Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The best reasons for leaving the EU- and why they're wrong

    Lookin g for people's thoughts on this particularly: ChaoticButterfly Rakas21 Bornblue

    Just read what I personally think to be the most intelligent, principled and realistic case for leaving the EU- from Michael Gove MP found here and is somebody who I have a slight soft spot for, despite disagreeing on many issues- not least of which the EU.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6886221.html

    His case exemplifies what I think to be the fundamental divergence of opinion on this issue, at least for me. Michael Gove is a neoconservative, a position that I have strong sympathies for and which places him at odds with his isolationist and reactionary eurosceptic cohorts tendency ( George Galloway, Nigel Farage...).

    One philosophical thought commonly identified with neoconservatism is the 'end of history' thesis made famous by Fukuyama but originated in Hegel. It's thesis is that history will essentially end as wens e reached the end point in human civilisation for the foreseeable future- namely global capitalism and liberal democratic nation states. It is not an entirely unique viewpoint as it has been professed by empires, feudal kingdoms and independent city States.

    I do not believe that Capitalism and Liberal Democracy (whilst certainly desirable opposed to previous systems) are the end point of human civilisation and are indeed fundamentally linked to the challenges, discontent and misery that has befallen the world today.

    In his essay, Gove mentions that relations in Europe have deteriorated to a level not seen since the 1930s. And he is right- but in the symptoms and not the cause. The cause is not a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels or 'red tape' (I think most people support more ret take in the City!) but our global economic dependence on a system which is inimical to human ends.

    Just as in a global depression originate it in the U.S. Sent shockwaves in the 30s and hastened the demise of liberal democratic Europe we have witnessed history repeating itself with the crash of '08 and the disastrous consequences it had on the world.

    We may suffer again in the calamitous economic environment of the present with tottering Chinese and Saudi economies. Goves vision of sovereign state freely competing against each other is possible but for Me at least supremely uninspiring. one thing that Marx was right about I think is that capitalism and the notion of 'competition' is a race to the bottom whether in terms of workers rights or in terms if general quality of human life.

    Where I live, the main industries are gambling shops, fast food restaurants and cosmetics (spray tanning and tattoo parlours). We as freedom loving 'rational consumers' are fooling ourselves if we think that this is the best humanity can aspire too. And the socialists are fooling themselves if they think they can beat neo liberalism as a single state.

    The world has never been smaller and is only shrinking more. The challenges we face make nation states ever more powerless. We share security. We share supply chains. We share a world increasingly under threat from climate change, overpopulation and a limited supply of resources. Whether inside or outside the EU- sovereignty (which never really existed) is a pipe dream. And a dangerous one at that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I concur wholeheartedly
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do you have a marxist view then, that the end-point in the development of human civilisation is some kind of communist utopia?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    One can say what they will about Gove but that article and the way he eloquently makes an intelligent case is one of the reasons i want him to run for the leadership. If he can learn tact, he'd be a brilliant PM.

    As for your post i agree that Gove is not a part of the reactionary, isolationist mold however i'd not describe him as terribly neo-conservative. If you read his speech on behalf of the New Right there are strong One Nation strands and of all the Cameroons he's probably the most centrist economically albeit Osboure is the more socially liberal (Gove is more like Cameron in not minding gay marriage but more instinctulaly supporting stuff like porn blockers as a moral action).

    In terms of your case for the end point i largely agree with most of that post. While global capitalism has already won it's far from certain that social liberalism nor democracy will without another war, indeed it's worth noting that since free and fair democracies peaked at 62% of all nations in 98, we've marginally gone backward since and now have the likes of Russia possibly fixing their elections and taking chunks out of their borders. I do somewhat agree with your point about connectivity but i don't fully believe it's all related to the economy, when one sees Merkel permit 1.2 million Arabs to enter Europe one almost sees Europe sowing the seeds of its own unrest. The combination of the Russian threat and migrant crisis have notably fueled the election of a pretty nationalist government in Poland.

    Your final three paragraphs are where i take the biggest issue.

    1) You make the case that capitalism and competition are a race to the bottom but fail to consider that capitalism can be managed (tie wage growth to revenue growth for example) and that while competition puts pressure on firms to cut costs (your race to the bottom) it also fuels innovation far more efficiently than any alternative (i.e. the government writing a blank cheque).

    2) While your correct here than humanity is capable of so much more you fail to consider that this system exists by design, for control of half the population who contribute nothing to technological development or satisfying our species needs. Can we really have half the population sat on their asses? Socialism globally has already lost.

    3) While it's true to say that globalisation reduces the level of absolute sovereignty (and i somewhat agree with you that it's not terribly important on some issues) i don't share your grim view of the world. Regions of the globe will suffer from these issues but globally and in the UK there is no overpopulation or resource crisis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Do you have a marxist view then, that the end-point in the development of human civilisation is some kind of communist utopia?
    As a materialist that has little time for religion and thinks that capitalism is a severely flawed but interesting system then there are going to be obvious similarities.

