|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 07 2015 23:01 Velr wrote:
Add to this, that a german from Bavaria and a german from Friesland hardly ever had the same culture… Yeah, they share some base values (like most europeans do) but thats about as far as it goes...
you don't have to go that far, basically every single bigger city will have more culture than can ever be subsummed under one monolithic label like "german"
|
On April 07 2015 11:46 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 09:59 WhiteDog wrote:
So much simplification in your train of thought Moltke tho... The idea that nationalists only had democratic and gentle desire for "unification/independence" is really simplist. And the idea that it was "natural" is even more questionable.
There's nothing natural in the creation of the state, and the unification of "one" people under "one" legitimate power appeared after years of domination and ethnical cleansing. The worker class most of the time suffered from the desire of a dominant few to build a nation and its institutions, and, orwellian by nature, they didn't care for the most part. The people - united - only became the heart and soul of the idea of "nation" in crisis (the revolution for France).
But I'm not really sure why we're talking about that anyway. When did 19th century German (or Italian/Hungarian/other) nationalists ethnically “cleanse” anyone? Ethnic cleansing only occurred in this context in the Balkan conflicts, and even they were not really politically orchestrated campaigns, but spontaneous massacres of civilians. Hungary did not cleanse its minorities, but attempted to assimilate them with remarkable success. Germany was comfortable with Polish, Danish and French cultural autonomy so long as they maintained their civic loyalty. Italy did not have many non-Italian minorities. The idea that legitimate power was aligned to dynastic domination of the nationalist agenda is insupportable; German nationalism was inherently anti-legitimist (ditto for Italy and Hungary) as a whole. During the revolution of ’48, but even earlier, among the Hegelians, the King of Prussia was prematurely assigned the role of unifying Germany by the liberal intelligentsia. The German Empire was created out of a compromise between Bismarck and the majority of the Liberal Party when he offered them not only a national federal state, but universal male suffrage. The early opposition to the governing coalition came from the Left Liberals, Old Conservatives and Catholics. German working class was demographically insignificant until the 1880s, and by the end of that decade they acquired the best-organised working-class political organisation in the world. They acquired first national pension and health insurance schemes voluntarily conceded by the federal government and the most extensive labour and wage regulations. Nor could the relationship between the German worker and industry be characterised as “Orwellian.” Large corporations like Krupp pioneered a new type of conscientious paternalism towards its employees; providing them with housing and social services, and being a “Kruppanier” was a boast of social distinction among the working classes. The paternalism of the German industries was intrusive, and often regulated the personal and social lives of its employees, but Orwellian it was not. Furthermore, with the social development of the German working class, came their imitation of bourgeois nationalism. The SPD had already abandoned Marxist revolution under Lassalle, but by the outbreak of the First World War, it had become an effective nationalist party too. The exceptional degree of German national cohesion by 1914 is demonstrated by the performance of the German armies on the battlefield, where the working class served as the backbone of a well-disciplined, well-educated and technically skilled machinery, in contrast to a less cohesive institution, say in the Italian army where the majority of recruits were illiterate peasants with no national consciousness.
The idea of ethnic cleansing was more appropriate to describe France construction of the nation. Also, ethnic cleansing does not necessarily mean killing everyone from a specific ethnic group, you can do that through various means (like preventing young kids to use their native language in public or planed migration - like in israel lol).
As for Germany, the unity of the german people appeared after the 30 years war - in the XVIIth century and not the XIXth - and culturally maybe through the second birth of the german language (Goethe after Luther) and finally through the romantism (Wagner).
But, what made Germany more than anything is a common ennemy, which were the french (obviously Napoléon in the XIXth century), a confrontation that culminated in 1871 by conquerring Alsace-Lorraine : at this time, Bismarck didn't wanted to take over the alsace lorraine (because he knew the french would never accept it) but still did it to please the nationalists... So yeah, not a really peaceful story.
Italy was also united thanks to Napoléon's mercenaries...
You're always twisting history in order to support your own discourse that the 19th century europe was the apex of europe.
|
On April 07 2015 08:33 xM(Z wrote:
there's another option there which many people don't even take into account/don't believe it's possible to achieve.
we, humans, strive/fight/militate to preserve diversification/diversity in pretty much everything else besides people. we even portray the future human as someone with a mix of everything in him - throw an asian, african-american, caucasian, plus some natives in a blender and there you have it!, the ideal of tomorrow. how fucked up is that?.
