50% of what the US does. Some would argue they have a more efficient end product.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)
    So as long as we stop them invading Russia we can count on their otherwise excellent experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, where would China figure in? They're kind of on the bridge between communist and capitalist right now. Technically they do have elections, and they appear to be credible, just not quite as direct as here in the USA. (Basically your local leaders elect the people in charge of the country, but you elect your local leaders)


    And then, what do you do with countries like Zimbabwe, where they hold elections, but if good ol' Mugabe doesn't like the way the election is turning out, he just hold a re-election and has his soldiers brutalize the supporters of the opposition?
    I guess we would have to reform our Constitutional Democracy to restore it back to what the C'n dictates.

    The most important people issue is to eliminate the corruptive influence of our capitalism that buys government with these dollars that transformed our country into a dollar republic (DR).

    We can do this by promoting the PUBLIC FINANCING OF OUR RLECTIONS to eliminate those influence dollars that control; our government.
    I am sure the Democrats wouls support this issue while the republicans would oppose it.
    The McCain/Feingold soft money ban was a start in the right direction but the republicans opposed it. But after the 9/11 incident exposed the crooked bookkeeping of the CEOs in the Enron corporation (Texas) that led to its bankruptcy, Bush finally signed without fanfare.

    But when we got drawn into this war with Islam, Islam has challanged the US DR power with the Islamic population bomb. So now we have a nuclear arsenal with a human bomb arsenal.
    So with a one billion+ HB. I agree with Obama to get out of Iraq and concentrate with our resources to eliminate the taliban Alquada problem.

    Too bad because our military is outnumbered by the Islamic one billion PB.

    Now the DR has to be recued by our government. Did you see the news last night about those outrageoous bonuses handed out to the AIG combine after receiving the Gov welfare check?

    I talked back to my TV when I heard that. Talk about anger. Whew!

    So now I hope the current Democratic power would push througth the PFoOE's NOW!

    Cosmo

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: American Dominance 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The problem with migrating from having an institution controlled by private interests, to making it a public institution, is that you're moving from having it controlled by profiteers (very dangerous), to having it controlled by beaurocrats (just as dangerous).

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Who would impose order if we didn't?
    Here is the start of the problem. You believe you are imposing order, do you? Hmmm.
    Everyone always seems to think total anarchy would be better than partial anarchy, or a poorly imposed order.

    We thought the Iraqi people would welcome us as liberators and live happily ever after, because we got rid of Sadaam Hussein. Turns out all we did was create a vacuum, and as is the case with most power vacuums, it actually turned out to be a lot worse than just leaving him in power.

    The USA isn't exactly a great world leader. We don't even want the job, really, but we're still the strongest driving force of the world economy (until China, or the EU supplants us completely) so we have to regulate a lot of things.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Would the EU do it? They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military.
    The EU spends approximately 50% of what the US does. Some would argue they have a more efficient end product.
    More efficient, certainly. There's so much waste in the US system (by which I mean corruption), it would be a big surprise if our actual military were as strong as it looks on paper.

    I don't know how pure their system would stay, though, if their leadership could credibly make the same post-cold-war type arguments for necessity that US leaders make. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A military that people genuinely see as necessary has a lot more power to corrupt itself with.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)
    So as long as we stop them invading Russia we can count on their otherwise excellent experience.
    Just saying. People were reluctant for a while to let Germany have any military at all. It's not that I don't trust them now. I'm just not sure how much they're politically allowed to wield military force when it needs wielded.

    What's more important than having a gun is being able to get the world to agree to let you shoot it sometimes. It's funny that we all watched helpless while Mugabe violently forced his opposition candidate to concede in the Zimbabwe elections recently. Nobody could go in there and do anything about it, because the diplomacy is too complicated for a thing like that to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    What do you think of this?

    We can easily judge Obama from what he said in one of his recent interviews that he does not feel the need to apologize to the Afghan people. We do not consider this [the result of] a lack of information. But didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the wrong policies of the US government for the past three decades in our country? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the fundamentalist-fostering policies of the US government in creating, arming, and supporting these brutal, misogynist groups like the Northern Alliance and other fascist groups during the past three decades? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the occupation of our country under the banner of democracy, the so-called “war on terror,” and women’s rights, but then compromise with terrorists like the Northern Alliance, who cannot be distinguished from the Taliban in the history of their criminal acts? In fact these murderers were the first to destroy our nation. And even after seven years of a very long and very costly “war on terror,” terrorism has not been uprooted in Afghanistan but has become stronger and the Taliban are becoming more powerful. Plus recently [the US is] talking about negotiating with the most wanted terrorist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and with the Taliban, which is in contradiction with what they claimed and what their main objective was in occupying Afghanistan.

    From his statements during his election campaign, we don’t think that Obama’s position is different from the Bush administration; it is the continuation of Bush’s foreign policy. As Obama’s first message to our country was that of war, we cannot be hopeful about him.
    http://www.rawa.org/tours/obama_rawa.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    What do you think of this?

    We can easily judge Obama from what he said in one of his recent interviews that he does not feel the need to apologize to the Afghan people. We do not consider this [the result of] a lack of information. But didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the wrong policies of the US government for the past three decades in our country? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the fundamentalist-fostering policies of the US government in creating, arming, and supporting these brutal, misogynist groups like the Northern Alliance and other fascist groups during the past three decades? Didn’t he feel the need to apologize for the occupation of our country under the banner of democracy, the so-called “war on terror,” and women’s rights, but then compromise with terrorists like the Northern Alliance, who cannot be distinguished from the Taliban in the history of their criminal acts? In fact these murderers were the first to destroy our nation. And even after seven years of a very long and very costly “war on terror,” terrorism has not been uprooted in Afghanistan but has become stronger and the Taliban are becoming more powerful. Plus recently [the US is] talking about negotiating with the most wanted terrorist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and with the Taliban, which is in
    contradiction with what they claimed and what their main objective was in occupying Afghanistan.

