Supranationalism

Supranationalism can be defined as "extending beyond or transcending established borders or spheres of influence held by separate nations". In a world that is globalizing rapidly, many people are wondering whether progressively closer contact between peoples is really the great thing it's made out to be. Globalization & supranationalism are certainly directly tied together, but they also intertwine economies, politics, cultures, and law. Every country/people/culture has their own idea of right & wrong, norms and beliefs, so how can we lump them all together into one giant group? In my mind it really isn't as black & white as some people try to make it out to be. Suprnanationalism organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, etc. don't necessarily force you to abide by their rules, how can they?

We live in a world of anarchy, there is no higher authority telling each state what is right & wrong & how to punish potential wrongdoers; because of this does it not make sense that we should have some sort of international agreements? These groups are more like hall monitors rather than policemen; they have no real authority outside of their limited area, schools, and you must attend their school in order to be reprimanded. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this. The United Nations has been able to punish cruel & unjust leaders for their crimes to their own people, send in aid when people were struggling, and allow for common human rights.

Of course, every good intention usually has some flaw or backfire in it. Many people argue that further globalization is causing people to lose their "identity". I can definitely understand how grasping on to your culture can be more difficult when so many other's are being exposed to you, & some would say forced upon you. But, this can become a beautiful thing. Yes, you will have to work harder to keep your separate identity, but you will also have the chance to teach others about your lives, the different ways you live, & the different things you believe. Just a few decades ago this would not have been possible.

Now, referring back to more political matters such as economics and law, I think suprnationalist economic organizations have more downsides. In theory, they are also a great idea. In reality, & because of the volatility of the international market, it seems as though not many benefit from these major organizations. They do open trade up to more remote markets & allow for more massive movement of products and people (workers). They also tend to abuse more underdeveloped countries; they cannot afford to not be part of these global markets for they're not industrialized enough to produce their own products, so these "first world" countries cut deals that are better for themselves and really do more harm than good to poor countries.

It is difficult to say whether suprnationalism is a good or bad thing, as previously stated, it is not black & white. It will be interesting to see how to the future unfolds & the way that these organizations are being used, whether for positive growth for all or for a few that hold the upper hand

The Individual vs. Collective Society

Having been assigned to read The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & watch Les Miserables based off the book by Victor Hugo, we have had to begin thinking about which serves society better: the individual or the collective. I think both of these ideas can have positive effects stem from them; it really depends on the society in question & the time in which we're looking at.

Sure, from a distance communism seems like the perfect way to structure a society. Everyone is equal, everything is distributed evenly & all equally provide what is to be handed out. Equality is key. In a democracy today many of believe that still; the only way to be truly free is to be equal. When we begin to look at empirical evidence of Marxist ideas we see that it doesn't pan out exactly how it's promised. The actual concept just doesn't work in reality & this is a problem. This is the same conundrum for what Marx is trying to portray about the collective society; in theory it makes perfect sense, in actuality it is a failure.

Marx believes that people are innately hopeless; in order for a revolution to occur, society must lose all hope in order to rise up against those that are oppressing them. Putting myself in those shoes leaves me confused. If a people were being repressed & had no hope for the future why would they bother trying to change anything about it? You must have hope for change, good or bad, in order to want to try to affect the outcome. This is exactly what Hugo is trying to get across. We are all individuals, and as individuals we never lose hope. When we add all of these individuals together into a single society we get a revolution of hope & change. I think Hugo was definitely on the right path with this one. But who knows, those Marxists could be right in the future, but I have yet to see it come to pass.