General / Off-Topic Globalization Vs. Nationalism

[Aereon Theed]

Recently I was part of a large group discussion on Globalization Vs. Nationalism – I noticed quite quickly that the conversation became heated and that people seemed to polarize behind one idea or another, usually rooted in these categories but sometimes far outside the spectrum (which lead me to believe they can often be self-defined concepts that aren’t understood on a broader spectrum in relation to a person’s country or region).

When it comes to my own beliefs I feel as though we are headed for globalization no matter how much any group or individual attempts to abstain. As our technology broadens, and our communications increase (internet, television, cellular devices, satellite technology) I feel as if it is inevitable that we will eventually be one global unified body. I double down on this idea when I take into consideration the advancements in our space technologies and the desire of a large portion of the global population to be become a space-faring race [though I do recognize there are those that would like to abstain from this as well].

With that being said I find it hard to understand individuals who wish to live in societies away from the global community or dislike the taste of globalization as a whole and consider themselves nationalists seeking to find ways to end globalization. Do not get me wrong, I understand the financial weight (social economically), the weight of crime, and the power of political movements that we must transverse and redefined in order to achieve a true international community (or even perhaps something as large as a global nation without borders).

Returning to the idea (and this is why I am starting this conversation on this forum in consideration of the game we place) that one day we will want to be a space-faring race, my assumption is that one day no matter how special we tend to think we are we will come across other sentient species. With this thought in mind I cannot help but believe it would be a benefit to us all to be a singular community on a global scale in order to facilitate both our exploration and defense.

Thoughts? I am curious to hear from you; especially those with counter arguments, sub-arguments, or anything in between. I would also be curious to understand the frame of mind from a nationalists perspective.

---

Spoiler

Globalization or globalisation (see spelling differences) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.[1] Advances in transportation (such as the steam locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships) and in telecommunications infrastructure (including the rise of the telegraph and its modern offspring, the Internet and mobile phones) have been major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[2][3][4] Though many scholars place the origins of globalization in modern times, others trace its history long before the European Age of Discovery and voyages to the New World, some even to the third millennium BC.[5][6] Large-scale globalization began in the 19th century.[7] In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the connectivity of the world's economies and cultures grew very quickly., The term globalization is recent, only establishing its current meaning in the 1970s.[8] In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge.[9] Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.[10] Globalizing processes affect and are affected by business and work organization, economics, socio-cultural resources, and the natural environment. Academic literature commonly subdivides globalization into three major areas: economic globalization, cultural globalization, and political globalization.[11]

Cited from Wikipedia

---

Spoiler

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."

Globalists oppose nationalism and national sovereignty, and instead tend to favor on open borders, free trade, interventionalism, and foreign aid. Globalists virulently opposed Donald Trump in 2016. Instead, globalists preferred Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for the nomination, both of whom have voted in favor of the globalist agenda as senators.

Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. It is far easier for liberals to persuade a handful of people in centralized government to rule in their favor than it is for liberals to push their agenda on a decentralized form of government.
Cited from Conservapedia

---

Spoiler

Nationalism is a complex, multidimensional concept involving a shared communal identification with one's nation. It is a political ideology oriented towards gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over a territory of historical significance to the group (such as its homeland). Nationalism therefore holds that a nation should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism. In these terms, nationalism can be positive or negative.[3]

Cited from Wikipedia

---

I get it. Don't worry. Not here to take anybodies 'volunteer job' nor do I care anymore. Please continue.

 

[lysan]

Nationalism is not a bad thing, I always like it instead of globalisme. Many people think of fascism when Nationalism is mentioned, but that is really not the case.

Basically it's about taking care of your own first before anyone else. If a member of your household need help you would also help them first instead of the neighbor I guess.

Nationalism is not right nor is it left on the political spectrum, it's about your nation first and foremost.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Topic Rules:
1) Please be kind, if you can’t be kind and respect to one another, please re-frame from the conversation(s) taking place. We can all become heated, and even very opinionated, its natural, but that does not mean we cannot stay respectful.

