Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[Stormwrath]

Yes, but it would not help if we only go halfway. But still, it could be possible that one day, Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Australia can become united, and then they create a stronger union.

But I think it'd take centuries or millennia before Earth can be united, if it ever gets to that point.

I don't think it'll necessarily be that long, out of our lifetimes sure but even feudalism lasted few centuries and that was in an era where change occurred much slower than it does currently. In any event I do think it is certainly plausible that within our lifetime we see organisations like EU adopting more federal structure, or at the very least these organisations getting more competence over the national governments.

At the moment, not with the looming populist threat on the horizon.

[Luziyca]

Yes, but it would not help if we only go halfway. But still, it could be possible that one day, Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Australia can become united, and then they create a stronger union.

But I think it'd take centuries or millennia before Earth can be united, if it ever gets to that point.

I don't think it'll necessarily be that long, out of our lifetimes sure but even feudalism lasted few centuries and that was in an era where change occurred much slower than it does currently. In any event I do think it is certainly plausible that within our lifetime we see organisations like EU adopting more federal structure, or at the very least these organisations getting more competence over the national governments.

The EU is certainly closer to achieving that federal goal, yes. But at the same time, it is facing significant backlash from populists.

[Great Nepal]

I don't think it'll necessarily be that long, out of our lifetimes sure but even feudalism lasted few centuries and that was in an era where change occurred much slower than it does currently. In any event I do think it is certainly plausible that within our lifetime we see organisations like EU adopting more federal structure, or at the very least these organisations getting more competence over the national governments.

At the moment, not with the looming populist threat on the horizon.

I'd say as long as we don't have any other major right wing populist make a sweep to power (looking at you France and Germany), it should be fine and could ultimately be beneficial by damaging the brand. In the first two weeks trump has been an unmitigated disaster, with Brexit the government plan has effectively been to cover ears and sing optimism; it is entirely possible that if this continues for next 4 years the nativist movement will be massively damaged on global scale, simply by association to Trump.

The EU is certainly closer to achieving that federal goal, yes. But at the same time, it is facing significant backlash from populists.

Certainly true, I think the upcoming elections will be the real test there, UK has always been an odd ball out never really committing to the European ideals - how much will afd gain and how close to victory does le pen get will probably determine how much the nativist resurgence will set back progress.

[Neanderthaland]

Start a war with Mars.

We'll need to colonize Mars first.

[Republic of the Cristo]

... 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.

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, that is where you implied it.

Secondly, if freedom is truly your only concern, then we should just scrap the globalism/anti-globalism argument completely. Either one involves a government or corporation ruling over people, and if freedom is the only measure of worth in society , oops, I mean humanity, then all government and authority should be abolished. Anarchism for all!

You twat! The point of the globalism debate is not a matter of freedom, it is a matter of culture, standard of living, and economics. Globalism deludes culture and tradition in favor of mindless consumerism, and if you are not living in the a largely post industrial society, then the only positive economic impact that globalism will be having on your country will be for the rich and powerful ( look at South America, Africa, or the majority of China ).

Globalism destroys culture in favor of consumerism, uplifts some at the expense of the many, and centers too much power and control to too few people. You may not care about society, but as recent events across the world show you are a shrinking minority. We don't want to continue on this path of naïve liberalism and consumerism. We do not want to concern our selves in the matters of other societies - we are tired of the constant wars and crisis caused by globalist power structures, and wish to look inward towards our own native needs and problems.

If you want to live in some mono non culture were consumerism is your god, move to somewhere to Scandinavia - but the rest of Europe and North America are finally ditching this failing system.

[Republic of the Cristo]

But fundamentally they are all the same: they have territory that they mark. Let's be honest, like many animals, humans are a territorial species and we aren't just gonna give that up because we have the same blood running through our veins or because the modern age has allowed us access to goods and resources from all over the world in great amounts.

Sure they are the same hence I'm all for removing clan based tribalism too, however given clans generally aren't prominent - it's not really as major issue as nation based tribalism. We're not going to give up the arbitrary nations based tribalism yet, after all it has been ingrained in psyche for centuries - but there is no reason to suggest this'd be impossible long term after all we went from treating clans as founding bloc to feudal lords as founding bloc to nations as a founding bloc for tribalism - there is no reason why this progression would necessarily stop arbitrarily at nations.

