Reverse-Growth

[RaisedFistRebel]

Since the history of organized civilization started, small farming towns, border clans, tribes, etc., have combined to make small states. These states turn into countries, and you start to get the growth of national borders. Countries get bigger, and small countries and states eventually fall to the larger ones.

Now to my theory,

Eventually the beliefs of different people and different ideals will conflict, causing rebellions and revolutions. Eventually this will cause bigger states to break up into smaller ones, and the smaller states will have more agreement among issues (less conflict). This would continue until the world came back to the way it was in earlier centuries. It will reverse itself back into small states. These states (with work), could become successful communes, and then the amount of wars will decrease.

What are you guys' thoughts?

[redstar2000]

The Communal Polis - Identity and Organization in a Communist World (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RaisedFistRebel]

okay, i think i got all of that. Basically ur saying that the polis is the key. could you possibly summarize the message being conveyed in that essay?

[RaisedFistRebel]

i would also like to toss out the fact of anarchy in Africa. There are many tribes/small states in Africa with Anarchist culture that do not run around shooting each other. this proves that a small state with united beliefs of the people is better than a large state divided in many ways.

[NovelGentry]

The issue as I see it is not unity that comes from small states, but the disunity of the world as a whole which would come with them. Particularly the danger of capitalist states and their inherently imperialist nature. This isn't as big as a problem if the small states are pulled from larger capitalist ones with a section of the means of production going to them. Technologically the small states may advance past those of the capitalist states if they are socialist and the means of production has been turned over to the working class. The acceleration of technological development may help to combat invasion by capitalist states, but they would still pose a threat.

[RaisedFistRebel]

so basically capitalism=economic domination=imperialism= bad?

[NovelGentry]

Capitalism doesn't equal economic domination per se... it does when compared to all previous societies. I can only believe socialism would be economically more dominent than capitalism (with faster production and better production).

But your imperialism part is right on the money. Capitalism seems to be the first system that NEEDS imperialism to survive. Feudalism has "imperialist" (more colonialist) aspects, but they were not necessary other than to settle the strict greed of the ruling class. Yes it is true that it is the "greed" of capitalism that pushes the imperialism (constant requirement for profit growth). However, that is a function of the system itself, it is how the system survives. Feudalism would seem to survive so long as material progression was never made. Which was SLOW to begin with under feudalism. Capitalism rapidly changes the material landscape, and thus has sparked revolutionary ideas very early in it's existence. Hopefully it will cause revolution relatively early in it's existence as well (I can only assume it will).

[RaisedFistRebel]

i can assume to. however, the revolutions in russia and china were more anti-industrialism than anti-capitalism, or were they?