We should abolish the United States.

[Apparition of Jack]

The internet itself is the genesis of global civilisation.

[aurum]

12 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Nation-states as an idea are dead.

No they are NOT.

You may feel they are dead, but the vast majority of the world population does not agree with you. And they will fight you to the death.

Even a globally integrated society will still require nations. In the same way that the United States still requires states and cities, even though it is united.

Edited yesterday at 01:23 AM by aurum

[Apparition of Jack]

2 minutes ago, aurum said:

No they are NOT.

You may feel they are dead, but the vast majority of the world population does not agree with you. And they will fight you tooth and nail.

Even a globally integrated society will still require nations. In the same way that the United States still requires states and cities, even though it is united.

There was a time when the vast majority of the world accepted slavery was a fact of life, sometimes even “necessary”, but advances in technology, social thought, trade, living standards etc made it impossible to sustain. Nowadays, slavery is one of the most abhorred institutions on the planet, regulated to obscure black markets and completely eliminated in developed countries. 
 

The world changes. Times evolve. Don’t get me wrong, I love my own country, I love its unique culture and way of life and everything, but there’s nothing about increasing global integration that threatens that (no more than when the US united after revolution Carolina uniting with Pennsylvania threatened those two state’s unique characteristics.) And again, the billionaire class already lives in a de-facto international world, it’s just unlike everyone else they see it as a tool to be exploited and harvested for their own perverse needs, not a living place to be nurtured and curated. This is a frightening prospect, unity, I understand that, but at some point it’ll become inevitable. Things are just way, WAY too interconnected for it to be otherwise. 

[aurum]

16 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

There was a time when the vast majority of the world accepted slavery was a fact of life, sometimes even “necessary”, but advances in technology, social thought, trade, living standards etc made it impossible to sustain. Nowadays, slavery is one of the most abhorred institutions on the planet, regulated to obscure black markets and completely eliminated in developed countries. 
 

The world changes. Times evolve. Don’t get me wrong, I love my own country, I love its unique culture and way of life and everything, but there’s nothing about increasing global integration that threatens that (no more than when the US united after revolution Carolina uniting with Pennsylvania threatened those two state’s unique characteristics.) And again, the billionaire class already lives in a de-facto international world, it’s just unlike everyone else they see it as a tool to be exploited and harvested for their own perverse needs, not a living place to be nurtured and curated.

Then you will be raging against nationalists for the rest of your life. You will never succeed.

Nation-states are going nowhere.

16 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

This is a frightening prospect, unity, I understand that, but at some point it’ll become inevitable. Things are just way, WAY too interconnected for it to be otherwise. 

When is "some point"?

5 years? 50 years? 500 years?

If your solutions are only useful 500 years from now, you have no real solutions. Just idealizations. 

[Basman]

Ignore the will of the people at your own peril. 

[LordFall]

I agree with you. I think we are headed towards the unification of the global order into a world federation that goes beyond national interest into global interest. The current crisis of international law regarding the situations in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela foreshadow this as well as the rise of a new possible robotic military peacekeeping force under the control of the United Nations. 

There is a movement advocating for this called World federalism. 

[Cred]

12 hours ago, Basman said:

A lot of "wokiesm" and culture wars is in part about policy being implemented without civic consent, like immigration or trans stuff. 

People wouldn't really hate wokeness if they weren't actively propagandized by the reactionary bourgeoisie

[Cred]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Uniting is the point of stronger global institutions.

What is the point of a global institution if it doesn't acknowledge the class struggle and wants to uphold capitalism? BRICS is the only global institution I support

[Basman]

4 hours ago, Cred said:

People wouldn't really hate wokeness if they weren't actively propagandized by the reactionary bourgeoisie

The average person doesn't agree with mass migration or transitioning kids, propaganda or not.

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Cred said:

What is the point of a global institution if it doesn't acknowledge the class struggle and wants to uphold capitalism? BRICS is the only global institution I support

I do not prioritize fighting the bourgeois or dismantling capitalism. So our fundamental frameworks are different.

[Cred]

26 minutes ago, aurum said:

I do not prioritize fighting the bourgeois or dismantling capitalism. So our fundamental frameworks are different.

This is exactly right.

Not seeing the class struggle as the most fundamental driving force of political conflict within capitalism is a very bad mistake

The only reason why you think this is not the case or exeggerated is because you fell victim to capitalist propaganda

[Cred]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

The average person doesn't agree with mass migration or transitioning kids, propaganda or not.

This is correct. The only way to sustainably reverse this is by letting communists take over the state and reverse the propaganda

[aurum]

17 minutes ago, Cred said:

This is exactly right.

Not seeing the class struggle as the most fundamental driving force of political conflict within capitalism is a very bad mistake

The only reason why you think this is not the case or exeggerated is because you fell victim to capitalist propaganda

There will always be bourgeois.

What's needed is not to get rid of the bourgeois, but to keep them in check.

Edited 10 hours ago by aurum

[Cred]

12 minutes ago, aurum said:

There will always be bourgeois.

What's needed is not to get rid of the bourgeois, but to keep them in check.

Wow yeah agree! What did we disagree on again?

Getting rid of the bourgeoisie is lofty idealism that might or might not happen. Certainly not in our lifetime.

What I'm asking myself though is how you think any capitalist country could ever keep the bourgeoise in check sustainably without communists being in charge?

Edited 10 hours ago by Cred

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Cred said:

Wow yeah agree! What did we disagree on again?

Getting rid of the bourgeoisie is lofty idealism that might or might not happen. Certainly not in our lifetime.

What I'm asking myself though is how you think any capitalist country could ever keep the bourgeoise in check sustainably without communists being in charge?

I don't think communists in charge will solve that problem. They will simply become the new bourgeois.

Communism promises to abolish class, private property and the state. But in actuality, they will never achieve this. Even if they succeed in overthrowing the capitalists, all these dynamics will be recreated in a different way.

There will always be, and should be, some social hierarchy. And that within the classes of this hierarchy, there will always be some tension. The proletariat will advocate for the proletariat. And the bourgeois will advocate for the bourgeois.

What's necessary then is not some proletariat revolution, but a dynamic systems balancing. No class gets to dominate the other. 

It's fine to advocate for the proletariat. That's why most people become communists. But the downside is they often lack this systems view.

[Infinity16]

We are currently in the stage blue mode of government which is the nation-state. It is distinct from the stage red mode of government (empire) in that it is supposed to be a state consisting of one people, united by an idea or by ethnicity. Stage blue oftentimes runs on an in-group vs an out-group. As such, citizens will always matter more than non-citizens.