world government

[reddevil]

do we need one?

[Gleb]

Hell no.

[dez]

depends on what kind of government.


But I find it funny that people quickly deny that notion immediatedly sticking to nationalist notions.

[Vendetta]

Not really, no.

[revolution inaction]

We don't need any government

[F9]

Of course not.Whats the difference from 1000 governments from 1?There still is authority and discrimination against proletarians!
So when having talking about governments the answer is no,governments=unequality,discrimination!

Fuserg9:star:

[IcarusAngel]

More people have died under nation-states than under any other form of international system, including the feudalistic systems, by wars, poverty, and so on. We already might be moving towards a new-feudalism (google it, along with "internatioanl relations") where our allegiance is not to the "nation" that we're in, but to the corporation, which might hold a different allegiance to another country.

Of course, World government should not be an end, but remember, when the Federal Government started taking control in the United States, discrimination started to reverse. In the UK, when parliament stepped in to address the problems of the market, things got better for the workers, many of whom had worse conditions than under Feudalism as Engles pointed out.

Nation-states promote ridiculous "patriotism" and "ethnic" conflicts, whereas Communism is supposed to transcend all that. Plus, it might be easier to topple one government, than a "thousand" (although there are far fewer than a thousand nations out there).

I would be open to the idea and it does depend on the kind of government. If a world government could be shown to reduce ethnic conflicts, and poverty, I don't see why any leftist would oppose. How is a world population possible when the workers are too poor to even feed themselves. I think any kind of revolution would require people to be at least be able to meet some basic needs.

What does the OP think, though? He didn't give an opinion.