What is stopping human kind from achieving world peace?

The welfare system.

We can't have a free movement of people because it would rob the working classes in the developed world of a sustainable welfare system, thus the global economy can never be truly integrated which would improve economic growth everywhere reducing tensions and encourage closed societies to open up.

Not including The Eternal Baguette in that fucking list

m'comrade

human motivations are necessarily zero sum.

if we could further domesticate humans it would go a long way towards fixing this. but domesticating the self wthout domesticating other humans just leads to sweden rape gangs.

Looks like how Russia operates

Humans are to blame.

End of story.

/thread

What exactly is this picture meant to imply?

China benefits greatly from global trade, as did Russia before they got sanctioned for their alleged actions in Crimea.

> blue
> white
> blue
What country is this?

Vatniks and their manyamiroque.

retard post. obviously humans are to blame. OP is asking what specific mechanism of human nature cause it.

do you think you're wise, or something?

you remind me of an old friend that used to thnk he could look wise by shaking his head knowingly and sighing

Argentina, Honduras or Guatemala.

No idea why it has Latvia attached to it though, the whole picture seems like gopnik butthurt.

The Jews

if you want to know who to blame for most if not all modern wars then look no further then the Hook-Nosed Kikes

Israel

The semantic delusion that there is one race, and not many.

it's probably Israel holding canada and the artist doesn't know how to draw flags.

Sin

>Hitler a good goy he dindu nuffin he just tryin to get more reichsmarks for volksgeheimshaft the jooooos used mind control rays to force him to invade Poland and the Soviet Union
will Veeky Forums ever be free of dumb stormniggers?

Yes, and the rat is Palestine.

proly the concept in itself, as it is so idealistic it is unreal and impossible to achieve

...

Human nature.

The only way to obtain peace is to be enslaved by robots.

fiat fractional reserve banking from what i can understand

the concept of I

the concept of Us/Them

the concepts of subjectivity/objectivity

Tribalism. As long as one group of people considers another group of people to be "the other", there will be conflict.

Honestly I think the only way there will be world peace is if humanity colonizes other planets or discovers a space-faring alien race. Then people will develop an "Earth" identity and consider themselves a global tribe. Then colonists/aliens will become "the other".

/thread

Democracy is a rotting corpse, in which the masses are ruled by an oligarchy of the undesirable.

dumb

tribalism exists because of individual biological incentives. tribalism is the direct result of zero sum outcomes.

as soon as a equilibrium is reached in any given distribution, tribalism disappears. our current political system is ideologically committed to maintaining disequilibrium because supposedly democracy works best when people have to fight.

oh, gee, you mean conflict and tribalism arises when the system of governance revolves around fighting for votes?

you people get your ethical systems from 90's PSAs

a rotting corpse of YOUR IGNORANCE

There is more than one of us.

so, basically socialism?

>implying representative """"""democracy"""""" is democracy at all
Take your filthy republic and fuck Alexander Hamilton's skeleton with it

The history of humanity has always been filled with violence and death at the hands of a fellow human being.

Why would that ever change?

Pretty shitty an reductive post you got there.

Are you arguing that party politics is the sole cause of conflict? Or are you talking about wealth inequality? Either way, or in any case, you're woefully incorrect.

>oh, gee, you mean conflict and tribalism arises when the system of governance revolves around fighting for votes?

Are you saying there's a one-world democracy that I didn't know about? The hell are you talking about? You know there are nations outside of your own, right?

Class struggle

This.

People think that it happens suddenly and out of nowhere with no history or reasoning or have a "we never done that before" mentality in regards to conflict between different groups.

I'm saying that democracy causes internal and external divisions on a scale worse than nationalism does.

democracy ENCOURAGES tribalism because it's a good way to harvest votes.

tribalism is not the cause. political systems that profit from tribalism are the cause. ther are many existing political systems that squash tribalism just fine, and they are not party to internal or external violent actions.

case in point, middle eastern democracies are as violent on a per capita basis as african countries. dictatorships tend to be as nonviolent and stable as eastern europe.

political structure matters.

Million Dollar Extreme

>class struggle

Why is Marxist theory literally devoid of any complexity or nuance?

It's literally a theory for the lazy and uninformed.

It's disgustingly reductionist and simple. You should be ashamed.