    From his statements during his election campaign, we don’t think that Obama’s position is different from the Bush administration; it is the continuation of Bush’s foreign policy. As Obama’s first message to our country was that of war, we cannot be hopeful about him.
    http://www.rawa.org/tours/obama_rawa.htm
    I believe the current war was started with our capitalist greed!

    Before any problems arose their in Afghanistan, one of our oil companies was planning on running a pipeline for oil from one of the communist Russian border countries to the Gulf of Oman(?) across Afghanistan.
    So I am certain that this was the reason Russia attempted to take over the Afghanistan country .
    So naturally we helped the resistance movement there to prevent this takeover.

    Then, of course, the Reagan/Bush republicans promoted the new world order (NWO) with Clintons help, to take over the world economy as well as ours.

    So the two attacks against the World Trade Centers with oil as the most likely cause got us involved in this current problem now.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    I agree with you. I think its a war over resources and pipelines and everything else is smoke and mirrors.

    What solution do you propose? How many people have to die before the concept of "living within your means" is understood?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    America is the sole super power at the moment, so if we stepped down I think the world would revert to pre super power politics. You'd get something like the world in the 1700 and 1800s and early 1900s. Maybe half a dozen major players who create various spheres of influence. Russia, China, Great Britain and her former colonies (Australia and Canada, etc.), maybe France and Germany, though the European Union is slowly gaining grounds over individual nationalism. Brazil probably would step up as a leader for South America. Without the American Army Japan would probably militarize in earnest.

    You wouldn't have a global cop like the US. The Pax Americana is really unique in the history of the world. Usually an empire conquers territory outright. While America seems content to allow autonomy without even tribute, just so long as there aren't any military threats to American interests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: American Dominance 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I have a question: If America were to step down and stop imposing its will on the world, who would step in and take our place? Who would impose order if we didn't?

    Would Russia do it? (Seems they can barely handle their own internal problems)

    Would China do it? (Seems like they'd take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and probably India, leading to even greater nuclear instability world wide)

    Would the EU do it? (They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military. And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)

    Would the UN do it? (They're good about passing resolutions but.... not very good at enforcing anything on anybody, unless one of the Big 5 takes interest in it)

    If nobody did it, what would this do to the odds of the world continuing to avoid nuclear war? Is anarchy really better than the order imposed by an imperfect nations like the USA?

    You think you impose your will on the world? You don't impose order, in fact there are several places in the world where uncle sam has put his big foot in it and stirred up more shit than there was there in the first place.

    THink about it, there was the USSR and the USA everybody knows the US thinks it won the cold war BUT instead of having one centre to deal with (moscow) any threat can come from anybody who has the cash to buy old russian nuclear kit - well done for fucking that up!

    I seem to remember a bunch of jungle buddies giving you a fair run for your money, Strip away the technology and you would not last 5 minutes anywhere else in the world, - meet any other race on eqaul terms and you'll lose - why do you so bloody arrogantly feel that somebody has to impose their will on the world? are you really so psychologically insecure?

    You are a super power only by your own definition, half the world hates your guts whilst most of the rest whinces in almost total disbelief at som of your actions.

    Any sign of a terrorist then just squash the whole country they came from I remember the last country to behave like that, we called them Nazi's and sometimes I can's see a distinction, No America, keep your nose out of other peoples business, and stop using the rest of the world as a proving ground for your weapons systems, devote your vast undeniable resources and talent to something a bit more worthy.

    Britain once ruled half the world, The US with all it's might can't even keep order in a tiny little backward country called Afghanistan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    To be fair the war between USSR and Afghanistan is largely credited with the decline of the USSR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    My words were the US thinks it won the cold war. There wasn't a war between the USSR and Afghanistan, The USSR stepped in to honour a dubious treaty with the Afghan Government who were fighting rebels backed by err let me see now oh why the good old US of A! which included a certain Mr Bin Laden who kept some of the dosh back so he could send some pals on a one way trip to NY.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Not according to Brzezinski

    In 1998, Brzezinski was interviewed by the French newspaper Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion, knowingly increasing the probability of a Soviet invasion. Brzezinski saw the invasion as an opportunity to embroil the Soviet Union in a bloody conflict comparable to America's experience in Vietnam. He referred to this as the "Afghan Trap" and viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbignie...ki#Afghanistan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: American Dominance 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Britain once ruled half the world, The US with all it's might can't even keep order in a tiny little backward country called Afghanistan.
    Britain ruled rather less than half the world and it couldn't do anything with Afghanistan.
    In the first Anglo-Afghan war the British lost 16,000 persons in the retreat from Kabul, 12,000 of them civilians. Only one Briton is known to have survived the massacre.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    It was a simple mis-understanding, honestly....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: American Dominance 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain

    You think you impose your will on the world? You don't impose order, in fact there are several places in the world where uncle sam has put his big foot in it and stirred up more shit than there was there in the first place.
    I said specifically it was not perfect order. There's a difference between falling short of perfect order, and having zero order.

    It's also different on the macro and micro scale. We've created a lot of micro scale chaos (often resulting in terrorist group formation), because our eye was only on the macro scale, looking just at government level diplomacy. It was a mistake, and we're learning that..... slowly...



    THink about it, there was the USSR and the USA everybody knows the US thinks it won the cold war BUT instead of having one centre to deal with (moscow) any threat can come from anybody who has the cash to buy old russian nuclear kit - well done for fucking that up!
    Russia hasn't, to my knowledge, sold any nukes to anyone. They did give North Korea the plutonium based power plants that are credited with enabling them to possibly construct a nuke of their own, but I've never heard of any actual Russian nukes disappearing.

    Russian methods are sufficiently brutal that they're able to keep certain things in check. Chaos reigns on a lot of levels, but not that one.



