How can we finally achieve peace?
Is she right? Is the creation of a world state the only way? Or some form of worldwide shadow government?
How would you achieve peace, /his/?
Wasn't the point supposed to be that a world government wad the wrong interpretation of her ideas? Also this sounds more like /pol/ thread to me.
>Overthrow the international bourgeoisie and create an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State
If the problem is War, and Peace is the alternative, then a world state is the only way to achieve that. Otherwise, states will always have War in their back pockets as an option.
If the problem is violence, and peace is the alternative, then there is no reason to think a world state would do any better or worse than any other states.
>implying world peace is possible
Go read Realist IR theory, my man. You just gotta play the game.
>>860470
>implying the established transition state wouldn't solidify under a new Stalin in order to "preserve communism" when the revolution inevitability stalled
What if war is the only thing keeping humanity from stagnating?
>>860453
>I get my philosophy from video games
>>860453
>Is she right?
Who?
> Is the creation of a world state the only way?
Creation of a global monopoly of violence would probably reduce occurrences of violence, yes. Every period of history that has ended in a single hegemon establishing it's rule has ushered in a period of peace, for the area governed at least.
World peace is a Jewish trick
It's 2016, this stuff is common knowledge now
>>860453
No we first need to erase all languages and nations form this world.
Do you think we all play your shitty obscure gook vidya, faggot?
TURN EVERYONE INTO SHADOWS!
>>861083
AKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKAKkKKKKKKaaaaaaaKiKIKIKIIIIIIKIKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
>>860453
obviously by letting AI run the world
its only inevitable
>people still dislike war
Where are my fellow war pigs at?
So long as we live in a system of international anarchy, states will clash.
Why would you want to live in a world without violence, are you some type of faggot?
>>860453
Communist praxis
>>861133
even if you united the human peoples under one flag, you'll still have terrorism and people stirring up trouble because of shitty reasons
>>861133
It's a Jewish trick.
>>861133
Possible stagnation and a heavier strain on global resources due to everyone getting to live as long as they can. Also more people would die of disease and starvation the less people died from violence.
>>861133
You will see this differently, but the Athlete must face the rigors of training to achieve optimal performance.
Should the Athlete rest, he grows soft, his movements slower, and his senses dull.
His goal abandoned, he falls into triviality.
>>861140
I'm not for NWO but otherwise, I agree.
>>861143
Why would the Jews strive for peace when they can make far more money from war?
>>861144
The people dying from disease and starvation are from the third world, and not to sound edgy but we shouldn't concern ourselves with them, but to only exploit.
>>861228
Messiahnic Judaism involves belief in the inevitable attainment of world peace after the world is conquered by the Jewish messiah.
End the war meme.
Eradicate the English language with vocal chord parasites that activate upon hearing English spoken. Then once America loses their hegemony we give nuclear weapons to all the other countries to create eternal deterrence. But just in case they decide to fuck things up I will put metal eating bacteria in every one of those nukes so I hold the locks and keys to world peace. Throw in a giant nuclear mecha to scare the world into getting more nukes too.
>>860502
It's a medium like any other.
>>861240
Just a interpretation from a single religion. What makes you so sure that world peace refers to that?
>>861302
Go to /pol/
>>861259
The language of nukes.
The way I see it. Eventually we will become a world state and any time a part of that state tries to secede the global military will just shit on them. It would probably happen a handful of times but eventually everybody would know Its an impossible war to win.
World peace is impossible as long as humans have human nature. The sad reality.
>>861357
Eventually everyone would rebel. Hopefully people would recognize that their absolutist rulers give no fucks about them before the military might of the absolutist overlords is so strong that all the people of the country can't overthrow it.
>>861357
How dystopian.
>>860499
What if war is just evolution? Most of the big technological advancements happen in or around wartime. Apes have warfare. Maybe war is just a form of evolution for the more intelligent life forms.
Also, a global state is essentially an oxymoron. A global state means that there is really no state. It would essentially be tribes at that point, and the world would crumble. A global state is probably the worst future I can think of in regard to damage at the hands of man.
>>860453
>How can we finally achieve peace?
Kill all species.
Rocks and magma can't wage wars.
>>861096
Give war a chance!
pain explained it very well in the naruto anime. he said you need an absolute ruler to have complete control over people, and after a few decades or so start to slaughter them to remind them how good peace really is. makes sense since today's generation forgets how good life was. in the case of europeans, it sucked to live in a a "melting pot" society. a belgian cant depend on italian soldiers to defend them, there is no incentive for italians to put their lives on the line for foreigners. for americans, it sucked to live like cows, waiting for be milked for the king's belly. here in the u.s. i will never experience what its like to actually enjoy privacy, i.e. not have a policeman search me and barge into my home and car just because he "was suspicious". sounds stupid and edgy but its true. i honestly figured this out before watching this arc. was just blown away by how much of a historyfag kishimoto was. that or we are both edgelords. would love to see how the chinese were before mao, back when they had a sense of community. now it seems all they care about is making an extra coin from selling off rat meat and steak. if only the current gen of chinamen knew the love and sense of belonging the chinese shared in the past, maybe then theyd worry about getting their neighbors sick
>>861393
Have you been to hawaii? magma's constantly picking on aqua.
