Greecing the skids

[longeyes]

I've been wondering if it would be cheaper for Germany to just invade Italy and Greece kick out the governments and all the stupid agreements they've signed with the public sector workers and other parties and then go from there.

Which Reich are we on now...I've lost count...?

[AJ Dual]

Which Reich are we on now...I've lost count...?

Considering his stances on the Earned Income Tax Credit and Unions... maybe it's the Robert Reich we're on now.

[longeyes]

The EU proves the argument that super-national consortiums that contain excessive cultural and economic "diversity" are not viable. 

[MillCreek]

The EU proves the argument that super-national consortiums that contain excessive cultural and economic "diversity" are not viable. 

Upon reading this, I thought of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as also consistent with this point.

[De Selby]

The EU proves the argument that super-national consortiums that contain excessive cultural and economic "diversity" are not viable. 

It's false though - the Roman empire and the Ottoman empires contained several orders of magnitude more diversity, and outlasted the EU and Soviet Union each by several hundred years.

Cultural and economic diversity are not the problem - what isn't viable is centralised management of the resources relevant to each.  Centralised defence and the abolition of passport controls are entirely achievable; they were achievable 2000 years ago.

[TommyGunn]

Yeah, that's what all countries need, is a bunch of centurions running around collecting tribute from everyone and persecuting those who practiced the "wrong" religion.  Some of their leaders were downright nuts in an inordinantly dangerous way (Caligula, Nero, Tiberius....).  
Not hardly the kind of ... "diversity" that we need in our world today, I think .......

[longeyes]

It's false though - the Roman empire and the Ottoman empires contained several orders of magnitude more diversity, and outlasted the EU and Soviet Union each by several hundred years.

Cultural and economic diversity are not the problem - what isn't viable is centralised management of the resources relevant to each.  Centralised defence and the abolition of passport controls are entirely achievable; they were achievable 2000 years ago.

I meant modern states.  Your examples are of, bluntly, autocratic and ruthless empires that were "tolerant" only when challenges to their power were not at issue.

[De Selby]

I meant modern states.  Your examples are of, bluntly, autocratic and ruthless empires that were "tolerant" only when challenges to their power were not at issue.

The point is that their power wasn't challenged by diversity.  They had cities that today would be considered neighbors speaking different languages; not a problem.

[De Selby]

Yeah, that's what all countries need, is a bunch of centurions running around collecting tribute from everyone and persecuting those who practiced the "wrong" religion.  Some of their leaders were downright nuts in an inordinantly dangerous way (Caligula, Nero, Tiberius....).  
Not hardly the kind of ... "diversity" that we need in our world today, I think .......

The "wrong" religion according to the Romans, or to their local designates?  Important distinction there

[roo_ster]

The EU proves the argument that super-national consortiums that contain excessive cultural and economic "diversity" are not viable. 

longeyes point is operative for polities that respect liberty, but not for despotism.  Note that all DS's examples are of despotic regimes.

The simple fact is that duh-versity erodes trust between peoples and once there is too much, a politics of unity is no longer possible and it devolves into a mechanism to reward particular subdivisions at the expense of the others.  The other subdivisions balk at this and the gov't must use force to keep them in line.  The USA is a fine example a good ways along in this process.

[MicroBalrog]

longeyes point is operative for polities that respect liberty, but not for despotism.  Note that all DS's examples are of despotic regimes.

Whereas the Soviet Union was famous for its respect for individual liberty?

[Jamisjockey]

It's false though - the Roman empire and the Ottoman empires contained several orders of magnitude more diversity, and outlasted the EU and Soviet Union each by several hundred years.

Cultural and economic diversity are not the problem - what isn't viable is centralised management of the resources relevant to each.  Centralised defence and the abolition of passport controls are entirely achievable; they were achievable 2000 years ago.

Both were empires held together at the tip of the sword.  Your strawman is on fire.

[agricola]

Both were empires held together at the tip of the sword.  Your strawman is on fire.

Won by the sword maybe, but - in Rome's case especially - there were surprisingly few "national" rebellions.  Off the top of my head I can only think of five - Armininus, and the Jewish revolts of the 60s AD and Bar Kochba, Boudicea and Civilis's revolt amongst the Batavians. 

[Jamisjockey]

When you conquor a people, the implication of how you will react to rebellion is pretty clear.

[De Selby]

When you conquor a people, the implication of how you will react to rebellion is pretty clear.

