One World Order

[Mr. Cervantes]

I see alot of people here at this website that criticizes nationalism where there seems to be this gesture that all of this world ought to converge into one giant singularity.

Well that sort of ideology practically supports the notions of a one world international consensus or globalism.

Is it the opinion of this forum that nation states should be got rid of in the creation of a borderless one world?

I for one do not support the ideology of a borderless one world government or what others have called international globalism.

The only opposite to that is nationalism which is why I find it paradoxical that so many here criticize it or reject it in favor of it's removal.

Since when did the support of communism require somebody to reject nationalism? I do not understand this form of thinking.

I for one do not see any incompatibility between communism and nationalism.

[Q]

I see alot of people here at this website that criticizes nationalism where there seems to be this gesture that all of this world ought to converge into one giant singularity.

Well that sort of ideology practically supports the notions of a one world international consensus or globalism.
Indeed.


Is it the opinion of this forum that nation states should be got rid of in the creation of a borderless one world?
Communism is a global society, without borders, state or nations. So yes.


I for one do not support the ideology of a borderless one world government or what others have called international globalism.
Why is that?


The only opposite to that is nationalism which is why I find it paradoxical that so many here criticize it or reject it in favor of it's removal.

Since when did the support of communism require somebody to reject nationalism? I do not understand this form of thinking.

I for one do not see any incompatibility between communism and nationalism.
Nationalism is reactionary in most cases as it divides the working class, which is a global class - because capitalism is a global system and any alternatives to this system must likewise have a global scope.

The only exception to this is in the case of suppressed nations ("national questions"), such as the Basques for example in Spain. In such situations communists defend the right of self-determination (which we always do anyway) up to and including independence.

However, because we strive for the biggest possible unity of the working class, we in general argue against it and try to convince the oppressed national minority in question that unity is really for the better, be it under working class rule and on a voluntary and democratic basis.

One example I can think of where nationalism can play a progressive role is in the Arabic world, where there is a dual national awareness. Besides being Algerian, Egyptian, Syrian, etc., people also share an Arabic consciousness based on shared cultural values, a common history and a single language. You could say this is a national question "in reverse" as the problem here is not so much oppression, but Balkanisation. In the current wave of uprisings, communists should indeed argue for regional unification of the Arabic world, as it would greatly enhance the case of the working class in these countries and indeed globally.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Indeed.


Communism is a global society, without borders, state or nations. So yes.


Why is that?


Nationalism is reactionary in most cases as it divides the working class, which is a global class - because capitalism is a global system and any alternatives to this system must likewise have a global scope.

The only exception to this is in the case of suppressed nations ("national questions"), such as the Basques for example in Spain. In such situations communists defend the right of self-determination (which we always do anyway) up to and including independence.

However, because we strive for the biggest possible unity of the working class, we in general argue against it and try to convince the oppressed national minority in question that unity is really for the better, be it under working class rule and on a voluntary and democratic basis.


Communism is a global society, without borders, state or nations. So yes.

Where does Marx support globalism and the dissolution of nation states in his writings?

I remember him talking about international cooperation between workers but nothing about the support of international globalism with the dissolution of nation states.


Why is that?

How is one world centerism or globalism a positive development for humanity?

How is the inevitable one world government that will follow beneficial to humanity?




Nationalism is reactionary in most cases as it divides the working class, which is a global class - because capitalism is a global system and any alternatives to this system must likewise have a global scope.


I don't see how communism is incompatible with nationalism.

I see nothing flawed with unique individual nations or nation states having their own distincted forms of communism.



The only exception to this is in the case of suppressed nations ("national questions"), such as the Basques for example in Spain. In such situations communists defend the right of self-determination (which we always do anyway) up to and including independence.


The Basques are also a struggling cultural identity as well when it concerns their struggle for independence as a nation in that they are a suppressed cultural minority.

Interesting...




However, because we strive for the biggest possible unity of the working class, we in general argue against it and try to convince the oppressed national minority in question that unity is really for the better, be it under working class rule and on a voluntary and democratic basis.


I bet the Basques would question your motives also.

[Delenda Carthago]

Workers of the world DONT unite!

[Octavian]

Don't take internationalist stance as some NWO world government idea. It's more along the lines of doing away with nations and instituting communes. The way I see it transitioning from there would be communes getting larger and larger till they start to merge.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Don't take internationalist stance as some NWO world government idea. It's more along the lines of doing away with nations and instituting communes. The way I see it transitioning form there would be communes getting larger and larger till they start to merge.

Or nation states themselves turn into nation state communes. I just don't support globalism.

