Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[Conserative Morality]

Wrong according to what?

Me, for the reasons I previously laid out.

[Valaran]

Interesting. I'm not completely convinced that globalism is getting refined each time. One may point to the improvements from pre-WWI to post-WWI to post WWII as evidence of increasing 'fitness', but I think at each stage this is partially undermined by recurring mistakes made by globalists. So, the net improvement with each cycle is only partial, and not always permanent.

I think there is a lot of noise in the system, so it not that clean cut, but it this is my take on what happens.

I suppose my view is quite similar, but I feel that the noise (why/how it arises, and how it is dealt with) is critical to the prospects of globalism.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Wrong according to what?

Me, for the reasons I previously laid out.

You just said they intend to curb some freedoms in their nationalist policies... by what measure are they incorrect?

And honestly, freedom really hasn't been much of a priority under globalism either...

[Frank Zipper]

I think there is a lot of noise in the system, so it not that clean cut, but it this is my take on what happens.

I suppose my view is quite similar, but I feel that the noise (why/how it arises, and how it is dealt with) is critical to the prospects of globalism.

I would like to know more, can you expand on that a little?

[Conserative Morality]

You just said they intend to curb some freedoms in their nationalist policies... by what measure are they incorrect?

By a measure that values freedom. If that's your stance, go ahead, I just don't want my opposition to benefit from dishonesty to the public. Anti-globalism is anti-freedom.

And honestly, freedom really hasn't been much of a priority under globalism either...

TIL Free trade isn't free.

We are more free in a globalist society, and more free in globalist countries, than we were in pre-globalist societies and than currently anti-globalist countries are. "It's not perfect so destroy it" is not the answer. "It's not perfect so fix it" is the answer.

[Yugoslav Memes]

We are more free in a globalist society, and more free in globalist countries, than we were in pre-globalist societies and than currently anti-globalist countries are. "It's not perfect so destroy it" is not the answer. "It's not perfect so fix it" is the answer.

"It's not time yet" is an answer too

[Bakery Hill]

Go with it bro.

[Conserative Morality]

"It's not time yet" is an answer too

"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

[Stormwrath]

"It's not time yet" is an answer too

"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

I swear, your user name is a lie.

[Yugoslav Memes]

"It's not time yet" is an answer too

"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.

I'm a polpotist for a reason

[Conserative Morality]

I swear, your user name is a lie.

Been on here since '07. Things have changed since I was a little theocratic pseudo-libertarian.

I'm a polpotist for a reason

... because the intellectuals who dare to think about problems need to be shot?

[Yugoslav Memes]

I'm a polpotist for a reason

... because the intellectuals who dare to think about problems need to be shot?

well they'll be shot for not thinking about the problems in the way we desire it on both our sides

[Republic of the Cristo]

You just said they intend to curb some freedoms in their nationalist policies... by what measure are they incorrect?

By a measure that values freedom. If that's your stance, go ahead, I just don't want my opposition to benefit from dishonesty to the public. Anti-globalism is anti-freedom.

And honestly, freedom really hasn't been much of a priority under globalism either...

TIL Free trade isn't free.

We are more free in a globalist society, and more free in globalist countries, than we were in pre-globalist societies and than currently anti-globalist countries are. "It's not perfect so destroy it" is not the answer. "It's not perfect so fix it" is the answer.

Do you hear yourself? Anti-globalism is anti-freedom?! It's just a preferanice of local interests and local people over foreign interests. Stop wit the alarmism.

America is transitioning away from globalism, and except for a few of your buddies protests/riots here and there, it's going alright.

And we are attempting to fix globalism, by eliminating the social liberal elements of it and focusing on trade and commerce

[Conserative Morality]

well they'll be shot for not thinking about the problems in the way we desire it on both our sides

Er, no?

I've never been a big fan of shooting people for thinking, even for thinking wrong things.

Do you hear yourself? Anti-globalism is anti-freedom?! It's just a preferanice of local interests and local people over foreign interests. Stop wit the alarmism.

TIL stopping people from doing what they want to do when it harms no one who did not consent to be a part of the transaction is pro-freedom.

If your society sucks so much that you have to create incentives and penalties for those who wish to go elsewhere or do things outside of it, you deserve whatever you get.

