The Subject is Globalism & Nationalism

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   
   There are those who are fearful of the concept that societies of the future will become globalized.  Although some people will become fanatically nationalistic, nationalism will eventually die out as people become more universalistic in their beliefs i.e. that all humankind is one.  Do you believe that future societies will become more globalist or more nationalist?  Do you strongly maintain that nationalism is on its way to extinction or will it grow?  Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Nationalism has its place and is appropriate, but we do not live in a vacuum, we are not and cannot be an island so what is going on outside or borders we need to cognizant of, if for nothing else but our own safety and security.
      
      Only conservatives insist on seeing every thing in stark terms of black and white when the truth is that a view considering the various shades of gray is more accurate.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Ignoring the obligatory dig at conservatives, you are right.
         
         But there are two major obstacles to globalism: the vast disparity in wealth and the vast differences in culture.
         
         The first requires that the "have" nations give to the "have-nots" to raise their wealth to something comparable.  Impossible to do, as the only way it can be maintained is to keep giving forever. 
         
         The second requires that all have somewhat similar cultures.  Again, not possible unless everyone becomes a China or India - something that the majority of the world will fight tooth and toenail.  Would that we could simply accept that people are different, but that seems impossible at this time.  Maybe in a thousand years.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            We must have different ideas of what globalism is Wilderness. I didn't see any of your objections in what I understood globalism to be.
            
            I asked Google, and she said I was right. It is about policies and interactions to deal on a global scale, not about an equalization of all global communities.
            
            It seems globalism would deal with our policies and efforts to address markets and nations as varied as China and Nigeria, or the UK and Arabia, not about developing a level platform for all players.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I view the term as indicating a global society, something like the EU but on a global scale.  More than simply commerce, then.  And in that regard, similarity of culture and wealth is necessary.  Not particularly equal, but similar.
               
               One result of a google search:
               
               "As nouns the difference between globalism and nationalism. is that globalism is an ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered while nationalism is patriotism; the idea of supporting one's country and culture."
               
               This is pretty much in line with my thought, and when people pass unfettered, bringing their wealth/poverty with them as well as their culture, it must be at least similar, in the same ballpark.  We could never, for instance, tolerate large numbers of Islamic extremists any more than we could tolerate large (multiple millions) of people coming from villages in Africa.  The EU is seeing some real cultural problems with middle eastern immigrants, where the culture (particularly concerning women) is so at odds with their own.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Damn Google! She must be pissed at me for not giving her search credit for some of the other comments I have made.
                  
                  But, if you took out that "unfettered" part, (perhaps that source was similar to a couple I quoted to James), your quote still seems to match the definitions of Globalism I noted.
                  
                  I think that Globalism is best defined as understanding, and adopting policies and interconnections that realize that our modern world is a global economy of nations. *Note the plural nations. I think that the current trend to associate globalism with One World Order-ism is wrongly applied.
                  
                  As a side note. One article I found equated the ancient Silk Road mercantilism as an example of Globalism. One nation developing policies and connections to deal with another nation with different cultures and values - to the benefit of all. And there was nothing "unfettered" about that ancient Silk Road trade.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     If the Great God Google is mad at you, you're in trouble!
                     
                     Truthfully, I think this is one of those terms that mean different things to different people, all while we sit back and assume everyone understands our meaning.  It's relatively new, which is why there is no set definition.
                     
                     So, in economic terms, without large scale mixing of cultures, (your view) I not only have no trouble with it I think it is absolutely necessary.  As has been pointed out, no nation is an island; we may come as close as anyone, but there are still raw materials that are not present (or at least found) in the US.
                     
                     But when we expect cultures to mix and people to freely travel and live where they wish the concept has (at this point) insurmountable problems and cannot be tolerated by any developed nation on earth.  IMO.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I think you nailed it - twice.
                        
                        One, that I agree with your thought that folks are not using a common definition, and two, that without that "unfettered" part we seem to be in agreement about the reality, and necessity, of globalism in our modern world.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
         2. 79

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I am being "good" today
            
            Your points are well taken. We have so little control over the economies and politics of nations abroad. We cannot feed all the starving hoards at our gates. It reminds me of my visits to parts of Central America where the handful of affluent barricaded themselves against those destitute ones outside of the gates. The gates consist of barb wire, shards of glass, etc
            
            When I was in Panama, I had to wonder if  these wealthy had to be concerned as to when "the rabble" would actually breach their security arrangement out of sheer desperation.
            
            We, in America, are fortunate at the moment, because of a relatively strong middle class the extremes of wealth and poverty are not as stark, yet. But, as to how long our bubble can remain intact is a mystery. Fortress America may very be our only option.
            
            A more sustainable world order has to occur, how is it done? I am still scratching my head.
            
            I am less concerned about cultural amalgamation as allegiance to the United States automatically includes acceptance of Capitalism as the economic system and the hegemony of democratic principles, the "rule of law".

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "Fortress America may very be our only option."
               
               You mean a wall on the southern border.    But in truth, when we have thousands of people ganging together to get through our security (caravans) we are seeing the same thing those folks in Central America are seeing.  Either protect ourselves or give up what we have.
               
