Jebus said:
Aye, I also find this remark spurious, bit of an affirming the consequent logical fallacy there.
Turkey is not European! Is too! Is not! Is too!
- Thread starter Mani
- Start date
Aye, I also find this remark spurious, bit of an affirming the consequent logical fallacy there.
Maoist.
Kharn said:
No, YOUR MOMMA!
*looks up 'spurious'*
nm
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Yeah.Jebus said:
I'm not even a Patriot, let alone a Nationalist anymore, just a general, postnational Liberal.
You, on the other hand, think Europe some how 'deserves' a powerful and, well, glorious government, even if you admit that my solution is probably the more likely and most rational.
So, wait, nationalism is fascism? Interesting.John Uskglass said:
Plus, y'know, he probably meant that it could achieve a lot more if it was more than a trade block. I don't recall him admitting your 'solution' was the better one either.
John Uskglass said:
How did you deduct from my words that I want some kind of Europaeïschen Union des Herrenvolken?* Considering present-day economics, I'd consider turning a continent into a tradeblock - and nothing more - way more of a 'fascist' thing to do than to develop it deeper. What's a trade block worth when it does not lead to political integration?
The idea that commerce alone would save the world is long dead now, I thought.
* OMG My german sucks
"You see, Johnson, how easily they erupt into silly arguing. Almost as if it made a difference."
"But... how can they honestly believe that it accomplishes something? It's madness!"
Dr. Gregory paused to make another note in his book, then turned to his assistant.
"If we knew that, we wouldn't be observing them."
"But... how can they honestly believe that it accomplishes something? It's madness!"
Dr. Gregory paused to make another note in his book, then turned to his assistant.
"If we knew that, we wouldn't be observing them."
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Because, of course, Capitalism = Fascism.
Political integration? You are talking about centralization of all political economy in Europe. The last thing Europe needs is MORE government. Creating another capital for every socail welfare program in Europe to go through, another ten million 'civil servants'.
I still don't understand what is wrong with a federation of semiautonomous regions though. It would certainly be better then the current national model, and avoid a lot of the goverment of your idea.
John Uskglass said:
No.
Ok then, let me walk you through this.
We live in a world with hyper-capitalism, where trade is global and companies span the world.
This makes trade a political tool. Deciding who you will pull up toll barifs against and who not, is a political statement - why ban Chinese bra's when the main market segments is taken by the French anyway, etc.
Therefore, trade blocks are a sign too. In pure theory, trade blocks shouldn't even be neccesary, as trade is supposed to be 'free'. Yet, if you erect a trade block with one or more countries, that's a sign you think the two of you would be able to benefit eachother in a simbiotic relationship, and that you are eager to continue on the path of political integration too... Because why would Europe engage in free trade deals with all the other European countries, but not with, say, Saudi Arabia - as a trade block with Saudi Arabia would bring in way more money.
Historical example of trade blocks preluding political inegration: Zollverein, Comecon, etc.
Thefore, opening a trade block without pursuing deeper political integration is quite the fascist thing to do too. Why open a free trade block - only a free trade block, with the current 25 members and not with say, Turkey? If it's only free trade, then what the fuck should the political situation in Turkey matter?
Leavig out any country out of a trade block that's nothing more than a trade block is a sign you deem that country inferior. Therefore, either a EU that's nothing more than a trade block should span the globe or be a fascist load of crap. Take yer pick.
CCR said:
Don't be silly. I live in Belgium, remember: the country with 7 parliaments, three senates, six governments and three prime ministers. I know what it is like to live in a federation of semi-autonimous states, and dude: it only leads to way, WAAAAY more government than a centralised state would. Because you see- the reason is simple: more decentralisation means more governments means more politicians. Belgium probably has more individuals in politics than the USA does - and that's speaking in real terms. Therefore, you have all these individuals that want to get noticed and/or make some 'true' changes in Belgian politics, so you have a constant flood of idiotic laws flooding through parliament; autonimous regions bickering and arguing about the dumbest things just to raise patriottism and, hence, vote value; populists spouting xenofebic nonsense to create tensions between regions to get themselves noticed, and incredibly paternalistic ministers that try to make their part of the country the 'best part to live in' so they can go boast about it at the federal government.
It would only lead to less bureaucracy in theory, friend. TRUST ME: more decentralisation = WAY more government.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Huh. I'll have to think about that.
Though, to be fair, we are probably as/more decentralized then Belgium, as Belgium is a weird, unnatural two (or three? Do the Germans have autonomy) nation state.
Though, to be fair, we are probably as/more decentralized then Belgium, as Belgium is a weird, unnatural two (or three? Do the Germans have autonomy) nation state.
welsh
Junkmaster
Ok hold on now.
Malk- stop being a brainless spammer or at least go crawl under another rock.
Kharn and Sander- Even if Turkey has a piece of dirt of Europe, Turkey is still an Asian country. Next think you know France is going to claim Morocco is European.
Mani- are you a chick? Because that avatar.....
John- you are too bi-polar... and a facist, but we can forgive that hoping that one day you will see the error of your ways.
But this!
True. But you can find a lot of that all over the board.
But this-
Is utter bullshit.
Samuel Huntington is not a hack. He's a reactionary and might even be a Nazi, but a hack he is not.