[Q]

The Basques are also a struggling cultural identity as well when it concerns their struggle for independence as a nation in that they are a suppressed cultural minority.

Interesting...

Actually, a while back I proposed Esperanto as the official language of, at least, Europe. This way any European would only need to learn two languages to communicate with eachother: his own (local) language and Esperanto. This would be a massive step forwards for cultural rights of national minorities throughout Europe.

I'll answer to your other points later on, if someone else hasn't already by then.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Modern nation states are a product of capitalism and is much different than regional organization under feudal rule or other systems.

I think maybe the way you are putting the question is a little bit different than the way people see it (well at least how I see it). I don't think there are too many people here (well maybe some) who would support one government making decisions from above for everyone (even if done in an accountable way). It's more a case of getting rid of nation-states as the way regions are governed and divided up than it is about creating one huge single nation-state.

If communism is a classless stateless society, how can you have either nationalism or one big world-wide state? If this view of communism is correct and a stateless society is achieved then I think people in the future would find dividing the world into nations as strange and odd as we might imagine dividing up the world according to land elevation or latitudinal zones or something like that.

[danyboy27]

So you are a leftist, and a nationalist, how well is it working out for you man?

[Obs]

Or nation states themselves turn into nation state communes.
What material purpose would this serve? As socialists, we must always look empirically and materialistically at things, and our support to one cause or another must be dictated not by how we feel about things, but the actual, material consequences of this cause. In a modern context, nationalism that doesn't stand in opposition to imperialism is directly reactionary and causes a division in the working class.

[Sasha]

our secret judeo-masonic-bolshevik plot is rumbled!

*grabs his coppy of "the protocols of the elders of zion" and runs*

[Zanthorus]

The only opposite to that is nationalism

No, there are in fact plenty of alternatives to a single, centralised world government. You've just presented a ridiculous dichotomy. Further, 'nationalism' does not necessarily mean a belief in the existence of nation-states but I think generally refers to ideologies originating in the counter-enlightenment about the superiority of one's own nation over others. In fact, you can be a nationalist without having any particular nation-state to support, since what does and does not constitute a 'nation' is complicated, and not determined solely by territorial borders. Further, you can be a universalist or cosmopolitan without believing in the disssolution of national boundaries. I think there are probably a number of people who would not characterise themselves as 'nationalist' who would still advocate the existence of borders on practical grounds. I do believe in the abolition of nation-states but I'm still not an advocate of a single, centralised world-government, as you would have us believe.


Since when did the support of communism require somebody to reject nationalism?

Nationalism usually requires that you advocate the unity of the nation. To the extent that the capitalist class holds power, it constitutes itself as 'the nation', and the defence of one's own nation and government constitutes a defence of one's own capitalist class and of class collaboration. To a certain extent nationalist ideology may exist within the workers' movement and not necessarily be a problem, for example there was a significant nationalist element in the Paris Commune and some historians argue that the insurrection was a nationalist revolt against the government in Versailles' capitulation to Prussian imperialism. If the working-class holds political power then it too constitutes itself as the nation and is so far national, but by initially organising itself as a class and breaking the unity of the nation it abolishes nationalism in practice by defending a cause which springs not from peculiar national conditions but from the general and universal conditions of capitalist society and is as such a properly cosmopolitan cause.

Also, the whole abolition of market relations thing sort of implies the planning of resource distribution between states as well as within them, which would require international co-ordination by some kind of international government.


Where does Marx support globalism and the dissolution of nation states in his writings?

Engels in reply to the question "what will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities" from 'The Principles of Communism':


The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.

[ZeroNowhere]

"Finally, fraternisation between nations has today, more than ever a purely social significance. The fantasies about a European Republic, perpetual peace under political organisation, have become just as ridiculous as the phrases about uniting the nations under the aegis of universal free trade, and while all such chimerical sentimentalities become completely irrelevant, the proletarians of all nations, without too much ceremony, are already really beginning to fraternise under the banner of communist democracy. And the proletarians are the only ones who are really able to do this; for the bourgeoisie in each country has its own special interests, and since these interests are the most important to it, it can never transcend nationality; and the few theoreticians achieve nothing with all their fine “principles” because they simply allow these contradictory interests — like everything else — to continue to exist and can do nothing but talk. But the proletarians in all countries have one and the same interest, one and the same enemy, and one and the same struggle. The great mass of proletarians are, by their very nature, free from national prejudices and their whole disposition and movement is essentially humanitarian, anti-nationalist. Only the proletarians can destroy nationality, only the awakening proletariat can bring about fraternisation between the different nations."

