NationStates Jolt Archive

...I'm listening to "Cigaro" right now, so remember someone is shouting "My cock is so much bigger than yours" in my ear while I'm typing this.

Now, it seems that we have no future if we want to keep running around and saving everyone's lives even though we all know they are doomed to die.

I'm talking about Africa and the poorer Asian countries.

Millions and millions and millions are in poverty, earning a laughable income. The resources are spreading thinner and thinner. AIDS, malaria, and other random diseases are conquering Africa. We try, not desperatly, but we try to save the lives of people in these countries. We send them food, water, medicine, doctors, and yet we cannot stop the inevitable. The governments and economies of these nations cannot possibly support the population.

Why don't we resort to either one of two things.

1. Colonization. It worked well for the British, minus the killing and slavery and the whole revolutioning parts. But they advanced technology and culture in "nowhere" countries. These countries are now respectable countries in the world. Examples being the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. We can give countries a new foundation to build up on. But instead of just European nations individually taking on the task of colonizing, we have joint efforts of many nations all at once re-colonizing these futile countries.

2. Globalization and full socialism for the world. A much more difficult approach that cannot possibly happen within 100 years, perhaps even 200 or 300 years. I wouldn't know how we can achieve globalization, much less socialize everything in the world. So i won't talk as much about it.

I don't know. I guess I'm just trying to figure out ways to save my own future. I always wanted to go to the moon. *sigh*

You know, the point I was trying to make at the start of my post is different from the point I made in the middle of my post, but somehow I came up with that conclusion at my last paragraph. Huh.

I got a better idea. We help to liberalize their economies and governments. We bring capitalism and democracy to their nations through trade and diplomacy. As with the developed nations their will be a period of struggle as industrialization and democratic reforms take place. But this will likely be followed by the prosperity and freedom that the West currently enjoys.

I got a better idea. We help to liberalize their economies and governments. We bring capitalism and democracy to their nations through trade and diplomacy. As with the developed nations their will be a period of struggle as industrialization and democratic reforms take place. But this will likely be followed by the prosperity and freedom that the West currently enjoys.
...Is that not a more detailed account of what I said?

Was that sarcasm?

...Is that not a more detailed account of what I said?

Was that sarcasm?

No. You advocated mercantilism and global socialism. Dark Kanatia advocated capitalism and democracy.

No. You advocated mercantilism and global socialism. Dark Kanatia advocated capitalism and democracy.
Oh, well...I was kinda aiming toward what D.K. (heh, also short for Donkey Kong) said.

...Is that not a more detailed account of what I said?

Was that sarcasm?
No. You advocated a global socialist globalization, either that or colonization.

I advocate a globalization based on respect for national soveriegn, legal equality of nations, democracy, and capitalism. We shouldn't subjagate the other nations, but should help them to grow to a full equal and free position. As well, global socialism will be little short of hell.

No. my Cock is bigger than yours.

Btw.. I agree with your colonization/globalisation thingy. Not socialization.

WE get in major corporations who will work for the country. Do their farming (since their techniques and their local farmers are inefficient). We hire the local workers, and provide shelter and food. ANd solid education for their kids. Then we help build their infrastructures and government system.

After a decade or two, when their kids have all grown up in a society capable of running itself effeciently, we'll give it back to the people. Of course, by then.. the corporations are bound by contract that they have to give back everything to the people, maybe keeping a small share. But it's for charity.. not pure profit.

2. Globalization and full socialism for the world. A much more difficult approach that cannot possibly happen within 100 years, perhaps even 200 or 300 years. I wouldn't know how we can achieve globalization, much less socialize everything in the world. So i won't talk as much about it.

I don't know. I guess I'm just trying to figure out ways to save my own future. I always wanted to go to the moon. *sigh*
option #1: been there, done that, the end does not justify the means. plus you really think these already militant countries, often with corrupt military leaders, will just lie down and let another foreign power take them over? even if we're doing it in their best interests there would be mega resistance - just look at Iraq...


option #2: this is more like it. in principle a world government shouldn't favour one area over another, so the redistribution of resources from the rich West to those starving 3rd world countries would be all the more complete and easier. individual nations will hoarde resources for themselves, while this hopefully wouldn't be evident under a unified planet. i mean look at the West's aid budgets as a % of GDP... pitiful. especially when we consider how much food we throw away each year, how much agricultural produce gets dumped, how much gets bought up (in Europe) by the corrupt CAP programme - surely this could go to feed the 3rd world? yes i know "give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him to fish and he can feed his family for a lifetime", but in the short term poverty and hunger related disease kills millions a year - this could be alleviated AND a long term solution worked on
sure there would be problems, as there are with any government or any governmental system but i think the benefits would outweigh the costs.

and as a communist i'm all for the socialisation aspect - would certainly help this world redistribution happen faster. after all thats what socialism is about.



interesting then that Marx's vision of the future, the end point of social development, was a unified communist world ;)




edit: and as for the resistance mentioned in option 1 in option 2... this is why it has to be a democratic, evolutionary process that could, admittedly, take time. time in which many could still die. bummer :(

You are too depressed Colodia. Look at China 25 years ago. It sucked. Look at China today. Big improvment. Same for India. A measly one percent of GDP from the developed countries of the world is enough to end hunger and preventable disease and make the world literate over a decade. If one percent of your county's GDP is too much for you, just engage in free trade and let them work their own way out of poverty. But one percent of GDP is a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to colonize countries. Check out Iraq.

Colodia, it's good to raise questions like this, but apart from expressing your views here, why don't you set a goal in the future to take part in helping the world develop? You can still go to the moon...lol...

...I'm listening to "Cigaro" right now, so remember someone is shouting "My cock is so much bigger than yours" in my ear while I'm typing this.
Mezmerize is a good album, eh?


I like your two ideas. In regards to the first one I think that both nations should agree to to this idea and have a contract that protects both nations.

For example:
The leaders and Canada and Ethiopia meet about a contract, a referendum has passed in both contries. They manage to agree on a contract. Ethiopia becomes apart of Canada. Ethiopia's culture is protected by the contract, so it won't get wiped out like what happened when the British coninized; Ethiopia keeps it official languages. Canada sets up hospitals, schools, courts, etc. over time Ethiopians graduate and are able to enter the workforce, corperations build factories, stores etc to take advantage of a educated work force. Canada makes some money from taxes and is able to do things like pay down its debt. After X years the contract expires, maybe there is a referendum on weather Ethiopia stays or not. If Ethiopia leaves, a Federal Govt. is set up and members are voted on. Ethiopia benifits from the modernization, Canada benifits from the extra tax revenue it recieves from Ethiopia near the end of term.

The main problem is some countries could get a contract that exploits the other nation, while it is the only one that accually benifits.

The second idea sounds good, but you are going to have to convince alot of people, not me, to stop hating socialism. Look at the thread "What do you think about Canada" alot of people say they dislike socialism. This makes me think your first idea is more realistic.