Problem with this is, Tribalism is not a social institution - it is a natural instinct of mankind. Mankind is naturally inclined to be tribalistic and has been since it's creation. Your attempt at removing tribalism will be met extremely fierce and most likely violent opposition which will no doubt last centauries and never lead to anything except war. And even if you somehow managed to pacify them all, new tribal societies would spring up in your new world - we can even see these phenomena's in the western world, looking at street gangs, or social cliques, or even political parties.

Tribalism will never go away, and that is okay.

[Alvecia]

Sure they are the same hence I'm all for removing clan based tribalism too, however given clans generally aren't prominent - it's not really as major issue as nation based tribalism. We're not going to give up the arbitrary nations based tribalism yet, after all it has been ingrained in psyche for centuries - but there is no reason to suggest this'd be impossible long term after all we went from treating clans as founding bloc to feudal lords as founding bloc to nations as a founding bloc for tribalism - there is no reason why this progression would necessarily stop arbitrarily at nations.

Problem with this is, Tribalism is not a social institution - it is a natural instinct of mankind. Mankind is naturally inclined to be tribalistic and has been since it's creation. Your attempt at removing tribalism will be met extremely fierce and most likely violent opposition which will no doubt last centauries and never lead to anything except war. And even if you somehow managed to pacify them all, new tribal societies would spring up in your new world - we can even see these phenomena's in the western world, looking at street gangs, or social cliques, or even political parties.

Tribalism will never go away, and that is okay.

I've always thought you just need a change of perspective.
Your tribe is what you decide. You see tribal behaviour when it comes to sports teams, games consoles, comic book franchises.
All that's required is to make people consider people to be part of their tribe.

[Sanctissima]

Problem with this is, Tribalism is not a social institution - it is a natural instinct of mankind. Mankind is naturally inclined to be tribalistic and has been since it's creation. Your attempt at removing tribalism will be met extremely fierce and most likely violent opposition which will no doubt last centauries and never lead to anything except war. And even if you somehow managed to pacify them all, new tribal societies would spring up in your new world - we can even see these phenomena's in the western world, looking at street gangs, or social cliques, or even political parties.

Tribalism will never go away, and that is okay.

I've always thought you just need a change of perspective.
Your tribe is what you decide. You see tribal behaviour when it comes to sports teams, games consoles, comic book franchises.
All that's required is to make people consider people to be part of their tribe.

People on what scale?

Tribalism only works within certain parameters. If you consider every human on the planet to be part of your tribe, then that's no longer tribalism, not unless they all share the same cultural identity.

[Alvecia]

I've always thought you just need a change of perspective.
Your tribe is what you decide. You see tribal behaviour when it comes to sports teams, games consoles, comic book franchises.
All that's required is to make people consider people to be part of their tribe.

People on what scale?

Tribalism only works within certain parameters. If you consider every human on the planet to be part of your tribe, then that's no longer tribalism, not unless they all share the same cultural identity.

I disagree. I don't think an opposing "force" or "other" is necessary for a tribe to exist. Nor do I think differing cultural identites is an unsurmountable problem.

[Sanctissima]

People on what scale?

Tribalism only works within certain parameters. If you consider every human on the planet to be part of your tribe, then that's no longer tribalism, not unless they all share the same cultural identity.

I disagree. I don't think an opposing "force" or "other" is necessary for a tribe to exist. Nor do I think differing cultural identites is an unsurmountable problem.

They are if your idea of globalism is some kind of global federation with no broader global identity other than "well, we're all humans". In such a system, people would only be content so long as the economy would be good. The moment it crashes, you'd have no global identity to fall back on, and countries or national polities would have no reason to remain in said federation.

Hell, this is why the EU is falling apart at the moment.

[Alvecia]

I disagree. I don't think an opposing "force" or "other" is necessary for a tribe to exist. Nor do I think differing cultural identites is an unsurmountable problem.

They are if your idea of globalism is some kind of global federation with no broader global identity other than "well, we're all humans". In such a system, people would only be content so long as the economy would be good. The moment it crashes, you'd have no global identity to fall back on, and countries or national polities would have no reason to remain in said federation.

