-
I’m not too sure myself. On the one hand, Turkey’s economy is steadily growing and the Union could benefit from it in the future. Membership would also help Turkey grow further into a modern, developed democracy – with the EU breathing down its neck, Turkey would practically be forced to improve its human rights. It might also serve as a bridge to the region, and have a positive effect on its neighbours.
On the other hand, Turkish membership is a significant step to take, and I’m not sure the EU is able to handle it. The organisation needs a thorough overhaul and streamlining, and further integration between member states would be advisable before expansion is considered.
Decision making is hopelessly fragmented as it is, and while consensus is not needed in every area, it still is in the most important. All the different agencies should be brought together as much as possible.
With Turkey’s specific difficulties added into the mix, I don’t think the EU can manage effectively in its current form. The constitution was a good first step, but unfortunately it got voted down in several countries. That should be worked out first.
Moreover, as I mentioned, Turkey brings in problems that wouldn’t be there if it was just another Western European country. I’m not referring to culture specifically – Turkey is rather Europeanised, and cultures can change anyway. ‘Sides, there’s a significant difference in culture between Eastern and Western Europe as well.
No, Turkey borders Iraq, Iran and Syria (among others), and is home to several minorities. It is not beyond the realm of imagination that a new conflict in that region will occur, and Turkey’s EU membership may be a catalyst of that. In any case, the EU in its current form will not be able to cope with a crisis there, and needs reform first. Preferably a defence policy of its own, but that’s definitely for the future…
Religion could also be an issue, but this is where I think EU membership could help. If the economy picks up, fanaticism will have less of a breeding ground.
So, in short, my problems with Turkish membership is that the EU’s current structure is not suited to its current size and needs to be reformed first; and that EU foreign and defence policy is not coherent enough to be able to cope with a crisis on its new borders.
Of course, these are all just my opinions… What are yours?
-
Turkey will deter nothing
the world is divided, to simplify the point, into matually two contradictory spheres. the centre and the periphery. the centre remain developed, industerilised, “civilised” and the periphery is underdeveloped, monocultural suppliers of raw materials and borders “barberism”.
so if turkey who wavered between the two joins the centre it does not mean it is creating any difference. on the contrary it is only sharpenning the contradiction in the centre by widening the economy of apart of the rulling class of the world (europe)thus planting the seeds of conflict within the centre. -
-
That is assuming the centre and periphery are static entities, which they aren’t. It’s a similar situation to when Spain and Portugal joined, or when Germany was reunited. Turkey will require some investment, yes, but that can be done. Economically, I don’t think there’s an insolvable problem…
-
-
In this complex web that contemporary politics is, it is the height of wisdom for one to take a simplified version.
Adopting such a method doesn’t entail making static or, if you would like, mechanistic deduction.
To me politics is understandable not in terms of smaller entities like race, class,or state but in what Immanuel Wallerstein refers to as “world system”.
The contemporary world system is monopoly capitalism. It is based, unlike the the earlier world system of Rome, on purely economical domination.
The world created by capitalism in its own image consists of the centre, periphery and the semiperiphery that Turkey, spain and portugal belong.
USA and Europe are both world centres of capital accumulation. They are allies in underdeveloping the south. But when one block takes a measure that increses its share, like what usa did when it invaded iraq, or what europe is contemplating to do (EU expansion,) a rift is bound to occur. -
-
Mmm, possibly. But I don’t think it’s bound to…
-
-
Are you really understaning my point? Do you actually read about Historical marxism? Or to put it otherwise do you really have a basic introduction to marxism in general? It seemingly appears that you did not understand what I said and want me to talk like a parrot.
-
Are you really understaning my point? Do you actually read about Historical marxism? Or to put it otherwise do you really have a basic introduction to marxism in general? It seemingly appears that you did not understand what I said and want me to talk like a parrot.
-
-
hhhmmmm Bare
Thimothy makes good points. Reading his words, it appears to me that he has a decent grasp on World Politics. Just because he doesn’t run with your point does not mean he doesn’t understand what you are saying.Wallerstein’s idea of a “World System” is indeed a valid way to look at things, but it’s not the only one. Ghandi’s view of self-sufficiency on a small, local scale… without dependence on outside influences; Godfrey Boyle’s “taming power of the small”; and many other trains of thought put forth that the “World Market Model” is not nearly as overpowering as Wallerstein would allow.
As far as Marxism goes, historical experience has more or less proven that it is less efficient than other systems because it lacks a suitable incentive for innovation and hard work. (either that, or the Capitalists were more ruthless in their struggle against it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint)
So… about Turkey in the EU: I haven’t pondered it enough to have a valid opinion about it.
-
-
O yeah Tillman
Tillman It also seems that you know little about marxism.The trouble with those schooled in capitalists institutes is that they think they know everything about marxism when the little they heard about it is the grotesteque critism laid against it by the self-styled experts of marxism.By juxtaposing marxism and stalinism they can get away with it. but they are never able to brainwash those who are keen to dicipher the difference between the two.By comparing marx theory with Gandhi’s and Boyle’s It shows how little you read about him. And your further allegation that History disproved marxism as a viable alternative to capitalism betrays your brainwashing by the capitalists. I am very soory for talking harshly. But Possitive critism isn’t bad. I only mean to show you how far you were driven by the capitalists.
Let me tell you what marx said in simple terms.he said that capitalism contained inherent contradiction. By creating the whole world in its own image it’s digging its own grave.However he didn’t live to witness the the division of labour on a worldwide scale.The creation of centre and periphery. Capitalists realised that if they were to continue at the previous pace they will industerialise the wholeworld and thus render marx analysis correct. So they formed monopoly capitalism. But this also will not stop their disintegeration. The mummers in europe about americas role in the world and their aim to create a greater,stronger europe; the disencnantment in america with chinese economical growth are just the tip of the iceberg. -
Marx
Bare… Your responses betray a very limited viewpoint, and a number of incorrect generalizations. These are the hallmarks of one who is motivated by a particular ideology.You have no idea from whence I recieved my education. I am quite familiar with what Marx wrote, and what his proponents such as Jack Reed, Emma Goldman, Lenin, and others SAID that he meant. I'm also well versed in the differences between Marxism and Stalinism.... and between pure capitolism and the socio-capitalism as practiced in many European countries.I did not compare Marx to Ghandi or Boyle, by the way. I simply pointed out that they are alternatives to Wallerstein’s viewpoints….. and are valid in their own right.
As far as “brainwashing by the capitolists” goes, that particular rhetorical arguement is weak and overused. In a five minute survey of my books I found over a dozen claims of a similar nature about virtually every political system:
“The Russian poeple are brainwashed from childhood by the communist party” McCarthy
“The average Arab is brainwashed by a religious system that promises glory if they conform and almost certain death if they do not.” Graham
“The German people have been indoctrinated by the NAZI’s to the point where they’ll do anything for Hitler” Truman
“Mr. Ghandi has mezmerized and deluded the Indian citizen….” Churchhill
“What you call brainwashing, we call education. What you call education, we call brainwashing.” Kruschev
“Those who follow the Pope are not to be thought low. Their thoughts have been distorted by the Church of Rome so they do not realize their falacies.” in a Reform Pamphlet from 1720
... and so forth and so on. It seems that no what political system you were born into, you are considered “brainwashed” by it’s opponents.
Seriously, if you want to influence my viewpoints, you’ll have to do a better job in your arguements than tossing in the old, tired “brainwashed” rhetoric…...
-
A capitalist remains one till he dies.
“It seems that no what political system you were born into, you are considered “brainwashedâ€? by it’s opponents”
This is nothing but pure truth. For what else does opposition mean if everyone considers the other a genuine struggler fighting on a just course. If such a thing happens or such a time come then the world will certainly wallow in a Kind of heavenly bliss so graphically depicted in the Bible and the Quran where everyman to the other declares salaam, salaam.
By considering capitalists and their sycophantic cohorts genuinely just fellows I, on the condition of saying that, forfieted any and every right to fight for the downtrodden, “wretched of the earth”.“Seriously, if you want to influence my viewpoints, you’ll have to do a better job in your arguements than tossing in the old, tired “brainwashedâ€? rhetoric…… “
Marxists don’t influence people’s viewpoints. Nay. they ca never do that.For they know people’s values,politics, ethics in short their whole ideological status, had been to alarger extent determined by their material conditions. So as long capitalism exist their will exist alongside it two values directly and matually contraposed. The capitalists’ and the proletariat’s. To which you belong is not a matter of your choice. But the progressive one between the two need not your attention,all signs are there for all to see.
-
Seriously.... you still have a mistaken viewpoint
Some of what you say is indeed correct, the circumstance of our birth do contribute in a large way to what our viewpoints as adults become. I also agree that the World Economic System is terribly unfair to many classes of people. Unfortunately, you are still making errors in your assumptions.Incorrectly, you assumed that I am a “capitolist” as defined in the Marxist terminology, when in fact I’ve never mentioned my own particular viewpoint…. where I live or have lived in the past…. or what my education has consisted of.
Your assigning me that label is a common rhetoric technique where you reduce everything to “us” or “them” when in truth there are many possible viewpoints. The world is not simply “Marxist” or “Capitolists”.. .there are a number of other alternatives. Reducing it to just two is simplistic and ignorant.
As far as Marxists not influencing people’s viewpoints goes…. this is simply incorrect. Marx himself wrote : “We must change the way people think about wealth…. ” which is VERY clear that his intent was to influence people’s viewpoints.
-
Tallman you mistook my words
Nowhere have I reffered to you as a capitalist.Godforbid! I only said capitalists are this or that. But pinpointing you in particular never.when infact you said “anyone born in to a system is considered brainwashed” I Understood your point. But not in the manner of ” Iam born in to capitalism and am proud to be a bourgeois”. On the contrary I deciphered your ideological affiliations from your first post when you said “Wallerstein’s views are valid”.But I only wanted to correct what I thought is a wrong assumption. That considering someone brainwashed is wrong. Which I thought you intended when you said “It seems that to know what political system you were born into, you are considered “brainwashed�? by it’s opponents�?.
As far as marx and influence are concerned am sorry , I can only discuss those issues with a marxist or a socialist.which am not sure if you are. I know you aren’t a capitalist. But I also know you aren’t a marxist. may be you belong to the myreid variety of socialists who never acknowledge the importance of marx to socialism. Who though mimicing his views yet specialise in villifying him. I don’t wanna make further assumptions and if you don’t belong to them please just take my comments loosely.They are not meant for you.
-
-
To be honest, my knowledge of Marxism is basic at best, which undoubtedly shows – as it shows that English is a second language to you. Not intended as a critique or insult, but it does make it more difficult for me to understand exactly where you’re going.
You’re probably correct that I look at things from a European, capitalism-influenced viewpoint, which is obviously rather different from yours. However, I don’t think that means discussion is impossible, as you said in your post.
Anyway, by dividing the world into a centre and a periphery you’re more-or-less dividing it into classes: capitalists and proletariat, only on a global scale. I do think it’s true that the world has been polarised somewhat, but there are limits to how far you can take that view. Nor does it mean that a country moving from the periphery into the centre automatically creates tensions.
Dividing the world economically also disregards other factors that can be just as important. There are ‘civilised’ countries in the periphery, just as there are ‘barbaric’ countries in the centre.
If I understand you correctly, you are also saying that Turkey ‘ascending’ into the centre will create problems because Europe’s economy will move further away from the American one. I think you’re thinking of things too statically here: economies can shift to cope with such things. It is to mutual American and European advantage that trade continues at the present level, and while significant shifts usually do cause upheaval (Industrial revolution for one), this does not need be dramatic. (Nor could it probably be avoided by not letting Turkey join – such shifts are a ‘natural’ occurrence).
As a side note, I also question that the current system is based purely on economical domination – ask Vietnam, Cuba, Columbia…
-
-
Boy you are still young, learn
learn boy, learn
you’re still young, learn.
let not the capitalists decieve you
let not the bourgeois delude you
you are a rose so fresh
ready to see and feel the world
learn boy, learn. -
-
chuckles Arise, ye worker from your slumbers? shrug As long as we’re quoting: “Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, if not to facts themselves, because, for it, to submit would be to cease to be.”
-
-
reminds me of shelley
The first line reminds me of shelley when he said in the poem MASKS OF ANARCHY.“Arise like lions after slumber
in an unvanguishable number.”and I add…..
Arise like lions after slumber
In unvanguishable number
And with a roar of thunder
render your chains a sunder.With all your heart and might
Seek them and brother unite
The victims of bourgeois crime
In every land and clime.as for the other quotation i can’t place anywhre. Tell me who said.
-
-
Henri Poincaré. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henri_Poincaré
-
-
Thank you.
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
Thimoty
Oct 4 5:27 PM 2005
Reply