Engels' early discussion of the abolition of various 'peoples' is along this line as well.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Modern nation states are a product of capitalism and is much different than regional organization under feudal rule or other systems.

I think maybe the way you are putting the question is a little bit different than the way people see it (well at least how I see it). I don't think there are too many people here (well maybe some) who would support one government making decisions from above for everyone (even if done in an accountable way). It's more a case of getting rid of nation-states as the way regions are governed and divided up than it is about creating one huge single nation-state.

If communism is a classless stateless society, how can you have either nationalism or one big world-wide state? If this view of communism is correct and a stateless society is achieved then I think people in the future would find dividing the world into nations as strange and odd as we might imagine dividing up the world according to land elevation or latitudinal zones or something like that.


Modern nation states are a product of capitalism and is much different than regional organization under feudal rule or other systems.

Modern nation states are merely the by product of what happens when feudal states either ally themselves into becoming one nation or are formed into one by that of war.

I don't understand how one can say that nation states are purely a product of capitalism because this ignores a great deal of history.


I think maybe the way you are putting the question is a little bit different than the way people see it (well at least how I see it). I don't think there are too many people here (well maybe some) who would support one government making decisions from above for everyone (even if done in an accountable way).

Well that's the inevitablity of international globalism if we take it to it's final conclusion. One world government is the inevitablity of all that.


It's more a case of getting rid of nation-states as the way regions are governed and divided up than it is about creating one huge single nation-state.

That sounds very anarchist. It would definately backfire if ever implemented.


If communism is a classless

I believe in the classless notion.



stateless society,

I don't believe in a stateless society.



how can you have either nationalism or one big world-wide state?

I wouldn't want a one big world wide state.




If this view of communism is correct and a stateless society is achieved then I think people in the future would find dividing the world into nations as strange and odd as we might imagine dividing up the world according to land elevation or latitudinal zones or something like that.


I look at nation states as countries forming because of historical processes.



Danboy: So you are a leftist, and a nationalist, how well is it working out for you man?


I don't see the incompatibility.


Obs: What material purpose would this serve? As socialists, we must always look empirically and materialistically at things, and our support to one cause or another must be dictated not by how we feel about things, but the actual, material consequences of this cause. In a modern context, nationalism that doesn't stand in opposition to imperialism is directly reactionary and causes a division in the working class.

Like anything else nation states would evolve along with the concept of nationalism adhering to them.

Is it not possible to be a nationalist and at the same time be anti imperialist? I think it is.




Zanthorus: No, there are in fact plenty of alternatives to a single, centralised world government. You've just presented a ridiculous dichotomy. Further, 'nationalism' does not necessarily mean a belief in the existence of nation-states but I think generally refers to ideologies originating in the counter-enlightenment about the superiority of one's own nation over others. In fact, you can be a nationalist without having any particular nation-state to support, since what does and does not constitute a 'nation' is complicated, and not determined solely by territorial borders. Further, you can be a universalist or cosmopolitan without believing in the disssolution of national boundaries. I think there are probably a number of people who would not characterise themselves as 'nationalist' who would still advocate the existence of borders on practical grounds. I do believe in the abolition of nation-states but I'm still not an advocate of a single, centralised world-government, as you would have us believe.



And what are these alternatives? I heard one member talking about feudalism before which got me thinking about regionalism or localism in terms self organized territories.

Sure it worked historically for a while but good luck trying to get the world as it stands today to splinter off into many mini states or territories overtime since that would just eventually evolve into nation states all over again once done.



In fact, you can be a nationalist without having any particular nation-state to support, since what does and does not constitute a 'nation' is complicated, and not determined solely by territorial borders.


Of course there are other features that defines nations beyond territorial borders.


Further, you can be a universalist or cosmopolitan without believing in the disssolution of national boundaries.

One world international globalism is a inevitability of both of those ideologies if I'm not mistaken.



I think there are probably a number of people who would not characterise themselves as 'nationalist' who would still advocate the existence of borders on practical grounds.

What is the point in having a national border if you don't enforce it?





I do believe in the abolition of nation-states but I'm still not an advocate of a single, centralised world-government, as you would have us believe.


The way I see it with the dissolution of nation states either you get one world government rule or you get a very chaotic anarchist notion of a great deal of mini states and territories in the aftermath of collapsed nations.

In the very anarchist picture of mini states and territories eventually overtime they would start warring with each other to form a giant nation state. If anything feudalism showed us the inevitablity of all that.

Either way I don't see how either choice is promising for the future.