[Kilobugya]

I consider myself an universalist (I don't like the word "globalist"), but I do agree nationstates are obsolete and should disappear in the medium-to-long term.

But to fight something (resurgence of nationalism) we need to look at the causes. And to me, the main cause is because of the way "globalisation" was done until now. A globalisation based on "free" trade, transnational corporations, international finance, free flow of goods and capitals (but not of human beings), that puts people against each other, that benefits mostly to the rich and powerful, but only create chaos, low pay, cuts in public services and social systems, ... for most.

We need to fight against tax heaven and fiscal dumping, we need to struggle for world-wide (or, as a first step, continental-wide) labor rights protection, world-wide environmental regulation, world-wide social systems, world-wide public services. That's the only way to save the dream of a united world, by having an united world truly unite people, creating solidarity, improving people's living conditions, sheltering them against bad luck, disease, natural disasters, economical crisis, ...

That's true both at EU level and at world level. As long as "globalisation" will be done by and for the transnational corporations and their wealthy owners, it'll lead to resurgence of nationalism.

[Republic of the Cristo]

well they'll be shot for not thinking about the problems in the way we desire it on both our sides

Er, no?

I've never been a big fan of shooting people for thinking, even for thinking wrong things.

Do you hear yourself? Anti-globalism is anti-freedom?! It's just a preferanice of local interests and local people over foreign interests. Stop wit the alarmism.

TIL stopping people from doing what they want to do when it harms no one who did not consent to be a part of the transaction is pro-freedom.

If your society sucks so much that you have to create incentives and penalties for those who which to go elsewhere or do things outside of it, you deserve whatever you get.

... it seems you ( incorrectly ) think that all anti-globalist movements are conservative... their not. And not all globalist movements are inherently liberatarian.

And if you hate my society so much why don't you leave us be to do as we will

[Conserative Morality]

... it seems you ( incorrectly ) think that all anti-globalist movements are conservative... their not. And not all globalist movements are inherently liberatarian.

Where did I imply either of those things?

And if you hate my society so much why don't you leave us be to do as we will

Because you stop individuals within your society from doing as they will. I don't give a fuck about your society. I give a fuck about the people who make up your society.

[Yugoslav Memes]

well they'll be shot for not thinking about the problems in the way we desire it on both our sides

Er, no?

I've never been a big fan of shooting people for thinking, even for thinking wrong things.

let's be honest even the noblest of persons sometimes secretly in their hearts do not want someone whose ideology isn't theirs to reproduce
"i won't kill people for disagreeing" is quite a lie

And if you hate my society so much why don't you leave us be to do as we will

Because you stop individuals within your society from doing as they will. I don't give a fuck about your society. I give a fuck about the people who make up your society.

Without the group they belong in the people are nothing. The two are mutually influencing and strongly connected.

[Gondolaulus]

The point of globalism is that in the current globalist system a certain political framework is being pushed upon other cultures.

Whilst these cultures want to uphold their own political framework/social norms and values.

It doesn't work by unifying said cultures, that's equivalent to cultural genocide IMHO. It's better to cooperate.

[Alvecia]

Nationalistic resurgence is, I think, just a knee jerk reaction. The Migrant Crisis was a bit too much too quickly.
Given time it'll die down. Just stay the course.

[Valaran]

I suppose my view is quite similar, but I feel that the noise (why/how it arises, and how it is dealt with) is critical to the prospects of globalism.

I would like to know more, can you expand on that a little?

Can't explain rn, but will do so later today. Sorry :/

[Conserative Morality]

let's be honest even the noblest of persons sometimes secretly in their hearts do not want someone whose ideology isn't theirs to reproduce
"i won't kill people for disagreeing" is quite a lie

idgaf if they reproduce. I don't even care if they make fools of themselves, so long as they don't fool too many other fools into following their destructive path. "I won't kill people for disagreeing" is not only not a lie, it's a pretty basic precondition for being a decent human being.

Without the group they belong in the people are nothing. The two are mutually influencing and strongly connected.

The two are mutually influencing and strongly connected.

But societies don't have freedoms. People have freedoms. So I don't give a fuck if your society says that FGM is a-okay; in my book, your society is scum.

