Beyond Nationality, Religion And Economic Ideology

Michio Kaku, the nuclear physicist has said, that for the human race to survive it needs to move to the next higher level  of  relation. We are living in a global society where the problems that face us are of our own making and demand an advanced level of understanding.  A global level of  action.

Yet we are living in a time of reversion, where people cleave to old certainties, religion, nationality, economic ideologies. This has given  rise to populist leaders, and populist causes,  because the establishment has failed to address the ordinary lives of people, in fact world economics has made the rich richer, almost out of sight and  is disinterested with the struggles of most people, whether poor or the shrinking middle class.  The politics of power has usurped the politics of democracy, what at best attempted to be a discussion and a compromise  to benefit all,  has become a conflict of interest, or belief.

You could argue that in a Marxist understanding that this was inevitable, just a delayed scenario, and that all power structures support the rich.  Although this may be true,  this analysis no longer helps the world, which suffers from global warming, mass migration, and fragmentation.  Ignorance buoyed by vested interests, capitalism as a belief, as self interest,  or religious belief,  or political or national identity, none of these help us live together. Predicting  class conflict  as catastrophe, no longer helps the world we live in.

The grand narratives of modernism are dead, yet peoples all round the world hold to them as a safety, as an easy ideology to embrace. Those grand narratives are gone. I know they often are the voices of the disempowered, the poor and the radicals,  as they are also of the ideologically committed to privilege and power,  yet all these views are all redundant.

This is a cry for a new democracy, but not a democracy of majoritarianism , in any one country,  nor a view that independent states are independent,  they are not,  whether born out of colonial empires and exploitation, or born of arbitrary divisions on a map,  leading to war and new colonial aspirations, no, this is all last century.  It is  a call  for a democracy as a colloquium, a hearing of voices, a democracy of science, of rights, and views expressed, and resolutions to benefit all.

Of course each and every country should be held to account for human rights,  then so should all countries refrain from military intervention when they propose enforcing rights. This behaviour of military power is an old nineteenth century thinking of self interest and moral superiority,  destroying a twenty first century world where we need not to colonise, not to separate, but to work together.

The arrival in the world, of  Trump, Brexit, Marie Le Penn, Putin, Erdogan, and many other  populists, religious and nationalist movements  is a retrenchment into a false security. People may exercise nationalist feelings, or hide in religious sanctimony, but it makes no  difference, except cause hatred and kill  It doesn’t matter whether you are fighting for the Caliphate, or for Corbynistas, or for a  great Russia or  a great United States, it is all irrelevant.  These identifications are all irrelevant to the ongoing destruction of the world, in fact they are part of the last stage in Michio Kaku’s analysis. These identifications are lacking in the very need we have to have to survive, to be one people in one world.   To work together, forgetting nations, and religions  and economic ideologies.

So  let’s celebrate science, which tells us how we can survive in our world, and celebrate philosophy which allows an entertainment of ideas, and celebrate the UN’s charter of human rights, which allows us all to hold our different beliefs and live together without an imposition on others.  I’m  with John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’, but you don’t have to go that far. At least we could all think of the world first – this planet’s health.  Let’s put aside nationality, religion, economic ideology, and decide first of all, these don’t count. We have to work together for something far more important.  Imagine that.

Image by Nick Lee

7 thoughts on “Beyond Nationality, Religion And Economic Ideology

  1. Let us be wary lest science become the new religion. Sorry, to me this comes across as woolly idealism without any real substance to it. I agree one should listen to what people have to say, but other than this suggestion your post comes across as empty. Regards. Kevin

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think you misunderstand, science is not a religion, its philosophical basis is different to religion. It doesn’t ask for irrational belief as religion does. So we can lend science’s well proven theories our support and credence, as part of a global understanding precisely because it is not a ‘new’ religion, it is beyond the anachromism of religion.


      1. Science (when properly conducted) is, as you rightly say not a religion. However having attended several talks given by Richard Dawkins the zeal shown by some of his followers borders on the religious. The absolute conviction that they are right reminds me of the religious zealot who holds that he (and he alone) holds the keys to heaven. Engels wrote a book entitled “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific” which turns Marx’s thought into a kind of religion. I applaude your desire for a better world but fail to see anything of substance in your post other than the vague call that we should all come together as one. Kind regards. Kevin


    2. Dear Kevin, I don’t think it is woolly to ask us to put aside nationality, religion and economic ideology, any of them as a primary framework to regard the world, it is rather too concrete in fact what I suggest, to regard them as secondary, even though I may have expressed this gently. As regards Richard Dawkins, he is arguing against religion on a philosophical basis, which I would agree with, but it wasn’t the main point in my argument, his zeal may remind you of religious speakers, then that is to regard and deny his argument about belief by ascribing to him a religious style over substance. That is a tangental but still important as an argument about how it is philosophically impossible to justify religion. I have read both Marx and Engels, I would have thought they were idealists too, yet I don’t see any value in just believing in a grand narrative, surely we should work with what we can reasonably understand, in other words science, including social sciences, and hope and work for human rights, and scientific understanding irrespective of nationality, religion, or economic ideolgy. I think these three dominant beliefs get in the way of our reality. Then I guess this is woolly, but why – because you have to ascribe to a meta- narrative? I like them as interesting viewpoints, but not as beliefs. That is when they fail, intellectually, and bring people to conflict rather than discussion.


  2. There is no doubt we are in need of global ideals. Perhaps it’s about having a better approach to life on the planet, all life. That’s not unattainable idealism, it’s caring.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s