               I don't see any kind of "world order" until poorer countries decide they actually want what we have built and will work to do it themselves.  Goodness knows they get enough help to do that, but don't want the cultural changes that necessarily come with it. 
               
               But Cred, "cultural amalgamation as allegiance to the US" does NOT include acceptance of capitalism (or other cultural norms, such as equal treatment of women, acceptance of gays, the fight against racism, etc.), not in globalism: it could just as well mean setting those things aside in favor of the cultural norms in other countries.

               replyreport
      2. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         You beat me to it Cred. That is what I think also. Except; I would replace "conservatives" with your usual Right-wingers. (you slipped up on that part)
         
         I also think that, with the exceptions of its protection of national interests connotations, the future definition of nationalism will be more directed at national identity aspects. The extremes of nationalism that we are now experiencing are not good for us.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            GA, the problem with this "Nationalism" thing is that everybody pratices it.
            
            We say that China and its ambitions are getting out of hand, what do they say about us? You cannot dictate terms to them, they too, are a nuclear power.
            
            We say that we don't want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, who made us "the boss"?  If I were Iranian, I would be concerned about Israel as a nuclear power and the threat that represented to them. We have nuclear weapons but prohibit others from acquiring them? What do we call that?
            
            There are no Ancient Rome's that have either the power or reach to dictate its terms to the entire world.
            
            If we do not want a repeat of the devastating conflicts of the last century, respect and peaceful coexistence must be a part of American foreign policy. If that makes me a "globalist", then I have to wear the title.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Does "respect and peaceful coexistence" include sitting back and watching one country destroy the autonomy of another?  Thinking of the Taliban, North Korea, ISIS or even Iran vs Israel.
               
               I struggle with this.  I absolutely hate being the world's policeman and find it on the bottom rung of the morality (and financial) ladder.  But is there actually a choice here?

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  If we take on the role of globocop, does "our beat" extend to the entire inhabited globe?
                  
                  America has been surreptitiously involved in regime changes over the last century to promote its own economic and political interests. To keep the world from being dominated by one country to the angst of everyone else, the United Nations or similar body is necessary to get global consensus rather than unilateral action on the need for a military response for example, with the exception, of course, of direct attack. The ISIS and the Taliban are the acceptible examples that you cite.
                  
                  This thing with ISIS and the Taliban has been going on for almost 20 years.

                  replyreport
      3. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Nationalism will soon go the way that our States' Rights and individual controls went.
         
         Wasn't so long ago, what you did in one State did not follow you into another.  If you left behind 10 unpaid parking tickets and 2 speeding tickets in NY, it didn't impact you when you moved to GA.
         
         Today it does, there is no escaping your past deeds, no matter how unjust you believe it to be, or how badly you feel violated by them.  There is a National system in place and there is no place to hide from it so long as you remain in the U.S.
         
         Our children will live with that reality, on a global scale, when they are our age.  China's 'Social Currency' system will be a very real part of global existence by 2040.
         
         There will be those who are part of 'Normal Society', and there will be a an underworld where life is harsh, and there are no rights accept those you can force others to give you.
         
         The system will exacerbate the haves and the have-nots, it will isolate the incomprehensibly wealthy from the abysmally poor.  It will eradicate human rights and freedom of speech rather than ensure all people recieve it.
         
         When AI and technology allow the global government to track you by facial recognition wherever you go on planet earth, when they can access everything you have ever done... the result is far more likely to be a future that would put Orwell's 1984 to shame than a Utopian society for all.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting comment, Ken
            
            I think of the 1920's and 1930's during the formation and development of the FBI, one of the reasons were that criminals were committing crimes in one state and escaping prosecution in another. When Bonnie and Clyde or John Dillinger committed bank robberies making their escape in fast cars, the cops would stop pursuit at the state border or the end of their jurisdiction.  I don't think that we want to go back to those days.
            
            With the advent of all of this technology, internet snooping and ubiquitous cameras, privacy will be that much more difficult to obtain. So who feels the need to look in? There is the commercial markets seeking to define their customers and would do anything to get a leg up for a sale. Is it law enforcement that has something to do with "crossing the line"?
            
            I have heard of China's Social Currency system, I would have like to have thought that our Constitution would put some restraint on that here.
            
            Technology, the quest for cheaper labor on a global scale, and the audacity of the wealthy and financial markets to change the laws and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else has much to blame for a "Dickens" type scenario in the not so distant future. But, in France over 200 years ago, the wealthy, cleric, nobles and the royalty were greeted by the dispossessed who brought out pitchforks and the guillotine in response. As the disparity between have and have nots grow, the danger of such an upheaval increases with the wealthy well aware that their wealth and the ability to enjoy it safely lies with the universal acceptance of the current economic system, so they had better watch their caboose. Let's face it, you cannot put everyone in jail.
            