[Minoa]

Nationalistic resurgence is, I think, just a knee jerk reaction. The Migrant Crisis was a bit too much too quickly.
Given time it'll die down. Just stay the course.

Speaking of nationalistic resurgence, stuff like this ("The European village where Muslims and gays are unwelcome", BBC News, 7 February 2017) and the rise of anti-Semitism makes me worry a lot about right-wing populism - in Russia, where raising awareness about homosexual is banned, homophobia is epidemic: the genocides of Rwanda and Nazi Germany show that it is easy to see how bad right-wing populism could turn out.

I do not know why many people seem to be obsessed about "the right side of the regime when that time comes" without considering how terrible right-wing populism could turn out (I remember this post appearing to follow such a line because it was printed out and stuck in my diary). Because if "that time comes", I suffer badly just for my state of health and personal beliefs.

[Forsher]

So I am happy to be called a globalist. I think nationstates are historical accidents and that we could do better. Think the big catastrophes of the 20th century were the consequence of nationalism at least as much as of particular ideologies. Prefer multilateral over national or bilateral institutions. Don't think that you've got a right to pick where your neighbour was born. All of that.

Let us consider two things. Firstly, that historical accidents develop out of the patterns of behaviour of individuals... even if we might struggle to understand how. Secondly, that we do know something about the behaviour of people that suggests not only a certain tendency to clump together but also a tendency to favour the clump. Thus, the nationstate is no historical accident in the sense it was arrived at, it is an historical accident in the sense that subject to certain pressures it would be accidentally arrived at. That is to say, given conditions in Europe (in particular, European inferiority and disease) it is difficult to see what else could have happened.

The question, of course, is whether or not people can come to conceive of the world as theirs... whether this is a scale that is conceivable. The experiment with Empire seems, in my view, to suggest the answer is no. Or, perhaps, this is not suitable data, being that for whatever it happened to say, Empire always remembered the periphery, i.e. two clumps, not one. I don't know enough about the mentalities of people who live in the mould of the "undiscovered" tribe but insofar as nationalism was created, one believes it is a product of conditions* and possibilities in the absence of those conditions are a fool's dream when they exist.

*These conditions could be human nature, hence the interest in the aforesaid mentalities, but it is sufficient that they are "material" conditions that developed some centuries ago out of, primarily, the cyclical failure of the emergence of a European China

But it would be intellectually dishonest to not recognise that globalism has suffered some setbacks over the past couple of years. I am hesitant to overemphasise this: Trump won because of the quirks of the electoral college system and a couple of football stadiums worth of voters in exactly the right places. Brexit won by a small margin, driven by people who won't be around in twenty years. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that my own views are extreme relative to the views of the majority of society.

I am not convinced that last year means anything in the scheme of things. Certainly, it is concerning news that the US seems to be taking a "like Obama, but moreso" approach which is certainly more likely to sustain the divisions that we now perceive. On the other hand, as you say, Trump's victory was a quirk and Brexit an artefact. This is why I suggest Empire as a possible source of evidence (or not) for the bigness of human belonging rather than the EU... what Brexit means is unclear, what Brexit means for bigness is therefore folly.

So when someone pointed me to this article, I read with interest: http://www.the-american-interest.com/20 ... globalism/

The link gives me some bizarre security thing so I will be believing you utterly from this point forth.

The article claims that a) lots of people attach a lot of value to familiarity, to being surrounded by people who look the same, speak the same language, follow the same customs, etc (even if most of the time, they struggle to actually define their "culture");

I suspect that I could, rather easily, tell you my biography. I know when I was born, where I went to school, my sense of family until the present and I could even take a crack at my "achievements" (although my sense of what an achievement is might not be yours, hence the ""). Whether I could tell you about my sense of self or psychological self is an entirely different matter... and I rather suspect that it is less an exercise in autobiography being considerably more closely related to the notion of my politics... I seriously doubt I could adequately describe my political views even if you stuck a gun to my head in such a way that it motivated me to talk but didn't induce stress.

Which, really, is just another way of expressing my point from that thread... it doesn't matter if I can't tell you who I am.