    I seem to remember a bunch of jungle buddies giving you a fair run for your money, Strip away the technology and you would not last 5 minutes anywhere else in the world, - meet any other race on eqaul terms and you'll lose - why do you so bloody arrogantly feel that somebody has to impose their will on the world? are you really so psychologically insecure?
    American superiority is that we have technology. It's what gives us our access to it. We've structured our society in such a way that the tender roots of technology have a chance to take hold and grow, whereas in say... Afghanistan those same roots always die before they can become anything.

    You might as well argue that humans are inferior to tigers, because without our guns, spears, or other weapons, a tiger that gets itself into a face to face battle with a human will always win.

    By your logic, humanity is one of the least evolved species on the planet.


    You are a super power only by your own definition, half the world hates your guts whilst most of the rest whinces in almost total disbelief at som of your actions.
    And a good part of that is just jealousy mixed with an inferiority complex. They think that, since we're rich, we should be making them rich, but their own internal societies are so chaotic and disorderly that there's no way for us to do it.

    During the famine in Ethiopia, how much of the food we tried to send just got embezzled at the border by corrupt beaurocrats? That's what always happens to any wealth we try to share with anybody, but they still blame us for the corruption of their own leaders.



    Any sign of a terrorist then just squash the whole country they came from I remember the last country to behave like that, we called them Nazi's and sometimes I can's see a distinction, No America, keep your nose out of other peoples business, and stop using the rest of the world as a proving ground for your weapons systems, devote your vast undeniable resources and talent to something a bit more worthy.
    We just get tired of the disorderliness of other countries spilling over and causing us problems. Our theory was that, if they can't control their own population, then we'll go in and control it for them.

    In practice, that turned out to be easier said than done.

    This is the question of the age: how do you do it? How do you create order out of an underdeveloped society? You can't endure their disorder if it results in terrorist cells, but how do you change it?

    Britain once ruled half the world, The US with all it's might can't even keep order in a tiny little backward country called Afghanistan.
    Yeah, well, British rule culminated in WW2, arguably the most genocidal war ever fought by industrialized nations against each other. If such a war were fought today, it would absolutely certainly be nuclear, and probably wipe out most of humanity.

    The British had options we don't have, because the bomb had yet to be invented back then, and its invention has totally changed everything about international politics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: American Dominance 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Russia hasn't, to my knowledge, sold any nukes to anyone. They did give North Korea the plutonium based power plants that are credited with enabling them to possibly construct a nuke of their own, but I've never heard of any actual Russian nukes disappearing.

    Russian methods are sufficiently brutal that they're able to keep certain things in check. Chaos reigns on a lot of levels, but not that one.
    I'm not sure they would advertise the sale, and having spent time over there it would be the local official and the guy with the plant keys, supplying to the Russian equivalent of the Mafia, none of whom are likely to broadcast the deal, when it comes to things dissappearing, usually the manifest will go leaving little trace of what exactly has gone missing.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    By your logic, humanity is one of the least evolved species on the planet.
    Absolutely, we are indeed one of the youngest species on earth, and so far seem to be no more than a transient parasite. I would suggest we are at the top of the evolutionary ONLY because we define it thus.



    And a good part of that is just jealousy mixed with an inferiority complex.
    that suggests to me you may have a superiority complex.

    Our theory was that, if they can't control their own population, then we'll go in and control it for them.
    WHY???? - just let them get on with it.


    This is the question of the age: how do you do it? How do you create order out of an underdeveloped society? You can't endure their disorder if it results in terrorist cells, but how do you change it?
    Again why get involved, mostly they just fight amongst themselves.
    by defending a few million jews you incurr the wrath of maybe half a billion arabs/muslims - and now because Israel has nukes you cannot back out as Tel-aviv would use them without a second thought, that is going to plague the US for centuries.

    As for your technology, much of it is actually of european and japanese origin, on that front we are all as clever as each other, indeed in britain we have a radar that can light up a stealth bomber as if it were on stage at the theatre.

    Finally I'm not sure people are that jealous of the US, not everybody is motivated by money, if they were I'd have stayed out there a long time ago.....

    I think the isolationist policy you had many years ago might be a good thing to bring back, and if only you'd spend your defence budget (and talents) on space travel, but sadly like us and most other developed nations, you have a rotten misguided paranoid government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: American Dominance 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    By your logic, humanity is one of the least evolved species on the planet.
    Of course it is. A very generalist beast. Omnivore. Few specialised traits. Quite primitive......just like pigs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Megabrain

    Well, we do have a new government now and it seems to be heading in the right direction.
    Now if we can get rid of this dollar republic and have our politicians serving the people instead of those greedy CEO's that run our DR, we could get the respect of the world again.

    In the meantime, Islam has gained the respect of the EU with its censorship of free speech by rioting in Denmark and France.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Silly Cosmo, haven't you read The Decline of the West? A Democracy is inherently a Dollar Republic. It can take no other form. Check "Winter" as defined by spengler. Caesarism and bureaucracy are the next steps in our civilization. You might as well lament day turning into night.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Silly Cosmo, haven't you read The Decline of the West? A Democracy is inherently a Dollar Republic. It can take no other form. Check "Winter" as defined by spengler. Caesarism and bureaucracy are the next steps in our civilization. You might as well lament day turning into night.
    Are you serious, or being a little bit ironic here? When did anyone's predictions about future societies come true? I haven't read Spengler but took a quick browse through your wiki link and it seems he's already missed the mark quite a few times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    A little ironic, a little serious. Spengler was clearly a man of his time, with all the biases that brings, but I think his ideas have merit enough not to be dismissed out of hand. I entertain a lot of competing ideas in my head, so it's hard for me to really sort through what I believe in. I believe Spengler's work and disbelieve it at the same time, as sort of a double think.

    If you haven't read the book or even heard of it, it's not some quack fringe book I'm digging up from the past. This was a landmark book which fundamentally altered how Western society thinks about itself, either from people agreeing with or reacting against this work. Like with Nietzsche or Freud or Einstein.