    I self identify as a social democrat/ liberal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    As a materialist that has little time for religion and thinks that capitalism is a severely flawed but interesting system then there are going to be obvious similarities.

    I self identify as a social democrat/ liberal.
    Just to clarify, I didn't mean that in a critical way, I was just curious whether you share the view that the most 'ascended' form of human civilisation would be some form of communism.

    Whilst in principle you're quite possibly right, practically no form of communism will ever work, cause we're intrinsically selfish. We want what's best for ourselves, and that will always eventually crash any communist system. I feel like capitalism and liberalism is more or less the best that humans will ever achieve. I don't think human nature will ever allow for any form of communism to ever really work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    One can say what they will about Gove but that article and the way he eloquently makes an intelligent case is one of the reasons i want him to run for the leadership. If he can learn tact, he'd be a brilliant PM.

    As for your post i agree that Gove is not a part of the reactionary, isolationist mold however i'd not describe him as terribly neo-conservative. If you read his speech on behalf of the New Right there are strong One Nation strands and of all the Cameroons he's probably the most centrist economically albeit Osboure is the more socially liberal (Gove is more like Cameron in not minding gay marriage but more instinctulaly supporting stuff like porn blockers as a moral action).

    In terms of your case for the end point i largely agree with most of that post. While global capitalism has already won it's far from certain that social liberalism nor democracy will without another war, indeed it's worth noting that since free and fair democracies peaked at 62% of all nations in 98, we've marginally gone backward since and now have the likes of Russia possibly fixing their elections and taking chunks out of their borders. I do somewhat agree with your point about connectivity but i don't fully believe it's all related to the economy, when one sees Merkel permit 1.2 million Arabs to enter Europe one almost sees Europe sowing the seeds of its own unrest. The combination of the Russian threat and migrant crisis have notably fueled the election of a pretty nationalist government in Poland.

    Your final three paragraphs are where i take the biggest issue.

    1) You make the case that capitalism and competition are a race to the bottom but fail to consider that capitalism can be managed (tie wage growth to revenue growth for example) and that while competition puts pressure on firms to cut costs (your race to the bottom) it also fuels innovation far more efficiently than any alternative (i.e. the government writing a blank cheque).

    2) While your correct here than humanity is capable of so much more you fail to consider that this system exists by design, for control of half the population who contribute nothing to technological development or satisfying our species needs. Can we really have half the population sat on their asses? Socialism globally has already lost.

    3) While it's true to say that globalisation reduces the level of absolute sovereignty (and i somewhat agree with you that it's not terribly important on some issues) i don't share your grim view of the world. Regions of the globe will suffer from these issues but globally and in the UK there is no overpopulation or resource crisis.
    Thanks for your reply

    On Gove- No he seems to fit the mould through and through, neocons arent that concerned about deficit reduction and he's a leading member of the Henry Jackson Soc. I think he is a good justice secretary and a good politician but can't see him being a leader even if I subscribed to his beliefs.

    On your other points

    1: looking at it from a purely analytical viewpoint, Germany's refugee situation does address Germany's previously rapidly declining population. My problem is not with immigration but with integration. This is particularly a religious problem rather than cultural. I can't see a way to remedy this other than a NatSoc style breeding programme which would cost a fortune [and probably wouldn't work]

    2; on capitalism-I have somewhat considered it. Global capitalism has also reduced global inequality too I believe. I'm not so sure on innovation. Much innovation had been public sector run and in terms of productivity the USSR outstripped the U.S. I believe in the early years. The problems come when you have something like the NHS or the welfare state. I would say that the former would save through greater regulation of health (particularly dietary eg sugar) and that the latter is necessary to stop riots particularly when automation really kicks off.

    3- socialism/ global population- from an ethical perspective it's not they're fault theyve had the misfortune to be born on the third world. From a practical consideration they are a potential threat / resource. In any case baby steps- I'm only talking about Europe here. The third world is a problem for later but can ou be addressed as a collective rsponse.

    3- do you think the earth can sustain itself at current levels for the next two hundred years? Bearing in mind that India, Brazil and China have s burgeoning middle class and the population is estimated to be 20 billion by 2050 (IIRC)

    I actislly consider myself an optimist!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Just to clarify, I didn't mean that in a critical way, I was just curious whether you share the view that the most 'ascended' form of human civilisation would be some form of communism.

    Whilst in principle you're quite possibly right, practically no form of communism will ever work, cause we're intrinsically selfish. We want what's best for ourselves, and that will always eventually crash any communist system. I feel like capitalism and liberalism is more or less the best that humans will ever achieve. I don't think human nature will ever allow for any form of communism to ever really work.
    I don't believe in human nature or rather, think that the environment plays a much larger part in shaping who we are.