Hell, this is why the EU is falling apart at the moment.

I think that's just a pessimistic view, based on the people of today, not the people of tomorrow.

[Proctopeo]

They are if your idea of globalism is some kind of global federation with no broader global identity other than "well, we're all humans". In such a system, people would only be content so long as the economy would be good. The moment it crashes, you'd have no global identity to fall back on, and countries or national polities would have no reason to remain in said federation.

Hell, this is why the EU is falling apart at the moment.

I think that's just a pessimistic view, based on the people of today, not the people of tomorrow.

We can only know the people of today. The people of tomorrow are unknown.

[Alvecia]

I think that's just a pessimistic view, based on the people of today, not the people of tomorrow.

We can only know the people of today. The people of tomorrow are unknown.

But we can speculate. And my speculations are optimistic.

[Conserative Morality]

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, that is where you implied it.

Yeah, no. I clearly and explicitly stated that globalist movements aren't inherently free.

Secondly, if freedom is truly your only concern, then we should just scrap the globalism/anti-globalism argument completely. Either one involves a government or corporation ruling over people, and if freedom is the only measure of worth in society , oops, I mean humanity, then all government and authority should be abolished. Anarchism for all!

Freedom is only maximized when freedoms are protected. Governments are necessary to freedom, and corporations aren't inherently dangerous to freedom.

You twat!

Harsh m80.

The point of the globalism debate is not a matter of freedom, it is a matter of culture, standard of living, and economics. Globalism deludes culture and tradition in favor of mindless consumerism, and if you are not living in the a largely post industrial society, then the only positive economic impact that globalism will be having on your country will be for the rich and powerful ( look at South America, Africa, or the majority of China ).

Clear solution: have the rest of the world develop into a post-industrial society. Inb4 "progress is impossible and these primitive countries will never become industrialized post-industrial."

Globalism destroys culture in favor of consumerism, uplifts some at the expense of the many, and centers too much power and control to too few people. You may not care about society, but as recent events across the world show you are a shrinking minority. We don't want to continue on this path of naïve liberalism and consumerism. We do not want to concern our selves in the matters of other societies - we are tired of the constant wars and crisis caused by globalist power structures, and wish to look inward towards our own native needs and problems.

If you want to live in some mono non culture were consumerism is your god, move to somewhere to Scandinavia - but the rest of Europe and North America are finally ditching this failing system.

For all of our faults, this is one that hardcore liberals rarely have. We may think victory is inevitable, but few of us ever think the battle is ever over. Also, really? The election of an xenophobe to power without the popular vote using a party that's traditionally pro-globalist to some degree is a sign that we're ditching this 'failing system'?

[Great Nepal]

Problem with this is, Tribalism is not a social institution - it is a natural instinct of mankind. Mankind is naturally inclined to be tribalistic and has been since it's creation. Your attempt at removing tribalism will be met extremely fierce and most likely violent opposition which will no doubt last centauries and never lead to anything except war.

Only if you do it radically; as I pointed out this isn't a novel concept - it is simply logical conclusion of what has been going on for literally millennia. Normads surrender their autonomy by settling down, the tribes surrender their autonomy and tribalism to a regional strongman, regional strongmen surrender their power to larger regional strongmen, these strongmen surrender their power to the god anointed kings - and that's essentially where we are now. Sure instead of god anointed kings we largely have presidents and prime ministers from people but that is merely a semantic and political difference. Now why would this process stop at nationstates instead of reaching the logical conclusion of regional federations and a global government - how is British independence any more special than English independence or how is English independence more special than Belgae tribal independence in iron age?
Sure over the course of this process there has been violence, but at the same time there have been historical unification that have occurred without violence - hopefully going forward it will be the second type of mergers.

And even if you somehow managed to pacify them all, new tribal societies would spring up in your new world - we can even see these phenomena's in the western world, looking at street gangs, or social cliques, or even political parties.

Tribalism will never go away, and that is okay.

Yes but street gangs, social cliques exert far less power than national tribalism - while it'd be nice to eliminate them it doesn't really matter if that isn't done or isn't possible. A street gang doesn't have de jure power over a territory, it doesn't have sovereignty, and it can not claim monopoly of power hence its far less important tribalism than national level ones.