Prisoner's dillemma would fit what you are saying pretty well.

t. someone who struggled in history class

>dictatorships tend to be as nonviolent and stable as eastern europe.

Stable is kinda iffy and violence isn't as overt but heavy quashing of descent is still there.

>democracy and nationalism are mutually exclusive

You know nationalism isn't a governance type, yes?

Most nationalist states have also been democratic.

>le everything is because someone has more money!

It sounds like you barely paid attention.

Yes, that's another way of phrasing it. My initial post was on zero-sum incentive structures. Prisoner's dillemma is a specific gamification/structure to the larger idea.

"human nature" surely exists, but invoking its name when we have SPECIFIC understanding of how it works in this process is just invoking some voodoo. and the people saying it should kindly fuck out of the thread.

we have very specific understandings of war dynamics. we shouldn't still be invoking magical/religious nonsense.

I never said that. I said nationalism and democracy have political incentive structures that incentivize war, you dolt.

But that's true.

Are you gonna tell me next that there's a political structure that doesn't?

the keyword there is AS stable

I never said the middle east was a good place, I never said it ever would be.

but we see that democracy heavily incentivizes tribalism, and leads to violence. that's a fucking fact.

"human nature" exists, but using it in a vague manner to invoke warfare as some sort of unknowable spooky evil force that we're helpless against is stupid as fuck

we know what causes war and we can only clear up misunderstandings by talking about it in concrete terms.

invoking "human nature" is like saying god causes babies to be born. it's fucking stupid, and lazy, and no one with an iq higher than 105 would even think of saying it.

There's literally no point arguing with a walking, talking vessel for some fool's ideology like yourself.

>What is stopping human kind from achieving world peace?
Finite (good) land
Differences
Ego

there are structures that incentivize it less. trade based regimes do this through micro-level incentives that lead to prosperity as a release valve for tension, and the ability to resolve disputes on terms acceptable to individuals without dictatorial imposition. dictatorships do this through inter-state equilibriums.

democracy does neither. instead it regulates the micro-level, and leaves anarchy at the inter-state level.

Read pic related. Your theories do not hold up to scrutiny. If you were correct, the western world would be getting more violent (both internally and externally) because of the rise of democracy and capitalism, but the opposite is true.

It goes beyond simple capitalism vs socialism, it's because of the expanding circle of empathy. Mass communication, the rise of technology, valuing diplomacy, trade, etc. It's nonsensical to try to simplify it to a "class struggle" or "democracy is bad/violent", not only because it doesn't make any sense, but also because it ignores cultural innovations.

World peace is unattainable and arguably undesirable.
That said, a lot of strife in the modern age stems from the Jew.

you're addressing two different posters.

immediately after the outbreak of nationalism you have the napoleanic wars, then ww1, after the relative peace of westphalia. not nly were westphalian wars limitd in scale, they were less common, because at the time armies were still privatized, and war was conducted for private profit. the gloves came off because nationalism allowed generals to defray the cost of warfare to the people as a whole.

the next round came after democratization. now, internal enemies were equally a threat as external ones, because they could vote. this is why hitler wanted to kill jews.

democracy is a disaster, and the theory holds up quite well.

europe was gloating about how great and advancd their democracies were, and now the continent in its entirely is on the brink of civil war, and they're imprisoning political speech becuase it threatens stability. did you hear that? democracy threatens stability, that's straight from their own mouths.

whether democracy is good or bad, or worth the costs is a separate issue that I don't take a stance on. but there's literally no debate that it's less stable or less violent.

just fucking look at singapore, hong kong, or japan. perfectly fucking stable dictatorships.

Non-Whites. White people are the only race with compassion and actual intelligence. Asians are human copying machines, Niggers are literally apes, Pajeets are mulatto niggers, Arabs are niggers with camels. If we obliterated the other races then world peace could finally be established

I like how they make Germany's spirit animal a dead German soldier. Like what the fuck does that tell you about the state of German culture that their best representative is a dead German soldier.

Still a democracy. The people will always vote to their own self-interest rather than the stat. The individual is flawed, the state is perfect as a machine.

>Europe was one of the most violent continents on Earth until 1946
>constant states of war with very few years of peace

sorry, Adolf.

>Implying Krauts weren't just trying to do what the French, Swedes, Austrians, Turks, and Spanish had already tried.

