Anglosphere - India's Future?

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
I'm not sure what you mean by fully integrated, but how about Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Germany, Israel who all have strong military & economic relations with the anglosphere. And these aren't even English speaking countries.

All the countries that embraced "americanism" (individual liberty, free markets, free trade, liberal democracy etc) have thrived, but Pakistan/Egypt/etc. did not do this. That's those countries fault, not America's.

Luckily India has "americanism" (really classical liberalism) in its DNA, so it will not go down the path you fear.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
I'm not sure what you mean by fully integrated, but how about Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Germany, Israel who all have strong military & economic relations with the anglosphere. And these aren't even English speaking countries.

All the countries that embraced "americanism" (individual liberty, free markets, free trade, liberal democracy etc) have thrived, but Pakistan/Egypt/etc. did not do this. That's those countries fault, not America's.

Luckily India has "americanism" (really classical liberalism) in its DNA, so it will not go down the path you fear.

I don't know what you are talking about. Most Indians are closet retards/socialists, including many BJP supporters. I still can't decide if their socialist leanining comes from years of brainwashing in schools or due to a special "stupidity" gene in their DNA. If Democrats are a party in India, they would be right wing economically in many aspects compared to BJP. That is how pathetic liberalism atm is in India
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
No but the people in charge now are. Even Nehru was a classical liberal. In the early 1900s socialism was thought of as the more scientific approach. It was only decades later when this was proven false.

Classical liberalism is not just free markets, its also democracy, pluralism, logic, science etc. Its roots in the west are Greco-Roman (hence classical) philosophy. This is why Washington DC looks more like ancient rome or athens than any modern European capital.

There were only two true classical liberal civilizations in antiquity, Hellenic (greco-roman) and Indian. While the former was extinguished for a 1000 years before being revived, the latter managed to survive the onslaught of monotheism at least partially intact.

That is what I mean by "in its DNA". Very few Americans in 1770 were classical liberals, most were puritanical monotheists. However the people in charge (the founders) set the direction of the country.
 
Last edited:

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,727
Likes
147,026
Country flag
I'm not sure what you mean by fully integrated, but how about Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Germany, Israel who all have strong military & economic relations with the anglosphere. And these aren't even English speaking countries.

All the countries that embraced "americanism" (individual liberty, free markets, free trade, liberal democracy etc) have thrived, but Pakistan/Egypt/etc. did not do this. That's those countries fault, not America's.

Luckily India has "americanism" (really classical liberalism) in its DNA, so it will not go down the path you fear.
appreciated if you use reply button when you are replying to a post, it would help in continuity of a discussion.

All the countries that have been mentioned above have actually retained their core founding principles and more integrated into america only in terms of economy. In all probability this is the path india is likely to take as far as america is concerned. Integration will be limited to the extent of Modern principles of democracy and economics, i say this is a fair expectation. There is no reason for India to become the next america. Even if we try to do this i am pretty sure this will be a failed experiment, since it requires atleast 20-30 years of dedicated social re-engineering for achieving this. i do not see a scenario where successive govts from different political ideologies would be dedicated to such a cause.
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
appreciated if you use reply button when you are replying to a post, it would help in continuity of a discussion.

All the countries that have been mentioned above have actually retained their core founding principles and more integrated into america only in terms of economy. In all probability this is the path india is likely to take as far as america is concerned. Integration will be limited to the extent of Modern principles of democracy and economics, i say this is a fair expectation. There is no reason for India to become the next america. Even if we try to do this i am pretty sure this will be a failed experiment, since it requires atleast 20-30 years of dedicated social re-engineering for achieving this. i do not see a scenario where successive govts from different political ideologies would be dedicated to such a cause.
What I mean by "the next America" is a free & plural society, with a government of, by and for the people, where ideas are debated and discussed freely, and an epicenter of culture, science & innovation. India was very much like this for over a 1000 years, and can get there again.

I don't mean every Indian has to eat hamburgers or listen to hip hop music.

Japan and Germany were not at all liberal democracies, they were totalitarian dictatorships who surrendered to America and had an classical liberal constitution imposed on them.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
No but the people in charge now are. Even Nehru was a classical liberal. In the early 1900s socialism was thought of as the more scientific approach. It was only decades later when this was proven false.

Classical liberalism is not just free markets, its also democracy, pluralism, logic, science etc. Its roots in the west are Greco-Roman (hence classical) philosophy. This is why Washington DC looks more like ancient rome or athens than any modern European capital.