Nationalism usually requires that you advocate the unity of the nation. To the extent that the capitalist class holds power, it constitutes itself as 'the nation', and the defence of one's own nation and government constitutes a defence of one's own capitalist class and of class collaboration.


That's only because a great deal of nations have become prey and have fallen under capitalism.

Now imagine what would happen if a great deal of nation states became communist. That is somthing I envision.



To a certain extent nationalist ideology may exist within the workers' movement and not necessarily be a problem, for example there was a significant nationalist element in the Paris Commune and some historians argue that the insurrection was a nationalist revolt against the government in Versailles' capitulation to Prussian imperialism. If the working-class holds political power then it too constitutes itself as the nation and is so far national, but by initially organising itself as a class and breaking the unity of the nation it abolishes nationalism in practice by defending a cause which springs not from peculiar national conditions but from the general and universal conditions of capitalist society and is as such a properly cosmopolitan cause.


I prefer the viewpoint of breaking down the current form of nationalism in order to create a newer form that is a newer form of nationalism seperated from the older.




Also, the whole abolition of market relations thing sort of implies the planning of resource distribution between states as well as within them, which would require international co-ordination by some kind of international government.

Indeed it would.



Engels in reply to the question "what will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities" from 'The Principles of Communism'


So Marx doesn't saying anything about it but instead only Engels does. Seperate from Marx I never really cared that much for a great deal of writings from Engels.

I certainly do believe in international cooperation of workers in all areas of development in instituting communism because the capitalist threats we face are no longer local in our own nations where it is a globalistic capitalist threat that we all face. Still I don't understand why we must abolish nation states to achieve any of that.



Zeronowhere: Finally, fraternisation between nations has today, more than ever a purely social significance. The fantasies about a European Republic, perpetual peace under political organisation, have become just as ridiculous as the phrases about uniting the nations under the aegis of universal free trade, and while all such chimerical sentimentalities become completely irrelevant, the proletarians of all nations, without too much ceremony, are already really beginning to fraternise under the banner of communist democracy. And the proletarians are the only ones who are really able to do this; for the bourgeoisie in each country has its own special interests, and since these interests are the most important to it, it can never transcend nationality; and the few theoreticians achieve nothing with all their fine “principles” because they simply allow these contradictory interests — like everything else — to continue to exist and can do nothing but talk. But the proletarians in all countries have one and the same interest, one and the same enemy, and one and the same struggle. The great mass of proletarians are, by their very nature, free from national prejudices and their whole disposition and movement is essentially humanitarian, anti-nationalist. Only the proletarians can destroy nationality, only the awakening proletariat can bring about fraternisation between the different nations."

Engels' early discussion of the abolition of various 'peoples' is along this line as well.


It's one thing to create fraternisation between nations and another to get rid of nation states altogether.

Still, will all the proletarians have the same interests from each nation to another? Are they not independent to pursue their own interests once communism is achieved at a national level?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That sounds very anarchist. It would definately backfire if ever implemented.



I wouldn't want a one big world wide state.


Your nonsense would backfire if ever implemented.

And what is wrong with a world-wide "state", then? Are you one of those... New World Order conspiracy nuts?

"Globalism" is only to be opposed in the context of it being global capitalist free trade, the cultural aspects of it should only be criticised when it involves direct cultural imposition of another national culture on another; there is nothing wrong with globalism insofar as global cultural and social exchange is concerned, in that sense, yes, Socialism is for globalism.

[AnonymousOne]

I suppose I support International Globalism and the end of the nation state, but I'd want to make sure that decision making was primarily done on the local level. I wouldn't want to have a top-down Global entity be dictating policies to local areas.

But at the same time, in some cases I would. If for example, one local area wants to engage in genital mutilation of young girls and boys I would want that to be halted. Or if a group of racists creates a collective based on hate and enslaves "inferior" races. I would want that stopped as well. Or if a group was doing a poor job instructing their children.

I would want a global entity to also establish universities, research centers etc. because I believe those can only be done on a high quality level with enough resources. But at the same time I've seen people do amazing set-ups with DIY Biology, so local labs can be established as well.

But I'd like the local entities to be able to determine their own production (what they want to produce, how they want to produce it, etc.) and how they want to organize their society (where meetings take place, when meetings take place etc.)

[danyboy27]

a ''world governement'' with a centralized process of control and decision would be impossible to put in place, so its useless to even talk about it.

At best, something like the U.N could exist to set up standards on stuff like food safety and basic logistics for some projects, anything beside that would be overrun in a fews years, too much logistics.