2) Please stay on topic, or close to the topic. Try not to diverge from the theories being discussed or the ideas being presented. Stay within the spectrum and within the supplied arguments. Touch on any subject you wish but be sure to present an argument for why it connects to the

3) Please refer to each other as ‘friend’ or ‘friend on the other side of the isle’ do not get into name calling or harassment. As soon as you try and define someone by a title (name calling) you make your argument irrelevant. We’ve all done it, but should strive not to.

4) Please do not let things get personal. If you feel as though the conversation has become personal, take a step back or ask for clarification. Even resort to messaging the individual and asking for a retraction or personally explain where you felt you were personally attacked.

5) Please do not pick on grammatical mistakes, or cut out one sentence from an argument to try and demonstrate your intellect. Ask for clarification from the author of the statement if you are unsure as to their meaning(s).

Please do not attempt to Moderate a thread - there are Moderators who will deal with that sort of thing.

 

[beelbeebub]

the conservipedia text is interesting as it gives an insight into how some nationalist's (and others) view "globalisation".

what I find interesting is that people who are nationalist dislike globalisation because they think it is about a "one world view" that "rejects the important role of nations" and that it "...leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control".

yet people on the left (unions, labour parties, "green groups" etc) dislike globalisation because they think it's about reducing the power if the individual/worker/common man and centralising power in the hands of the rich/industry etc.

effectively both the extreme ends of the spectrum are against it because they believe it has been cooked up by the other end.

 

[Aereon Theed]

Please do not attempt to Moderate a thread - there are Moderators who will deal with that sort of thing.

I am providing guidelines. Not moderating. Notice please? I didn't state these as hard and fast rules. Besides, I don't often see moderators coming into threads to do that. More often then not they leave conversations alone, especially those topics which have thousands of posts in them.

Edited it to read 'forum guidelines' - does that help?

These are the official forum rules for these type of discussions.

With all of the events happening in the world recently, I wanted to reiterate our standings on the off-topic forums regarding politics and world events. The moderation team reserves the final say on the matter, including skipping advisories and issuing infractions to halt such behavior listed below. Using the off-topic forum to post any of the following is strictly forbidden.

If your post/thread contains content that is...
disruptive,
unlawful,
threatening,
abusive,
harassing,
defamatory,
vulgar,
obscene,
racially, religiously, ethnically or otherwise objectionable,
invasive of privacy or publicity rights,
abusive,
disparaging, and/or
illegal.



Your post will be removed and will be moderated accordingly.


Above all else, yes, we do permit our off-topic forum to be used for political discussions so long as its respectful and constructive. Remember, debate the subject, not the person.

I was reiterating these with a bit more clarity and giving people options on how to handle things. Not moderating.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Nationalism is not a bad thing, I always like it instead of globalisme. Many people think of fascism when Nationalism is mentioned, but that is really not the case.

Basically it's about taking care of your own first before anyone else. If a member of your household need help you would also help them first instead of the neighbor I guess.

Nationalism is not right nor is it left on the political spectrum, it's about your nation first and foremost.

Why isn't that bad?

How is it right to judge someone elses worth as a human being based upon an accident of geography beyond their control?

 

[beelbeebub]

Nationalism is not a bad thing, I always like it instead of globalisme. Many people think of fascism when Nationalism is mentioned, but that is really not the case.

Basically it's about taking care of your own first before anyone else. If a member of your household need help you would also help them first instead of the neighbor I guess.

Nationalism is not right nor is it left on the political spectrum, it's about your nation first and foremost.

there is nothing wrong with "taking care of your own" first.

but, I would argue, that globalisation is not exclusive of "taking care of your own first".

I would argue that the core part of globalisation is the reduction of trade barriers i.e. making trade easier.

you can put your nation first and still be in favour of globalisation. would it be in N Korea's national interest (as defined by the standard of living of it's people) to make trade with other countries easier or harder?