There were only two true classical liberal civilizations in antiquity, Hellenic (greco-roman) and Indian. While the former was extinguished for a 1000 years before being revived, the latter managed to survive the onslaught of monotheism at least partially intact.

That is what I mean by "in its DNA". Very few Americans in 1770 were classical liberals, most were puritanical monotheists. However the people in charge (the founders) set the direction of the country.
Yes Indians before the British/islamic rule were largely liberal in both economic and social sense. But british and sporadic islamic rule have destoryed their independent thinking and has instilled a strong sense of slavery to state in their genes it seems today.


And I don't know where you got the idea that classical word came from Greco Roman era. You have an undue affection of Greek culture it seems. Most greek societies were quasi fascist. The liberalism as an idea in the west originated in France and its middle class in the 18-19th century.

And you know what the biggest problem in your post is?- Nehru being a classical liberal. He was a socialist through and through. Remember one thing, liberalism from state is impossible without economic liberalism or capitalism or free market. So long the state controls my income and means of food, I can never be free from the sate. No matter how many monkey saults socialist liberals make, it wont change the fact that socialism and liberalism are incompatible. Both are mutually exclusive
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
And of course the reason the word classical is added is because the present day liberalism in west (specially usa ) is a bastardised term as it stands for state control and political correctness. So actual liberalism or the true liberalism of the 18-19th century is emphasised in the name with the word "classical"
 

ezsasa

Designated Cynic
Mod
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
31,727
Likes
147,026
Country flag
What I mean by "the next America" is a free & plural society, with a government of, by and for the people, where ideas are debated and discussed freely, and an epicenter of culture, science & innovation. India was very much like this for over a 1000 years, and can get there again.

I don't mean every Indian has to eat hamburgers or listen to hip hop music.
India is already a free and plural society with a government of,by and for the people, where ideas are debated and discussed freely. and an epicenter of culture and science . India was very much like this for over a 1000 years, and can get there again. It's just that from a outsider point of view, the person has to able to the see the reality beyond the noise that is projected about india. india is currently in transition phase which started in 1992 but got derailed for about 10 years and restarted again in 2014.

only thing i see missing is the innovation part, but it takes time. Like i said before there is a backlog, upon clearing innovation should come in the next 15 years. There have been some fundamental mistakes which were done in the first 30 years in terms of education policies which are being corrected now.
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
Yes Indians before the British/islamic rule were largely liberal in both economic and social sense. And I don't know ere you got the idea that classical word came from Greco Roman era. You have an undue affection of Greek culture it seems. Most greek societies were quasi fascist. The liberalism as an idea in the west originated in France and its middle class.

And you what the biggest problem in your post is?- Nehru being a classical liberal. He was a socialist through and through. Remember one thing, liberalism from state is impossible without economic liberalism or capitalism or free market. So long the state controls my income and means of food, I can never be free from the sate. No matter how many monkey saults socialist liberals make, socialism and liberalism are not compatible. Both are mutually exclusive
You can't just take the economic philosophy by itself, classical liberalism was part of the enlightenment, an intellectual overthrow of the conformity of monotheism throughout Europe. It did not originate from the french middle classes, but by the elite intelligentsia of many states. Adam Smith (scotland), Mill & Locke (england), Jefferson & Paine (america), Voltaire and Rousseau (France) etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

According to Bertrand Russell the enlightenment was a phase in a progressive development, which began in antiquity, and that reason and challenges to the established order were constant ideals throughout that time ..
..
A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neo-classicism, traced their intellectual heritage back to the Enlightenment.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism

Classicism, in the arts, refers generally to a high regard for a classical period, classical antiquity in the Western tradition, as setting standards for taste which the classicists seek to emulate.
..
Classicism is a force which is often present in post-medieval European and European influenced traditions; however, some periods felt themselves more connected to the classical ideals than others, particularly the Age of Enlightenment.
Nehru was a classical liberal in this sense, he believed in principles and not dogma. Were he a dogmatic communist (Stalin, Mao) he would have rejected democracy when things weren't working according to his plans.