[Sanctissima]

They are if your idea of globalism is some kind of global federation with no broader global identity other than "well, we're all humans". In such a system, people would only be content so long as the economy would be good. The moment it crashes, you'd have no global identity to fall back on, and countries or national polities would have no reason to remain in said federation.

Hell, this is why the EU is falling apart at the moment.

I think that's just a pessimistic view, based on the people of today, not the people of tomorrow.

Hardly. It's just being realistic.

Cultural identity is a thing, and if you don't create a global cultural identity for your hypothetical global federation, then "humanity" just isn't going to cut it as a means to keep people united.

[Paleocacher]

How about the Globalists turn belly up and realize that trying to unite all the governments and economies together into one mega huge global government system is a very bad idea and it would be corrupt and oppressive at worst and a bloated bureaucratic mess at best.

The economy would either be composed of giant corporations that use crony capitalism to destroy the planet and ensure that a monopoly forms, or a bunch of bloated state-owned communist corporations that will eventually collapse.

If we switch into a global government and economy in today's political/economic climate the only two results would either be worldwide super-communism (Stalinism) or worldwide super-capitalism (Gilded Age America/Industrial Revolution). Neither is a very good option.

Now, if we could have a combination of both (e.g. Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism Private business but with government oversight but not interference) on a global scale. Then that might work. But that won't happen in the foreseeable future.

[Great Nepal]

I think that's just a pessimistic view, based on the people of today, not the people of tomorrow.

Hardly. It's just being realistic.

Cultural identity is a thing, and if you don't create a global cultural identity for your hypothetical global federation, then "humanity" just isn't going to cut it as a means to keep people united.

Most people in England identify themselves as English only (60%), same in Scotland (62%) and Welsh (57%). Note they don't view themselves as British and x, only as being English, Scottish or Welsh. UK still exists as a unified entity.

[Balkenreich]

I see globalism as one step shy of treason.

[Sanctissima]

Hardly. It's just being realistic.

Cultural identity is a thing, and if you don't create a global cultural identity for your hypothetical global federation, then "humanity" just isn't going to cut it as a means to keep people united.

Most people in England identify themselves as English only (60%), same in Scotland (62%) and Welsh (57%). Note they don't view themselves as British and x, only as being English, Scottish or Welsh. UK still exists as a unified entity.

Because there is nonetheless a British cultural identity, even if most Brits identify more with their regional cultural identity (English, Scottish, Welsh, etc.) than with the overarching national one.

"Human" is not a cultural identity. If you wanted to create a global federation that would last, you'd also need to create a global cultural identity that would go along with it.

[Neu Leonstein]

"Human" is not a cultural identity. If you wanted to create a global federation that would last, you'd also need to create a global cultural identity that would go along with it.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. We all tell ourselves narratives about who we are, why we do what we do and so on. For most people, something about how they understand their national heritage is part of that narrative. It is for me too.

But that doesn't have to translate into anything more than that. There is no need to go from that personal narrative to a political system. I can happily say that I was born in Germany, and that my approach to life (including to politics) is influenced by where and how I grew up and the history of Germans as a people. But I've spent half my life in other places, don't really know that many Germans anymore besides family and certainly don't feel the need to have my identity validated by being surrounded by Germans. I can be who I am just fine while surrounded by people with different nationalities (and, to a degree, different personal narratives altogether).

I think that's the fundamental, psychological, divide between what I think of as globalists and nationalists. If you get your narrative and the validation thereof internally, or at least from behaviours that aren't nation-specific*, then it doesn't bug you that much where you live and who else lives there. If your narrative is in some sense externally validated and gets a big part of its meaning to you from being shared with the people around you, then I suppose you would feel somehow out of place if you weren't surrounded by people of your own "kind". And if that is true for a lot of people, and those people react with discomfort, anger or even authoritarian politics, then we've got a problem. Two different ways of how people understand themselves, which can't both be accommodated at the same time.

