For People Who Are Against Globalism - Why?

[DogmaHunter]

I honestly believe Europe has allowed mass migration due to their idolization of the U.S.

Sounds a bit narcistic.

...But what they had there was nothing wrong with. Oh well. It's too late now, might as well just keep the flow ongoing, and go all the way. We'll see if it works out the same as what we have here in the U.S.

I honestly really hope not.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Errrrrrr....

That *is* an aspect of globalization.

Right, it's the only part I see as being useful.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right, it's the only part I see as being useful.

No, it's not the only thing. I'll bet money on it.

It's typical Brexit talk, really. They also screamed about how evil the EU is etc, while not realising everything they took for granted that came with being part of the EU.

The concept of globalization isn't any different. Sure, it has its problems / obstacles. But don't let those blind you for all the rest.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No, it's not the only thing. I'll bet money on it.

It's typical Brexit talk, really. They also screamed about how evil the EU is etc, while not realising everything they took for granted that came with being part of the EU.

The concept of globalization isn't any different. Sure, it has its problems / obstacles. But don't let those blind you for all the rest.

You can't think of anything else, but you'll bet money there is something? That's funny.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Can anyone think of a benefit of Globalism aside from global trade, which we already have through the internet?

 

[ananda]

Can anyone think of a benefit of Globalism aside from global trade, which we already have through the internet?

The uber-rich can get even richer!

 

[eclipsenow]

And globalism's call for open borders and having no regard for the individual sovereignty of nations would lead to a one world government which makes it possible for one evil dictator to take over the whole world.

But where do you draw the line? America has 300 million people, over 13 times the population of where I live, Australia. I propose we dismantle America into 13 Australia's to reduce the risk of one evil dictator taking over the whole of America! But hang on a minute, Australia is 23 million people, which is nearly 4 times the size of Libya. I propose.... (etc etc).

On the other hand, one could argue that a single global government could be a well maintained global democracy with all the checks and powers that a democracy has. Look at the growth of the EU. I think the EU has it's problems because it is not quite a 'country' yet, not really a single Federation. But after 2 European wars within 30 years, it has had a long period of peace, wealth creation, integration, a single currency, mobility of people and ideas, and incredible infrastructure building. There is now a ESA, European Space Agency! The integrated co-ordinated European scientific policies have created wealth and advanced science. What's wrong with all that?

Now imagine a world government where military spending was cut back. I've heard that just 5% of the world's military spending could solve the world's requirements for adequate freshwater, nutrition, emergency housing, education, and family planning... all in one go! Basically, it would meet the minimum needs for the whole human race. Just 5%! Imagine the world's military budget split up into programs that would provide culturally sensitive solutions to all these problems. Imagine a whole new sector of the world's military, the "Blue Helmet's", operating like International Rescue (Thunderbirds are go!) after any natural disaster! Your whole community and all infrastructure was wiped out by an earthquake, but wait! Here they come... the Blue Helmets have an aircraft carrier that has just launched a swarm of choppers with food and water. This aircraft carrier also has an on-board nuclear power plant that can generate both more chopper fuel for its own use, and diesel for local transport energy requirements. It also has a desalination plant to provide all the freshwater you need, and while the choppers are doing most of the legwork initially, the aircraft carrier is on its way and soon will be providing a city's worth of freshwater right at your doorstep.

Here's the movie! Forget the talk of "Utopia", as there will still be death and disasters and maybe even local tribal skirmishes that the Blue Helmets have to go in and quell. But just imagine what the world's current military budget could be diverted into!

 

[Landon Caeli]

But where do you draw the line? America has 300 million people, over 13 times the population of where I live, Australia. I propose we dismantle America into 13 Australia's to reduce the risk of one evil dictator taking over the whole of America! But hang on a minute, Australia is 23 million people, which is nearly 4 times the size of Libya. I propose.... (etc etc).

On the other hand, one could argue that a single global government could be a well maintained global democracy with all the checks and powers that a democracy has. Look at the growth of the EU. I think the EU has it's problems because it is not quite a 'country' yet, not really a single Federation. But after 2 European wars within 30 years, it has had a long period of peace, wealth creation, integration, a single currency, mobility of people and ideas, and incredible infrastructure building. There is now a ESA, European Space Agency! The integrated co-ordinated European scientific policies have created wealth and advanced science. What's wrong with all that?