If we were moving to a cessation of violence, why are more regions of the world dangerous?

We literally have Muslim fascists crusading around the middle east to form a caliphate (okay, it mostly failed but that was because they exterminated a few too many undesirables without solidfying)

America intervened in Syria to force a conflict but backed down before dropping the hammer because Russia was already supporting the conflict's resolution. So instead of a swift end to the violence, the country has had to limp on and on.

The world was much violent back then though.

More people died in Chicago last month than due to Mussolinis rise to power.

mussolini was evil because he didn't believe in the same holy book modern democrats do, which I guess would be something written by howard zinn, or maybe a black lives matter tweet.

I know you're two different posters, but you both have the same nonsensical idea that "if we just had or got rid of [insert system here] then everything would be just grand". It's not that simple.

Also, you're underestimating just how violent the world was pre-20th century.

>europe was gloating about how great and advancd their democracies were, and now the continent in its entirely is on the brink of civil war

You're out of your goddamn mind.

Nothing of what you're saying is based on anything in reality. Just look at any hard data on violent crime in any liberal democracy. The trend is pretty much always downwards. And war between liberal democracies has been non-existent for decades.

Again, it goes beyond simple political ideology, it's because of advances in technology and global culture.

Media bias. It's just your perception. We're living in the most peaceful time in history.

Exactly, but people have rose-tinted glasses of history. We only have a small window into the past and a very selective view of the present.

How the fuck is Mussolini's rise to power comparable to the murder rates of city?

What the fucked does that have to do with what I said?!

every major genocide since the 1900s has been carried out by a democacy AT THE POINT OF ITS CONVERSION.

weimar germany transitions from a bureaucrat state to a democracy under the nazi party: 6 million dead jews

turkey transitions from ottoman rule into a modern democracy: jews, armenians, and turks get killed by the millions

indonesia transitions from a dictatorship to a democracy, the leader loses a solid control of the parliament, and needs to kill millions of chinese in order to shore up support for his party.

african dictatorships transition from colonies to democracies, majority constituencies then go and kill minorities by the millions so that their votes can't threaten their contrl of an area.

and so on, and so forth. the EU is falling apart. you're an idiot.

Most of those democracies were in name only though.

>Nazi Germany was a democracy

>Armenian Genocide 1915-197
>Republic of Turkey formed in the 1920
>Genocide of the Herero (24,000 people exterminated by the German EMPIRE between 1904-1907)
>democracy under the Nazi Party
>Nazi Germany is a one party state
>Indonesian genocides carried out under the command of two dictators Sukarno and Suharto

Why do you lie on the internet? Or are you just ignorant?

which is exactly what communists say about communism

let's look at what democratizatin accomplished
1. it split up the control over parliament
2. having less secure control over parliament, a ruling party needs to GAIN control
3. how do they do it? they GAIN control by KILLING competition
4. who is the competition? ethnic minorities

they did exactly what democracy proposes to do: split up the vote and control of parliament. so they ARE true democracies. unless of course, you define democracy the way a communist does, which is :a perfect utopia where everything goes according to teh way I want it to go.

democracies only work, and only in a limited fashion, in countries where there are relatively few ethnic minoirites to kill, such as modern europe.

that's just the truth, unless you want to constantly move goal posts about what a democracy "should" be rather than the effective icentives it establishes for political actors.

Everyone likes to pretend they have the biggest dick around and then everything goes to shit

Let's just forget historical context, clearly big bad democracy is to blame. Let's also forget every non-democratic genocide because that's just inconvenient.

>transitions from a bureaucrat state to a democracy under the nazi party

???

>african dictatorships transition from colonies to democracies

Anocracies. Calling yourself a democracy does not make it so, you need measures in place to safeguard liberty. Otherwise it's just ceremonial.

>the EU is falling apart

Are you really saying that because a bunch of moronic Britbongs were fooled into voting for a referendum (that may or not lead to a real action in the future), Europe will suddenly collapse into civil (kek) war?

You realize that, even in the event that the UK really does leave the EU, they'll still have to trade with the rest of Europe, right? You realize that a glorified change in policy is not enough to cause a war in Europe, right?

Again, you're out of your goddamn mind. Please re-evaluate every piece of media you consume, it is poisoning you. Honestly I feel like I'm just enabling you at this point.