That sounds like the cultural version of "separate but equal". I don't buy this ethno-pluralism that has somehow moved from being a far right idea to the modern far left. It feels like something xenophobic people came up with to make nationalist ideas sound nice. Cultures don't get 'destroyed' because they interact closely. Huge historical empires prove it. Ironically it was often nationalism or separatism that created trouble in the first place.
And it feels like people today in Europe are repeating that mistake again. I don't think driving European countries away from each other will lead to prosperity or create more acceptance.
|
On April 08 2015 03:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 08:33 xM(Z wrote:
there's another option there which many people don't even take into account/don't believe it's possible to achieve.
we, humans, strive/fight/militate to preserve diversification/diversity in pretty much everything else besides people. we even portray the future human as someone with a mix of everything in him - throw an asian, african-american, caucasian, plus some natives in a blender and there you have it!, the ideal of tomorrow. how fucked up is that?.
That sounds like the cultural version of "separate but equal". I don't buy this ethno-pluralism that has somehow moved from being a far right idea to the modern far left. It feels like something xenophobic people came up with to make nationalist ideas sound nice. Cultures don't get 'destroyed' because they interact closely. Huge historical empires prove it. Ironically it was often nationalism or separatism that created trouble in the first place. And it feels like people today in Europe are repeating that mistake again. I don't think driving European countries away from each other will lead to prosperity or create more acceptance.
There is no necessity for close economic ties between european countries. There are no "close" interactions between "cultures" in europe : aside from erasmus, that touch a small % of young kids from favored background, the europe is all about economic interactions.
Prior to the first world war, the best trading partner of France was Germany. Trade does no lead to peace, it does not even permit a closer relationship between "cultures", just like money. This liberal, piss poor vision of mankind is leading us to nihilism and resentment.
People want a project. A political, social and philosophical project with the german, the swede, the spain, the italian, the greeks, and a project that permit the people to foresee a better tomorrow - not only from a materialist point of view. But people don't to want to get economically fucked by their european "partners", can you blame them ?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as far as 'national culture' goes, national identity comes before associating that identity with particular features or differences in culture. the cultural features/differences do not work in reverse to establish national identity, unless a specific invocation of national identity is made on the part of the cultural adherent. people also tend to exaggerate differences or treat differences as more fundamental in order to establish distinct identity.
all in all the practice of group identity is distinct and no reduction between identity and cultural practices exist in either direction. should just talk about culture by their content rather than racial/national identities.
|
On April 08 2015 04:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 03:10 Nyxisto wrote:On April 07 2015 08:33 xM(Z wrote:
there's another option there which many people don't even take into account/don't believe it's possible to achieve.
we, humans, strive/fight/militate to preserve diversification/diversity in pretty much everything else besides people. we even portray the future human as someone with a mix of everything in him - throw an asian, african-american, caucasian, plus some natives in a blender and there you have it!, the ideal of tomorrow. how fucked up is that?.
That sounds like the cultural version of "separate but equal". I don't buy this ethno-pluralism that has somehow moved from being a far right idea to the modern far left. It feels like something xenophobic people came up with to make nationalist ideas sound nice. Cultures don't get 'destroyed' because they interact closely. Huge historical empires prove it. Ironically it was often nationalism or separatism that created trouble in the first place. And it feels like people today in Europe are repeating that mistake again. I don't think driving European countries away from each other will lead to prosperity or create more acceptance. There is no necessity for close economic ties between european countries. There are no "close" interactions between "cultures" in europe : aside from erasmus, that touch a small % of young kids from favored background, the europe is all about economic interactions. Prior to the first world war, the best trading partner of France was Germany. Trade does no lead to peace, it does not even permit a closer relationship between "cultures", just like money. This liberal, piss poor vision of mankind is leading us to nihilism and resentment. People want a project. A political, social and philosophical project with the german, the swede, the spain, the italian, the greeks, and a project that permit the people to foresee a better tomorrow - not only from a materialist point of view. But people don't to want to get economically fucked by their european "partners", can you blame them ?