>>861408
No absolutist, one nation world will ever exist. It would bring humanity back to the Stone Age.
>>861389
>A global state means that there is really no state.
What the fuck are you talking about you absolute moron. A global state is a global state.
>>861425
i meant to imply that every nation would have a leader like pain. but yeah we would need one race under one religion because thered always be that constant struggle for resources. cant stay calm when youre starving to death.
>>861434
it was just an example. i did not mean to say kishimoto is some karl marx who invented the entire concent.
>>860453
A creation of a world state would require unity among the world. A world state cannot exist currently; the Romans, Ottomans, and the Holy Roman Empire all failed because in their vast empires there was no unity among their territories. The world is too different country to country right now, even present day countries are struggling to retain unity within their domain.
>>861448
You can not have a global state. It is not a feasible concept there is no state that can possibly overcome the lack of unity that would result from a single nation encompassing the entire world. A state implies some sort of governing ability or unity, which is impossible under a single body attempting to govern a people which are inherently against unification.
>>861384
Being chased by wild animals was a form of evolution - but we built these cities and farms anyways.
Just because war goes away, doesn't mean competition will.
(Although maybe it does, as extinction is about the only way I see war going away.)
On the other hand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWeEZuiUtFA
>>861425
How would you know that? There was no nations in the Stone Age, let alone a big single one.
>>861551
Not him, but you denied it on conceptual basis. You though a global state is essentially an oxymoron.
I'm not sure about your whole view. A state exists in order to exclude the enemy. Hence, the enemy of the global state is anti-globalism. The enemy's whole existence is necessary, and if they don't they will be invented the way it fits.
Her goal was literally the opposite. Leave the world as it is because a world state would not work. She wanted nations and people to cooperate, that's all.
>>860453
global capitalism
>>860453
Please refer to this post >>862397
That being said, "nations and people cooperating" is impossible. You always need an enemy to unite the people. You need a murky foe hidden among the shadows to fight. Whether it be "the evil Capitalists", "godless Commies" or "Islamic extremism".
What do you think will suddenly happen to all the soldiers? I speak from experience when I tell you that there are some people that simply enjoy killing. They love the rush of the firefight. They can't get enough of it. Like an addict, they scrounge for conflict wherever they can find it. So that they may experience the echos of those previous engagements.
What will you do with the military industrial complex? Our dogs of war that roam about the earth.
No, the most pragmatic and best option is to leave things be. The current system functions fine. There is a place for everyone. The killer, the moralfag, the businessman and the saint. To implement a world government or some form of permanent peace would be problematic at best, suicidal at worst.
>>860453
yeah, we won't have war between states, just civil war.
Brilliant.
Any more good ideas?
>>862410
>>862412
People either fight or negotiate. To get people to negotiate you must achieve 2 things.
1: Make sure no one's survival is at risk. People would rather fight to the death than include their own death as part of the negotiations.
2: Develop a system where conflict is not advantageous to anyone and the results of conflict are apparent to all. There has to be a very wide margin of error between the point anyone takes conflict remotely seriously and the status quo, while infractions against the status quo which begin to penetrate this margin of error are heavily penalized in the realm of negotiation. The realm of negotiation is capitalism, if a company like Monsanto sells substances that could be used in chemical weapons to a dodgy dictatorship, rather than waging war physically, you wage war through capitalism, you brand the dictatorship an unstable corrupt country and cripple their economy and brand Monsanto as unreliable.
By me convincing everyone that there is only one God and that in the Koran it says not to war because of religion, unless they have warred against you
>>862457
>Develop a system where conflict is not advantageous to anyone and the results of conflict are apparent to all
Holy shit do I see a socialist on /his/?
We just need to make sure food and shelter aren't things we compete for more of and also hopefully non-renewable energy sources will just go away.
>>862470
Lowering the amount of free market competition is only half the battle. As Veblen stated, as one society moves from a savage, yet peaceable state, into a predatory, war-like culture, the respect for 'exploit' increases. The amount of honor given to those who no longer even have to exploit directly is evidence enough that our culture is now reaping the fruits of their own demons.
>>862490
What does that have to do with the fact that resources are finite?
>>862490
Also, one more thing. I don't know what the optimal currency is, but I doubt it's a non- gold backed inconvertible paper one. Despite that, even if we had a perfect currency economists like J.S. Mill stated one of the largest reasons we had commercial crises in the first place was the abundance of easy credit.
>>861090
skynet pls go