[Mr. Cervantes]

Your nonsense would backfire if ever implemented.

And what is wrong with a world-wide "state", then? Are you one of those... New World Order conspiracy nuts?

"Globalism" is only to be opposed in the context of it being global capitalist free trade, the cultural aspects of it should only be criticised when it involves direct cultural imposition of another national culture on another; there is nothing wrong with globalism insofar as global cultural and social exchange is concerned, in that sense, yes, Socialism is for globalism.

If by conspiracy nut do I believe that real groups like the Bilderbergs meet in private international conspiracy holdings making decisions for the rest of the world then I would say yes.



And what is wrong with a world-wide "state", then?


If you hate the oppression of national governments just wait til you get a dose of world wide government. ;)



Globalism" is only to be opposed in the context of it being global capitalist free trade, the cultural aspects of it should only be criticised when it involves direct cultural imposition of another national culture on another; there is nothing wrong with globalism insofar as global cultural and social exchange is concerned, in that sense, yes, Socialism is for globalism.

Actually for me globalism would be global cosmopolitanism imposing itself over all national cultures. It creates a newer form of imposition.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If by conspiracy nut do I believe that real groups like the Bilderbergs meet in private international conspiracy holdings making decisions for the rest of the world than I would say yes.



If you hate the oppression of national governments just wait til you get a dose of world wide government. ;)

There's no difference between a world state and a nation state, what's your issue?

And the ruling class collaborating in public and in secret is as surprising as cows farting.

[Mr. Cervantes]

There's no difference between a world state and a nation state, what's your issue?

And the ruling class collaborating in public and in secret is as surprising as cows farting.

Are you saying there is no difference between nation states and a world state? Huh?

[danyboy27]

Are you saying there is no difference between nation states and a world state? Huh?

no difference, it would be bigger but would still be a state.

its an impossibility anyway.

[AnonymousOne]

Are you saying there is no difference between nation states and a world state? Huh?

Errr, yes. That's exactly what they typed. The reason being as that the state hasn't changed at all. It's just one big state opressing the people instead of multiple tiny states oppressing people. The fundamental power dichotomy hasn't changed, it's still run top-down but it's larger.

[Mr. Cervantes]

no difference, it would be bigger but would still be a state.

its an impossibility anyway.

Be careful in describing it an impossibility because the impossibilities of the past are today's realizations.



Errr, yes. That's exactly what they typed. The reason being as that the state hasn't changed at all. It's just one big state opressing the people instead of multiple tiny states oppressing people. The fundamental power dichotomy hasn't changed, it's still run top-down but it's larger.


Well I don't support either. I describe myself as a national communist. Communism at a national level.

[Q]

Actually, there is an important difference between a world state and a multitude of smaller states: A larger state means that much more workers share a common enemy and that you only need to topple one :D

[#FF0000]

Well I don't support either. I describe myself as a national communist. Communism at a national level.

I don't see how this could happen. Capitalism is a global system.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism is by its very definition stateless.

A question you asked a while ago was about communist business ethics, which was kinda contradicting.

That you don't see a conflict between nationalism and communism indicates you don't really know what communism is.

Communism also means the absence of money, a moneyless economy requires a global scale as raw materials needed in Northern Europe need to come from, say, Southern Africa and Eastern China.

Communism in one country is an impossibility, as is socialism (lower phase communism).

EDIT: National Communism is a contradictio in terminis, you cannot abolish money in one country, it doesn't work.

[ReVoLuTiOnArYbUtGaNgStEr]

Be careful in describing it an impossibility because the impossibilities of the past are today's realizations.



Well I don't support either. I describe myself as a national communist. Communism at a national level.

I am pretty sure Hitler was a fan of socialism on a national level too, universal healthcare for true Germans FTW! Seriously you sound like a national socialist, you also believe jews run the world, I do not see you being here long mate:lol:

[Tenka]

I describe myself as a national communist. Communism at a national level.
If the mightily trollish post I'm about to make might be forgiven;--
Communism at a national level sounds similar to "socialism in one country", whereas calling yourself a National Communist readily reminds of those who identified as National Socialists -- thus, we may have uncovered the missing link between the ideologies of Stalin and Hitler so often suggested by bourgeois historians.
----
Seriously though, as most everyone else has said, Communism can only be realised on the global level.

[#FF0000]

I am pretty sure Hitler was a fan of socialism on a national level too

Nope.

[ZeroNowhere]

Still, will all the proletarians have the same interests from each nation to another? Are they not independent to pursue their own interests once communism is achieved at a national level?No, because in communism there are no proletarians, independent or otherwise.