Global Justice

[Demant]

Hello,

I'm writing here, because communism and socialism most of the time equals the people who longs the most for democracy and economic justice. I, for one, do not think a national socialism or communism movement would be nearly enough. I am currently reading a book called Age of Consent by George Monbiot that covers this subject. I had the idea before I read it though, because it's so logic and so easy, and probably the only fair system you can find.

The idea is a global parliament and a global fair trade organization to ensure that the third-world countries will have justice, human rights and economic balance. This is the only way to ensure a future without climate changes, world poverty, wars fought by national armies with only the weakest and poorest fighting for the richest. Only through global democracy, we can sort today's problems.

This theory's supporters is counting tens of millions in the rich part of the world, and probably hundreds of millions in third-world countries. The mutation of humans ensures that nationalism and patriotism is getting lower and less important. I believe, and really really hope, that it's possible that a change could come in my lifetime.

I could write a lot more about this, but it's better to think it through personally. Also, I really recommend "Age of Consent". I have only just begun reading it, but anything that covers this matter is interesting to me.

[Niccolò Rossi]

justice, human rights and economic balance.

I'm sorry I don't recognize those words? Maybe you could get rid of the social democratic moral utopianism?


Only through global democracy, we can sort today's problems.

Bourgeois democracy? I think not. The only solution we have is Socialism and workers' democracy.


I believe, and really really hope, that it's possible that a change could come in my lifetime.

No change can come without revolution. The problem is the system, something we have to smash.


Also, I really recommend "Age of Consent". I have only just begun reading it, but anything that covers this matter is interesting to me.

I would recommend a good dose of Marx to follow.

[Dust Bunnies]

We need a global government. We can't have lines drawn on a map anymore, thats so '90s :lol:

[Demant]

I'm sorry I don't recognize those words? Maybe you could get rid of the social democratic moral utopianism?
Utopianism? Excuse me, I live in a country run effectively by this 'utopianism'. The global justice idea is to spread it to the rest of the world. If it works in one country, why wouldn't it work in all of them?


Bourgeois democracy? I think not. The only solution we have is Socialism and workers' democracy.
That's a very narrow way of thinking. The global justice system is based on one person, one vote, instead of the one nation one vote (but 5 countries have got veto) system we have in UN right now. Which makes it workers democracy. Maybe you should check it out.


No change can come without revolution. The problem is the system, something we have to smash.
I agree there. But the global justice movement revolution seems closer than any anarchistic or communistic revolution. We even have celebrities like Einstein and Pierce Brosnan on our team ...



I would recommend a good dose of Marx to follow.
I've read Marx, have you read Monbiot?

[joe_the_red]

Globalisation? Absolutely not. One nation one vote doesn't matter, the bigger and more powerful nations would still dominate, only they wouldn't be called nations, they'd be called "peoples" or "cultures" instead. And they would still have most of the resources, and therefore the other nations would most likely go along with what they said. Just like in the European Union, it is just a system that gives more power to the powerful. This sort of movement would be a victory for the powerful nations, as their cultures began to dominate the smaller nations. "Government" needs to be controlled in more localised areas, where people know each other and actually know what is going on in peoples' lives. Communities must be independent, self-sustaining entities that can trade and work with other communities, but do not rely on others' resources to survive. I am absolutely and completely opposed to the idea of "one world government". That is imperialism, that is what the capitalist-fascist-imperialists want. I don't care if this guy wrote a book. I could write a book that says we should all just listen to me, and I should be emperor of the world, but don't worry, I'll take everyone's opinions into consideration. Just because I write it in a book doesn't mean it will happen that way. Less government is better. The goal of communism is less government interference with peoples' every day lives. We all live in this world, and so we should all work together, but not like that. The way you describe this book, it just sounds like another peice of Imperialist propaganda. -Joe

[Niccolò Rossi]

Utopianism? Excuse me, I live in a country run effectively by this 'utopianism'. The global justice idea is to spread it to the rest of the world. If it works in one country, why wouldn't it work in all of them?

It's not an issue of influence or effectiveness, just one of abstract and unfounded ideas of "justice" and "humanity".



That's a very narrow way of thinking. The global justice system is based on one person, one vote, instead of the one nation one vote (but 5 countries have got veto) system we have in UN right now. Which makes it workers democracy. Maybe you should check it out.

On person one vote (as opposed to one nation one vote) has nothing to do with workers democracy. So long as our bourgeois political masters are making international back room deals and decision, one person, one vote is a meaningless statement.


We even have celebrities like Einstein and Pierce Brosnan on our team ...

:glare: Right....


I've read Marx, have you read Monbiot?

No, would you care to recommend me some literature?

For a social-democrat you really do have some death, something nice to see.

[BobKKKindle$]

The idea is a global parliament and a global fair trade organization to ensure that the third-world countries will have justice, human rights and economic balance.

Calling for a global government as a solution to the problems of the world is based on the assumption that the state is a neutral entity which can operate in the interests of society as a whole - but Marxists recognize that all states exist to project the power of the ruling class, they do not exist independent of the class antagonisms which arise in any capitalist society.

[Saorsa]

The idea is a global parliament and a global fair trade organization to ensure that the third-world countries will have justice, human rights and economic balance.

What does "economic balance" mean? Sounds awfully like capitalism.


This is the only way to ensure a future without climate changes, world poverty, wars fought by national armies with only the weakest and poorest fighting for the richest.

Rubbish. The only way to ensure what you have described is through the world wide triumph of socialist revolution and the establishment of workers states. Setting up a more powerful version of the UN will change nothing! It's impractical, unnecessary and will not function in practice. And what functions it does have will serve the capitalist class. As Lenin said - which class holds power decides everything. You're little theory makes no mention of the seizure of political and economic power by the proletariat from the hands of the capitalists, and thus is nothing more than bleeding-heart liberal nonsense.