Thank god we have you to tell us what people want. Someone might think people want to make their own choices, with a government that protects and respects their liberty and property.
|
On April 08 2015 10:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 04:19 WhiteDog wrote:On April 08 2015 03:10 Nyxisto wrote:On April 07 2015 08:33 xM(Z wrote:
there's another option there which many people don't even take into account/don't believe it's possible to achieve.
we, humans, strive/fight/militate to preserve diversification/diversity in pretty much everything else besides people. we even portray the future human as someone with a mix of everything in him - throw an asian, african-american, caucasian, plus some natives in a blender and there you have it!, the ideal of tomorrow. how fucked up is that?.
That sounds like the cultural version of "separate but equal". I don't buy this ethno-pluralism that has somehow moved from being a far right idea to the modern far left. It feels like something xenophobic people came up with to make nationalist ideas sound nice. Cultures don't get 'destroyed' because they interact closely. Huge historical empires prove it. Ironically it was often nationalism or separatism that created trouble in the first place. And it feels like people today in Europe are repeating that mistake again. I don't think driving European countries away from each other will lead to prosperity or create more acceptance. There is no necessity for close economic ties between european countries. There are no "close" interactions between "cultures" in europe : aside from erasmus, that touch a small % of young kids from favored background, the europe is all about economic interactions. Prior to the first world war, the best trading partner of France was Germany. Trade does no lead to peace, it does not even permit a closer relationship between "cultures", just like money. This liberal, piss poor vision of mankind is leading us to nihilism and resentment. People want a project. A political, social and philosophical project with the german, the swede, the spain, the italian, the greeks, and a project that permit the people to foresee a better tomorrow - not only from a materialist point of view. But people don't to want to get economically fucked by their european "partners", can you blame them ? Thank god we have you to tell us what people want. Someone might think people want to make their own choices, with a government that protects and respects their liberty and property.
Didn't the people made their own choice not voting for the european elections, and when they did voting for a huge part against europe ? Just becuse the north voted to elect a crooked politician to be at the head of parlament doesn't mean everything is going well.
|
WhiteDog what's your take on Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage?
EDIT: I'll contextualize the question. Every since Ricardo came up with his theory, there has been a consensus among economists regarding the benefits of free trade. The negative consequences of lack of free trade seem to be obvious (ie. embargo on Cuba), while the benefits of the division of labor seem to be equally obvious.
Meanwhile, there's a lot of academic work supporting the idea that free trade leads to greater peace.
"A series of statistical tests demonstrates that higher levels of free trade, rather than trade alone, reduce military conflict between states. Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, these arguments suggest how the puzzling case of World War I may confirm, rather than contradict, the central claims of commercial liberalism."
https://blackboard.angelo.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/LFA/CSS/Course Material/SEC6302/Readings/Lesson_3/McDonald.pdf
|
Ricardo (and Krugman theory on free trade based on economy of scale) are both true. Free trade is beneficial for consumers and increase overall the potential of production by permitting some economy to specialize themselves in fields that realize economy of scale. This is entirely true in the short run.
But - and that's ALWAYS the case in economic theory - there is nothing in this theory that says anything about the distribution of income / production in the area in relation to the trade. Or to say it in another way, there are nothing in Ricardo's theory that permit anyone to say that no stable desequilibrium in balance of paiement could arise (and empirically, the opposite is proven because our modern economies are plagued by desequilibrium in the balance of paiement since ten years at least).
What it means is that the competition between country can lead to an increase of disparities between the countries competitivity (and it has), and ultimatly, through the system of debt, to a situation where a country basically own another country (which was the situation of most of the third world countries during the era of colonialism). This is the main problem, desequilibrium (inequalities) are politically very hard to deal with and have very bad social impacts (competition of fiscality and labor law most notably, since its always social dumping that is at the core of stable desequilibrium).
Of course, from an economic standpoint, there are specific things that permit the balance of paiement to get back to equilibrium, but those mecanisms do not always exist/work : floating exchange rate, economic policies and taxation, differential in inflation rate, etc.
This statistical test is full of shit. I wonder how can they really put aside the historical context to specifically argue that it the increase of trade that create peacetime, and not the fact that after two world wars that basically crushed the world, that with a society growing older and older, people were not in any desire to wage war on their neighbor, and that this peace permitted the free trade to arise again. Most of our modern peace was (also) in part permitted by bretton woods that virtually prevented international mobility of capital.