    I think we are essentially tabula rasa but with differing natural talents
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I don't believe in human nature or rather, think that the environment plays a much larger part in shaping who we are.

    I think we are essentially tabula rasa but with differing natural talents
    I guess that's fundamentally where we differ in opinion then. I feel that we really aren't all that different from any other animals, and that no matter how hard we try to suspend it, survival of the fittest ultimately determines most everything we do.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Just to clarify, I didn't mean that in a critical way, I was just curious whether you share the view that the most 'ascended' form of human civilisation would be some form of communism.

    Whilst in principle you're quite possibly right, practically no form of communism will ever work, cause we're intrinsically selfish. We want what's best for ourselves, and that will always eventually crash any communist system. I feel like capitalism and liberalism is more or less the best that humans will ever achieve. I don't think human nature will ever allow for any form of communism to ever really work.
    I believe he shares my view (from our prior conversations) that capitalism will eventually reap its own rewards and force an end to what we know now as monetary economics by allowing a transition from our current system of scarcity to one of abundance via space mining and nuclear fushion and the like. Once we have essentially unlimited energy and resources the current system of scarcity will not survive and endless deflation will cause a shift to some kind of credit based system.

    I'm pretty sure he's more dystopian than me in the mean time though.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I guess that's fundamentally where we differ in opinion then. I feel that we really aren't all that different from any other animals, and that no matter how hard we try to suspend it, survival of the fittest ultimately determines most everything we do.
    This. Humans are a highly predatory species in many things we do (look at how we dominate the environment and those we have no emotional attachment to in order to satisfy our own self interest) and far too selfish to ever bring about some hippy utopia, at least globally anyway.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Thanks for your reply

    On Gove- No he seems to fit the mould through and through, neocons arent that concerned about deficit reduction and he's a leading member of the Henry Jackson Soc. I think he is a good justice secretary and a good politician but can't see him being a leader even if I subscribed to his beliefs.

    On your other points

    1: looking at it from a purely analytical viewpoint, Germany's refugee situation does address Germany's previously rapidly declining population. My problem is not with immigration but with integration. This is particularly a religious problem rather than cultural. I can't see a way to remedy this other than a NatSoc style breeding programme which would cost a fortune [and probably wouldn't work]

    2; on capitalism-I have somewhat considered it. Global capitalism has also reduced global inequality too I believe. I'm not so sure on innovation. Much innovation had been public sector run and in terms of productivity the USSR outstripped the U.S. I believe in the early years. The problems come when you have something like the NHS or the welfare state. I would say that the former would save through greater regulation of health (particularly dietary eg sugar) and that the latter is necessary to stop riots particularly when automation really kicks off.

    3- socialism/ global population- from an ethical perspective it's not they're fault theyve had the misfortune to be born on the third world. From a practical consideration they are a potential threat / resource. In any case baby steps- I'm only talking about Europe here. The third world is a problem for later but can ou be addressed as a collective rsponse.

    3- do you think the earth can sustain itself at current levels for the next two hundred years? Bearing in mind that India, Brazil and China have s burgeoning middle class and the population is estimated to be 20 billion by 2050 (IIRC)

    I actislly consider myself an optimist!
    Regarding Germany that's largely my point (though religion shapes culture somewhat). Humans are somewhat territorial and self interested, when your inviting people that your citizens have no real emotional attachment to (we in the UK might cry and bring vengance if 4 million French died, but who gave a crap when Rwanda was committing genocide of the same level) you cause nothing but tension. Humans only form collectives (i include states here) to satisfy their own self interest (defense, resource distribution ect..), not to happily make a non-voluntary sacrifice for Arabs. There's no real light at the end of the tunnel here.

    Somewhat dystopian on the whole, i'm still not convinced that automation will make us all unemployed. I agree though that managed capitalism can deliver untold wealth and prosperity for all.

    Yes, quite simply. The US alone produces enough food to feed the entire globe if we all ate 2000 calories of what they produce. The problems are of distribution rather than production. Again i point you to the fact that in food we see production increase faster than the western populations. In energy we can add nuclear plants at will. In water things are again very regional, we can desalinate faster than population growth. You see here again and again that the problems relate to distribution and cost. Realistically for example Africa and large swathes of Eurasia need large aquifer systems feeding water from the temperate zones and sea but at significant cost..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)

    Somewhat dystopian on the whole, i'm still not convinced that automation will make us all unemployed. I agree though that managed capitalism can deliver untold wealth and prosperity for all.