 

[Lianachan]

There are different kinds of nationalism. English nationalists want less people to be English, but Scottish nationalists want more people to be Scottish - an example of globalism and nationalism coexisting in the one philosophy.

 

[lysan]

Why isn't that bad?

How is it right to judge someone elses worth as a human being based upon an accident of geography beyond their control?

Who is judging? I don't invite people I don't know to come to my house, if I want someone to come to my house I invite them, and as far as I know that is how many people feel. That is not judging.

People should try to improve their living conditions, many years ago like 100 years ago women didn't have the right to vote in Europe, they then got together and changed it.
you can say the same about many things. Running away is not a solution.

- - - Updated - - -

there is nothing wrong with "taking care of your own" first.

but, I would argue, that globalisation is not exclusive of "taking care of your own first".

I would argue that the core part of globalisation is the reduction of trade barriers i.e. making trade easier.

you can put your nation first and still be in favour of globalisation. would it be in N Korea's national interest (as defined by the standard of living of it's people) to make trade with other countries easier or harder?

Trade has always been rigged, the word globalisation was only a buzzword to make it sound better to people.

- - - Updated - - -

There are different kinds of nationalism. English nationalists want less people to be English, but Scottish nationalists want more people to be Scottish - an example of globalism and nationalism coexisting in the one philosophy.

In the "English" case it was more Imperialism, and also sadly what became of the American way of living, it all changed after the second world war.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Who is judging? I don't invite people I don't know to come to my house, if I want someone to come to my house I invite them, and as far as I know that is how many people feel. That is not judging.

It's not a "house". It's a lump of rock sticking out of the water.

People should try to improve their living conditions, many years ago like 100 years ago women didn't have the right to vote in Europe, they then got together and changed it.

Yes. They did. They weren't up against tanks and sarin gas though, were they?

you can say the same about many things. Running away is not a solution.

It's a solution to "There is an advancing army of T-72s heading from the east, and a bunch of genocidal nutcases with RPGs coming from the west, what should I do about my family?"

No. Taping a knife to the end of your broomstick like in the good old days isn't going to work. Had Cromwell been up against an army with assault rifles history might have been very different.

Trade has always been rigged, the word globalisation was only a buzzword to make it sound better to people.

You're typing this on a keyboard probably made in China. The silicon might have been sourced from California. The chipset could have been designed in Seattle or South Korea. Are you drinking tea grown in India? Or coffee from Brazil? And when was the last time you had nice citrus fruit grown in Portugal, or Spain, or Africa?

Tell me, when was the last time one of your family had polio? When was did you last have to go to a hospital because of diptheria? How is that small pox working out for you?

When was the last time you had no power? When was the last time there was a coal emergency? Or no gas? Have you ever known the street lighting to be extinguished because the government can't procure enough resources of energy?

Globalization has enabled humans to advance faster and further than before. It's that simple. Some people have been left behind, that much is true. More needs to be done for them. But to believe it to be a big con, whilst enjoying the fruits of it, is bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

there is nothing wrong with "taking care of your own" first.

We're all "our own". We share a planet and we share a fate. Trying to pretend otherwise is dangerous and is both the reason for a lack of progress on some threats (global warming) and the source of some new ones (fascism, the rise of the alt-right again, etc).

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am providing guidelines. Not moderating. Notice please?

There's really no need to re-iterate the rules of the forum in the OP.

 

[Minonian]

For my part let's just cut the ideological out of the whole problematics, and get to the main point, the core of the problem.

How much is wort to lose your identity just to be part of a greater whole? How much you can give up? I afraid there is no good answer to this since it's varies by persons and ideology, culture. But i sure about one thing.
To give up yourself just to be part of something greater, it cannot be forced and await a good result. Such decisions must came voluntarily.
About brainwashing, cultural manipulations? How much one ideology worth if it must be forced into your thinking, by tricks, and the constant annoying repeat of the same worthless trash?
next to nothing i afraid.