    Also, my thoughts on the matter are probably colored by having read Asimov's Foundation series. The idea that while individuals are chaotic and unpredictable, society as a whole is highly predictable and follows well defined paths is a tantalizing idea. Like with gas laws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Hmmm, I also read the Foundation series and had a different response to Asimov's psychohistory. I found it implausible. I doubt if the directions societies will take are really predictable, and didn't Asimov have a sort of cop out in the form of the Mule (long time - rusty memory)? A single very strong personality with leadership qualities can surely throw any statistically-based predictions out the window.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    There's an entire branch of study based on the premise that group sociology is predictable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    There's an entire branch of study based on the premise that group sociology is predictable.
    Yes. There's also one based on the premise that the your zodiac sign determines your personality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Which one is that? I've seen departments in sociology but not in applied astrology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Hmmm, I also read the Foundation series and had a different response to Asimov's psychohistory. I found it implausible. I doubt if the directions societies will take are really predictable, and didn't Asimov have a sort of cop out in the form of the Mule (long time - rusty memory)? A single very strong personality with leadership qualities can surely throw any statistically-based predictions out the window.
    Well that's what I like about Asimov. He was never so in love with his ideas that he couldn't invent interesting premises where they were wrong and make a story out of it. Like with his robotic laws. Every short story dealing with his 3 robotic laws involved some shortcoming of those laws.

    Anyway, implausible is a bit of a stretch. Much of economic theory is based on the idea that large economies are stable and self correcting and thus predictable. But the truth is probably something like with ecosystems: there are forces of positive and negative reinforcement which push and pull and act as a hill climbing algorithm to arrive at semi-stable local maxima. Societies arrive at some stable plateau and don't change dramatically, until some wrench gets thrown in the works and the equilibrium is pushed too far from stable and it sort of wanders around aimlessly to the next local maxima. Like with the Roman civil wars as the republic died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Silly Cosmo, haven't you read The Decline of the West? A Democracy is inherently a Dollar Republic. It can take no other form. Check "Winter" as defined by spengler. Caesarism and bureaucracy are the next steps in our civilization. You might as well lament day turning into night.
    I am not concerned about past history. Our Constitution did no have the Amendments that it has now.
    Now,IMO, it is a complete document that has equalized all the citizens .

    If we just treat it as a piece of paper and ignore what it says, than we will continue to have these dollar stuffing individuals helping themselves to all they can get away with.

    Our C'N does not mandate these self serving types. Isn't that what kings, dictators, capitalists and criminals do?

    That is why I believe in the PUBLIC FINANCING of our ELECTIONS so these DSI's are blocked from corrupting our politicians.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Cosmo, check out that link I posted. Seriously click on it. Browse through what Spengler calls "winter". Then post something relevant to that. Either you agree or disagree, and why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I am not concerned about past history.
    Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    George Santayana

    Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.

    The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.

    Sir Winston Churchill
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I am not concerned about past history.
    Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    George Santayana

    Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.

    The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.

    Sir Winston Churchill
    The reason I say NOW regarding our Constitution is that it has now outlawed sexism and racism I consider it a complete document.

    The original document was devoted to outlawing the king and any other such individuals. It also created all those branches of government to make sure it was not concentrated in one power source.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    Silly Cosmo, haven't you read The Decline of the West? A Democracy is inherently a Dollar Republic. It can take no other form. Check "Winter" as defined by spengler. Caesarism and bureaucracy are the next steps in our civilization. You might as well lament day turning into night.
    I read a part of the article but it is too lengthy to finish.

    Besides, I am promoting a solution to this problem of 'corruption' that haunts our democracy.

    I am also outlawing the Old Testament as a divisive hate document that promotes
    the 'one god concept' that is the source of all these conflicts in the ME and the western hemisphere.

    So this attitude promotes greed for power and wealth by any means.

    So our current disaster is the result of greed where the wealth floats upward like hot air rather than being shared with the workers that create it in the first place.

    One way to control this greed is to outlaw these corruptive dollars that buy our politicians with, like I said many times, the PUBLIC FINANCING of OUR ELECTIONS.
    So I hope this issue will become Law in the near future.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    According to Spengler it is unavoidable that republics are run by money, because most that can vote are genuinely uninterested are easily swayed. Our country was founded on this concept: think of even one signer of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution who wasn't crazy rich. Countries are always run by a powerful minority. In Spengler's eyes the Neapolitan ideals which give rise to a Democracy ultimately give rise to fascism, because common people are followers and ultimately hunger for a leadership not run by money (which they don't have). In our own country I think we can see that with Andrew Jackson. I wouldn't go so far as to say he was Fascist, but he was definitely further along that spectrum than most of the previous Presidents. Certainly compared to Jefferson.

    I also don't think it's an accident that the two party system arose during Jackson's Presidency. I think it's what's keeping the US from moving more towards Fascism. Modern Presidents have about as much power as Jackson did, so the road to Fascism has sort of stalled. I think the reason is the two parties and their roughly even control of congress over time. If one party were ever to weaken and die totally it would possibly set the stage for a Fascist takeover.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    According to Spengler it is unavoidable that republics are run by money, because most that can vote are genuinely uninterested are easily swayed.
    If this is true, that most that can vote are genuinely uninterested, then that means they won’t vote. It seems condescending to say that (if they do vote) they are easily swayed. The millions spent on election campaigns suggest it’s not so easy. People have preconceived ideas which are hard to change.

    Our country was founded on this concept: think of even one signer of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution who wasn't crazy rich.
    John Adams? There must be others.

    Countries are always run by a powerful minority. In Spengler's eyes the Neapolitan ideals which give rise to a Democracy ultimately give rise to fascism, because common people are followers and ultimately hunger for a leadership not run by money (which they don't have).
    How is fascism not run by money? Some versions of fascism are essentially corporatist. I suggest the recent election was, in part, a popular rejection of corporatism.