It's amazing how you can really believe, like an idiot economist (talking about the guy who made the study) that your little statistical artifact is actually relevant in comparaison to the reality of the first world war. It's just a fact that free trade does not prevent war... what we french called the "doux commerce" (gentle trade) is nothing but a bourgeois' argument.
|
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
|
Is the German/French language press as goldfish-brained about the Alps plane crash? Any planned changes to protocol, or is the protocol the same, just being re-emphasized?
|
Now that you say it.
Haven’t seen a single article this week.
I didn’t read them anyway but it seems remarkably silent atm… the last one i saw was about the blackbox/voice recorder being found?
I don’t get all the stuff about more security anyway. If the fucking Pilot wants his plane to crash, he will most likely be capable of doing so… Else, what is the point of the Pilot in the first place?
|
There was some talk about introducing the 2-pilot rule or whatever it's called that states there always have to be two people in the cockpit no matter what. As far as I know Lufthansa is against that as it brings it's own problems but some have changed to that on their own.
Google says a british and a norwegian airline changed it already. Other than that, stuff that ends up on news is mostly stuff about blackboxes and what the investigations are at.
|
what is there more to say, it seems that the pilot had a depression, and many people died.
there was a brief discussion if someway its possible to prevent something like this - but in the end, at least until now - there is a point where you just have to trust the pilot.
the same way you trust a bus driver that drives over a bridge everyday.
and bus drivers dont go through a decade of training, have always a second bus driver on board, make huge amounts of money and so on ... quite the contrary.
im all for changes if there is obvious negligence. but i dont really see it.
|
People say Germany is doing well because it focuses on work and firmly rejects communism and fascism unlike some ex-Soviet countries. What's your opinion? If that's the case, how was the nation united against these two ideas? It's weird how it wasn't so easy for ex-Soviet countries. Is it just because of better economy in Germany?
|
On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that.
Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On April 08 2015 23:56 darkness wrote:
People say Germany is doing well because it focuses on work and firmly rejects communism and fascism unlike some ex-Soviet countries. What's your opinion? If that's the case, how was the nation united against these two ideas? It's weird how it wasn't so easy for ex-Soviet countries. Is it just because of better economy in Germany?
There isn't one single explanation why Germany - or any country for that matter - is doing well. This is about as complex a question you can ask. Largely rejecting political extremism is most certainly one part of it, but in my opinion impossible to quantify. And it probably pales next to the other often cited factors like hidden champions, Mittelstand, or vocational training.
|
I think in the context of the financial crisis the biggest factor is simply the huge industrial sector that underpins the economy. Many service oriented and consumer driven countries have taken bad hits have since then either struggled with high debt and/or high unemployment.
|
On April 09 2015 00:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 22:07 Velr wrote:
(Free) Trade doesn’t stop wars. General prosperity does.
Trade can bring prosperity and therefore make people less willing to go to war, but it can also create inequality and therefore create one of the prime reasons people are likely to go to war.
„Trading“ with another entity is not a peacefull activity. Its two (or more) sides „fighting“ to get the best deal for themselves, it is by default not what i would call peacefull. As long as both sides are fair enough, it won’t lead to trouble… But as soon as one side thinks its getting the bad end of the stick or worse, feels betrayed, trouble will start.
That's not true. Trading does help stop wars. When two sides trade their prosperity becomes linked. Bombing the other guy hurts you too and so you are dis-incentivized to do that. Trading also creates cultural exchange. People learn about other groups in the process of trading, and make friends along the way. With modern media consumers learn about other cultures and the people there and so are less likely to want to war with them.
So... Why did European kingdoms/nations bash their heads into each other for (over) 2 millenia? And in general just about as long as kingdoms/nations and trade relations existed? Because of the staggering success of trade relations keeping each other from going to war?
|
Too be fair these times aren't really comparable. Without globalized electronic banking absolutely nothing would work today. 200 years ago most countries could sustain themselves with a huge working peasant population and go to war with whomever they wanted and the aristocracies or governments were untouchable. No government today would survive the effects of cutting off trade. You can't really compare a situation in which the prosperity of the general population is irrelevant with a situation in which even a slight decline might kick the 'ruling class' out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