 

[Aereon Theed]

Who is judging? I don't invite people I don't know to come to my house, if I want someone to come to my house I invite them, and as far as I know that is how many people feel. That is not judging.

People should try to improve their living conditions, many years ago like 100 years ago women didn't have the right to vote in Europe, they then got together and changed it.
you can say the same about many things. Running away is not a solution.

- - - Updated - - -

Trade has always been rigged, the word globalisation was only a buzzword to make it sound better to people.

- - - Updated - - -

In the "English" case it was more Imperialism, and also sadly what became of the American way of living, it all changed after the second world war.

If trade is rigged I would argue that it is not rigged necessarily by the individual in power but likely by the corporations that operate between nations or on international boundaries. Which presents us all with an additional problem due to their inability to have nationalistic boundaries. We see that in corporations that run manufacturing plants, for example, in multiple nations trying to decrease their spending on the creation of their products. All to often these corporations create more issues in countries or resource to use the loop holes in the laws of the countries they set up shop in (such as child labor). If we were to remove borders (or just refer to them as a traditional guideline to the edge of a nation) and to agree on global laws that are much more then guidelines imposed by the United Nations, or the European Union, etc, we might see some of these morals not being broken? If you understand what I am saying. It sounds chunky to me.

Granted, I understand this breaks down to the very liberal idea of trying to give everybody the same state of living or same access to resources such as health care. Which tastes stale in some peoples mouths, especially those who believe in nationalism, but it might go a long way to protecting the things we all need. Such as the planet? Thoughts?

there is nothing wrong with "taking care of your own" first.

but, I would argue, that globalisation is not exclusive of "taking care of your own first".

I would argue that the core part of globalisation is the reduction of trade barriers i.e. making trade easier.

you can put your nation first and still be in favour of globalisation. would it be in N Korea's national interest (as defined by the standard of living of it's people) to make trade with other countries easier or harder?

Not sure I can speak to North Korea's interests. I think it would be difficult to define their position on many arguments but I see your point. However I am left to wonder, when do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? I wonder how many people are actually apposed to globalization once it has been properly explained and defined to them.

Another object of this, I think could be discussed. When we look at previous societies, such as the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Buyid Dynasty, etc, there leadership was trying to take control of 'all the known world' in many cases through forced expansion and imposing their views on other nations. I think this is what a lot of people think will take place. I also realize this didn't work very well for them. As stated somewhere else, people, especially conservative type minded individuals, like to keep boxes and boundaries to understand ideas. There is nothing wrong with this, its just how some minds work.

the conservipedia text is interesting as it gives an insight into how some nationalist's (and others) view "globalisation".

what I find interesting is that people who are nationalist dislike globalisation because they think it is about a "one world view" that "rejects the important role of nations" and that it "...leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control".

yet people on the left (unions, labour parties, "green groups" etc) dislike globalisation because they think it's about reducing the power if the individual/worker/common man and centralising power in the hands of the rich/industry etc.

effectively both the extreme ends of the spectrum are against it because they believe it has been cooked up by the other end.

It is funny that you should mention that. The largest argument I heard when involved in this discussion was that it would allow someone to take power and control the entire planet while forgetting about specific areas or aspects of the global community thus allowing tyrants and violence to proliferate in places that are less likely to be moderated. I can see this vantage point, but I had to interject that we have provinces in some countries, states in other countries, and that the same could be true. Plus, I happen to agree with your idea (I believe it was yours, I apologize if I am wrong, I am on my mobile device) that trade and profits would perhaps increase internationally.

One aspect that was brought up on quite a number of times (we had some American's in the conversation) was that "everybody would want to move to America" and when I asked why, I was told "because it is the land of the free and one of the freest countries in the world." [not true but there is another topic for that]. I had to disagree to this sentiment. I personally suspect that if global borders were dropped you would have mass migration of people, sure. And this would present a huge challenge for existing infrastructures and in many cases a food shortage in some areas. However, we also have to remember that if we were adopting similar rules throughout the planet this would increase the standard of living in many countries, so the idea that everybody from say a third world country would move to America (or even Canada for that matter) would be false. People don't just leave their homes and all their belongings behind.