Now imagine a world government where military spending was cut back. I've heard that just 5% of the world's military spending could solve the world's requirements for adequate freshwater, nutrition, emergency housing, education, and family planning... all in one go! Basically, it would meet the minimum needs for the whole human race. Just 5%! Imagine the world's military budget split up into programs that would provide culturally sensitive solutions to all these problems. Imagine a whole new sector of the world's military, the "Blue Helmet's", operating like International Rescue (Thunderbirds are go!) after any natural disaster! Your whole community and all infrastructure was wiped out by an earthquake, but wait! Here they come... the Blue Helmets have an aircraft carrier that has just launched a swarm of choppers with food and water. This aircraft carrier also has an on-board nuclear power plant that can generate both more chopper fuel for its own use, and diesel for local transport energy requirements. It also has a desalination plant to provide all the freshwater you need, and while the choppers are doing most of the legwork initially, the aircraft carrier is on its way and soon will be providing a city's worth of freshwater right at your doorstep.View attachment 218107


Here's the movie! Forget the talk of "Utopia", as there will still be death and disasters and maybe even local tribal skirmishes that the Blue Helmets have to go in and quell. But just imagine what the world's current military budget could be diverted into!

You think Russia, China, Arabia and North Africa are going to go with that? Because while we wait, we're still going to need military spending.

...These dreams of world peace through a one world government are a long way off. Maybe a thousand years off.

 

[Landon Caeli]

You know whats weird..? Russia has probably the least densely populated country in the world, with millions of acres of unused land and China is so overpopulated, they have to restrict parents to 2 kids or less.

These are neighboring countries!

...Yet the West is going to convince the world on globalism? How's that going to work?

 

[eclipsenow]

You know whats weird..? Russia has probably the least densely populated country in the world, with millions of acres of unused land and China is so overpopulated, they have to restrict parents to 2 kids or less.

These are neighboring countries!

...Yet the West is going to convince the world on globalism? How's that going to work?

Trade and technology.

Trade. We don't have to convince the world on economic globalisation, which is slowly increasing trade across the world and incrementally, bit by bit, building economic zones that can co-operate. Economic integration gradually shifts towards rationalisation of trade barriers and national rules regarding products etc which leads to political integration.

Think of the African Union. They've come from a colonised continent through the havoc of post-colonial chaos and poverty to slowly forming various REC's (Regional Economic Communities) that overlap in the following diagram. But just look at this mess!

That's a mess, right? Different rules for different regions trading goods and services in different currencies. But think about what they've already achieved. South Africa and Nigeria and Ethiopia are economic powerhouses compared to what they were before. They want to protect that from being flooded by the overwhelming needs of the continent, so no one is going to suddenly develop a "United States of Africa" overnight! Rather than suddenly imposing a united Federation, the African Union are using economics to slowly unite the country, just as the old European Coal and Steel community became the EU!

The AU's future goals include the creation of a free trade area, a customs union, a single market, a central bank, and a common currency (see African Monetary Union), thereby establishing economic and monetary union. The current plan is to establish an African Economic Community with a single currency by 2023.[95]
African Union - Wikipedia​

This is going to take a lot of work! I doubt the above timetable will come through. I mean, an integrated African economy in 5 years? I doubt it! There will be new tribal conflicts, religious conflicts, and civil-wars as a result of the post-colonial chaos. There will be setbacks. Look at the EU and Brexit! Who would have imagined that? There's a setback! But on the other hand, who could have imagined the EU as it is today in September 1939?

Look how far Europe has come after starting to tear itself a part just 79 years ago! Indeed, the European Coal and Steel Community only started its unifying work in 1952, 66 years ago. Look at them today!

Globalisation can slowly accumulate towards globalism. It's not inevitable, as Brexit and Catalan in Spain show. But it is possible. If the African Union continues to build their REC's into larger economic zones that gradually accumulate into a couple and then finally one economic zone, who knows what accompanying political integration may have occurred? Will the AU eventually be able to call on African Federal police or military in to solve a local heated religious or ethnic dispute? Will African States send troops to take better care of their neighbours and stop a neighbouring civil-war from developing simply because of self-interest, and wanting to protect their own trade and profits and security and infrastructure?