            I have no solution to what is coming, except accommodation to the fact that the masses operating as the middle class needs to be protected. Advocating support for the great middle, politically and economically may well stave of a possible future apocalypse.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      James A Watkinsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I am a Nationalist. That simply means I love America and I am opposed to Globalism, which aims to eliminate countries and erase all borders and rule the world through unelected ‘experts.’ A nation is a group of people with a common identity that they do not share with others. A nation is a stable community with strong bonds of identity, often sharing common descent, history, culture, traditions, customs, and language, who feel themselves to be one people, with shared loyalties. That is why Globalists promote unlimited migration of Third World Peoples into the successful countries – to rip apart those bonds that tie nations together.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         James, your comment appears to be against the tenets of One World Order ideologies, not Globalism.
         
         It looks like you have confused the two. Google says Globalism doesn't have anything to do with what you stated. She says it is about policies, interconnections, and interactions. Are you sure it is Globalism you are against and not OWO ideals?
         
         GA

         replyreport
   3. 87

      James A Watkinsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Leftists had a fit when President Trump said, “I am not a Globalist. I am a Nationalist.” They had a fit because they are Globalists: they want a World Without Borders, a world without nations, where there are no Americans only “Citizens of the World.” So, in their usual spiteful slander, they falsely equated being a Nationalist with being a Nazi.
      
      I have three dictionaries and here is how they define Nationalist: 1) “A person who advocates political independence for a country [as in independent from the United Nations].” 2) “A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests.” 3) “A person with great love for their nation.”
      
      Hitler and the Nazis were National Socialists. And that is whole nother thing. President Trump is the opposite of a Socialist. Thank God.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Well, since you brought definitions into the conversation, a Globalist, (as in a believer in Globalism, as properly defined),) does not believe any of what you claimed.
         
         Here are some "Globalism" and "Globalist" definitions:
         
         glob·al·ism (Dictionary result for globalism)
         /ˈɡlōbəlizəm/
         noun
         the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.
         
         glob·al·ist  (Dictionary result for globalist)
         /ˈɡlōbəlist/
         noun
         1. a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
         
         adjective
         1. relating to or advocating the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.
         
         Wikipedia:
         "Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the inter-connections of the modern world — and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."
         
         Merriam-Webster:
         ": a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence"
         
         Financial Times:
         Globalism is a word used by demagogues to suggest that globalisation is not a process but an ideology — an evil plan, pushed by a shadowy crowd of people called “globalists”
         
         But then, to your view, I did find this Aaron Renn fellow that says these are the four tenets of Globalism:
         1. "Borderless World: A belief in the ever freer movement of goods, services, capital, and people around the globe.
         2. Global Culture and Regime: A shared set of social, lifestyle, and political norms, along with supranational institutions that embody them, that explicitly supersede all national norms and institutions.
         3. Flat Earth Morality: A belief that all people and entities are to make decisions are in a way that weights every human on planet earth equally, rather than expressing a higher obligation towards their neighbors, their own countrymen, etc.
         4. Neoliberal View of Personhood: An implicit belief underlying all of the above that human beings are in effect widgets, and can be viewed similarly to goods and services (as in point #1)."
         *But this was a blog piece opinion, not a definition *shrug
         
         And then... along came John... I found another piece to your view. This one from Conservapedia.com
         "Globalism is the failed liberal authoritarian desire for a "one world" view that rejects the important role of nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity. Globalism is anti-American in encouraging Americans to adopt a "world view" rather than an "American view." The ultimate goal of globalism is the eventual unification of humanity under a one-world government."
         
         So, now what? Who do I believe, sources with the purpose of correct and accepted definitions, or sources with opinions, bias, and agendas?
         
         I may be wrong. The new definitions inferred by Pres. Trump and Conservapedia may replace the accepted dictionary definitions. But for now, I think I will stick with M-W.
         
         ps. Sorry for all the cut & paste stuff, (I prefer opinion discussions), but to my defense, you did start the definition example
         
         GA

         replyreport
      2. 69

         JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Bozo Trump is an egregiously incompetent racist white nationalist fascist, the same strain as my ancestors in the allied forces HALTED in their tracks in Nazi Germany in the 1940's:
         
         Republicans are absolutely SOCIALISTS, only they call it "Republican Capitalism" which is designed to concentrate our entire national wealth in the greedy little hands of a select few, they take from "we the people" and give to the elites: That's your Bozo Trump and Russian Republicans Party: "Corporate Welfare":

         replyreport
   4. 74

      Miebakagh57posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, gmwilliams, when I was a boy, I learn in school to love my country and all that it stands for. Last year, I was helping my 7 years old girl with her school work, and this concept was re-inforced. Nationalism hardly die in any part of the world.
      
      Now, every person may love his/her country. A Ghanaian will love Ghana. A Nigerian will love Nigeria, and a United State (America) will love America, and so on. Despite all these, not in spite of.
      
      Nazism, ISIS is not part of the scheme. Because Nazi will consider his country much better and superior in terms of blue blood. All the other peoples will be destroyed. Same goes for ISIS?
      
      What is the United Nations (UN) there for? Does it help solidified nations? Maybe, I am wrong, and I need correction.
      
      World leaders and free thinkers defined ideas freely. All these will not be enforced against a particular country or society. They definitions are contrary to the existing rules. That should not be surprising because as politicians, they are trying to create their own world. But this is hardly achieved like Hitler attempt end in a full failure.

      replyreport