Of course the argument was made "What if they live in a mud hut?" [Which I thought was bordering on being rude but the point must be made, I suppose]. Well, again that refers me to the original argument that the standard of living would increase thus pushing people to stay where they are and join the new infrastructural development. I also believe that with the mass migration you might actually get pockets. For example, those who want to be famous might move to America to join Hollywood. Those who wish to take part in technological development might move to South Korea or China. Of course I don't know the exact details of where people might move too, but I am sure you get the idea I am trying to drive at.

 

[lysan]

For my part let's just cut the ideological out of the whole problematics, and get to the main point, the core of the problem.

How much is wort to lose your identity just to be part of a greater whole? How much you can give up? I afraid there is no good answer to this since it's varies by persons and ideology, culture. But i sure about one thing.
To give up yourself just to be part of something greater, it cannot be forced and await a good result. Such decisions must came voluntarily.
About brainwashing, cultural manipulations? How much one ideology worth if it must be forced into your thinking, by tricks, and the constant annoying repeat of the same worthless trash?
next to nothing i afraid.

I'm an individualist, sorry but in the end I really only care about people, and things that mean something positive to me. Ofc I try to help strangers and people who don't have the financial means I do, but bending over and just give it all up? no way.

 

[Minonian]

I'm an individualist, sorry but in the end I really only care about people, and things that mean something positive to me. Ofc I try to help strangers and people who don't have the financial means I do, but bending over and just give it all up? no way.

Is that so? Than why you are so busy with destroying the EU and trying to make a money out of it? just like when you bet on stock exchange around the brexit referendum? If it's really necessary we can dug out that posts. You don't care about anything except your own skin, you don't think about anything except your own ideas and ideology.

By taking a part an referendum supporter helping to cripple a nation and make personal gain out of it you helping people? Do you mind to tell me how?

 

[Patrick_68000]

The nationalism is a good thing. It is important that the people have an identity, a national culture. In the word "nationalism" there is a nation. However I do not like the nationalism when it looks like the fanaticism. The globalization is a good thing if it passes after the notion of nation

 

[Minonian]

Nationalism how it's presents the public opinion mind and it's supporter's behavior Patric? Everything but not positive! they are overzeaolus, and they support toward their nation is not represented by love, but the hate of the others.

 

[Don Alvarez]

Nationalism how it's presents the public opinion mind and it's supporter's behavior Patric? Everything but not positive! they are overzeaolus, and they support toward their nation is not represented by love, but the hate of the others.

That is a very narrow assessment. It is possible love your country and not despise everyone else.

 

[beelbeebub]

We're all "our own". We share a planet and we share a fate. Trying to pretend otherwise is dangerous and is both the reason for a lack of progress on some threats (global warming) and the source of some new ones (fascism, the rise of the alt-right again, etc).

Absolutely, my point is that Lysan puts forward the idea that globalisation requires you to see your family and friends ("your own") impoverished so that "others" can live high on the hog.

He then says that he doesn't want this (and to be honest, who would want that) and therefore argues that globalisation is bad.

This is a classic straw man argument.

Globalisation does not require that you make yourself poorer, quite the contrary, it generally makes you better off and as a bonus makes others (not your friends and family) better off as well.

Globalisation has been the main attitude of the west since the end of WW2. Every single indicator of standard of living has improved since then. Life expectancy, disposable income, infant mortality, access to education, mobility, you name it, it's got better.

And as a bonus almost everyone else on earth has got better off as well.

 

[Minonian]

That is a very narrow assessment. It is possible love your country and not despise everyone else.

Yes, But by the look of the nationalist parties not this is how they are doing right?

You know what's real love? When you place the other's needs, above yours! To say freedom worth more than anything, and in the meanwhile make out of money of their "freshly gained freedom" Let's be honest!!! Misfortune! Is to be a hypocrite!