Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
I think he was referring to China...
Did any of you RTFA? This is more about implementing a system for UN diplomatic underlings to get work done online than having the UN "take over" the internet. The concept of having a secure, government to government electronic communication system probably would be faster, cheaper and more effective than gathering in Geneva every time we want to discuss the price of cod fish.
There is nothing contradictory in something being both fascist and socialist. The Italian Fascist Party stemmed out from the Socialist party. In a way, one could consider Fascism as the nationalist, tyrannical culturo-political side of the socioeconomical ideology which is socialism, as opposed to other culturo-political sides: socialdemocracy, international socialsm, anarco-communism, etc. Always keep in mind that you can basically build any culturo-political system on any socioeconomical ideology.
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
You're "fudging" a bit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/players/veto.html
From 1946-2002:
Russia/USSR - 121
US - 76
Not quite "BY FAR", is it?
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"?
According to the UN, no country made up the bulk of the contributions in August 2004. The largest contributor was Pakistan, who contributed 8600 out of 60000 peacekeepers. The USA ranked 26th on the list, contributing 430.
But maybe Iraq is a distraction, so let's go back to August 2001: in that month Bangladesh was the biggest contributor, with 6100 peacekeepers, and the USA was 17th on the list, at 750.
I'd be interested in seeing the source of your numbers. I can believe that the US contributes the bulk of something to the UN, but "peacekeepers" it's not.
That's not true, socialism is a group of idelogies/political theories rather than one.
s yndicalism
At one extreme within that group, we have authoritarian socialism, aka Marx-Leninism or 'Stalinism', and at the other we have Libertarian-Socialism, aka Anarchism or Anarco-Syndicalism.
Anarchism is a political theory where you have no hierarchies whatsoever, no state, no laws, society is kept in 'order' through voluntary cooperation.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is related to Anarchism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-
Ironically, Anarcho-Syndicalists and other socialists who opposed Stalinism were among the first to be executed or inprisoned by the regimes in countries who embraced the Stalinist ideology.
Even the "Jesus" of revolutionaries himself, Che Guevara, murdered Anarcho-Syndicalists after he and Fidel Castro embraced Marx-Leninism.
What do you think "Nazi" was short for? That's right, "National Socialism".
And I have to applaud this idea. We have all seen how good the net is at getting people to talk to each other from very far flung communities - here I am ranting against yanks yet again after all ;-) The processes and mechanisms of the UN are derived from the great committees and councils that were the best way we knew to organise nations over a hundred years ago. Now it is time to move on and utilise 21st century means of communication and organisation within the UN. Committees can now meet virtually on the web. Non-members can contribute even if not present. We can all see what is going on. Surely we netizens can appreciate the possibilities. Sure it may degenerate into flame wars again and again (much as the security council has done for the last 40 years when Israel comes up).
Perhaps the United Nations of the 21st Century will be a Bazaar not a Cathedral?
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
Let's take a tour, shall we?
Bombings in Spain? Islam.
Race riots in multiple northern European countries? Islam.
Slavery, massive brutality, genocide through just about the entire continent of Africa? Islam.
Children being kidnapped off the streets of Russia, brought to Chechnya to be videotaped having their fingers chopped off? Islam.
Bombings in Bali? Islam.
Unrest, bombings and general atrocities in southtern Thailand (never heard of that one, eh)? Islam.
Blown up school busses and general atrocities in Israel? Islam.
Schools being bombed in Russia? Islam.
People in the region for humanitarian reasons having their heads sawed off while still alive? Islam.
People cheering in the streets and partying as potentially 50,000 (-only- turning out to be 5,000) murdered in the World Trade Center? Islam.
Or this little appalling gem from Memri? Islam.
Beheadings in the Philippiines? Islam.
Towns razed and Christians slaughtered in Indonesia? Islam.
This list does not end. Follow the trail of brutality, racism, and genocide and 9 times out of 10 you find Islam. Intolerant to outside cultures to a degree unseen anywhere else in the world. This is fact. It is worldwide, it is consistent. It is in fact, a recognizable, repeating historical pattern. Until Islam gets it's shit together, right or wrong, people are going to equate Muslims with Terrorists.