    In our own country I think we can see that with Andrew Jackson. I wouldn't go so far as to say he was Fascist, but he was definitely further along that spectrum than most of the previous Presidents. Certainly compared to Jefferson.

    I also don't think it's an accident that the two party system arose during Jackson's Presidency. I think it's what's keeping the US from moving more towards Fascism. Modern Presidents have about as much power as Jackson did, so the road to Fascism has sort of stalled.
    Or could it be that the road is a zig-zag path that never really gets that close to fascism, because the people are not as naďve as Spengler seemed to think?

    I think the reason is the two parties and their roughly even control of congress over time. If one party were ever to weaken and die totally it would possibly set the stage for a Fascist takeover.
    This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Look at how the parties have changed over the years. I seem to recall someone (Newt Gingrich perhaps?) declaring the Democratic Party to be dead. Now the Republican Party is wandering in the wilderness but the survival instinct is strong and it will remake itself according to some mish mash of principles that is more marketable than the last iteration.

    Interesting about Jackson. I shall have to read up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    According to Spengler it is unavoidable that republics are run by money, because most that can vote are genuinely uninterested are easily swayed.
    If this is true, that most that can vote are genuinely uninterested, then that means they won’t vote. It seems condescending to say that (if they do vote) they are easily swayed. The millions spent on election campaigns suggest it’s not so easy. People have preconceived ideas which are hard to change.

    Our country was founded on this concept: think of even one signer of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution who wasn't crazy rich.
    John Adams? There must be others.
    He was hardly a poor man. Actually the American revolution is an interesting case study. Of the super rich in the country, a majority were loyalists. But the leaders of the revolution were clearly men of means.

    Anyway, the Democratic movement doesn't have to start with money, it's just Spengler's conviction that it inevitably leads that way with time. It's born on the ideas of liberalism and individualism. Which inevitably leads to greed and rule by money. Two sides of the same coin. Then the winds of public opinion swing in the other direction. Towards a collectivist, socialist (but not necessarily Socialist) direction. Which leads to Nationalism and what I'm calling Fascism, though your individual definition might differ. Basically a strong authority figure who might reasonably claim to be a direct representative of the people against the "liberals" and individualists. Like with Andrew Jackson, who fashioned himself as a direct representative of the people. Which was a rather novel idea in 1824/1828. Jackson railed against the banking establishment, for instance.

    In Rome, Caesar rose much the same way. Military warrior with strong populist support. When he died he donated much of his wealth to the common man, which did a lot to paint his assassins as enemies of the common man. Which eventually killed the Roman Republic and replaced it with a Fascist Roman Empire.

    In Germany during the Depression, the Nazis represented themselves as representatives of the "true German" people against the liberal intellectuals and monied people (eg: Jews). The rise of Nazism should really be seen as also a downfall of Democracy.

    Even if you're hostile to the idea that Democracy must inevitably be run by money, I think we can agree that Fascism (by which I mean a collectivist, nationalist, and authoritarian form of government. This can be Fascism proper, or maybe Communism, or some other form. Spengler calls this "force politics") seems to rise when a Democracy falls. It never seems to revert back to Feudalism, for example. Or to aristocratic (as opposed to bourgeoisie) rule.

    Spengler's main idea, as I see it, is that one kind of nation leads preferentially to another kind, and rarely or never to another. So Monarchy and Feudalism -> rule by Aristocracy -> rule by bourgeoisie (ie: the merchant class. The robber barrons) -> rule by proletariat (which paradoxically is achieved through Fascism and Authoritarianism) -> social collapse and abandonment of cities -> Feudalism.

    It's an interesting notion. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, but I enjoy entertaining the idea at least

    Countries are always run by a powerful minority. In Spengler's eyes the Neapolitan ideals which give rise to a Democracy ultimately give rise to fascism, because common people are followers and ultimately hunger for a leadership not run by money (which they don't have).
    How is fascism not run by money? Some versions of fascism are essentially corporatist. I suggest the recent election was, in part, a popular rejection of corporatism.
    Corporatism is rule by the robber barrons. Rule by the rich, by the bourgeoisie. Fascism, by comparison, is rule by the State, which (supposedly) represents the common people. The Proletariat. Every time congressman are swayed by a lobyist group, that's the natural expression of Democracy. When a strong leader stands up as a "representative of the common man" and places restrictions on the robber barons, that is a step towards Fascism.

    I'm not defending Fascism or Democracy or anything here. I view it more from the standpoint of something like Civilizations: forms of governments are simply different ways for a nation to achieve different goals.

    Democracy is an attempt to overthrow aristocracy and inherited power. It inevitably leads to an environment where the merchant class can thrive. The merchant class rises to power, and controls power with money. Where the aristocracy controlled power with blood. And before them the absolute Monarch ruled by Devine Authority. The disenfranchised Proletariat in a Democracy eventually rebel and the result is a Fascist state where civic pride, sacrifice for the common good, and equalization of wealth are the aims, and "force politics" are the means. It's all just a natural progression from one to the other. Or that's the idea anyway. None are necessarily "good" or "bad". Each type leads to a very unique social atmosphere, and from that very unique forms of art and philosphy and science.

    In our own country I think we can see that with Andrew Jackson. I wouldn't go so far as to say he was Fascist, but he was definitely further along that spectrum than most of the previous Presidents. Certainly compared to Jefferson.

    I also don't think it's an accident that the two party system arose during Jackson's Presidency. I think it's what's keeping the US from moving more towards Fascism. Modern Presidents have about as much power as Jackson did, so the road to Fascism has sort of stalled.
    Or could it be that the road is a zig-zag path that never really gets that close to fascism, because the people are not as naďve as Spengler seemed to think?
    Maybe. But do you understand the revolution in Presidential power that Jackson caused? I think any rational person would have to admit that pre-Jackson and post-Jackson are very different political landscapes. With post-Jackson Presidents having more power. And post-Jackson Presidents viewing themselves as the representatives of the common people. Which was a revolutionary idea pre-Jackson.