    Yes, quite simply. The US alone produces enough food to feed the entire globe if we all ate 2000 calories of what they produce. The problems are of distribution rather than production. Again i point you to the fact that in food we see production increase faster than the western populations. In energy we can add nuclear plants at will. In water things are again very regional, we can desalinate faster than population growth. You see here again and again that the problems relate to distribution and cost. Realistically for example Africa and large swathes of Eurasia need large aquifer systems feeding water from the temperate zones and sea but at significant cost..
    You've highlighted modern day capitalism's failures here though. The problem in distribution is that it simply isn't profitable to feed everyone, even though we have the resources to. It simply isn't profitable to supply people in third world countries with vital medication and vaccinations even though we have the resources to.
    Capitalism is good at creating potential solutions but at the same time capitalism has by nature no compassion, and that's why you need something to counter balance that, to mitigate the bad parts of capitalism while keeping the good parts.

    Unfortunately though if anyone so much as suggests sharing the enormous and over-abundant wealth of capitalism to help out things like global poverty, they're labelled a dirty socialist.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You've highlighted modern day capitalism's failures here though. The problem in distribution is that it simply isn't profitable to feed everyone, even though we have the resources to. It simply isn't profitable to supply people in third world countries with vital medication and vaccinations even though we have the resources to.
    Capitalism is good at creating potential solutions but at the same time capitalism has by nature no compassion, and that's why you need something to counter balance that, to mitigate the bad parts of capitalism while keeping the good parts.

    Unfortunately though if anyone so much as suggests sharing the enormous and over-abundant wealth's of capitalism to help out things like global poverty, they're labelled a dirty socialist.
    The question is though whether we really want it to do so globally given that our self interest is already satisfied. I don't wish starvation upon Africa but neither do i care much and if we're honest, neither does most of the populous. I'd also add though that Africans are getting richer and eventually will have the capital to effect distribution in themselves. It will take time though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The question is though whether we really want it to do so globally given that our self interest is already satisfied. I don't wish starvation upon Africa but neither do i care much and if we're honest, neither does most of the populous. I'd also add though that Africans are getting richer and eventually will have the capital to effect distribution in themselves. It will take time though.
    You may not care much, yet it doesn't take a lot when we have resources in abundance to solve a problem.
    We literally have food mounds in the UK, of huge amounts of food that will never be used, to keep prices up.

    We have as you say more than enough resources to feed the world but why don't we? As you say, modern capitalism puts people into an 'every man for himself' situation where we view others as competition, rather than as human beings to share the world with. I agree with Davij, that currently whilst creating prosperity for few, is creating a race to the bottom for the rest.

    It certainly has in it the seeds of its own destruction.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This. Humans are a highly predatory species in many things we do (look at how we dominate the environment and those we have no emotional attachment to in order to satisfy our own self interest)
    So then why aren't you killing any human you meet outside your troop like a chimpanzee? You meet strangers on a daily basis you haven never seen before without trying to violently beat them up. We are either in some way fundamentally different from Chimpanzees or how societies of creatures like us formed is based more on material conditions and environmental factors as opposed to pure genetic hard-wiring. So we are either better than chimps or our nature can be changed.

    We are also a highly social species where working together is deemed important. You can't use biology to prove your preferred economic and political views without doubt. We are a very conflicting species, you bring up how we dominate other species and environments, we are also pretty bizarre in how we show concern for the welfare of other species as well. The reaction to immediate animal suffering put before them gets a negative response from most westerners I would say.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    And on a more factual point there's this: http://infacts.org/gove-anti-eu-argu...ury-than-fact/
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So then why aren't you killing any human you meet outside your troop like a chimpanzee? You meet strangers on a daily basis you haven never seen before without trying to violently beat them up. We are either in some way fundamentally different from Chimpanzees or how societies of creatures like us formed is based more on material conditions and environmental factors as opposed to pure genetic hard-wiring. So we are either better than chimps or our nature can be changed.

    We are also a highly social species where working together is deemed important. You can't use biology to prove your preferred economic and political views without doubt. We are a very conflicting species, you bring up how we dominate other species and environments, we are also pretty bizarre in how we show concern for the welfare of other species as well. The reaction to immediate animal suffering put before them gets a negative response from most westerners I would say.
    All of those are good points but the ability to think intelligently, perform risk assessments and be socially conditioned to dislike killing animals does not take away from the fact that our true natures still exist. I'm not suggesting that we're all killers, just that most of us have the capacity to be so in the right situation. You leave somebody without food for a week or threaten to rape a persons daughter and you'll soon see the more violent instincts expressed. Predatory instincts don't just simply mean going about murdering each other though. Humans express a lot of other traits like being territorial (hell, we have a legal and immigration system built upon it) and suspicious, not to mention generally being racist and sexist when social conditioning is not present.

    But yeah, humans do have a lot of other good traits too. I'm not trying to suggest your a monster or anything.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.