Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: Revisiting globalisation...

  1. #21
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11,491

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    opens the flood gates to potential criminals and religious fundamentalists.
    Are you a native American? It's an old story, isn't it? Columbus and Puritans? On a side note, I don't think you have any problem with a "white" globalization.
    The world is round, and globalization is unstoppable.For poor immigrants - and for the rootless elites.
    Globalization started in the 16th century, with the beginning of an open economy, international commerce in large scale, the voyages across the oceans, and ethical and cultural miscinization.The second wave of economic globalization was launched after the the Vienna congress, the opening of the Suez canal in 1869; the third wave began with Nixon's "shock" due to abandonment of the gold standard in 1971 and of the Bretton Woods System. More recently, in 1978, China opened to the world, and let's not forget the fall of the wall of Berlin in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet empire. Last but no least, with the beginning of the economic reforms in India, in 1991.

    Tesla's made-in-China cars lead market in quality while US

    Watch the dance,


    There you go.
    Last edited by Ludicus; September 13, 2020 at 01:10 PM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  2. #22

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    The world is round, and globalization is unstoppable.
    Globalization in its actual meaning, attempt by cosmopolitan corporate elites in de-facto politically and fiscally controlling the world, is both avoidable and stoppable - in fact deglobalisation is already underway with EU losing key states and general rise of anti-globalist movements around the world from Trump's America to Europe's remaining beacon of Free World in Viseguard states.
    Keep in mind that liberalism and marxism are hardly as "progressive" as they like to call themselves - both ideologies are from an entirely different past era and it is fair to admit that both liberalism and marxism are ideological anarchronism which have little place or application in the modern world. So basically "globalization" is just old banker elites trying their hardest to maintain the antiquated "status quo" while being mentally stuck in the past.

  3. #23
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,374

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    in fact deglobalisation is already underway with EU losing key states an

    Brexit is a distinctly globalist project though. Trade with countries an hour away by train is supposedly to be replaced with trade with the other side of the world.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  4. #24
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,075

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    And the whoooole problem with Brexit is that the UK wants to keep the free trade with Europe, while not keeping accountability to its rules.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  5. #25
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11,491

    Icon9 Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    basically "globalization" is just old banker elites trying their hardest to maintain the antiquated "status quo" while being mentally stuck in the past.
    Basically, populist rhetoric divides the people into two categories: a moral and pure people and a corrupt elite. In my opinion, the populist rhetoric is a real danger to the civic health of any democracy. There is also an inescapable link between racist narratives and the rhetoric of populist movements. In fact, racism helps to define populism. Right wing populism is a racialized phenomenon. The ideology of "nativism" has a strong sense that the "true/genuine" natives who are being defended are white.Trump's motto "Make America Great Again’" simply means " make America White Again".It is also an hallmark of populist racists to accuse anti-racists of racism, for raising the issue of racism,that is what is meant by "reverse racism", a ridiculous attempt to shut down rational discussion of racism. The nationalist right-wing populism in America, Germany ,Hungary, and other countries is fuelled by racism

    Ironically, Trump's populist rhetoric is more performative than ideological.Basically, Trump is a self-centeredness, selfish capitalist. Trump's "patriotic capitalism" is an oxymoron. Also beware the Chinese socialist patriotism, particularly when "love of country" becomes unquestioning obedience to the country's government.
    In corporate America, many rich capitalists frequently used extreme violence to counter protests, using privately funded militias ans with the full support of the federal government. For example, Rockefeller Jr. with his private army, and the help of the national guard, attacked hundreds of striking miners and their families, killing 20 people, most of them women and children. The Ludlow Massacre Still Matters | The New Yorker




    That said, unregulated capitalism have no nationality or national interest.
    We, democratic socialists, we believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically, in full respect of the country's constitution and the electoral process. The goal is to meet essential public needs (universal healthcare, for example), not to make pornographic profits for a few.

