Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Location: South London
|Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:55 pm Post subject: Fascism, protectionism and NWO
|Protectionist fascism or New World Order fascism?
Economic Protectionism was an ingredient of the economic slump of the 1930s. It led to each country looking after its own interests at the expense of others. Fascism in Europe and Japan were its most extreme manifestations.
The opposite of protectionism is international co-operation with the lowering of trade barriers and the encouragement of global trade. That is regarded on this website and elsewhere as New World Order fascism.
So whatever is done we get “fascism”?
I like to bring things like this down to simple human values. The choice is between on the one hand recognising our common humanity worldwide, helping each other and sharing the world’s resources, or on the other hand: protecting our own perceived “self interest”, maximising our profits at the expense of others and competing aggressively with each other by every means possible.
I’m no economist and don’t pretend to know the answers, but my intuition tells me that sharing and co-operation are preferable to their opposite.
I’m never sure what is meant by New World Order. Some see it as code for global dictatorship or oligarchy. I’ve no doubt it is used in that way by those who desire to rule the world, but I suspect it is also used by those whose ideal is co-operation and global democracy. We should look behind the phrase itself to try to divine what each individual speaker means when they use it.
However, since co-ordinated global efforts to alleviate the economic chaos are currently being pushed by Gordon Brown and others (whether they call it New World Order or not), critical minds should be brought to bear on what exactly they are doing and proposing. I suspect that Lou Dobbs, with his message that governments should not be bailing out the banks but writing off bad debt, is probably right in part. http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=131604#131604
We should surely be listening to alternative voices who are proposing, or better still enacting, unconventional solutions, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank. http://www.grameenfoundation.org/.
“Think of the poorest person you have ever seen and ask if your next act will be of any use to him [/her],” said Ghandi. Should we not be doing that now?
Should we not be looking at precedents such as the Bhoodan-Grandam movement started by Ghandi’s follower, Vinoba Bhave, founded on the principle of persuading people to share. http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/vinoba/vinoba.htm
I suspect that such alternative approaches will not be considered by the powers that be until it is clear that bailing out the banks has cost us all a fortune for no beneficial results.
Meanwhile, if the choice is between international co-operation among existing governments or, alternatively, protectionism, I vote for co-operation.