If Africa Unites, what about Asia? Asia is already a bunch of REC's like Africa.

Nonetheless, Asia has numerous geo-economic groupings that may lead to EU-like integration including the East Asia Free Trade Agreement(EAFTA), the Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia (CEPEA) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). These already make it the world’s second-most integrated region after the EU.
As the European Union celebrates 60 years, can Asia use it as a model for economic integration?
​

Yet as the link above says, there are huge obstacles to an AU (Asian Union). As you indicated in your mention of China and Russia,

The first involves the question of will for unity in diversity, an idea that guides the EU. The region’s cultures, political regimes, economic systems and religious beliefs are more disparate than Europe. And we can count on many governments resisting sufficient institutional proximity, which would necessarily result in some diluting of sovereignty, non-interference and territorial integrity.

The second hurdle entails superpower interests in seeing such integration take place – or not – and in what shape. Asia remains under the influence of fiercely competing superpowers, buffeted by the conflicting interests of China, the United States and Russia. What are the chances the region can achieve equal partnership rather than extending the predominance of major regional actors; of reaching partnership rather than absorption?​

But if economic ties (and even internal cultural & religious shifts) do occur, and some form of Asian Union slowly develops, Asia is half the world's population. Sure, Asia includes modern democracies like Japan and strong assertive neo-Feudal states like China. (I call it neo-Feudal because city "Lords" rule over the country peasants and little folk without the accountability of democracy. It's not truly Socialist or Democratic, with a weird hybrid of market and government designed to grow the city, so neo-Feudal it is). But with Christianity spreading through China's heartlands, who knows how long the current political regime can remain intact? Also, what would the impact of a war on the North Korean peninsula be? Would citizens be open to greater unity after such a catastrophe just as the EU was formed on the still-warm ashes of WW2?

We're selfish. We like wealth and pleasure and fun. Most of us hate war (except maybe in fun online games! ) I don't think the "World Vote Now" trailer above was realistic about a 10 or 15 year timeframe for a true United Nations Federal Parliament, but neither am I as pessimistic as predicting 1000 years.

Also, don't forget the internet. Here you and I are discussing deep ideas on opposite sides of the globe. Social media sparked the Arab Spring, and can allow all kinds of cultural shifts and attitude changes.

From the link above again:

In December 2016, the EU and ASEAN celebrated the 40th anniversary of their relationship. As a summary to their underlying beliefs, they stated that “regional integration (is) the most effective way to foster stability, build prosperity and address global challenges.”

Each needs to promote this in its own setting to succeed.
​

Or, as this "The Conversation" article states:

You might be surprised to learn, therefore, that some of the smartest international relations (IR) scholars in the world think that a world government or state is not only desirable on normative grounds, but it is also only a question of time before it happens. Admittedly, the time in question may be 100 or 200 years, but it’s a remarkable idea nonetheless.​

 

[BlackSabbath]

Globalism is basivally the equivalent of the far right now, trust me I know. I've had all kinds of experiences here in Canada.

They're calling it socialism, but it is hardly that, it's turned into something else entirely while they keep implementing policies which concentrate all the power in the hands of the big businesses, government helps them becuase they get kick backs, and also it is the same with the housing market.

I think the far aspect, well it's to terrorism in the middle east, that's why these people are against countries and borders obviously whilst they fundementally the few who are benefiting from this reap in the money, and leave little room left for anyone else. It's not just the same as international trade at all, unless you see that as fundementally outsourcing everything because you can lower your wages, disenfranchise people and then as well, which only allows for bigger wages for yourself I suppose.

Well I mean I guess it's just selling out your own country because you can make more money that way. But the democrats are considered on the right now by many intellectuals or political speakers, whatever you call them, but I think likewise they are the equivalent of the right to be honest.

 

[BlackSabbath]

I guess maybe it is just America, but I dunno again the media likes to place all the blame on them for everything.

