La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...afi-attack.html From the full text of speech - "And as we learn from the experience of turning common purpose into common action in this our shared global society, so we must forge a progressive multilateralism that depends on us finding within ourselves and together the qualities of moral courage and leadership that for our time and generation can make the world new again—and for the first time in human history, create a truly global society. I assume when he talks about a global society he solely means the society of representatives of governments at the UN. Not sure how we are or are nearing some truly global society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I assume when he talks about a global society he solely means the society of representatives of governments at the UN. Not sure how we are or are nearing some truly global society. Globalisation. Global economics is what Garden means IMO. And, absolutely nothing to do with anarchy at all, nothing to do with anarchy whatsoever in any shape or form. No - nil, zilch, nada anarchy i.e. no anarchy even mentioned or involved at all. Once again, just to make it clear, no anarchy involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Not even a smidgen? Global economics is what Garden means IMO. Ok, but how does that equate to the term global society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Global economics is what Garden means IMO. Ok, but how does that equate to the term global society? You try and prove it doesn't, and in your research you'll find that it does. Which will save everyone a lot of bother and typing. And just to help you start off your research, it has nothing to do with anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Globalisation. Global economics is what Garden means IMO. Not just economics, he's talking about dealing with the big issues in a coordinated way, economics, terrorism, environment, armament. Better cooperation basically. Got no choice, everyone's skint! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Globalisation. Global economics is what Garden means IMO. Not just economics, he's talking about dealing with the big issues in a coordinated way, economics, terrorism, environment, armament. Better cooperation basically. Got no choice, everyone's skint! Which will save everyone a lot of bother and typing. Bugger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Bugger! Doh! Your right though, it's got sod all to do with anarchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Why not? Governments coordinating on global issues is pretty much the opposite of anarchy isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 The last 10-15 years have been pretty unique in that cultural differences have not been so great as to make discussion about common interests impossible between the heads-of-state of the majority of the world's population. Things have become more difficult recently - you'd probably put the high water mark in the Yeltsin presidency of Russia, where along with Clinton, Jiang, Vajpayee, Chirac, Mandela, Blair, etc there was a pretty amazing consensus. Sure this is elites and LDV will downplay it. But for even the elites to have enough in common to all meet up and be able to just talk to each other and relate to their attitudes and ideologies is pretty incredible compared to the situation just a few years earlier. Brechnev would not have been able to talk to either Mao or Deng, let alone Regan; non-Aligned India distrusted both, and imagine what it would be like having people like Botha or Pinochet at such meetings. I wouldn't downplay that acheivement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. Is Brown really so different from Darwin? - sure its political fluff, but it doesn't seem such a ridiculous aspiration to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Why not? Governments coordinating on global issues is pretty much the opposite of anarchy isn't it? That's right, which is why I would never have brought up anarchism. Sure this is elites and LDV will downplay it. But for even the elites to have enough in common to all meet up and be able to just talk to each other and relate to their attitudes and ideologies is pretty incredible compared to the situation just a few years earlier. Brechnev would not have been able to talk to either Mao or Deng, let alone Regan; non-Aligned India distrusted both, and imagine what it would be like having people like Botha or Pinochet at such meetings. I wouldn't downplay that acheivement. Ok. What I am really interested in is simply what this idea of a truly global society is. We seem to be far from. Albert mentioned it is about economics and Slim mentioned diplomacy relating to climate, proliferation and other matters. Is it just a reference to the consultation of elites on global issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 Its a speech by Gordon Brown - the UK's premier political philosopher, talking about the hopes for more unity within humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 25, 2009 Author Share Posted September 25, 2009 Ah right, which is what I thought it was referring to rather than an honest description of having the elites of the world being more integrated and able to discuss matters. I don't really see there being much unity. One of the biggest problems with what the elites refer to as their vision and understanding of globalisation is that border controls have become stricter and it is now more difficult than ever for people to move freely from one nation to another. This runs counter to the idea of a global society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.