It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question: If you support "socialist" agendas do you also support a globalized system?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I have been reading and contributing to a lot of debates on ATS comparing socialism, communism, and capitalism. In the American political debate, supporters of Bernie and his socialist policies base some of their arguments on the heartstrings of empathy. They point to poverty, dienfrachisement, and the wealth gap, among other things. They argue that it is unjust for people to suffer while others horde mass amounts of wealth for selfish desires.

This brings me to a broader question.

If you believe in a socialist agenda for the sake of humanity, do you also believe in a globalized system that ensures "equality" to all?



Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.

More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening.

The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.

According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”Source 4

Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. The two regions that account for the bulk of the deficit are South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

Based on enrollment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing world were not in school in 2005; 57 per cent of them were girls. And these are regarded as optimistic numbers.

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.

Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.

Water problems affect half of humanity:

Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.

Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.

More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.

Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.

1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day).

Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhea.

The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.

Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.

Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.

To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003.

Number of children in the world
2.2 billion

Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)

For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:

640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)

10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)

1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation

2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized

15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)

Rural areas account for three in every four people living on less than US$1 a day and a similar share of the world population suffering from malnutrition. However, urbanization is not synonymous with human progress. Urban slum growth is outpacing urban growth by a wide margin.

In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%:

The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption:

1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity.


Poverty Facts and Stats

edit on 17-2-2016 by ExNihiloRed because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I believe in taking care of our own first. When we have a more equitable society in the US, a society where people are not starving and going without healthcare and medicine, then we can talk. I'm a bit of an isolationist.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I believe in taking care of our own first. When we have a more equitable society in the US, a society where people are not starving and going without healthcare and medicine, then we can talk. I'm a bit of an isolationist.


I'm assuming you have tough stance on immigration and are against amnesty?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I've heard all the arguments against it... but I still personally do support worldwide open borders, one global currency & language and also a democratically elected global government.

Its the only way all the people of the earth can come together and evolve into some kind of higher entity.

... to put it simply.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

A global system is the most scary power there is.

If the people in charge decide something, there's nowhere else to go.

And if they're either evil or full of good intentions that turn out to be distorted into tyranny (see USSR), then we should make sure this never happens.

Of course, a scientific mind would add: if global is bad, to what extent should legislations be separated geographically and numerically? Should every home be its own country? Something in between but what and why?

I think Heaven is a place where the boss is mostly invisible, like 老子 says.
Socialism as in being social is good, and anything with and -ism is usually an excuse for tyranny.
The trick is to identify those who would use socialism for personal gain (careers, money, fame...)

Any guy that goes on TV to sell "socialism" is sketchy.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
I'm assuming you have tough stance on immigration and are against amnesty?


I don't think either is a black and white issue or can be addressed with blanket statements. Both "sides" of the issue are fairly extreme, going from open borders and full amnesty to a freaking wall and bans against certain people... I can't align myself with either extreme.

But there are more people leaving the US for Mexico than entering the US from Mexico, as migration is at a 15-year low, so I'm not sure either is a problem big enough to warrant a "tough stance" from me.

Source



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I've heard all the arguments against it... but I still personally do support worldwide open borders, one global currency & language and also a democratically elected global government.

Its the only way all the people of the earth can come together and evolve into some kind of higher entity.

... to put it simply.


The problem is with Globalisation as we have seen with International Governing bodies of various Sports. FIFA, IOC, UCI, ICC have all had problems of late due to the Leadership being too greedy and encourage more and more corruption.

I could think of nothing more abhorrent.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Great point.

The moment I get stuck in this line of thinking is how the transition is seen.

some people live as if the world is indeed one and have done so for a LA minute.

How to deal with the govts who will present a big brother such as the UN boss or something as the global absolute legal authority?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

No I do not. I believe in cooperation between nations on projects which benefit the whole planet, but not in a single world government. That is a thing which might be considered a hundred, maybe two hundred years AFTER we stop making war on each other, and using proxies to fan the flames in the meantime.

Till that nonsense is behind us firmly, to even consider the proposition would be folly. And it would not be a government, but a collective to do list, for all the peoples of the world to work on, in whatever way they can. Delegation, on a global scale, each region retaining it's cultural awareness, but without the need to swing a phallus in everyone's face at the same time, which is something we are bad at. Only when poverty is absent from all the world, when every mouth is fed, when all nations are equally apportioned strength, wisdom, and access to data, can any world system be devised, leave alone enacted.

It will not be in our lifetimes, any of us. We can either weep for the period between, or lay groundwork. Personally, I want my planet to produce a spacefaring species, which learns to ply the depths of the void between stars, and learn the solutions to the mysteries which confound us about the strangest things we see in our night sky, to search for the answer to the question of our loneliness as a species in a galaxy of lights, lights which might hide the presence of other intelligences, or even just other life forms than those we know today.

I want this species to spread, to become cataclysm proof to the point where even the collision of our galaxy with another, could not exterminate us utterly. I think it would be quite something, if we could arrange it so that our species becomes so prevalent amongst the stars, that only at the end of the whole universe, could it ever conceive of dying out totally.

But all of that is a long way off, and so the only answer to your question that makes any sense in context, is no. One world government is not something for a species so naturally combative as ours. Until we change, all the world changes its stance toward their fellow human beings, such a thing would be folly.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Globalized system? Like a supranational organization of some kind?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
How to deal with the govts who will present a big brother such as the UN boss or something as the global absolute legal authority?



If they needed a majority vote from the over 7 billion inhabitants of this earth then this whole two party system with the same policies but different rhetoric would never be able to exist... your vote would actually have some kind of actual significance.

A globally elected government would force diversity within politics.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Globalization, like socialism is unsubstainable.

It is unrealistic.

It's nice to think about, but it would only work if you got rid of 100% of humans.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Globalization, like socialism is unsubstainable.


How exactly is globalism unsustainable?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: DBCowboy




Globalization, like socialism is unsubstainable.


How exactly is globalism unsustainable?


Would you be able to get everyone on the planet to live at the same economic level?
Would you be able to get everyone on the planet to practice the same religion?
Would you be able to get everyone on the planet to live under the same laws?

We can't even get corruption out of the US political system, how would you eliminate corruption on a global scale?


edit on 17-2-2016 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If they needed a majority vote from the over 7 billion inhabitants of this earth then this whole two party system with the same policies but different rhetoric would never be able to exist... your vote would actually have some kind of actual significance. A globally elected government would force diversity within politics.


How does the number of voters or their location change the system so fundamentally?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




We can't even get corruption out of the US political system, how would you eliminate corruption on a global scale?


Well.. You can't. All you can do is reduce the current amount of corruption on a global scale, it's a much more realistic goal. Also why would you want everyone practicing the same religion?
However I wasn't being argumentative with my previous post, I was sincerely asking for your thoughts on the matter.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

We can't even get a consensus on ATS on any given topic.

People are just too different. Their cultures, our cultures, are just too different.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Wrong; we dont want equality we want less inequality. So ye Im totally for less inequality on a global scale.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: whatsup86
Wrong; we dont want equality we want less inequality. So ye Im totally for less inequality on a global scale.


Your post is a double oxymoron.

Read it to yourself.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We wouldn't see this type of political integration in our life times anyway. It will more than likely take several hundred generations before we see any kind tolerant shift in perception towards global politics. Very true, the internet does lack a consensus about almost all issues, sometimes even reality. I.e the revival of the Flat earth theory is probably the best for this.

The internet I think is where it will all begin. As it becomes more accessible to the masses,the more globally aware people become about the issues of global prominence. From there I believe a global consensus can be forged not by government or financial institutions but from the educated,academic citizen's of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join