I am not on or condoning the far right, I am just saying that much of what they're doing is similair I think.
Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in America

Canada is supposedly the first post national state as Truduea has declared, but from first hand experience Canada is not that liberal, there's still a host of social problems, and gentrification, crime, poverty. There's a "brain drain" from other countries for example that don't give them incentive to stay and make there countries better where they are originally from and instead of giving the money to help Canadians become better educated or the like and support them they often do so instead to migrant workers.

Another example, they give money for social assistance, and even pay for housing for them, but they have no training and thus become a tax burden to Canadians and stay on welfare I believe (I think this has been studied and proven, at least most of it)
The Canada experiment: is this the world's first 'postnational' country? | Charles Foran

I looked at statistics as well, it is not just America, all the big multinational businesses, and the policies coinciding alongside them are causing huge inequality, gentrification and social problems everywhere.

I think it's all a plan for The One World Government sort of:
World government - Wikipedia

But likewise with the structure they have going now they could just concentrate all the power, either leave people in poverty or I guess finally be sparingly liberal (who is going them accountable, exactly) they can just do whatever they want mostly. It will be like the U.S.S.R, but probably even worse.

 

[BlackSabbath]

One of the policies, the Trans Pacific Partnership
Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Bad for Workers, and for Democracy | HuffPost
"“nontariff barriers to trade,” or NBTs. Economists vary widely in their assessments of the TPP, but there’s general agreement across ideological stripes that tariffs are already low. In fact, some reports claim that only five of the 29 draft chapters in the agreement actually relate to lowering tariffs. The protest-worthy part of the deal regards the NBTs—the reduction of regulatory measures, and “freeing” of market activity, in the name of standardizing rules and lowering costs."

See, that's basically what globalism is, wrapped up nicely in semantics and rheortic to sound nice.
"Free market trade liberalization efforts like the TPP are not new. In the 1970s and 80s, catchphrases like “trickle-down economics” and the “Washington Consensus” named the series of policy prescriptions pushed by supranationals like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) that combined trade liberalization (it's more like neo-liberalism)with privatization and deregulation schemes, and fiscal austerity, under the rubric of structural adjustment. As economic crisis left much of the developing world in dire straights,(because of debt, to whom? The world banks? But who are they?isn't that pretty much what Obama did, get the states in debt to the World Banks) IMF and World Bank debt programs helped pry open their markets for foreign investment, undermining indigenous industries and placing them in a sisyphean struggle against default. In some cases, like Chile, it was not the IMF that brought free markets, but the iron fist of dictators like Augusto Pinochet, in collusion with U.S. corporate and political leadership, and laissez faire economists like Milton Friedman."

So, it is just crony capitalism in a nutshell. But that's the thing I don't know if anyone can stop it or not. I think everyone is just trying to win via globalist and traveling to different countries to gain leverage or economic favor in some way. It's just kind of lame, people hop borders to get jobs because they don't want their countries or they themselves don't be liberal, and yet leave all kinds of people out by the wayside and then everyone is selectively trying to opress or choose their special race of the week to support. "Who deserves it more"

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people | Dan Gillmor

 

[eclipsenow]

Globalism is basivally the equivalent of the far right now, trust me I know. I've had all kinds of experiences here in Canada.

I think you mean globalisation, not globalism. Globalism is about having accountable democratically run international institutions, not unaccountable, unelected politicians and CEOs doing dirty deals behind closed doors.

They're calling it socialism, but it is hardly that, it's turned into something else entirely while they keep implementing policies which concentrate all the power in the hands of the big businesses, government helps them becuase they get kick backs, and also it is the same with the housing market.

Again, you're talking about globalisation, not globalism. Globalism is this....
turn it up loud, and dig it baby!

 

[BlackSabbath]

I'm not against globalism as a concept, but am of very liberal and individualist mind.

Groups, while useful and natural, generally lead to a loss of individuality (see collectivist societies) which of course is not cool when you value it.

Globalism would also come along with a single government entity, that means a governmental monopoly, which you can argue is probably not a good idea.

At the same time, you can argue that globalism would lead to a single big group, but there would probably still be subgroups, so you wouldn't really get rid of the Us vs. Them mentality.

I'm interested to read more on this topic as well... my views aren't really fleshed out on the matter.

