What is "Globalism"?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

What is "Globalism"?

Post by Gary Childress »

"Globalism" seems to get a lot of bad press in some corners of society these days. Is it really something terrible? Can the tenuous tying together of human beings otherwise far-flung across the globe from each other be accomplished in a good way such that there is cooperation and sharing of ideas on an equal footing? Or is globalism necessarily just another means of control and manipulation by a powerful few over an exploited many?

Thoughts?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Globalism has a sunny face, especially for people who would like to "buy the world a Coke." :wink: It sounds great if we "imagine all the people/ living for today" and so on. But that's at a very high level of optimism, one that doesn't actually drill down far enough into the details.

The truth is that it's not too surprising that the optimist set doesn't want to drill down into those details, because they get ugly pretty fast.

One question that appears right away is, "If we need everybody 'on board' with our globalist ambitions, what do we do with those who are not so keen?" Unfortunately, the answer for globalists has often been, "Treat the dissenters as ignorant and dangerous, and cure/get rid of them, because they're impeding us all from reaching global paradise." :shock: And what do we do with recalcitrant countries that insist on retaining their national identities agains the global collective? Do we wait for them to "see the light," and put off our globalist dreams, or do we storm them "for their own good," and take them over imperialistically? :shock:

Another problem that appears immediately is, "Who is going to run the show?" A global government is going to have to be run from somewhere, and everybody thinks it will end up being them, or near enough to them that they won't mind. What if it's not? What if people in Brussels or Shanghai are making decisions about how many Italians can make wine, where Venezuelans can ply their resources of oil, or about what you can grow in your own backyard in Iowa? What the global powers decide that, despite the desolation of the region, it's globally necessary for the fresh water reserves of the Great Lakes need to be drained off to irrigate the deserts in California? And what if those people in Brussels or Shanghai decide that in order to make people in Zimbabwe richer, they need you to be much poorer? What then?

Thirdly, think about borderlessness. Do we really think it's a great idea to have mass migrations sloshing around the globe with no controls or borders? What happens when the people who were hit with a hurricane in Honduras decide that they'd rather live in Texas, and don't any longer care a fig for Honduras itself? Or what happens when people in North Africa all decide the weather's better in France? Or what happens when the little isle of England fills up -- which it certainly can -- and the migrants there become wretched and want a new place to "slosh" to? How is that all to be managed? And what happens to all the lands these people have abandoned? Where will the resources be found to meet swarms of people moving like locusts across the European landscape, desperately trying to survive by decimating the systems and destroying all the resources in any region in which they land?

Then there are pandemic possibilities. Do I need to say more about them? :shock:

But think most about power. If human nature is not always good, and power is centralized in a single office, then who is going to end up occupying that office? It might well be the people who are earnest enough (and immoral enough) to do what is necessary to get there. And that's no idle possibility; it's actually the way things have worked out in any case of Socialism so far (Globalism, we might say, is simply a global Socialist dream), and (I dare say) is presently playing out in slow motion in the US right now. The most unscrupulous rise to the top -- you may see that as Trump, or you may see it as Biden, as you wish -- either way, what's rising to the top is not the "cream."

Finally, there is the Biblical warnings about this. An attempt at a global government by human beings is a prelude to unparalleled tyranny and awfulness, if the prophecies are correct. And you can see from the above that there are very many ways this kind of prophecy COULD come true. Would we want anything like is described in the Book of Revelation to come about?

So let's just say, I've got my reasoned reservations about Globalist enthusiasms.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Gary Childress »

What you say makes a lot of sense. However, with the rise of the Internet and global corporations, I also wonder if globalism is even stoppable. What if preventing globalism is doomed to failure and perhaps even counter-productive? After all, many of the globalists are super-wealthy people who, by the nature of capitalism have accumulated enough wealth to exert a lot of control over things. How do we stop them? Do we take their wealth away? If we don't, then that wealth will be used to gain more power. If we do, then it seems like we might be treading down a path to socialism, because only a powerful global government body with representation for all countries could reign in people like Bezos, Soros, etc. and actually do something about their wealth, otherwise, they'll just migrate to whatever part of the globe will allow them to continue and will invest their wealth and resources into that country. In other words, if we don't cater to the uber-wealthy, they can conceivably produce a world of hurt for us--unless we curb their power through democratic means on a world wide scale.

It seems to me that scientists and academics are largely on the side of the people and what they are proposing seems to be a world where there is cooperation in a productive way. For example, I recently saw where the Union of Atomic Scientists gave a press conference on the setting of the Doomsday Clock. The purpose of the ceremony of setting the clock is to try to get policy-makers to see the real dangers that face us and either bring them to action or else prevent an action of some kind. That seems like a good thing to me. I think we all see what is wrong, we just need the faith to cooperate with one another to bring about peace and well being in the world. We don't seem to have much choice.

You bring up a good point about a world government based in a single country. Obviously, none of us want that. However, does that mean there can't be global cooperation between people of knowledge and learning to further the interests and future of humanity? Does that mean there can't be sovereign nations in the world? Can't there still be sovereign nations even with the UN. The UN is after all a body of representatives of every country that is a member. It's not an authoritarian regime, is it? Yes, there are problems with the UN, however, my understanding is that many of those problems involve the monopoly of power exerted by the US. We don't cooperate well with the UN, as we saw with the Trump Presidency. Perhaps we need to cooperate more with the representatives of other countries and stop the gunboat policy and unilateralism we engaged in during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Some of the most existential problems humanity faces right now (possible nuclear war, global climate disaster) can only be solved through cooperation. They'll probably NEVER be solved by member nations acting out of suspicion and narrow self-interest. In a sense, it's cooperate or we'll all die together, rich and poor alike.

Just a perspective I've gleaned off my readings.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Nick_A »

America is unique in that the purpose for its existence is the attempt at self government. By definition then, the surrender to globalism for America means the end of self government and the transformation into the belief in rule by a new great God which will derive its power from the belief in Globalism and all being one under its rule.

Of course the human condition makes it impossible and we have no philosopher kings so the result is the gradual descent into world slavery and the loss of what it means to be human for the overwhelming majority which is not a pleasant perspective.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:23 pm What you say makes a lot of sense. However, with the rise of the Internet and global corporations, I also wonder if globalism is even stoppable.
That's a very real concern, of course. But if it proves unstoppable, it will not be because it's a better way for us to go, nor that it's the inevitable way for us to go. "History" certainly has no opinion about what course human affairs must follow. Arguably, God does; but not "history" qua "history."

If we go that way, it will only be because we made a very bad decision, I think. We have the means to do otherwise.
After all, many of the globalists are super-wealthy people who, by the nature of capitalism have accumulated enough wealth to exert a lot of control over things.
Quite right. And the Davos group is a very good example of that...wealthy oligarchs who would like to impose global Socialism on us, and keep their own resources to themselves, while positioning us as their "experiment." And the media oligarchs now have no sense of fear of national authority anymore. Many of the international business magnates lost any such fear long ago.

How do we resist that? Well, we can. We can, in fact, defeat it completely, if we wish to do so. We just have to insist we won't play along. Do we have the will to do it? That will remain to be seen, of course.
How do we stop them? Do we take their wealth away? If we don't, then that wealth will be used to gain more power.
I don't think so. In the first place "we" don't have a power capable of doing that. In the second place, there's no way they're giving it up of their own volition. But we don't have to roll over and let them take it, or worse, hand it to them with a sign of defeat.
If we do, then it seems like we might be treading down a path to socialism,
Oh, no...I think the opposite. I think the biggest way to fight is to reassert national sovereignty and democracy. That's the real alternative to what they're doing.
....they can conceivably produce a world of hurt for us--unless we curb their power through democratic means on a world wide scale.
Well, "democratic means," yes. But not by putting in place a tyranny worse than the one they're trying to fashion for us. Nations can refuse to allow their activities except on terms each nation defines to them. We can "opt out" of the Grand Plan they are trying to foist on us, and bring them to heel that way. America, especially, has that kind of leverage. And other powerful countries will opt out of the Grand Plan if America takes the lead. Soon these self-important "engineers" of our future will have no significant place to practice their manipulating...if we deny them space to do it.

But we need real national leadership from America on that. And right now -- let's face it -- we don't have anything like that.
It seems to me that scientists and academics are largely on the side of the people and what they are proposing seems to be a world where there is cooperation in a productive way.

They'd like you to think so. That's the "sunny face" I was talking about.
We don't seem to have much choice.
I'm going to suggest that's a very dangerous way of thinking, Gary. Because if the oligarchs and their ideological followers can convince us that their Grand Plan is inevitable, then we're not even going to resist. But we can. We just have to find the resolve to act.
You bring up a good point about a world government based in a single country.
I was thinking of a global government, Gary. Wasn't that the topic, after all?
...does that mean there can't be global cooperation between people of knowledge and learning to further the interests and future of humanity?

Here's the problem, though, Gary. "People of knowledge" are not special. They're smarter than most, but not more moral, necessarily. Humanity is really all the same in that regard: all levels have people of goodwill but also opportunists, solipsists, power-grabbers and even psychopaths. And unfortunately, the psychopathic types are sufficiently unscrupulous to undo all the good that the persons of goodwill might hope to achieve.

By combining, we make their jobs much easier. And disunited polity is difficult for a totalitarian to manage; but a conformist one is his playground. The bigger we make the combining, the bigger and juicer the target is at the top...and that's the goal of the totalitarian: to get on top of it all, and make everything his way.
Does that mean there can't be sovereign nations in the world?
Globalism is the opposite of "sovereign nation."
Yes, there are problems with the UN,
Oh, the UN is dead. Nobody takes that corrupt and impotent body seriously. Nor should they, as they've completely showed their colours in their simmering hatred of American freedoms and in their treatment of places like Israel, and their complete failure to act in the case of powerful but despotic regimes like China.
Some of the most existential problems humanity faces right now (possible nuclear war, global climate disaster) can only be solved through cooperation.
I don't think that's at all the case, Gary.

The problem is that the "cooperation" is only expected from one side. For example, many people at the UN excoriate the US for not "cooperating", but praise China for making practically no concessions at all. Well, when is China going to "cooperate" and stop sabotaging American industry, or spying on its allies, or free the Uighurs, or give Hong Kong free elections, or stop persecuting Christians? I can't see any of the those things happening soon, can you?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:11 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:23 pm What you say makes a lot of sense. However, with the rise of the Internet and global corporations, I also wonder if globalism is even stoppable.
That's a very real concern, of course. But if it proves unstoppable, it will not be because it's a better way for us to go, nor that it's the inevitable way for us to go. "History" certainly has no opinion about what course human affairs must follow. Arguably, God does; but not "history" qua "history."

If we go that way, it will only be because we made a very bad decision, I think. We have the means to do otherwise.
After all, many of the globalists are super-wealthy people who, by the nature of capitalism have accumulated enough wealth to exert a lot of control over things.
Quite right. And the Davos group is a very good example of that...wealthy oligarchs who would like to impose global Socialism on us, and keep their own resources to themselves, while positioning us as their "experiment." And the media oligarchs now have no sense of fear of national authority anymore. Many of the international business magnates lost any such fear long ago.

How do we resist that? Well, we can. We can, in fact, defeat it completely, if we wish to do so. We just have to insist we won't play along. Do we have the will to do it? That will remain to be seen, of course.
How do we stop them? Do we take their wealth away? If we don't, then that wealth will be used to gain more power.
I don't think so. In the first place "we" don't have a power capable of doing that. In the second place, there's no way they're giving it up of their own volition. But we don't have to roll over and let them take it, or worse, hand it to them with a sign of defeat.
If we do, then it seems like we might be treading down a path to socialism,
Oh, no...I think the opposite. I think the biggest way to fight is to reassert national sovereignty and democracy. That's the real alternative to what they're doing.
....they can conceivably produce a world of hurt for us--unless we curb their power through democratic means on a world wide scale.
Well, "democratic means," yes. But not by putting in place a tyranny worse than the one they're trying to fashion for us. Nations can refuse to allow their activities except on terms each nation defines to them. We can "opt out" of the Grand Plan they are trying to foist on us, and bring them to heel that way. America, especially, has that kind of leverage. And other powerful countries will opt out of the Grand Plan if America takes the lead. Soon these self-important "engineers" of our future will have no significant place to practice their manipulating...if we deny them space to do it.

But we need real national leadership from America on that. And right now -- let's face it -- we don't have anything like that.
It seems to me that scientists and academics are largely on the side of the people and what they are proposing seems to be a world where there is cooperation in a productive way.

They'd like you to think so. That's the "sunny face" I was talking about.
We don't seem to have much choice.
I'm going to suggest that's a very dangerous way of thinking, Gary. Because if the oligarchs and their ideological followers can convince us that their Grand Plan is inevitable, then we're not even going to resist. But we can. We just have to find the resolve to act.
You bring up a good point about a world government based in a single country.
I was thinking of a global government, Gary. Wasn't that the topic, after all?
...does that mean there can't be global cooperation between people of knowledge and learning to further the interests and future of humanity?

Here's the problem, though, Gary. "People of knowledge" are not special. They're smarter than most, but not more moral, necessarily. Humanity is really all the same in that regard: all levels have people of goodwill but also opportunists, solipsists, power-grabbers and even psychopaths. And unfortunately, the psychopathic types are sufficiently unscrupulous to undo all the good that the persons of goodwill might hope to achieve.

By combining, we make their jobs much easier. And disunited polity is difficult for a totalitarian to manage; but a conformist one is his playground. The bigger we make the combining, the bigger and juicer the target is at the top...and that's the goal of the totalitarian: to get on top of it all, and make everything his way.
Does that mean there can't be sovereign nations in the world?
Globalism is the opposite of "sovereign nation."
Yes, there are problems with the UN,
Oh, the UN is dead. Nobody takes that corrupt and impotent body seriously. Nor should they, as they've completely showed their colours in their simmering hatred of American freedoms and in their treatment of places like Israel, and their complete failure to act in the case of powerful but despotic regimes like China.
Some of the most existential problems humanity faces right now (possible nuclear war, global climate disaster) can only be solved through cooperation.
I don't think that's at all the case, Gary.

The problem is that the "cooperation" is only expected from one side. For example, many people at the UN excoriate the US for not "cooperating", but praise China for making practically no concessions at all. Well, when is China going to "cooperate" and stop sabotaging American industry, or spying on its allies, or free the Uighurs, or give Hong Kong free elections, or stop persecuting Christians? I can't see any of the those things happening soon, can you?
In reading various publications by dissidents of US foreign policy, the US is accused of doing the exact same thing, expecting only cooperation from others but being stubborn and sticking to an "our way or the highway" approach to things. I don't know. It's like I read one thing it tells me something and I read another and it tells me that what the first thing told me is wrong, yet another tells me the second is wrong. I'm stubbed. Maybe you're right. I don't know. But the "Age of Information" seems to be a disaster from where I'm standing. I don't know what side to stand behind, if any at all.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:19 am In reading various publications by dissidents of US foreign policy, the US is accused of doing the exact same thing, expecting only cooperation from others but being stubborn and sticking to an "our way or the highway" approach to things.
It depends on the issue, Gary. I wouldn't blame America for, say, sticking absolutely to a no-nuclear-arms-for-Iran policy, for example. There's never going to be a reason to "cooperate" on that one. But one thing you can say for sure: there's no parallelism there. China's government is thoroughly totalitarian, thoroughly contemptuous of human rights and human life -- including the lives of its own people, let alone people outside of the nation. So China would have to make an awful lot of concessions just to catch up to being half way to the level of freedoms and rights the US recognizes for both its people and the people of the world.
I don't know. It's like I read one thing it tells me something and I read another and it tells me that what the first thing told me is wrong, yet another tells me the second is wrong.
Yeah, that's the press today, I'm afraid. The ideal of "balanced reporting" is out the window. It''s now all just shilling for a side. But it's not hard to realize the difference between the US and China, that's for sure.
...the "Age of Information" seems to be a disaster from where I'm standing. I don't know what side to stand behind, if any at all.
That's exactly what sociologist David Shenk said in his book "Data Smog" years ago. It's called "information overload." We were promised that the Information Age would make us all geniuses; but what it can do, when the information gets to abundant and too contrary, is make us numb.

People who hear too many contrary opinions eventually just pick one and cling to it, even though they don't have sufficient reason. They have to, because they can't live without acting, and they can't act without believing something. Nothing's worse for them than the feeling of not knowing what to trust...so eventually, they just trust anyway. The media's oligarchs seem to have discovered this fact, and I think they're exploiting it for all its worth.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Jan 29, 2021 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: What is "Globalism"?

Post by Walker »

Globalism is the United States funding abortions for the Globe.

And funding just about anything else, which includes sweetheart deals for the Globe.
Post Reply