That might explain a decade or three of persistence - it doesn't explain 1000 years of it.   Many of the worst rebellions in those empires were in those ethnic groups closest to (or part of!) the ruling ones. 

Anyway, the point here isn't that they were free and cooperative regimes - the point is that claiming that no society or government can last with diversity is false.   Linguistically and culturally diverse regimes have so far outlasted any notable country that is homogenous.

[mtnbkr]

Many of the worst rebellions in those empires were in those ethnic groups closest to (or part of!) the ruling ones.

Yup.  Rome's method was to conquer by force, but maintain control by integrating those people's into the empire.  There were many revolts at the core of the empire by the ruling classes because certain parties did or did not want to extend certain rights to non-Romans.

Earlier this year, Dan Carlin had a very long Hardcore History podcast episode detailing a lot of this.  I think one episode was about 5hrs long.  Death Throes of the Republic is one series of podcasts about the Roman Empire, but I can't recall the title of the longer one that came out this Spring.  I'll see if it still exists in my iTunes library...

Edit:  It was Death Throes of the Republic.  I misread the dates.  Ep 6 came out in June and was the 5hr one.  The previous episodes were all less than 2hrs.  If you have iTunes, all 6 are available still for free.  Once they drop off, you have to pay to get a copy.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

That might explain a decade or three of persistence - it doesn't explain 1000 years of it.   Many of the worst rebellions in those empires were in those ethnic groups closest to (or part of!) the ruling ones. 

Anyway, the point here isn't that they were free and cooperative regimes - the point is that claiming that no society or government can last with diversity is false.   Linguistically and culturally diverse regimes have so far outlasted any notable country that is homogenous.

Many of those cultures were integrated into the romans.  Look at how they treated religion.

What europe is engaging in isn't a roman style melting pot.  And that's the path we're heading down, too.

[MicroBalrog]

Both were empires held together at the tip of the sword.  Your strawman is on fire.

And the Soviet Union, which longeyes somehow pointed to as an example of tolerant diversity, how was that held together?

[SADShooter]

Being Roman meant something special during the Pax Romana. For many non-Romans citizenship was an aspiration.

Who today proclaims: "I am a European!"?

This is the distinction. There is no overarching value associated with the EU relative to the posited historical examples. Thus, nothing to bind the diverse elements into a greater whole.

[longeyes]

And the Soviet Union, which longeyes somehow pointed to as an example of tolerant diversity, how was that held together?

I pointed to no such thing.  Please.  Sovietism is par excellence what I am talking about: diversity held together by ruthlessness and autocracy.

It's true that Rome (successfully) integrated the "alien"--until Rome was no longer Rome.

Look, no one is arguing here for zero diversity, only that having a goal of diversity for its own sake--for whatever motive--is self-annihilating.

[MicroBalrog]

I pointed to no such thing.  Please.  Sovietism is par excellence what I am talking about: diversity held together by ruthlessness and autocracy.

Except it was part and parcel of Soviet policy to try to destroy diversity, suppress local languages and cultures, etc. The Soviet Union was as melting-pot as it could get, to the point that entire alphabets were suppressed by the authorities.

[TommyGunn]

The "wrong" religion according to the Romans, or to their local designates?  Important distinction there

The kind of religion that gets you (A.) tossed to the lions, or (B.) crucified. Either one can be really inconvenient.  "Their designates" is a pretty irrelevant term considering the consequences.

[longeyes]

Except it was part and parcel of Soviet policy to try to destroy diversity, suppress local languages and cultures, etc. The Soviet Union was as melting-pot as it could get, to the point that entire alphabets were suppressed by the authorities.

I think we can agree that the aim of the Soviets was to create a totalitarian state with the more subjugated components the better.  That is diversity-within-tyranny but not the autonomous agents we both see as comprising significant differences.  There is clearly some kind of organic balance between unity and diversity, predicated, one would hope, on consensus on the most critical values.

[MicroBalrog]

I think we can agree that the aim of the Soviets was to create a totalitarian state with the more subjugated components the better.  That is diversity-within-tyranny but not the autonomous agents we both see as comprising significant differences.  There is clearly some kind of organic balance between unity and diversity, predicated, one would hope, on consensus on the most critical values.

What "diversity" did the Soviets promote except for wishing to subjugate as many people as they could?

[dogmush]

What "diversity" did the Soviets promote except for wishing to subjugate as many people as they could?

They were willing to subjugate anyone?  Equal Opportunity Tyrants if you will.