Many on the right attack the idea of social global governance while seemingly saying very little about economic global governance. They warn against global ‘governance’ ‘regulation’ or ‘laws’ without seeming to realise that these things are in place it’s just what they favour wealth and serve its interests, while often been detrimental to the majority. It seems to me that the political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism). People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, and decent living wages. The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. Many people saw their wages grow and in the period between the end of WWII and 1970 many in Europe and the US gain middle class status. But from the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had. In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc. So what we are getting in is the dismantling of the distributive system in the developed countries while in some developing countries the conditions resemble what was happening in the west before people’s struggle to get rid of exploitation (the fire in Bangladesh that killed over a thousand factory workers comes to mind). So what can be done well as James K Galbriath has argued – We must confront the global inequality crisis. For this, we must, in the final analysis, raise real wages in the countries with which our workers compete, expand their markets for our goods, and reduce their pressure on our wage structure” To me what neoliberal inspired right wingers seem to be aiming for is for a few to be able to exploit the many more easily across the globe. I think we need to fight again for social balance but this time it has to be global. To counter the economic globalisation that has already taken place we need social globalisation to be brought in, and that means social global governance to counter the already in place economic global governance.
I agree. I've seen the usual NWO conspiracies on this forum, but none of them ever make any sense. On the other hand, I have no idea how we would ever get to the point where people are considered more valuable than profit.
When I consider how badly the larger nations are run, I fail to see how consolidating them will advance us. I anything I almost think we'd be better off as a diverse patchwork of ethnic enclaves trading on value instead of politics. I've seen no evidence that a huge government has ever been good for the average citizen.
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]In history such sets ups where the reasons for wars. Politics and government -in the form of diplomacy, laws and regulations and alliances have worked to reduce such wars.[/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt][/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]If you think government hasn’t done anything good for the average citizen then you know very little history. Laws and regulations have improved the living conditions of everyone, working conditions, health and safety, wages, sanitation, air and water quality, housing conditions, unemployment benefits etc etc. [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]It’s not government but what types of people govern. We already have global economic governance, it has come about by trade deals that often pushed for and so not surprisingly favour multinational corporations that are usually unaccountable to we the people. [/SIZE] [SIZE=11pt]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy[/SIZE] * [SIZE=11pt]In this context it would mean the balancing of the economic benefits of globalisation that mostly favour the few with social measures that favour everyone[/SIZE]
"If you think government hasn’t done anything good for the average citizen then you know very little history." This is both arrogant and way out of context. If you prefer to get personal with people like this in forums, don't bother with me please.
People's only hope is in getting as far from global gov as possible and going real national and identity. I'm not sure how much hope there is. They will get the many to empower them as they have now and then the ones of the many who are left will be worse off than before - by their own commands. Seems a bit cruel but "oby is the greatest ever!" and...I didn't have a job or anything for them? If I do I'll say.
it is basically nations and corporations that need to be regulated globally, not the private lives of individuals. it is because the scope of operation of those things that are global and thus beyond the means of any but the most powerful nations to rein in. (and even those, too influenced by them, to have the political will to do so)
how much would this sort of governance cost, and where would the funds come from? something to ponder. im not sure the world is ready for this yet, i dont feel the entire world is on the same page yet socially and intellectually.