Only through global democracy, we can sort today's problems.

Um sure, but what kind of democracy? Capitalist democracy will solve nothing, we already have that!


This theory's supporters is counting tens of millions in the rich part of the world, and probably hundreds of millions in third-world countries.


Crap. George Monbiot's theories do not have hundreds of millions of followers. He is a left-leaning environmentalist in the First World, and does not represent any kind of movement. Don't just pull imaginary figures out of you're arse, back them up with facts!


The mutation of humans ensures that nationalism and patriotism is getting lower and less important.

This is such rubbish! There was me thinking that there were dozens of nationalist, separatist and national liberation struggles being waged around the world. I think George Monbiot and you need to open you're eyes a wee bit more often, it helps you get an understanding of the world.

I diagnose this patient with an acute case of bourgeois-liberal reformist delusions, and recommend a hefty dose of Marx, Engels and Lenin, stat!

[Demant]

It seems to me, that most of the opponents in this thread are ignoring the current situation in third-world countries. As communists and anarchists, you have to think outside the border, even outside your own house. The most honest political opinions comes from the people who are fighting for people who are not themselves. I am not a worker, I come from the rich part of the world and I still believe in Global Justice. If you oppose the idea of Global Justice, are you really against the capitalist system of today? Because capitalism is not nearly as visible from area to area in one nation, as from nation to nation. A global parliament and effective global trading, is the only way to transfer the money from the wealthy part to the poor part. And if you don't believe that, you are nothing else than a capitalist - on a global scale.

Einstein was an anti-nationalist, yes.

[Luís Henrique]

It seems to me, that most of the opponents in this thread are ignoring the current situation in third-world countries. As communists and anarchists, you have to think outside the border, even outside your own house. The most honest political opinions comes from the people who are fighting for people who are not themselves.
I am from the third world.

If you really want to help, fight against capitalists in your own contry. We can do without your selflessness, but we cannot do without your disposition to fight.

Luís Henrique

[Demant]

I am from the third world.

If you really want to help, fight against capitalists in your own contry. We can do without your selflessness, but we cannot do without your disposition to fight.

Luís Henrique
Fighting capitalism in Denmark is not gonna help. We have a certain amount of nationalism, which makes us keeping the money inside of our borders. This kind of nationalism I would like to be gone. If you, and all inhabitants in third world country, had anything to say about the money in Denmark, you could easily outnumber the capitalists who wants to keep them. But as it is right now, it seems that there are a small majority of rich people in all the rich countries, who keeps outnumbering those with 'selflessness'.

I am fighting nationalism, because it's the only way to distribute wealth properly and fair. If I fought capitalism in Denmark (which I do), we would have 100 less homeless over here. Big deal.

[Luís Henrique]

Fighting capitalism in Denmark is not gonna help.

If so, then please don't try to help at all.

Luís Henrique

[joe_the_red]

Globalisation is what the capitalists are working for right now. Think outside of my own home? You should think outside of yours. Do you SEE what is happening in the world? The capitalists are trying to globalise, so their companies and their businesses can rule the world. You are obviously making assumptions about a LOT. You are not getting the idea of Marxism... not at all. Here's what will happen in globalisation. The big, rich nations of the world will use the fact that there are no more borders, they will spend their money, and send their resource gatherers to all of the smaller, Third World nations that have resources, but don't have enough wealth to harvest them or are not willing to destroy the world for profit. The large, powerful capitalist nations do not care if they destroy the world, as long as they get more money. And they can do it. When "globalisation" is realised, it will be big companies ruling the world. Borders will not be drawn by ethinicity, but by companies, drawing lines of dominance in an area. The United States of Wal-Mart and the Republic of McDonalds will rule the world instead of countries, and people will be more oppressed than ever before. But you can't see that, because you think you've found the "glorious book that will save us all". This Monbiot is nothing but a capitalist pig. There is no leftism in him. To me, he's the enemy, just as the rest of the capitalists, fascists and imperialists. If you like and agree with him, YOU are a capitalist, and you don't belong here. Monbiot has got you with his words, he's nothing but a neo-nazi Hitler wannabe. Globalisation won't help the people, they will still be working for shit, starving even more people will die of disease and malnutrition than ever seen before. Globalisation would be the biggest victory the capitalists ever achieved, and if you are proposing that we support that, YOU are the enemy, too. You better take a step back, see what it is that you're preaching, and think... long and hard. If you actually care about people, REALLY care about the people, then you think about what globalisation means. Don't come in here claiming to be a leftist and preach your capitalist globalisation to me! Globalisation is slavery. -Joe

[Saorsa]

Don't come in here claiming to be a leftist and preach your capitalist globalisation to me!


Seconded. You're nothing but an armchair leftist, who's great at telling the masses of the Third World what to do but admits himself that he doesn'y fight capitalism in his own country.

[joe_the_red]

I hate getting so fired up over something so petty as one book of capitalist propaganda. Sometimes I just can't help it, though. I would prefer just to speak calm and civil. This sort of thing is just frustrating. One bit of advice, and I know that I probably do not have to state this, but I will anyway... When discovering new material, a book, an article, whatever, it is a good idea to verify the sources, and to verify the material itself with additional text in support of the document. Try then to deduce the full magnitude of what the material is describing. What would happen if, in this case, globalisation was realised? You must always question things, regardless of what the claimed intention is of a document. Take away all of the fancy oratory, just look at the base idea, and understand what it is saying. What this is saying, as far as i'm able to deduce, is that it is a proponent for globalisation. And I believe I've already adequately stated my thoughts on that. -Joe