    Steps towards Fascism are not gradual every year. I think it's probably like evolution and punctuated equilibrium. Things go along nice and steady and then BAM something happens and the nation reacts and moves itself a little further towards the next stage of social evolution. Actually evolution is a bad example. It's more like ecological succession. One form of grass creates an environment where bushes can thrive. And getting rid of the grass allows small trees to grow. And getting rid of the bushes allows larger, slower growing trees to grow. Then you have a mature forest full of tall trees, and then a fire comes and burns it all down and the ashes provide nourishment for the grasses and the whole process starts over again.

    I think the reason is the two parties and their roughly even control of congress over time. If one party were ever to weaken and die totally it would possibly set the stage for a Fascist takeover.
    This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Look at how the parties have changed over the years. I seem to recall someone (Newt Gingrich perhaps?) declaring the Democratic Party to be dead. Now the Republican Party is wandering in the wilderness but the survival instinct is strong and it will remake itself according to some mish mash of principles that is more marketable than the last iteration.

    Interesting about Jackson. I shall have to read up.
    Oh I think America is a long way off from the next stage. Voter apathy means people are mostly content with the status quo. There's still a great deal of upwards mobility, so there's very little disenfranchised poor to revolt. The two party system is extremely stable (compare our two party stability with something like Italian politics), so there's little threat of empowering extremist groups which would lead to Fascism.

    After all the Roman Republic lasted for like 500 years. I bet we still have a ways to go. But it's naive to think that 300, 600, or 1000 years in the future Western civilization as we understand it will still be going strong. It's the nature of things to grow, flourish, and then die. And eventually, maybe subtly maybe with fireworks, Americans will feel disenfranchised with a government where votes are for sale, and they'll elect a Populist Voice-of-the-People leader, who will have the power to form a Fascist, authoritarian, collectivist state. And if the next such Populist President has the restraint not to go that way, then the next one 15, 30, 60 years hence will do it. And if not him then the next one. And if not him then the next one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    I occasionally find myself skimming through threads just to read Numsgil's post. A rare, informed poster.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Ah sucks :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I am not concerned about past history.
    Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    George Santayana

    Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.

    The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.

    Sir Winston Churchill
    ''Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    George Santayana ''


    Most inspiring to my study of determinism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    He was hardly a poor man.
    Moving the goalposts? :P He (John Adams) was hardly "crazy rich" either.

    There is no single definition of fascism AFAIK, and some at least would include an alliance among government and corporations.

    But it's naive to think that 300, 600, or 1000 years in the future Western civilization as we understand it will still be going strong.
    It's lasted over 200 years so it's far from naive to expect it could last another 300. Further out than that who can begin to speculate?

    It's the nature of things to grow, flourish, and then die.
    Well-designed things tend to outlive shoddily made things. The USA was the first nation to be deliberately designed from the ground up, and as such it has durability. Properly maintained it could go on forever, like a Rolls Royce.

    After all the Roman Republic lasted for like 500 years.
    But I think we have developed a rather better system of choosing our leaders. John McCain isn't marching for the Rubicon (Potomac), or is he?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I am not concerned about past history.
    Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    George Santayana

    Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.

    The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.

    Sir Winston Churchill
    ''Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
    George Santayana ''


    Most inspiring to my study of determinism.
    I've always felt this was a rather facile statement. The past will never be repeated. Conditions always change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    He was hardly a poor man.
    Moving the goalposts? :P He (John Adams) was hardly "crazy rich" either.
    I was perhaps hasty in saying all founding fathers were crazy rich. But the "merchant class" was definitely well represented. The King was poorly represented, as were the English aristocracy. And obviously the slaves were poorly represented.

    There is no single definition of fascism AFAIK, and some at least would include an alliance among government and corporations.
    I know, that's why I'm specifically defining my use of fascism. Spengler doesn't actually use that term. He calls it "rule by blood". But to modern readers that would imply rule by inheritance and aristocrats, which isn't what he meant.

    When I use the term I mean a form of government with these attributes:

    1. Strong Nationalistic sentiment
    2. A single charismatic leader
    3. Populist support
    4. Said leader exercising what Spengler calls "formless power". Basically means that leader is overstepping their constitutional powers. Or forming a new constitution.
    5. Strong authoritarian overtones.
    6. A distrust of intellectuals.
    7. A distrust of individualism and liberalism.
    8. A distrust of "free press".

    But it's naive to think that 300, 600, or 1000 years in the future Western civilization as we understand it will still be going strong.
    It's lasted over 200 years so it's far from naive to expect it could last another 300. Further out than that who can begin to speculate?
    Certainly it's possible. But it doesn't take much to push a country towards Fascism. Like look at modern day Venezuala. If that's not Spengler in action I don't know what is.

    Or take recent US events. If Bush had been a competent, charismatic leader with a drive for it he could easily have formed a fascist regime. Like take JFK's Populism with Nixon's politics and put that person in the Presidency during Sept 11, and you have the recipe for a fascist movement. We have a crisis like that quite often, relatively speaking. Revolutionary war, civil war, Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, Cuban Missile Crisis, Sept 11, probably a few others. The right person at the right time and you have Democracy giving way to force politics. The thing is, when the time comes, we'll welcome it. It is a populist movement after all. We, as a people, will be so sick of Democracy that we'll be glad to see it go.

    Not a bad thing necessarily, just sort of inevitable.

    It's the nature of things to grow, flourish, and then die.
    Well-designed things tend to outlive shoddily made things. The USA was the first nation to be deliberately designed from the ground up, and as such it has durability. Properly maintained it could go on forever, like a Rolls Royce.
    I do think this is a naive point of view. You're welcome to hold it, but I do not agree.

