Global injustice and americanism

To any who don't regular here: Yes, I'm an American. I'm ashamed and proud of it.

The root of all problems isn't americanism, but many are. Don't get carried away. Although if America was doing what it should be, it could certainly help with those problems which it didn't cause.

For sure not all in an absolute sense, and even here the meaning of the term "americanism" is stretched to everything that is included under corporate globalization, business of war, globalizations of US-style legislation (think bad copyrights, RIAA, MPAA which are US based yet consisted of orgs all over the world) etc. When I say americanism in this sense I don't mean american culture nor good old american values embodied in its now commonly violated constitution. Those are the things you should be proud of.

I mean "american nationalism" which is apparently, as all kinds of nationalism seem to be, just too appreciative of the given nation (in this case american) as to completely ignore the others on this planet. The result? "If you can, stomp all over them." USA can and did do that by abusing the status of power it at first earned and then by this abuse further unfairly expanded. Hence the problems.

Edit: Btw, you can safely replace every instance of "americanism" with "nationalism". The only reason why we are emphasizing american nationalism so much is because it is obviously the most prominent and hence most damaging one, as it was most successful at achieving its goals.

I do see nationalism as problem on the global level. In a way a nation or country to be nationalist in its own borders isn't that bad, thinking thoughts such as "I'm proud to be English". Though I think it goes into more rocky ground when one 'globalises' it, e.g. "I'm proud to be Welsh, as we're better than the English", as it can lead to racism and bigotry. In the most extreme views of this 'global nationalism' you get situations where countries impose their own nationalism, and ideas based on that nationalism on others, e.g. the US spread of democracy, or the China's support for questionably governed states.

In the end I think every side contributes to the problem, and views are based on cultural and other bias i.e. in the 'West' gold is highly valued, but for the Aborigines of Australia it does not hold this significance.

I'm Irish and I agree with a lot of your points about USA hegemony, but,

Let's not let Europe off the hook in historical misdeeds, our little patch of the world was the wellspring for the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Apartheid in South Africa, two World Wars, the Holocaust, the near genocide of Aztecs and other native Americans plus African slavery as Europeans took over north America, that's off the top of my head and today at the WTO, the EU as well as the USA are still trying to shaft the farmers in poor countries, thus making them desperate for sweat work in export processing zones and creating dependence on trade which is only offered on asymmetric terms.

The potential is there in human nature across the world to be profoundly selfish, and groups of people many of whom may be clinical psychopaths have always sought to dominate and oppress. Nationalism is a flag of convenience, symbolism used to manipulate a mob mentality at the expense of logic and ethics. Once violence starts a tit for tat escalation could lead to anything, as you know too well in the Balkans.

If we are going to solve a problem other than by force, my preference is to extend a hand of friendship in making a case and asking the people to do right. In the USA Michael Moore's movie 'Sicko' may have a positive impact in freeing the people from the tyranny of the healthcare industry for example. Just giving people the facts can be enough, a few energised people within a nation can rally support and achieve improvement.

Marx and Engels got capitalism so right in the Communist Manifesto;
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature."

Well spotted in 1848, so much more true today. But for 6.5Billion people in a declining ecosystem we need scale economies and globalisation delivers this, but it's profoundly unfair and excessive as it stands. I reject the Communist final solution "the abolition of private property". The answer is surely agreed terms of fair trade within a framework that has the goal of ecologically sustainable global socio-economic cohesion, there is no plan for world fairness right now. Under this system we can arrest the trend in ever more desperate struggle to make a living, there's no need for us to raise our children to be at economic war with all other children. The elite drive this for their own benefit, but the answer is not to attack the elite, merely for the ordinary people to use our democratic power to legislate fairness.

This is why I still think the global democrats political movement as one pillar and the social enterprise as the other are the two things I think are most likely to retrieve civilisation from this Orwellian nightmare.

Although this is a delayed response that was a well said post. I just watched "We" documentary again and it inspired me to look at these topics again.

You should frame that. Well said.

A thought that I had in relation to that is a movement to abolish all flags except the white flag which has historically been a peace flag (which is quite fitting). It is worth noting that all colors are just a shade of white. White is at the same time synonymous with light which is often synonymous to everything that is good. It follows that white is good, that white is diverse (all colors contained), that white is hence indiscriminating, just, ethical... White flag is a perfect iconic representation of a world we should be going for.

After watching this doc again one of the most resonant questions in my mind are just: What to do now?

This could be quite right. But so.. is just participating in those kinds of movements all we can do?

Maybe a question of "what to do now" should rephrased into "what to do to accelerate the change" or "what should a small individual do to make a big impact?"

I could rant on about that but whatever I thought of saying I ended up thinking, it's not the definite answer and it just adds to the bloat of the post.. so I'll leave it at that question until...

Thanks for the kind words. I'll put that documentary on my buy list, sure sounds interesting, and I look forward to future articles or what-not on the topic.

When it comes to what one out of 6.5 Billion can do I take a modest approach. Though the goals I pursue like global socio-economic equilibrium and peace are colossal, I see them in historical context as taking a great many people to achieve over several generations. I'll do what I can and be happy that my life's work was a net positive.

I wasn't patient in my youth, but all that my impatience achieved was years lost to a feeling of despair. I felt destined to play a pivotal role in solving the worlds problems, which of course requires solving the flaws in humanity. Never mind the chivalrous fantasies of Don Quixote de la Mancha, I practically took God-like expectations upon myself despite having no God-like powers.

So now I've escaped that self-made torture chamber and granted myself a happy life regardless of the fickle whims of circumstances. I laugh deeper now and more often, that only happens on a foundation of true contentment. I shouldn't be so surprised that it has also allowed me to be more productive in pursuit of the very same ethical goals, since my anxiety had been wasting energy. If the opportunity arises to make some great progress I'll do whatever is necessary, no hesitation, if not, so what.