    Is there a place for a reasonable patriotism in a global society? the answer is yes. It's not surprising that the song "America the beautiful" was written by a socialist, Katharine Lee Bates, member of Mark Twain's anti-imperialist league and a strong advocate for immigrants,

    America The Beautiful' Author Is Rush Limbaugh's Favorite

    The poem’s final words — “and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea” — are an appeal for social justice rather than the pursuit of wealth.
    And as long as we’re educating the Limbaugh lunatics and other broadcasting bigots about America’s secret radical history, they might also want to know that the “Pledge of Allegiance” also written by a Christian socialist, Francis Bellamy. And that the author of “This Land is Your Land,” Woody Guthrie, was a committed radical, that Pete Seeger, the folksinger who popularized the song and even performed it at Obama’s inauguration party, was also a left-winger, and that this patriotic protest song includes a little-known stanza that criticizes the notion of private property!
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  6. #26

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    And the whoooole problem with Brexit is that the UK wants to keep the free trade with Europe, while not keeping accountability to its rules.
    EU's existence only made sense when it was basically a glorified trade agreement, as opposed to its current reincarnation of neo-USSR with more soy.
    So its a good thing Brexit happened, hopefully more states within EU will follow UK's example and bail out.

  7. #27
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,374

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    EU's existence only made sense when it was basically a glorified trade agreement
    You mean when it was it its most globalist.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  8. #28

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    You mean when it was it its most globalist.
    It is clearly more globalist now that it is trying to be super-state for rich banker interests, hence why it is a good thing that it is collapsing.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    The art of saying something while saying nothing.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Basically, populist rhetoric divides the people into two categories: a moral and pure people and a corrupt elite. In my opinion, the populist rhetoric is a real danger to the civic health of any democracy. There is also an inescapable link between racist narratives and the rhetoric of populist movements. In fact, racism helps to define populism. Right wing populism is a racialized phenomenon. The ideology of "nativism" has a strong sense that the "true/genuine" natives who are being defended are white.Trump's motto "Make America Great Again’" simply means " make America White Again".It is also an hallmark of populist racists to accuse anti-racists of racism, for raising the issue of racism,that is what is meant by "reverse racism", a ridiculous attempt to shut down rational discussion of racism. The nationalist right-wing populism in America, Germany ,Hungary, and other countries is fuelled by racism
    So... corrupt elite is fine, its the ideology that points at elites being corrupt as something bad that is "dangerous". Its almost like elites are desperately trying to conflate any notion of responsibility for their own actions with random accusations of racism and fascism.
    Without a doubt accusation of rational populism of being "racist" and "fascist" are nonsensical, as liberal elites themselves are incredibly autocratic and attempt to limit individual freedoms every step of the way. I'm not concerned with Trump becoming "racist", I'm concerned with real danger of his opponents destroying freedom of speech as well as actively harming the environment.
    As it was pointed out, liberalism and globalism are the past, nationalism is the future, whether you like it or not.
    Accusations of racism and

  11. #31
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    11,491

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    So... corrupt elite is fine
    No, I never said that. I said you can't divide the the people in two opposite moral categories.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  12. #32
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,374

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As it was pointed out, liberalism and globalism are the past, nationalism is the future, whether you like it or not.
    Firstly, this is not true. If we could take an average conservative of today and transport them back in time 50 years they would discover their views to be liberal and globalist. Although they're never keen to admit it (and often rewrite history to make it seem less changed than actually did), nationalists do not actually react to liberalism and globalism per se, but to the speed with which the world changes in general (whether you want to slap the term 'liberalism' on it or not). There may be a slowing down, but there's no change of course. And how could there be, considering conservatism is inherently defined by the resistance to those who set the course.

    Secondly, you have yet to make a good case of how nationalism is the opposite to globalism. According to your idea, it seems a union of, say, Belgium and Luxembourg, giving a combined population of 12 milion people would be a move towards globalism, whereas the continued existence of a union of 50 states with a population of 330 milion is just fine. Even a nationalist would have to admit the latter is more 'globalized' than the former. Your theory is as useful as the broken clock that is nevertheless right twice a day. There may be some countries that by their location, size and population composition strike a good balance between economic clout, self sufficiency and administrative efficiency, but there's nothing self-evident or 'natural' about it.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  13. #33
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,075

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    So its a good thing Brexit happened, hopefully more states within EU will follow UK's example and bail out.
    I don't understand the points you're making. The UK is leaving one international trade zone and trying to join new international trade zones, which will recreate the same trade conditions, but with different countries. Both are outward looking, progressive situations. In fact, the ideal solution for Brexit has always been keeping free trade while being able to flexibly seek new trade agreements with other countries.

