Originally posted by Scramjet76
However this new age threat is very similiar to the old stereotypical commie vs capital ideology.
By 'new age', do you mean Greens? Environmentalists, climate-change advocates? Would that also include multiculturalists? I'm sure you don't mean
people who are into chanting mantras to balance their chakras, they're a different lot completely.
It's true that the left in America and elsewhere in the rich world has embraced green issues and often projects socialist policies as the solution to
every environmental problem. But just because of one's (perfectly natural, in my view) loathing of socialism, one shouldn't let the association make
one lose sight of the fact that green issues
are real, and need to be tackled. There are other means besides socialist ones. We should use
But let's move on to your point. You were suggesting that because of the irreconcilable ideological opposition of left and right, we may never
achieve one world government. I think you're too pessimistic. You're American; you haven't lived in a world where socialist and even communist
parties fight it out with the capitalists -- conservative or liberal -- in democratic elections. I have. Generally, if the economy improves, the
leftists don't do so well. But over time, what really happens is that both groups move towards the centre, offering policies that are a mix of
'social-democratic' and 'free-market', which most voters are pretty comfortable with. You can observe this best in Western Europe, where the
accommodation has been taking place the longest.
The coming world government (I like to call it the New World Order, isn't it an original name?) will probably be something like that. Its political
parties will be broad churches. There'd be a pro-business party, a pro-people party, a pro-faith and tradition party -- possibly others too, but I
can't think any other big comprehensive groupings like that. Anyway, each of these parties would be a huge political umbrella sheltering hundreds of
smaller regional and national (oh yes, there'll still be countries) parties, many of which will be coalitions in which every variety of that general
bent will be represented by at least one opinionated and vociferous local or one-issue party, advocacy group or -- heaven forfend -- revolutionary
movement. Though as always the real
revolutionaries will stay on the outside all of this, lobbing bombs in.
With any luck, the vast size and seething diversity of these political melting-pots will render them ineffectual, stricken with 'consensus
paralysis' -- the inability of big committees to reach a decision that all members can agree to support. The policy and adminstrative vacuum
generated by their paralysis will then be filled by the bureaucrats, of which there will be an ample supply -- notice that a world government must
necessarily have additional layers of decision-making hierarchy to those possessed by national governments -- world government is centralized
government, and centralized government is big government. People say it can be different, but no-one's ever managed it yet.
So what you'll get is a vast, patient, ponderous, topplingly hierarchical Mandarinate. And this would be only fitting, because I suspect the model of
the future world government will probably look more like Imperial China in its heyday than it resembles any Western state or union. And -- given the
way the economic dice are falling these days -- a solid fraction of the people at the top are likely to be Chinese. Maybe they'll start growing their
fingernails long again.