Socialist Governance

Rev Scare wrote:What occurred in Serbia was the result of the U.S. and NATO, not the UN. In either case, Milošević was a reactionary and so are most currents of Serbian nationalism.

To me they are one in the same. Simply different structures for the United States, and other powers to expand their influence.
I don't believe anyone referred to Milošević as a progressive however, regardless Serbia is just one of multiple nations that have been assaulted by N.A.T.O/U.N forces.

Rev Scare wrote:Notice the prefix "self-" in the term self-determination. There is no indication of a limitless capacity to pursue unilateral policies, no matter how arbitrary. On the contrary, it applies to the internal management of a collective or organization only. Nuclear arms proliferation surely qualifies as a matter to be determined on an international scale, according to the democratic principle of equitable representation.

Yes I know I shouldnt bother but sometimes I have to waste time. Anyways dude how do you expect larger Nations to join some international group and then actually be peacemakers ( or whatever your thinking of) ? I mean Nations have been doing imperialist shit since the dawn of time. I hate Imperialism ( as much as I hate bullies) but I dont see how its going to go away. I mean look at the USA, their part of the UN which is supposed to be for global peace, yet they went into Iraq for no freaking reason. My question is how is a international group ( that isnt capitalist) supposed to stop large countries ( who join it) from acting like bullies? I mean it might work for a while but that doesnt mean it cant happen again in the future. Its just like with bullies. You can beat one up and get them to leave you alone but their always going to be around. Also why exactly is isolationism ( as you say) bad? I mean isnt it good if countries just simply trade with each other and keep their noses to themselves?

Admin wrote:Yet you've failed to present a valid reason to justify this position of yours.

Dude if lets say the USA put big warheads ( which could explode at anytime) near the Atlantic, then do you honestly think a majority vote in some council could stop them from doing so? I mean a thing like this has no force behind it which makes it useless.

Also your taking this democratic input thing too seriously. I mean using your logic, if my neighbors got pissed at my loud music, then they could vote to have me turn it off. Which I could easily ignore unless they gave me a good beating and broke my tape player. So honestly your democratic input thing has no force behind it ( especially in the case of countries). And if there was to be force behind it ( like war and sanctions) then everyone would be doing the same things they did before this council thing was even heard of. So all in all this idea looks useless to me.

Your critique of an international council is the same critique of democracy in general. There is always a threat of force if a person is not compliant with the will of the many. So why would you think that it could work in the context of a large nation but not between nations?

It's always a question of who has the force, be it the many or the few. In order for this to be rectified in a socialist society it is the people who should be armed instead of relying on a large military. Wars of aggression are bad policy in general.

Your contention hinges on these points: 1- it is the business of others what another nation collectively decides what to do with it's resources, 2- the people of those other nations are acting defensively against possible attack, and 3- the only possibility is an un-winnable war.

Responses to:

1- This is true in regards to some things I do not dispute that, like the consumption of coal for instance. The type of things that would be subject to inter-national discussion would be laid out in the founding document of the organization.

2- This would have to be examined for each individual situation and cannot be speculated on easily in general.

3- Again, you are assuming much about the future strength of not only the United States but that of the world and the politics of the time. This too is not so easily speculated upon.