    Your nationalism might have kicked off Brexit, but it's the re-framing of the global outlook that will pay for it. Not some new hermit kingdom based on the London city state and it's hinterland.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  14. #34

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Firstly, this is not true. If we could take an average conservative of today and transport them back in time 50 years they would discover their views to be liberal and globalist. Although they're never keen to admit it (and often rewrite history to make it seem less changed than actually did), nationalists do not actually react to liberalism and globalism per se, but to the speed with which the world changes in general (whether you want to slap the term 'liberalism' on it or not). There may be a slowing down, but there's no change of course. And how could there be, considering conservatism is inherently defined by the resistance to those who set the course.

    Secondly, you have yet to make a good case of how nationalism is the opposite to globalism. According to your idea, it seems a union of, say, Belgium and Luxembourg, giving a combined population of 12 milion people would be a move towards globalism, whereas the continued existence of a union of 50 states with a population of 330 milion is just fine. Even a nationalist would have to admit the latter is more 'globalized' than the former. Your theory is as useful as the broken clock that is nevertheless right twice a day. There may be some countries that by their location, size and population composition strike a good balance between economic clout, self sufficiency and administrative efficiency, but there's nothing self-evident or 'natural' about it.
    That's a very bad analysis. First of all, ideas of liberalism are not progressive.
    Technically, marxism, fascism and even National-Socialism are more progressive then liberalism, since former are from 1850s to early XX century, while the latter is from mid- 1700s. Fanatical liberal "progressives" of today are what fanatical European theocrats of 1600s were to society of their time.
    Second, nationalism implies having state focus on interests of, well, nation. In current globalist regimes, only financial elites are truly in control and the only ones who really benefit. It makes sense that whole state shouldn't just pander to the interest of groups that aren't even held responsible for what they lobby for, while the rest of society is stuck wit the bill as well as other consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I don't understand the points you're making. The UK is leaving one international trade zone and trying to join new international trade zones, which will recreate the same trade conditions, but with different countries. Both are outward looking, progressive situations. In fact, the ideal solution for Brexit has always been keeping free trade while being able to flexibly seek new trade agreements with other countries.

    Your nationalism might have kicked off Brexit, but it's the re-framing of the global outlook that will pay for it. Not some new hermit kingdom based on the London city state and it's hinterland.
    I don't think what you think it is is what it really is.
    Initial movement for Brexit stems from rather rational desire of preventing unelected foreign officials from making political decisions that affect population of UK. The whole point was to leave the EU. And they did. I always found it funny how globalists think that free trade should by necessity come in package with literal internationalist dictatorship. As I said before, one can enjoy free market without giving up one's sovereignty and freedom to a bunch of foreign bankers.
    Last edited by Heathen Hammer; September 16, 2020 at 07:15 PM.

  15. #35
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,374

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    That's a very bad analysis. First of all, ideas of liberalism are not progressive.
    Technically, marxism, fascism and even National-Socialism are more progressive then liberalism, since former are from 1850s to early XX century, while the latter is from mid- 1700s.
    Fair enough, if you're referring to classical liberalism (laissez faire economics). I'd agree that it seems to have been taken to extremes and found wanting as an ideology. For a long time, classical liberals could point to rises in base line prosperity to justify their claims, even as the gap between the poorest and the richest were exploding. For about 2-3 decades now, it seems more and more people need to work longer and harder for the same income, while at the same time welfare states are being dismantled. This is starkly contrasts with multinational companies and too big to fail banks that appear to be dictating government policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Second, nationalism implies having state focus on interests of, well, nation. In current globalist regimes, only financial elites are truly in control and the only ones who really benefit. It makes sense that whole state shouldn't just pander to the interest of groups that aren't even held responsible for what they lobby for, while the rest of society is stuck wit the bill as well as other consequences.
    Everything I described above, in Europe has been about national governments being involved in a race to the bottom in competition for the attentions of large corporations. That is what you get in an EU that for most of its lifetime indeed was primarily a free trade zone. Pretty much all the economic tension that exists in Europe derives from this: nation states competing for the favours of business, resulting in the 'successful' North remaining 'competitive' by dismantling its welfare state and now being pissed off at the 'South' who stubbornly refused to join the rat race and are now struggling and requiring financial aid. This is the EU Britain was happy to be a member of. An EU without an accompanying government to safeguard things like minimum wages, benefits, social security, health and food safety standards, environmental standards and so on. The reason Britain is leaving is that the EU has been steadily acquiring more power and is indeed starting to assert itself as a government befitting such a large market. Brexit has been sold as preservation of sovereignty. What it really is, is a case for a business model where prosperity comes from out-competing other nations. A business model where large corporates win at the expense of the common man. Exactly what you loathe so much.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  16. #36