And dictatorships are 10x worse.

you're an idiot. democracy doesn't suddenly spring into existence the day the constitution is ratified. democracy is also a system of ideals that put demands and constraints onto rulers that threatens their power.

In fact, this is the FUCKING BASELINE OF AMERICAN THOUGHT. THAT THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL THREATENS DICTATORIAL POWER.

the rise of democratic agitation threatened third world dictatorial power. they were losing control, and transitionng to democracy was inevitable. they lost power LONG before the transition happened. the killings happen so as to secure power after the formal mechanisms change.

you people seriously are 17 or are incapable of thinking abstractly.

>doesn't suddenly spring into existence

The French would like to have a word with you.

>thinking abstractly

That's your entire goddamn problem, you're so focused on trying to reinforce your beliefs that you don't bother to look at the actual historical data.

>japan
>dictatorship

Someone claimed that the past was more violent than present day. I countered by saying a dictators rise to power that stretched over two decades killed less people than chicago did last month.

Read above. It's the perspective. This world is a deadly place, even in a modern country that you cucks seem to think is safe. This world is a shit hole that can only be redeemed by casting aside the norm.

Mussolini's state of being is not a part of this discussion. But that the fascist state can be created and dissidents suppressed with killing less people over its course of life than chicago's body count last month. We believe one is evil, while we turn a blind eye to the evil in our midst.

Americans were a historical mistake that imperiled the natural progression of society in europe by putting it on a train with no brakes.

>while we turn a blind eye to the evil in our midst.

No not really. People are involved in trying to fix Chicago's murder issue within and outside the communities affected.

Also Mussolini led his people to a war and committed atrocities during that time so to put it in a bigger perspective that puts Chicago's murders into a much smaller frame of reference.

>rise to power that stretched over two decades

Firstly, Mussolini's "rise to power" didn't last "two decades" it was his March On Rome and his consolidation of power in his first few months of Prime Minister.

Secondly I'm fairly certain the deaths at the hands of the Italians in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War kill quite a lot of people. 775,000 according to Wikipedia; not to mention WWII.

So if you want to say it's more violent now than then, you'd be empirically wrong.

Thirdly, how does a city's murder rate prove anything compared to an unrelatable historical event. That's incredibly idiotic.

>natural progression

Christ. People don't actually believe this is a thing, right?

You people think so rigidly that you look at the data and think "oh, heh, the democratic revolution took place 3 years AFTER the genocide therefore they're completely unconnected. heh, checkmate atheists."

you people are fucking retards with no framework for your thought beyond simple datapoints and no theory beyond "democracy gud, everything else is not an option"

even france didn't spring out of nowhere. it was a gradual buildup, a soft approach towards genocidal rhetoric, an accomodation of people with murderous desires.

the second democracy in modern history started and ended with a genocide. that's pretty fucking solid proof, imo

Just assume he's RPing some whig historian or memeing

japan IS a dictatorship, you idiot. they don't have
1. freedom of speech
2. financial freedom
3. racial equality
I could go on and on.

>mussolini
I was making a sardonic point about the fact that people decry things as evil if they have a different political view, rather than the concrete impact of an administration

to the mussolini poster above, this guy is the perfect example.

he believes intent, or his theological/ideological interpretation of what individuals intend, is more important than actual results

someone on his side could fail 1k times over,but it would be okay because "the people in chicago MEAN well."

It was a buildup that literally occurred within a few months, even weeks of the storming of the Bastille. In fact it was so rushed that there was so much turmoil immediately after.

And if you're trying to argue that somehow monarchs provide less death and more stability, I'm going to submit the entire history of warfare in pre-modern Europe (one of the most violent and bloody continents) as "pretty fucking solid proof".

I don't deny democracies have perpetrated awful crimes against humanity. But which political structure doesn't? The answer is none. Because it's not about the political structure. It's about human interests, fears, power and greed. Nothing more, nothing less.

The try and say "one is better than the other because of x" is to also say "I have very little understanding of history".

I would have to get out a map to begin to list all the countries in the world that are failed states due to U.S intervention and continued encroachment on their political sphere.

I can say for a certainty, that over a million have died in Central America in the broader context of the Banana Wars by American corporations backed by the military and state force.