My take is, that the union is pretty well on it’s way, the problems are not yet ironed out, big picture. Correct me if You would, but the watershed was around the turn of the century, the last one that is and in the last millenium, when people actually would
not dare say something as obnoxious as there will no longer be history after the year 2000.
The big change, was 1900, abd between 1900 and
2000, there were 2 world wars, the end of so called
colonialism, the dependence on oil, birth of Israel as a nation, and many smaller wars, usualy fought for domination of disputed areas of interest and land.
That’s a lot. But also 1982 , the waning of Marxist-
Leninism, and the upcoming capitalistic one world idea.
Marxism domineered for apprpximately from 1945 to
1982, on a large part of the world, that is less then
40 years. Not even 2 generations. Total laissez faire economy held now for more then 30 years. So we are almost to the point where those people born before at least a generation, have almost forgotten history, as lived under communism, for as long as communism hed presence.
This is important, because prior to and after the
communistic system, (which can be visualized as sandwiched between two types of major world governance :imperial and economic capital ),the main focus of world power was the conflict between that
(communism) and (fascism). Both were ideologically
reduced forms of power entities, with the ideal of fascism at odds with the equally ideological ,but CAPITAL based power sharing system of governance.
The ideal communist power sharing was based on social principles (supposedly) of equal distribution,
while fascism was a retro ideal form of it, where the
imperium on top was sustained, in an ideal form of distribution of values, - vesting old patterns and their
inherited worth. This was the basic conflict, and in order to predict, whether these unbalances were, are
or will be equalized,one has to be able to make a
best case probable scenario-on the historically determinant parts of the equation.
The German enlightenment of the Protestant ethic set
the stage, for the sustaining vectors of power sharing all the way from the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, of which Austro-Hungary was, prior to WW2, the pre-emnent seat. The German hegemony
embraced the Austrian/Serbian struggle, triggered by the assasination of the Archduke, the basis of the
pivotal struggle. It’s not co-incidental that Hitler was
Austrian.
So these three power motifs were present before,
and sought re-definition of th meaning of capitalism
between the fascist ideal and the Anglo-American
version. So there was a lot of overlap of value, besides the nominal politically colored
pronouncements.
The question is, and remains, in light of what has
gone down, the last generation, (prior 1982) in terms
of how these politically fixed ‘isms’ have retained their political, social and economic value.
Given, that the terrorists in the Middle East, may feel
that they are the world’s movers and shakers, the
fact is, they are but grains of sand on that spectrum, and more objects of manipulation and political projection. Their worth is strictly based on dollars
per gallon, and the moment the wells run dry, their
value will sink as well. The middle East is stricly a kind of computerized chess game, for the major players to diffuse their differences.
If so, it’s probably ubfoeceeable that either the Euro,
or the Dollar, will predominate, since this is an area
of common interest. I do not buy the idea that there is much more dissent than agreement.
The same goes for Chinese interests in the Japanese
sphere, or American interest in the Chinese sphere.
The ideal world of national interest is slowly shifting to internationalism, and the big holders of economic
influence have international equality to worry about.
For these reasons there will not be a major upheaval
in the world, but the question of a European struggle
in-it’s self, is equally doubtful, IF the union, the Eurozone, and the immigration-social integration go
on without a hitch. Minor skirmishes may occur, but military, police, and political dominance will defeat any such trivialities, whether it’s OK or not for Muslim women to wear typical clothing and head gear.
For all practical purposes the ideological struggle has
been basically been resolved, and the social-
psychological ones usually toe that line.
On top of that, conflict resolution is expressible by
new tech, giving impetus to people’s feeling that they
are part of something bigger than they are, not puppets of strictly defined and narrowly viewd , alienated sub cultures. Their inferiority is resolved
per nationalistic and internationalistic exchanges,
therefore, another key is turned in favor of a gradual resolution of these types of sub-struggles.
For people who have memories of the last century, a
view such as this is inconceivable, since all they saw
was war, with periods of unnaturally posed peace, with equally tenous treaties, broken as often as re-drawn.
I see peace, as a potential and attainable goal for the
coming generations, with monumental gains in both personal and social progess