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Fair enough, if you're referring to classical liberalism (laissez faire economics). I'd agree that it seems to have been taken to extremes and found wanting as an ideology. For a long time, classical liberals could point to rises in base line prosperity to justify their claims, even as the gap between the poorest and the richest were exploding. For about 2-3 decades now, it seems more and more people need to work longer and harder for the same income, while at the same time welfare states are being dismantled. This is starkly contrasts with multinational companies and too big to fail banks that appear to be dictating government policy.
    I'm glad that you know understand why globalism is a bad thing.
    It is simply based on outdated ideology that only benefits small minority of population while most political power is held by oligarchs that can affect politics by "buying" politicians without any negative affects or responsibilities. Political power without responsibility should never be allowed.
    Everything I described above, in Europe has been about national governments being involved in a race to the bottom in competition for the attentions of large corporations. That is what you get in an EU that for most of its lifetime indeed was primarily a free trade zone. Pretty much all the economic tension that exists in Europe derives from this: nation states competing for the favours of business, resulting in the 'successful' North remaining 'competitive' by dismantling its welfare state and now being pissed off at the 'South' who stubbornly refused to join the rat race and are now struggling and requiring financial aid. This is the EU Britain was happy to be a member of. An EU without an accompanying government to safeguard things like minimum wages, benefits, social security, health and food safety standards, environmental standards and so on. The reason Britain is leaving is that the EU has been steadily acquiring more power and is indeed starting to assert itself as a government befitting such a large market. Brexit has been sold as preservation of sovereignty. What it really is, is a case for a business model where prosperity comes from out-competing other nations. A business model where large corporates win at the expense of the common man. Exactly what you loathe so much.
    Again, it makes perfect sense to prevent unelected foreign officials from making decision that would affect your homeland.

  17. #37
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9,374

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Again, it makes perfect sense to prevent unelected foreign officials from making decision that would affect your homeland.
    If you look at the EU, if anything there's an excess of democratic control. It's virtually paralyzing. The European council consists of heads of state (either elected directly or accountable to their respective parliaments), the Council of the EU consists of government ministers (also accountable to their respective parliaments), the European Parliament has its own democratic mandate.

    As the EU, like most of its member states, follows the parliamentary system, the fact that the European Commission (executive) is not chosen directly is neither here nor there. If anything, the Commission has more constraints on it considering it not only needs parliamentary approval, but also approval from the Council of the EU to pass legislation.

    The EU commission is not some tyrannical organisation sailing its own course. It brokers compromises between nations, endlessly. That it is seen as bogeyman is mostly the result of domestic politics in EU member states. It's been electorally beneficial to claim credit for any benefit the EU brings and assign blame for any concession it requires. The exact nature of disgruntlement varies accordingly, from country to country.
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  18. #38
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,075

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Multilateral compromise is always dissonant with nationalism. It suggests a weakness in that nation, when nationalism is supposed to project strength. The EU has always had trouble with this paradigm.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  19. #39

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Not particularly. In fact, the gradual expansion of EU powers and the European project in general, was specifically brokered in order to reign in narrow, national self interest. To put it in a different way, the powers and scope of the EU didn't expand because member-states were constantly complaining about how much they resent their loss of sovereignty...

  20. #40
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,075

    Default Re: Revisiting globalisation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    Not particularly. In fact, the gradual expansion of EU powers and the European project in general, was specifically brokered in order to reign in narrow, national self interest. To put it in a different way, the powers and scope of the EU didn't expand because member-states were constantly complaining about how much they resent their loss of sovereignty...
    You're looking at it with too narrower timeframe. The EU didn't end 15 years ago. And it is currently struggling with a number of governments with nationalist outlooks, specifically because what those governments define as in the best interests of their people directly conflict with the compromises required by EU membership, and as I suggested, nationalism is particularly zero-sum.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •