So, isn't internationalism and liberalism good? by SIGNYM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

So, isn't internationalism and liberalism good?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 22:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1250
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, January 22, 2016 8:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As usual, sometimes ideas get conflated. For example, "internationalism".

"Internationalism" is often confused with "solidarity". It's great to be internationalist, isn't it?

We are all one ... all colors, all ages (except of for G, who despises old people), all sexes, all colors, all classes .... holding hands, sharing a Coke and GMOs and Twitter ...

And then there is "liberalism". You see an impoverished migrant ... homeless vet ... starving kitty ... and you want to "help". Food for the starving, a micro-loan for the un-propertied, shelters for the poor animals ... what's wrong with helping, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 22, 2016 11:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Huh. Interestingly, I ended my important points with question marks. It's hard to figure out how those are "lies", except, of course, to someone like you, GSTRING.

What I was hoping for was a spirited defense of "liberalism", which seems to have a slippery definition. I get all kinds of definitions from the internet, but in modern parlance as far as I can tell, liberalism is the desire to "help" without necessarily changing or fixing anything. Is that correct?

NEO-liberalism is the opposite of liberalism, as far as I can tell. However did it come by that ridiculous name?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:00 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Uh, from G's response I am assuming there is another discussion going on somewhere.

However, in answer to your question Signy, I haven't really heard much of the ter"m Internationalism before. I looked it up and the definition says:
"Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and peoples, and whose ideological roots can be traced to both socialism and liberalism."

Sounds okay to me. Make a nice change from blowing the shit out of one another. When it's possible of course....

I can't see that it's a mindblowing theory. Unless you are into hardline isolationism - which would be kind of extreme and difficult - most people would probably be okay with some form of co-operation between nations from trade agreements to military alliances.

Do I want limits to it? Sure. I'll admit I don't like the amount of foreign ownership of our natural resources (I'm looking at you, USA) http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/2015/feb/12/how-muc
h-of-australias-farmland-is-owned-by-foreign-companies and think that we are absolutely nuts to have to automotive industry left.

But whether we like it or not,we're all intrinsically interconnected.

As for liberalism, yay I say. This definition fits

"a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2016 10:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Uh, from G's response I am assuming there is another discussion going on somewhere. However, in answer to your question Signy, I haven't really heard much of the term Internationalism before. I looked it up and the definition says:
"Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and peoples, and whose ideological roots can be traced to both socialism and liberalism."

There is a difference between "cooperation" and co-optation. When nations "cooperate", they engage in activities which each sees as beneficial to its own interests. What I see, though, is that "internationalism" is now used as a rationale for the imposition of banking and free trade agreements which only benefit the very top. Five years ago, about 600 people owned half of the world. Today, that's about 60 people.

Tell me, how is that "cooperation"? Who's benefiting?

Quote:
Sounds okay to me. Make a nice change from blowing the shit out of one another. When it's possible of course....

It "sounds OK" to a lot of people. But that's the problem: It's a false dilemma. You've being given a choice of being crushed under an insupportable oligarchy and blowing each other up. Those aren't the only choices available.

Quote:
I can't see that it's a mindblowing theory. Unless you are into hardline isolationism

Another false choice.

Quote:
- which would be kind of extreme and difficult - most people would probably be okay with some form of co-operation between nations from trade agreements to military alliances.

Again, you have to look at whether or not nations are really cooperating, and who benefits.

Quote:
Do I want limits to it? Sure. I'll admit I don't like the amount of foreign ownership of our natural resources (I'm looking at you, USA) http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/2015/feb/12/how-muc
h-of-australias-farmland-is-owned-by-foreign-companies and think that we are absolutely nuts to have to automotive industry left.

But whether we like it or not,we're all intrinsically interconnected.

No, we are not. For millenia, humans were DISconnected from each other across large distances. There is nothing "intrinsic" about it.

Quote:
As for liberalism, yay I say. This definition fits

"a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "

The emphasis, under liberalism, is individualism. What is more important than the individual? Under liberalism- anything? At some point, doesn't the focus on "the individual" - care, feeding, development of- become sheer narcissism? Is that the basis of liberalism?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE