Socialism?
Textbook and college prof "reality" has long been unhinged from the real world. That's why it's called "Ivory Towers" or "Ivy League".
Socialism does not actually exist. It's a fanciful imagination concept. Communism doesn't exist either, neither does "Capitalism". We load these ideological barges with all our crap and then dump it on real people like they're mushrooms thinking it will help somehow. We accept propaganda that flatters us with some meagre sort of self-validation, nationalism or other gratifying terminology, but the real impact is always force, always outta our own hands somehow.
We could argue about war coming from fundamental clashes of incompatible nations, and maybe design some kind of United Nations on the hope of controlling everything peacefully, but that kind of view is fundamentally false. Nobody who can control things is ever going to be "Just" except in their own imaginations. I believe we are being primed for a new kind of war, a war without borders, without any place of refuge, designed to force us to accept absolute authority from the very top and under terms of absolute powerlessness at the individual level. How can we believe Clinton enable Russia to control a huge portion of our uranium resources even while he was moving to reject arms controls and asserting regional dominance over supposedly independent neighbors? Clinton and Putin, peas in a pod. The question only is who will hold the UN levers of power, one tyrant or another. Trump is a real applecart up-ender simply because he's an outsider in those highest definitions of existing power, but he will have to make a place for himself somehow. He is an unknown, and he will give pause to the warmakers for a few years because he is not well-controlled, that's all. Clinton and Putin would have done their "bowery war" alright, and kept the Mideast in flames one hotspot at a time, with UN supervision every step of the way. Putin saw Clinton as a direct competitor who was easy to outfox. The US would have been a big loser, imo, throughout a Clinton presidency. The United States would have lost it's premiere place on the globe. That was the intent of Obama and Clinton, ideologically speaking. It was an OK result. The UN would have emerged as the uncontested relevant government. And, no it is not a "socialist" government, except rhetorically or propagandally speaking. It is fascist. It is a web of interconnected influential people, of various kinds of influence, with a preponderance for increasing their collective power and individual power, at our expense. In it's founding documents it recognizes no fundamental human rights if any such rights are in conflict with its own interests. Says so outright.
3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
*
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Dutch, why limit your concerns to one side of the struggle for power when we don't have any kind of government that is not force, and sometimes unwanted violent force.
The American Constitution was revolutionary, and has been attacked by every conceivable sort of power-seeking competitive mode of governance. It has been subjected to concerted ideological and sociological attack from every side. It was never all it could have been, and from the gitgo "interests" have successfully circumnavigated it's concept.
The one essential notion in the American Constitution is that power must be limited, controlled, counter-balanced, and hogtied if people can hope to have a say in what affects them.
It is in itself an assertion that there is no grand ideological or conceptual ideal available to mankind, and that mankind must take care to advance human liberties which always will be under attack from every angle by those who seek power.
If we don't want wars, we must limit the power available to the power seekers, everywhere. A real solution that might achieve world peace would necessarily impose limits, lots of limitations, on the notions of governance worldwide.
The UN has managed "bowery wars" since it's inception, it's promoters have been the warmakers for two centuries, it is the raw accumulation of power in its totality. As long at it exists on it's present principles, we will have carefully staged wars to advance one group of interests or another, whoever thinks they can win an inch of ground or a dollar. The only real solution is to minimize governmental power however we can.