I think it's just crazy. There's so many reasons why such a thing wouldn't work out well in reality. If two countries cannot get alomg and see eye to eye, you're supposed to just overrule them and force them to instead? Again, it doesn't stop the problems from existing that creating that conflict in the first place, and then suddenly you call that peace? Plus, all the problems that exist with such a style of governance (if you can even call it that) are still existence not to mention even democracy. When two countries can't get along, you'd have to strip them of that for it to even work, plus, whatever you want to dress it up and call it, it's still jist another form imperialism. Have fun building pyramids for no reason then, lolololololololololol.

 

[BlackSabbath]

I think you mean globalisation, not globalism. Globalism is about having accountable democratically run international institutions, not unaccountable, unelected politicians and CEOs doing dirty deals behind closed doors.


Again, you're talking about globalisation, not globalism. Globalism is this....
turn it up loud, and dig it baby!

Oh whatever, ad neasuem fancy marketing campagin. That's what we have now, and if people cannot properly utilize or take advantage of it, then it is their loss.

All I see now, is people being less democratic, not more. It's all just slick advertising being aimed for their own specific agendas. I have seen it all play out in Canada, it's the same thing. Human institutions are faliable to the same human shortcomings as within countries, but you want to take to a large and massive scale? It's just comletely naive.

Internationalist is the one that has always existed and what it should be, oh my god. Who are the ones siding with the big multi national corporations while making bad trade deals, and then getting countries into so much debt they have to only comply with whatever the World bankers, (or banking cartels lol) insist on, please. Why can't everyone at least compete fairly instead of stooping to all of these low down coniving plans?

Exactly. If anything they just create policies that a opposed to real democracy and not for it. In most I just see them pushing their views on the rest of the world which are simply not conducive to a function democracy, like "we are all one" "everything is the ego" "do lots of yoga, and open your chakras" they say it's spirituality and then enforce it on everyone.

 

[eclipsenow]

One of the policies, the Trans Pacific Partnership Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Bad for Workers, and for Democracy | HuffPost

I agree with all your concerns, I really do!

See, that's basically what globalism is, wrapped up nicely in semantics and rheortic to sound nice.​

It doesn't even sound nice to me. But what you are condemning is globalisation, the efforts of certain multinational corporations and governments to increase trade but also sadly, sometimes, to decrease democracy. Corporations want the right to sue member governments if their profits are at all harmed! That would give smoking corporations the right to sue the Australian government because we demand all cigarrette cartons be in plain packaging with the consequences of smoking illustrated on the cover! These anti-democratic, corporation favouring free trade deals are sadly what globalisation is all about.

Globalism fights this, and wants there to be powerful international governance mechanisms that can stand up to these all-powerful corporations. Because, like it or not, the corporations are here, and many of them are more powerful than governments! I am very concerned about the TPP undermining local democratic powers, but it seems the only way we can deal with this is by increasing our regional and even global democratic powers to fight it!

Answer this: right now, if you are really angry about a global subject like the TPP, who can you vote for on the global level to do something about it?

 

[mzungu]

Globalisation promotes the Chicago Doctrine (Vulture Capitalism) it has nothing to do with brotherhood etc.
Friedman would be proud of how Corporatism has spread its tentacles worldwide.

 

[eclipsenow]

Globalisation promotes the Chicago Doctrine (Vulture Capitalism) it has nothing to do with brotherhood etc.
Friedman would be proud of how Corporatism has spread its tentacles worldwide.

And the reason corporatism has nation-states competing for lowest tax rates etc and other bribes and favours, encouraging the very corporatism that you and I are so concerned about, is that those nation states are not co-ordinated. There's no supra-state that can set global policies on what multinationals must do, and what they must not do. (Child labour sweat shops, unfair minimum wages, etc).
So I totally agree. Corporate driven multinational globalisation looks like something out of the Sci-Fi series Continuum where future democracy has totally collapsed and there's a Corporatocracy. But a global democracy aims to fairly sort these issues out, empowering the little guys and girls.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think it's just crazy. There's so many reasons why such a thing wouldn't work out well in reality. If two countries cannot get alomg and see eye to eye, you're supposed to just overrule them and force them to instead?

Help those countries trade, out of genuine economic self-interest in mutually beneficial ways, and the economic imperatives take over. It works. Consider Germany and France 1918 and 1939, and the EU now.