51–59 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
Einstein was explicitly anti stalinist and advocates globalism in his work "Why Socialism" You can read it online
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've seen nations grow beyond the bounds of tribal/regional origins into ethnically diverse multicultural and multilingual economic powerhouses. The US and most European countries are good examples of this. As long as a lingua franca remains mostly dominant and people acclimate to others acting differently around them, it's a perfectly natural state. Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under t…
"The US and most European countries" More likely European nations are still mostly ethnocentric whereby the clear majority of the populations identify with a group that is historically part of that territory. Which is fundamentally different from US, Canada, Singapore and even Central/South American nations which have yet another aspect. "Ancient Rome and Ancient China both prospered economically under these conditio…
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/what-was-einstein-s-relations... Einstein views were conflicted. He was very pro-nationalist where it was a Jewish concern. He felt this was forced, but that doesn't change his position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
Einstein was explicitly anti stalinist and advocates globalism in his work "Why Socialism" You can read it online
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "demos" or people would be any freely associating group of people, which isn't necessarily defined by borders.
It would end up the same as today, ultimately, nations would emerge. Don't you think "free association" is where civilization began at first place? And you expect a different outcome? Who would protect "free associates" from the violence of others who don't buy into that system? Utopia like Anarchy severely ignore the "human nature" factor.
In no way are modern nation states a form of "free association". I cannot freely choose to not pay taxes if I am born in a nation, nor can I freely choose to join another nation if I accept their principles.
Your predictable and very unoriginal use of the "human nature" argument is in fact the ignorant position. It completely ignores the significantly larger number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in freely associating relationships that in no way resemble the modern nation state or earlier forms of civilisation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would end up the same as today, ultimately, nations would emerge. Don't you think "free association" is where civilization began at first place? And you expect a different outcome? Who would protect "free associates" from the violence of others who don't buy into that system? Utopia like Anarchy severely ignore the "human nature" factor.
It's unknown how civilisations began but they were most likely not formed through "free association" but rather by violent extortion. It's thought that pastoral communities being regularly robbed by nomadic groups eventually developed a relationship of paying tribute to one group in return for protection against others. Or, put differently, one group of bandits will fight off the others to get exclusive pillaging acc…
You cannot find a single example of what you deem "free association" that is not currently defended directly or indirectly by an army.
The irony of your statement is that while you called me ignorant you said the exact same thing as I said in your first paragraph.
Then you try to back pedal to make a "point" in the last one by giving zero examples of your "larger number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in freely associating relationships.
And next time refrain from calling other people who disagree with whatever ideology you believe in as "ignorant", it qualifies you as a troll.