What is globalism? I looked it up but still don't really understand. Can /pol/ give me a good definition with examples of it in history.
Countries used to mind their own buisness, isolated.
Now everyone speaks english and the world is so connected so that if some economy blows up thousands of miles away from you it can directly affect your life.
In short, EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED AND DEPENDENT ON EACHOTHER
>with examples of it in history.
From what I understand, globalism is the attempt to create A) a "free" market that spans the entire world in which a phone designed by Americans built in China with materials from Africa can be sold to Europeans. B) A centralization of power (NATO, EU, UN, etc).
>>76114219
>What is globalism?
A world state with one central authority that controls and distributes all other authority.
>Can /pol/ give me a good definition with examples of it in history.
There's none, unless there really was a much more advanced precursor civilization that got wiped out.
>>76114417
Isn't business with other countries important? Communists tried going protectionist and their products were junk (e.g. Mao's China's steel development I believe).
Is a bit of globalization not necessary for a successful economy and country?
BTW, how is globalism different from globalization?
>>76114858
>Isn't business with other countries important? Communists tried going protectionist and their products were junk (e.g. Mao's China's steel development I believe).
Trade and open trade is important, connecting everything so much togther that USA's market crashing affects Denmark is bad.
>Is a bit of globalization not necessary for a successful economy and country?
A bit of everything is important for a country, never go overkill though, globalisation has it's up's and down's I would say the prop's outweighs the negative's.
>BTW, how is globalism different from globalization?
The concept of globalism now is most commonly used to refer to different ideologies of globalization.
>>76114858
Nao's steel development fell apart because he literally had untrained farmers making it in their back yard. It was silly. Plus I think he killed all the people who knew how to properly make steel but I'm not sure about that.
If you want a modern example of protectionism working well, check out south korea
>>76114616
What is there to gain from one sole leader taking power over THE ENTIRE WORLD?
This is what I don't get from the Anti-globalists. A single world government would not last for a single year. You think humans who have played KOTH for our entire existence will one day stop fightig and let 1 single asshole control us? If its not the common man rising up, its going to be a semi-powerful guy thats going to try to be top dog.
Nationalism and globalism is on the rise, both are mutually exclusive and only one will survive.
>>76114219
Globalism is in essence, getting lost in the big picture.
Its central idea is noble and even somewhat warranted: That borders and infighting between human groups is wasteful to both life, property and progress, and eliminating as much of the barriers as possible is the best way to increase the well-being of everyone. And to do so, nations should be unified, and even joined as much as possible for the profit of all, and to prevent as much conflict between human nations as possible. And to do so, they see to that end with a proper stalinist approach: No nation, no problem.
Now, how this is different from anarchists however, is that while both want to destroy the barriers between nations, Globalists dont want to do away with the governing system, and instead want everything unified into as big block as possible, with the end goal of entire world being under the rule of a single agreement/government/organization.
While this is a good idea on paper, in practice however human nature does not comply with its lofty theories. Humans are by nature tribalistic, and every attempt at erasing those differences artificially has been a disaster. Humans have self-segregated themselves for a good reason through the entire history, and thats simply because people who are not your own close kin never hold your life in much value. And the farther they are from having any relations to you, the less your life is measured as valuable to them. This is why in most cases, the larger a nation grows, the more it starts to alienate its most different members from eachother, causing internal strife and conflict Even without any borders between them.
Globalism is just a denial of human nature by academics lulled to idiocy by the false song of multiculturalism, and truly cynical bastards who desire as much power as possible, and the pleasant song of "brotherhood of men" is more than an effective rallying cry for your political base.
>>76115784
Also a biggest negative part of globalism, is just the problem of corruption. The bigger the system of governance, the more likely that it will have some corrupt members in it. And once corruption begins in one spot of such a system, its nearly impossible to root out as it spreads further along, rotting the whole system slowly from the inside. And that tickles slowly down from the bureaucrats to the common person as well, as they see their leadership as hoplessly thieving, they imitate them, and end up with an entire society of criminals and shadow-deals.
>>76114858
Globalism is a viewpoint that everything is better the more united nations get.
Globalization is in part moving toward that goal, but not fully, since globalization can serve national interests as well.
Kind of like the difference between socialism and social policy. One is general political movement, and the other refers to a much smaller, and often unconnected single part of it.
>>76115770
Seeing the bankers and the corporations like Monsanto with so much power, it seems like we've already accepted some form of global leadership.
>>76114219
The only difference between those two pictures is that the people on the right are sitting down and talking instead of dancing around like retards.
>>76114219
Start with this:
http://www.rense.com/general88/hist.htm