The 21st century, with this whole new scale of interconnectivity between different parts of the world, shows this up in stark contrast. I'm not really interested in arguing about the economics of globalisation at this point... they've been shown to be irrelevant to the political debate. I'm interested in how we can deal with a situation in which some proportion x of the world wants to experience the whole world, pick a place to make their lives regardless of national boundaries, and some proportion (1-x) wants to keep their corner of the world the way they know it and stop too many new arrivals from changing it. Right now we are doing a fantastically shitty job of reconciling these... (1-x) is hitting out by cheering policies of unnecessarily vindictive cruelty, and x is going into an impotent rage about those same policies while offering little to address the concerns of the (1-x) besides "suck it up". So I'm interested in a better solution and what that might look like.


* like, I could say that I am a coffee snob hipster and like to surround myself with other coffee snob hipsters... but I can do that in Sydney, or in Singapore, or in London, or in Austin - nationality is not that important

[Republic of the Cristo]

People on what scale?

Tribalism only works within certain parameters. If you consider every human on the planet to be part of your tribe, then that's no longer tribalism, not unless they all share the same cultural identity.

I disagree. I don't think an opposing "force" or "other" is necessary for a tribe to exist. Nor do I think differing cultural identites is an unsurmountable problem.

An, other, absolutely Is necessary. Without others, there is no us. And we are not talking about things as petty as games - we are talking about ways of life that stretch back for centuries.

[Alvecia]

I disagree. I don't think an opposing "force" or "other" is necessary for a tribe to exist. Nor do I think differing cultural identites is an unsurmountable problem.

An, other, absolutely Is necessary. Without others, there is no us. And we are not talking about things as petty as games - we are talking about ways of life that stretch back for centuries.

Again, I disagree.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Problem with this is, Tribalism is not a social institution - it is a natural instinct of mankind. Mankind is naturally inclined to be tribalistic and has been since it's creation. Your attempt at removing tribalism will be met extremely fierce and most likely violent opposition which will no doubt last centauries and never lead to anything except war.

Only if you do it radically; as I pointed out this isn't a novel concept - it is simply logical conclusion of what has been going on for literally millennia. Normads surrender their autonomy by settling down, the tribes surrender their autonomy and tribalism to a regional strongman, regional strongmen surrender their power to larger regional strongmen, these strongmen surrender their power to the god anointed kings - and that's essentially where we are now. Sure instead of god anointed kings we largely have presidents and prime ministers from people but that is merely a semantic and political difference. Now why would this process stop at nationstates instead of reaching the logical conclusion of regional federations and a global government - how is British independence any more special than English independence or how is English independence more special than Belgae tribal independence in iron age?
Sure over the course of this process there has been violence, but at the same time there have been historical unification that have occurred without violence - hopefully going forward it will be the second type of mergers.

And even if you somehow managed to pacify them all, new tribal societies would spring up in your new world - we can even see these phenomena's in the western world, looking at street gangs, or social cliques, or even political parties.

Tribalism will never go away, and that is okay.

Yes but street gangs, social cliques exert far less power than national tribalism - while it'd be nice to eliminate them it doesn't really matter if that isn't done or isn't possible. A street gang doesn't have de jure power over a territory, it doesn't have sovereignty, and it can not claim monopoly of power hence its far less important tribalism than national level ones.

Mind you, any form of a unified global government - no matter how seemingly autonomous, is a radical step.

And in regards to gangs and social cliques, truly it depends on the group and where the operate. In most parts of the United States, your average street gang will only be able to exert real control over a block or two, while most social cliques do not exert much power outside of certain cities ( cliques being defined as strictly domestic individuals, and not multinational-corporate persons ). However, in more industrial or developing areas of the western world, the story is entirely different. Mind you, if you don't consider Latin America apart of the western world, then this argument would not apply. In the wake of globalism reaching places like Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, we such group exerting massive amounts of control over the nation. The Cartels essentially rule entire sections of Mexico and the Caribbean, and a mix match of upper-class individuals and political leaders often use their combined muscle to flex their dominance over entire countries ( like the Dominican Republic or Trinidad and Tobogo ).

[Republic of the Cristo]

An, other, absolutely Is necessary. Without others, there is no us. And we are not talking about things as petty as games - we are talking about ways of life that stretch back for centuries.

Again, I disagree.

You can't have a club without there being outsiders.