True his Clash of Civilization is crap. That many people have read the book around the world and believe it, is unfortunate. That it especially popular and accepted among numerous Asian countries is especially bad.
That said,
Political order in changing societies is one of the best political science books written in the last 50 years. The fact that it remains one of the core books long since it was first published is testament to the fact that the book brims with genius.
There are few books in the field that rival this one book for impact. The one that comes to mind is Mancur Olson's Logic of Collective Action.
Huntington, a liberal political thinker, turned Modernization Theory on its face with the simple explanation of why so many developing countries had gone to shit. Fucking book is great.
Also -
Third Wave - Got us thinking more carefully about why democratization happens, why it fails and when it succeeds. There are better books on that field, but not that many.
Then-
the Soldier and the State One of the core books to explain the relationship between military and government. NOt to be passed up if you are doing research on this topic. It is considered by many to be The Book on civil-military relations and it was written in 1957.
So three great books make Huntington a fucking genius and anyone calling him a hack doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
You totally discount that Huntington was one of the key voices to explain why Vietnam went to shit, but its a great article and you should read it. It also shows that Huntington was politically influential long before the Clash of Civilizations.
Now I have beat you for the whelp you are, but that said, you are right that Clahs of Civilization is crap. It resonates with people outside the US more than within. Most political scientists will look at it with some curiousity.
The reason- the argument is basically found in a Foreign Affairs article done a year or two before the book was published. SOmeone saw the article and thought, "this will make a great book" so Huntington wrote it. Probably a bad idea on his part. This was also going through a time when political science was really caught up in constructivist- cultural studies, and political science is often more a fashion industry than a respectable social science.
And yet, a quick structural view of the world does point out that people define themselves based on identity politics, between in and out groups.
So it's an early and flawed take on this issue- totally wrong, not quite, but I agree its flawed.
But Huntington a hack.... you whelp.
Utah and England are worlds apart. Pakistan and East Africa are worlds apart- even with Islam. That's just foolish.
Says you. I agree that the Clash is Flawed. But Huntington a hack... you ungrateful bastard for not appreciating the genius for his discussion of Political organization and political decay.
Really, but it used. Forget Clash, its' crap... but the other stuff..
Hey, a guy gets old. He was a Harvard Professor in 1957, so forty years later he writes Clash... we can forgive the age.
Malk- stop being a brainless spammer or at least go crawl under another rock.
Kharn and Sander- Even if Turkey has a piece of dirt of Europe, Turkey is still an Asian country. Next think you know France is going to claim Morocco is European.
Mani- are you a chick? Because that avatar.....
John- you are too bi-polar... and a facist, but we can forgive that hoping that one day you will see the error of your ways.
But this!
Atomic Cowboy said:
True. But you can find a lot of that all over the board.
But this-
Is utter bullshit.
Samuel Huntington is not a hack. He's a reactionary and might even be a Nazi, but a hack he is not.
True his Clash of Civilization is crap. That many people have read the book around the world and believe it, is unfortunate. That it especially popular and accepted among numerous Asian countries is especially bad.
That said,
Political order in changing societies is one of the best political science books written in the last 50 years. The fact that it remains one of the core books long since it was first published is testament to the fact that the book brims with genius.
There are few books in the field that rival this one book for impact. The one that comes to mind is Mancur Olson's Logic of Collective Action.
Huntington, a liberal political thinker, turned Modernization Theory on its face with the simple explanation of why so many developing countries had gone to shit. Fucking book is great.
Also -
Third Wave - Got us thinking more carefully about why democratization happens, why it fails and when it succeeds. There are better books on that field, but not that many.
Then-
the Soldier and the State One of the core books to explain the relationship between military and government. NOt to be passed up if you are doing research on this topic. It is considered by many to be The Book on civil-military relations and it was written in 1957.
So three great books make Huntington a fucking genius and anyone calling him a hack doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
You totally discount that Huntington was one of the key voices to explain why Vietnam went to shit, but its a great article and you should read it. It also shows that Huntington was politically influential long before the Clash of Civilizations.
Now I have beat you for the whelp you are, but that said, you are right that Clahs of Civilization is crap. It resonates with people outside the US more than within. Most political scientists will look at it with some curiousity.
The reason- the argument is basically found in a Foreign Affairs article done a year or two before the book was published. SOmeone saw the article and thought, "this will make a great book" so Huntington wrote it. Probably a bad idea on his part. This was also going through a time when political science was really caught up in constructivist- cultural studies, and political science is often more a fashion industry than a respectable social science.
And yet, a quick structural view of the world does point out that people define themselves based on identity politics, between in and out groups.
So it's an early and flawed take on this issue- totally wrong, not quite, but I agree its flawed.
But Huntington a hack.... you whelp.
Utah and England are worlds apart. Pakistan and East Africa are worlds apart- even with Islam. That's just foolish.
Says you. I agree that the Clash is Flawed. But Huntington a hack... you ungrateful bastard for not appreciating the genius for his discussion of Political organization and political decay.
Really, but it used. Forget Clash, its' crap... but the other stuff..
Hey, a guy gets old. He was a Harvard Professor in 1957, so forty years later he writes Clash... we can forgive the age.