Btw, I am totally against socialism. I just think you should give credit where credit is due, and for all his mistakes (socialism, terrible foreign policy etc), Nehru deserves credit for sticking with democracy when most developing states in the world went in the direction of totalitarianism.
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
You can't just take the economic philosophy by itself, classical liberalism was part of the enlightenment, an intellectual overthrow of the conformity of monotheism throughout Europe. It did not originate from the french middle classes, but by the elite intelligentsia of many states. Adam Smith (scotland), Mill & Locke (england), Jefferson & Paine (america), Voltaire and Rousseau (France) etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

According to Bertrand Russell the enlightenment was a phase in a progressive development, which began in antiquity, and that reason and challenges to the established order were constant ideals throughout that time ..
..
A variety of 19th-century movements, including liberalism and neo-classicism, traced their intellectual heritage back to the Enlightenment.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism

Classicism, in the arts, refers generally to a high regard for a classical period, classical antiquity in the Western tradition, as setting standards for taste which the classicists seek to emulate.
..
Classicism is a force which is often present in post-medieval European and European influenced traditions; however, some periods felt themselves more connected to the classical ideals than others, particularly the Age of Enlightenment.
Nehru was a classical liberal in this sense, he believed in principles and not dogma. Were he a dogmatic communist (Stalin, Mao) he would have rejected democracy when things weren't working according to his plans.

Btw, I
Wtf? Do you have comprehension issues? Where does it say in your link that liberalism came from Greek classical era?

Liberalism without economic liberalism is not liberalism to begin with. Time for you to internalise what liberalism actually stands for. Logic and reason alone is not being liberal . it just means rational. Stop pulling out strawmans
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
And dude- Adam smith was the father of economics does it mean that his country of birth founded free market?

It was the around French revolution that the liberalism actually gained any political validity .That's what I mean by liberalism originating in France
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
The American Revolution preceded the French Revolution. So if that's your criteria it originated in the American aristocratic classes.

When I say "originate" I'm talking about the ideas. In practice they may be realized much later or never at all. But as long as they exist in the minds of man they retain potential power.

So yes, many Greek/Roman states were monarchies or empires, and others were more republican & democratic. Yes, Socrates was executed for blasphemy. But his (and others) ideas survived to be resurrected and help bring Europe out of the dark ages.
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
The American Revolution preceded the French Revolution. So if that's your criteria it originated in the American aristocratic classes.

again , stop pulling strawmans. I dint say French revolution was the one which started liberalism. I said, it started in france around french revolution. You think french revolution is possible due to one or two intellectuals ? It takes public support.

By your same logic, Communism originated in Germany and not in Russia?
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
Yes, Marxism originated in Germany. It was implemented in Russia.
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
Capitalism is not just free trade, it requires money, banks (capital and the means to distribute it). A tribal barter system is not capitalism, for example. Capitalism began when early empires grew large enough to mint coins, establish treasuries and trading relationships with other empires.

The American Revolution was much more classically liberal than the French revolution. The public of revolutionary America supported the armed rebellion against the British, but not necessarily the intellectual revolution that resulted in the republic. It was very much imposed on them from above by the intellectuals & philosophers who happened to be aristocratic landowners or businessmen for the most part.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Yes, Marxism originated in Germany. It was implemented in Russia.
Thats not how it works. Marx originated in Germany. Marxism as a political movement became a thing only in SU. Dont twist facts to suit your logic
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Capitalism is not just free trade, it requires money, banks (capital and the means to distribute it). A tribal barter system is not capitalism, for example. Capitalism began when early empires grew large enough to mint coins and establish treasuries.
You have no idea on what Capitalism is or what capital is even nor do you have any understanding on economics. If I am investing 1000 wood pieces I cut myself for builing a lodge, those 1000 wood pieces are still capital, even if they are not "money"

The American Revolution was much more classically liberal than the French revolution. The public of revolutionary America supported the armed rebellion against the British, but not necessarily the intellectual revolution that resulted in the republic. It was very much imposed on them from above by the intellectuals & philosophers who happened to be aristocratic landowners or businessmen for the most part.
Exactly, the thoughts of liberalism as a poltical philosophy actually originated in France. Thats what I meant.
 

argumentum

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Messages
80
Likes
56
But that is simply not true. Do you not consider Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson liberals?

The US Constitution was designed specifically to protect the elite from the rage of the masses (which in france would result in the guillotining of aristocrats).

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
- Federalist 10
I guess the difference between us is that I am more concerned with the philosophy and the system, and you are more concerned with whether the population believes in it.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top