The Forum > Article Comments > Global neo-imperial fantasies come unstuck > Comments
Global neo-imperial fantasies come unstuck : Comments
By Peter McMahon, published 1/11/2005Peter McMahon argues the Neo-con attempt at global imperialism is coming unstuck because the world is too complex.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
-
- All
One more thing. All successful economic systems, and indeed, economically healthy households, and even ( must I say it? )Marx's surplus value, are based on "economic efficiency", which you so unwisely disdain and disparage. Have you forgotten that the Soviet Union collapsed as a result of its economic inefficiency?
Posted by Themistocles, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:16:58 AM
| |
"Meanwhile, Al-Quaida is still operating and the Taliban are still around in Afghanistan."
Yeah and we should never have spent billions on the Cold War because the communists are still around, eh peter. (Note that using the term 'imperialist', in an economic sense is a communist invention) My favorite part of this paranoid rant comes in the last 2 paragraphs... "Ultimately, the British-led global system fell apart due to its inability to manage social and economic diversity - the socio-political world was just too complex. The Neo-con attempt is failing because of both social and environmental reasons - the real world is just too complex." And then "But the Neo-cons were right about one thing - we all live in one global system now, and we need global-scale governance. The question, then, is whether we return to ideas of a global order run by nation states, or move on to a new kind of global governance system." I thought the world was too complex for that? Posted by Alan Grey, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 1:12:29 PM
| |
Themistocles, I think it's time to removing that log from your own eye ....
First your second 'contradiction': the EU didn't rcently fail "to unite" - a small majority voted against an updated version of its constitution. Did Australia fail "to unite" when it rejected the republican question? This is what happens when free people are given a choice, you know, at 'governance', they get to choose the outcome. Your first 'contradiction' is similarly blighted. Yes, a new global economy was on its way starting in the 70s. McMahon is simply pointing out the irrefutable fact that the neo-cons used the unrivalled power of the US that resulted to further their pax americana agenda. If you don't believe me, go read it for yourself in their own words: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf This was written in 2000 and later a lot of these guys ended up on Bushes payrole. BTW, if you're still not convinced, here is the 2001 US national security strategy: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf Notice the similarities? These guys didn't go to war with Iraq because of 9/11 - 9/11 was an execuse to enact their pre-existing agenda. These guys invaded Iraq to further their own strategic interests. Nothing more, nothing less. Posted by sjk, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 8:22:43 PM
| |
Someone mentioned why there are no solutions. Well, I have a few. But, I need to address a question about global governing first.
Do we really need global governing? Isn't that placing too much power in the hands of one? And, if we are going to give in to global governing, shouldn't the "global governer" be put in that position by the people and not by force of "his" own power? At any rate, that's just my two cents. Here are some solutions I've come up with, though I don't think this should be the end of the list. 1. We are already moving toward hybrid vehicles. More come out every year. We need to keep this up until we can do away with gas-using vehicles all-together. Out of 100% of our consumption of the world's petrolium, 95% of that consumption comes from oil and gas in our vehicles. The 5% is for everything else we use like plastic. (Only 5% for all that stuff! Imagine if we had that other 95% to play with or, dare I say, to not even use and/or use sparingly) 2. Education should be free - all education. If education is so important, why does it cost so much to attain it? If it is so important that we are education (and it IS very important) and if it is imperitive to a country to have as many educated people as possible, shouldn't education be free so that as many people can attain it as possible? Knowledge should not be a market product. The states make enough money in other ways. There's a couple of solutions to the world's problem for ya. There's plenty more that need to be thought of. www.fictionfixation.com Posted by Fiction Fanatic, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 12:20:31 AM
|