    After all the Roman Republic lasted for like 500 years.
    But I think we have developed a rather better system of choosing our leaders. John McCain isn't marching for the Rubicon (Potomac), or is he?
    If we're drawing comparisons I'd place us at just after the end of the Punic Wars. We've defeated our main geopolitical rival (Carthage/Russia), and are embarking on a massive drive of imperialism (ironically centered in the same place: Middle East) in an effort to bring our entire political universe under one rule and prevent any future rivals from arising.

    So if we're going by that metric we still have another 100 years or so before Caesarism and Fascism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    If we're drawing comparisons I'd place us at just after the end of the Punic Wars. We've defeated our main geopolitical rival (Carthage/Russia), and are embarking on a massive drive of imperialism (ironically centered in the same place: Middle East) in an effort to bring our entire political universe under one rule and prevent any future rivals from arising.
    Imperialism! A neocon dream, but we have woken up. What is the extent of our one rule now or likely to be in the future? China, Russia, the EU, even Cuba are evidently not going to be part of an American hegemony. Alaska has its separatist movement. Economic imperialism is a tough nut, when we are so idebted to foreigners.

    another 100 years or so before Caesarism and Fascism.
    As I mentioned above, we are not destined to repeat history. That is a naive view. Comparisons with Rome neglect technological changes. We can learn from history, but it never repeats itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    If we're drawing comparisons I'd place us at just after the end of the Punic Wars. We've defeated our main geopolitical rival (Carthage/Russia), and are embarking on a massive drive of imperialism (ironically centered in the same place: Middle East) in an effort to bring our entire political universe under one rule and prevent any future rivals from arising.
    Imperialism! A neocon dream, but we have woken up.
    Oh really? Last I checked we were still meddling in quite a few nations' affairs. Pushing countries towards an American-friendly Democratic government. We've adopted a sort of political universalism: Democracy is the best form of government for everyone everywhere! This is actually consistent with Spengler's views of what happens when a nation defeats its main rival. The current change in administration comes with a change in tactic, but the goal is still the same: remove threats to American interests.

    Imperialism can take many forms. But it always reduces down to a domestication of the target. Like with Japan after WWII. We were fine to give them self determination, just so long as they had no military power to threaten us with again.

    American imperialism is actually a lot like Roman imperialism: we're bringing civilization to the barbarians. Why do they keep resisting us? We're doing them a favor. We let them keep their local customs. We don't ask them to change religions. We allow local leaders to rule (with our indirect approval). For the Romans all they wanted was tribute (give unto Caesar..). For Americans we want free markets for American goods. It's an interesting distinction.

    What is the extent of our one rule now or likely to be in the future? China, Russia, the EU, even Cuba are evidently not going to be part of an American hegemony. Alaska has its separatist movement. Economic imperialism is a tough nut, when we are so idebted to foreigners.
    Ah, but see that's the real neat part. We owe other countries American dollars. Not gold, or silver, or British Pounds or anything like that. It's all in USD. And that's an infinite resource that the US Govt has a monopoly on producing. As long as other suckers-- er, countries are willing to accept USD in payment for goods and services I think our economic imperialism is pretty well assured.

    I fear the day when the govt has to start borrowing other currencies to pay debts. But until then, if push comes to shove, the treasury can just print up trillion dollar bills and hand em to any foreign investors it likes.

    And if push really comes to shove, the US military is something like as powerful as the rest of the world's military put together. "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun" - Mao.

    another 100 years or so before Caesarism and Fascism.
    As I mentioned above, we are not destined to repeat history. That is a naive view. Comparisons with Rome neglect technological changes. We can learn from history, but it never repeats itself.
    Well I don't think history is clockwork. We can't use Rome after the Punic wars to determine the exact date a Caesar is born. But technology influences civilization far less than you think. I can think of basically only one technological improvement which forever separated Humanity from its past: Agriculture. Agriculture gave rise to the possibility of the city. And from that flowed war (war without cities is ephemeral and sporadic), and the current political landscape of nation states (the idea of borders especially).

    Industrialism to a lesser extent also, because it fundamentally changed the family unit. Used to be that the whole family worked together and the children saw the father and mother more or less equally. Industrialism took the father out of the home from 8 to 5 every day. Which has surely influenced our collective psychology as a civilization.

    But that's really it. People are people, and have been for thousands of years. And will be until we start tinkering with our own genetic code and reach technological Singularity. Politics hasn't changed in thousands of years. Wars have changed tactics but not strategy. People still love and hate and fear and long for noble purpose. All you have to do is crack a history book to see the cyclical nature of all human endeavor. History repeats itself. It can't always remember the words, but it knows how to hum the tune.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    History repeats itself. It can't always remember the words, but it knows how to hum the tune.
    If human tools change radically, and the free lunch of knowledge expands with every generation, then the only thing that stays the same is human nature. (Perhaps in the very long run that changes too.) It's pretty easy to draw comparisons between historic events and present day ones if you cherry pick the details you leave in and those you leave out.

    How about giving an example of history repeating itself, so we can perhaps analyze it, just for fun?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Napolean's push for European dominance died in the Russian winter. Germany's push for European dominance during WWII also died in the Russian winter.

    It's one of the classic blunders: never get involved in a land war in Asia. Only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Napoeon occupied Moscow. Hitler didn't. The repetiton of history is only on a broad brush scale. Not when you get into the details.

    However, I will concede this one
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Numsgil
    It's one of the classic blunders: never get involved in a land war in Asia.
    That is unless you are an Asian. The Steppe people and those they influenced (Mongols, Magyar, Scythians, Huns, Turks, ect.) never seemed to have a problem rampaging across the continent.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    How about giving an example of history repeating itself, so we can perhaps analyze it, just for fun?
    Brutally supress any group who are troublesome and the that group grows in size and in the amount of trouble it creates.

    Make this statement at any time in the last three hundred years, on any continent and it will resonate with people, but each time they will be thinking of a different 'troublesome group'.