And because no point is ever complete without a short Youtube video... a short Youtube video proving categorically that I am right (although the link is not required: being right is a burden of my fate, pity me! Deplore this cruel twist of Forsher's destiny).

b) lots of people, when they see the social structures they are familiar with under threat (whether real or perceived), react by becoming more authoritarian, even when normally they aren't particularly authoritarian and don't have a particular hatred for people who aren't like them; and c) Trump, Wilders, Le Pen etc are a symptom of this, resulting from an excessive pace of the sort of globalisation that triggers these people (i.e. it's more about immigration than about free trade).

Sounds reasonable.

So, the article argues, globalisation may have to be slowed down intentionally to make sure people with nationalist preferences don't get triggered. It suggests that this is not a matter of preferences: globalisation will be slowed down either way... the choice is about how this happens.

The thing I find challenging about this, is that I have a very fundamental distaste for barriers to cross-border anything, including cross-border migration. Like I said above, I don't believe in a right to pick the place of birth of your neighbour. If you tell me that I'm not allowed to be part of society because I was born in a different place, I think of that as unjust.

So, to those of you who with globalist tendencies... what lessons, if any, do you draw from the events of the last few years?

"It's not what happened, it's what you can prove".

"Perception is reality".

"Solutions are functions of problems".

"There is nothing new under the sun".

It seems the fashion to talk about a "post-truth" age full of "fake news" and "alternative facts" but the reality is that it is the same as it ever was... people might not want to believe lies but they're certainly willing to believe in perspectives, and they will believe perspectives they are sold.

I don't think, for example, that open borders in the sense that the only barrier stopping someone moving from, say, the UK to NZ is whether or not they can physically get here are a good idea. I think, briefly, the short-term "period of pain" before things adjust to an equilibrium is not worth it (we may, in fact, die of old age before we escape the short term as a further consideration). But I do think that immigration should be fluid. The problem is that parties, such as Labour in New Zealand, are perfectly willing to frame problems that people have, and which are real, as being related to the "foreign".* Consequently, the foreign gets coloured by the problem in a mutually reinforcing way... the foreign is a problem because of the problem, and the problem is worse because there are foreigners involved...

As I said, I am very cautious when it comes to interpreting the meaning of, for instance, Brexit or Trump but I think the most conservative interpretation of them is as failures of communication (c.f. the communications process model). Which is concerning because when you look at Trump... nothing's changed, it is still the primaries. With Brexit things are different. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's a saner system reacting to an Establishment position, i.e. Euroscepticism, rather than an entrenchment of views that no-one ever used to have but are now must be defended (a year ago, something like 2/3 of Americans opposed the electoral college... now it's much more like 50/50, and you're whining about the election).

Moral of the story... the tone police were right the whole time... wake up and smell the daisies: how you say something matters more than what you mean because you've got to be heard to be listened to... and I don't know about you, but I zone out Hip Hop (even if, and I have no idea if this is ever true, I agree with the message).

It's a terrible thing when suggesting the above makes you, say, the Stasi, i.e. the bad guy. Also a deeply ironic thing.

*Which reminds me... I still think that referring to people as aliens, even if the term makes sense, is always more "loaded" than calling them "foreigners" which is more "loaded" in turn than specific demonyms.

[Great Nepal]

So, the article argues, globalisation may have to be slowed down intentionally to make sure people with nationalist preferences don't get triggered. It suggests that this is not a matter of preferences: globalization will be slowed down either way... the choice is about how this happens.

I'd argue that's exactly the opposite of what should be done; by slowing down globalization we allow those structures and nativism and xenophobia to flourish further - in areas with minimal foreign individuals it is always going to be easy to look at the new arrivals as a threat and it is going to be equally easy for political party looking to make quick gain by scapegoating migrants, or foreigners.

The solution is to eliminate those structures altogether, ensure it is impossible to grow up without having a global experience through free and perhaps mandatory international class trips, and study abroad programs across school, college and university; similarly promote the mix among adults by encouraging companies perhaps through tax breaks doing workers exchange across borders. At the same time cross border initiatives to make travel easier such as visa wavers, perhaps even subsidized transport also works to reduce nation's importance. By effectively making it impossible for a grown, functional adult to not have significant experience abroad among other cultures, you remove the concept of 'foreignness' and dilute the importance of national boundaries - nationalism can not thrive where importance of nationstates is compromised.