Peace and Internationalism
There is a persistent tendency to use words with more meaning than they basically contain. The word Peace is one of the main victims. It signifies an absence of conflict, but a tyranny may often be mere peace. It is the way peace is employed, and the values that are related to it that make it a virtue or not. Peace only signifies a minimal degree of social concern. If Putin and Trump peacefully pursue their way in the world it would be excellent, but not if it makes us slaves amongst other things. There are not just two states of society peace and war.
Similarly such a term as Globalisation tends to made to mean more than it need, and there will be conflict within the term where people insinuate incompatible values. As matters stand that process might very well bring some form of commercial dictatorship. But part of the problem is in our bipolar way of seeing society, and in this instance Globalisation is opposed to Nationalism which is associated with fascism.
There is always a third form of society, if the other forms are more sensibly related. We might better use the three terms Globalisation, Nationalism, and Internationalism. Not with Internationalism as a tame and convenient compromise, but as a clear contrast. Globalisation consonant with tyranny. Nationalism with anarchism. And Internationalism with altruism. None of which should be defined in one word.
Of course people who belong to different forms of society and are set in bipolar belief, use their own words. Individualism opposed to servile duty, other than keeping the peace. Faith set against ambivalence. And Love is set against selfishness. In approximate terms.