    I believe you are taking to a literal an interpretation of Santayana's 'facile' observation. It was a sound bite that condensed the essence of the thought. He expected us to orchestrate it from the melody line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I believe you are taking to a literal an interpretation of Santayana's 'facile' observation. It was a sound bite that condensed the essence of the thought. He expected us to orchestrate it from the melody line.
    ?

    Subtle metaphor, or do you mean something I'm not getting?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I didn't think it was all that subtle. I suggested that Santayana's comment was, in modern terminology, a sound bite; a short, pithy comment that is memorable and thereby delivers a clear simple message.

    Now did Santayana intend that message to be simple? One suspects not. Simple would be how Bunbury seems to have interpreted it. Simple would be the repetition of history, in detail.

    A composer, working from his simple melody line will add depth and timbre and pace (i.e. variations) through orchestration. I believe Santayana would expect us to appreciate that in practice history will not repeat in detail, but that we will witness differences, large and small, from the original, yet all remaining true to the central concept: Variations on a theme by Santayana.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    How about giving an example of history repeating itself, so we can perhaps analyze it, just for fun?
    The reason this bothers me is because it seems to carry with it the fundamental blunder of expecting that a "repetition of history" has to be an absolutely identical event, in every tiny detail.

    If there's ever a 4th Reich, I doubt it will even call itself a "Reich" and I doubt the ethnic or social group it rounds up and sends to concentration camps will specifically be Jews. It might not even happen in Germany.


    And a good part of that is just jealousy mixed with an inferiority complex.
    that suggests to me you may have a superiority complex.
    And a deserved one at that.

    Our theory was that, if they can't control their own population, then we'll go in and control it for them.

    WHY???? - just let them get on with it.
    It's like the old story of King Arthur and the battle of Camlan:

    "The King and his son spoke this way a long while, with Arthur refusing to step down as King, and Mordred refusing to await his father's natural death before donning the crown. As they parleyed, their armies stood poised on opposite ends of the field, watching eagerly. For hours they stood, their muscles tensely wound. Then, as a knight shifted uncomfortably from one foot to another, an startled adder struck at his armored leg. Out of instinct, the man drew his sword to kill the serpent. The other army saw this as a sign of trechery and drew their own weapons. Before anyone could put a stop to it, both armies were engaged in battle." (Exerpt from : http://members.tripod.com/~arthurscult/camlan.html)

    If a country doesn't have sufficient control over its own people to prevent individual citizens from committing open acts of aggression against the citizens of another country, that failure of diplomacy might be seen as grounds for war.

    If they can't control their own citizens well enough to keep them from bothering us, then we'll control their citizens well enough to keep them from bothering us. Or.... that was the theory. In practice, we've found out that it's easier said than done.


    As for your technology, much of it is actually of european and japanese origin, on that front we are all as clever as each other, indeed in britain we have a radar that can light up a stealth bomber as if it were on stage at the theatre.
    You left out the Chinese. (If you refer to Renaissance techs as well, that is)

    The difference between 1st and 3rd world isn't the ability to invent. It's the ability to organize well enough to actually build those inventions.

    Edit: much needed shortening.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Re: American Dominance 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I have a question: If America were to step down and stop imposing its will on the world, who would step in and take our place? Who would impose order if we didn't?

    Would Russia do it? (Seems they can barely handle their own internal problems)

    Would China do it? (Seems like they'd take the opportunity to invade Taiwan, and probably India, leading to even greater nuclear instability world wide)

    Would the EU do it? (They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military. And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)

    Would the UN do it? (They're good about passing resolutions but.... not very good at enforcing anything on anybody, unless one of the Big 5 takes interest in it)

    If nobody did it, what would this do to the odds of the world continuing to avoid nuclear war? Is anarchy really better than the order imposed by an imperfect nations like the USA?
    TDG
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54 Re: American Dominance 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Who would impose order if we didn't?
    Here is the start of the problem. You believe you are imposing order, do you? Hmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Would the EU do it? They seem to have a lot of credibility world wide, but not a very large or well funded military.
    The EU spends approximately 50% of what the US does. Some would argue they have a more efficient end product.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And.... Germany *was* the Third Reich....)
    So as long as we stop them invading Russia we can count on their otherwise excellent experience.
    Heh i wouldn't say we're imposing "order" but we are def the most wide spread power. What we are imposing depends which situation we're talking about. We're def not imposing order in the middle east that's for sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    15
    America has to lead the world and America has to be the most powerful nation in the world.

    What Obama said at the United Nations was very troubling. He wants the USA to be apart of some world order where all nations are equal. This is impossible as long as you have nations that have leaders that want to control the souls of men.

    This is why America must lead the world because America stands for something bigger than Barack Obama and bigger than some world order. America stands for freedom and liberty of the human concious. This ideal can't be apart of a world order as long as there's leaders that want to control the souls of men.

    I was watching boxing the other day and they had fighters on that defected from Cuba. This is because in America their conscious is free. They don't have to fight for the state or fight for Castro.

    This is what Obama doesn't understand. This is why he said in 2001 that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains government and it doesn't talk about redistribution of wealth. This is not a flaw, the Constitution was designed to restrain Government because the Founders didn't want any Government or man controlling peoples lives. They were anti government but they knew it was a necessary evil. This is why they limited government. Obama called these limitations "negative liberties."

    This is not saying America is perfect or that the American people are any better than the people in Iran or North Korea. It's saying that America stands for something greater than a world order filled with dictators. It stands for freedom and liberty of conscious and it seems many people want to destroy what America stands for because they think they are too powerful. They are a powerful nation because the Founders built a government based on freedom and liberty of conscious and many people want to destroy this in the name of conformity with those who wish to control the souls of men. If you do that the world will descend into chaos. There has to be something strong and powerful opposing those that wish to enslave the human soul, not appeasing them.
    We are shocked and appalled to hear that the number of animals condemned to lives of suffering in EU laboratories has hit a ten year high.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •