Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[Pope Joan]

I oppose globalism economically; it dilutes the effect of our environmental and labor laws.

[Militant Costco]

I oppose globalism economically; it dilutes the effect of our environmental and labor laws.

But for some countries, failing to adopt globalism will make environmental and labor laws useless, since there won't be any industry left to regulate.

[Chan Island]

"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.

That's inspiring as hell. Sigged.

[Alvecia]

Again, I disagree.

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

I don't think "clubs" are an appropriate analogy

[Lashary]

With great love & respect from Pakistan,
I Aam very delighted to be member of WA and looking forward to learn & give ideas for better tomorrow!

[Greed and Death]

A combination between nationalism and individualism would be great.

Well except that it doesn't make sense.

Globalism is individualist. It's all about individual rights over arbitrary nationstates and the restrictions they impose.

Until we start talking about economic freedom. Suddenly refusing to buy insurance becomes the most anti social thing possible. Well you know what screw that.

[Sanctissima]

"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

Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.

The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.

[Seraven]

Guess we should totally ignore America's hispanic culture, asian culture, even african culture, right?

You realise they're tearing one another apart, right? America is tearing itself apart.

Ignore them.

No, really. Don't entertain their delusions. They imagine themselves on the winning side for the moment. Let them celebrate. Let them show the public a taste of what they actually want to do. And let the public recoil from the actual consequences of a less-connected less-free world.

That is quite the prediction.

To be honest, I'm pretty much has this sort of happiness because of America tearing itself apart.

Then again, while I know the consequences of such tears, I don't have much sympathy with America. Perhaps it is a karma for what they did in the past.

[Neu Leonstein]

Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say there was no unifying national identity pre-1871 (or maybe 1848). I would dispute that in this particular case, but if you're right, then how did Germany become a thing at all? Isn't the answer that a group identity was formed after the political change, and proved strong enough to last?

The point is that humans love to join tribes. We all do it, all the time. We literally attach ourselves to tribes based on people in coloured shirts kicking a ball. It makes a primitive kind of sense, it's what helped us survive the steppes of Africa.

But because we are so super keen to form tribes based on just about anything, there is no reason that the primary tribe has to be the nation. Aside from all the tribal allegiances that most people consider more important than the nation they belong to already, it is also possible to form strong identities based on little more than political philosophy. Think of the United States. When the first settlers arrived, even just those coming from England, they didn't have much in common. But 200-odd years later, a shared commitment to disliking taxes and Republican radicalism was enough to form what turned out to be a lasting national project. And that's not even beginning to count settlers from everywhere else (French, Spanish, Chinese... lots and lots of African slaves obviously - and ultimately even the surviving Native Americans) who found that they liked the same philosophy and took part in it.

The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.

The political philosophy behind cosmopolitan governance and lifestyle already exists. Lots and lots of people who consider national boundaries from a practical perspective (i.e. inconvenient barriers in their lives) already exist. I mean, go to any decent university with a globally recognised name and look around the student body. Or like half the population of cities like New York or London. Or Davos. The US was not founded on a lot more than that.

[Sanctissima]

Such a loose system of affiliation can only last for so long if implemented. Your own country was non-existent barely 150 years ago. There were Prussians, Bavarians, Saxons and many other cultural groups, but no Germans. It wasn't until a unified empire was forced upon them that a fully-fledged German identity developed. This identity is why, even though the empire was destroyed after the Great War, the country remained at least mostly intact under the Weimar Republic, rather than being divided into numerous smaller states. The same is true of the situation post-WWII.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You say there was no unifying national identity pre-1871 (or maybe 1848). I would dispute that in this particular case, but if you're right, then how did Germany become a thing at all? Isn't the answer that a group identity was formed after the political change, and proved strong enough to last?

The point is that humans love to join tribes. We all do it, all the time. We literally attach ourselves to tribes based on people in coloured shirts kicking a ball. It makes a primitive kind of sense, it's what helped us survive the steppes of Africa.

But because we are so super keen to form tribes based on just about anything, there is no reason that the primary tribe has to be the nation. Aside from all the tribal allegiances that most people consider more important than the nation they belong to already, it is also possible to form strong identities based on little more than political philosophy. Think of the United States. When the first settlers arrived, even just those coming from England, they didn't have much in common. But 200-odd years later, a shared commitment to disliking taxes and Republican radicalism was enough to form what turned out to be a lasting national project. And that's not even beginning to count settlers from everywhere else (French, Spanish, Chinese... lots and lots of African slaves obviously - and ultimately even the surviving Native Americans) who found that they liked the same philosophy and took part in it.

The simple truth is, without a unifying cultural identity, no global federation would last for very long. It would suffer the same fate of the EU, that is to say major internal strife and gradual break-up. Just as there is no overarching European cultural identity, there is no overarching human one, so for either system to survive such identities must be created.

The political philosophy behind cosmopolitan governance and lifestyle already exists. Lots and lots of people who consider national boundaries from a practical perspective (i.e. inconvenient barriers in their lives) already exist. I mean, go to any decent university with a globally recognised name and look around the student body. Or like half the population of cities like New York or London. Or Davos. The US was not founded on a lot more than that.

I'm not contradicting myself. It takes a concerted effort to establish a cultural identity in the short-term (i.e: several decades). Germany exists today despite having lost two world wars precisely because a concerted effort was made to establish a German culture. You can thank Bismarck for that. The Unites States, in contrast, made very little effort to properly establish an American cultural identity, so it is true that such an identity can gradually develop on its own over time. It's worth noting, however, that due to this lack of a concerted effort to establish an American identity, the country was, on several occasions, on the precipice of not existing at all (War of 1812, Civil War, etc.).

What you and other posters are essentially advocating is a type of global federation that would go down the same route as the early United States. I assure you that the odds of such a federation surviving would be very, very low. Least of all because, when push would come to shove, I really doubt the leadership of such a federation would have the same willpower as that of the early US presidents. Would you be willing to fight a civil war to keep your federation together? Would you be willing to damn popular sovereignty and force your federation upon unwilling nations? Would you be willing to trample over human rights and even murder political dissidents to preserve the stability of your federation?

If your answer to any of these questions is no, then your federation would not survive.

[Neu Leonstein]

I'm not contradicting myself. It takes a concerted effort to establish a cultural identity in the short-term (i.e: several decades). Germany exists today despite having lost two world wars precisely because a concerted effort was made to establish a German culture. You can thank Bismarck for that.

Well, like I said, I don't think your characterisation of German history is right. But that's beside the point.

The Unites States, in contrast, made very little effort to properly establish an American cultural identity, so it is true that such an identity can gradually develop on its own over time. It's worth noting, however, that due to this lack of a concerted effort to establish an American identity, the country was, on several occasions, on the precipice of not existing at all (War of 1812, Civil War, etc.).

That is true - though only the civil war is relevant for our purposes. And I would argue that both sides still thought of themselves as American and their actions true to the intentions of the Founding Fathers... they just disagreed on what that meant.

What you and other posters are essentially advocating is a type of global federation that would go down the same route as the early United States. I assure you that the odds of such a federation surviving would be very, very low. Least of all because, when push would come to shove, I really doubt the leadership of such a federation would have the same willpower as that of the early US presidents. Would you be willing to fight a civil war to keep your federation together? Would you be willing to damn popular sovereignty and force your federation upon unwilling nations? Would you be willing to trample over human rights and even murder political dissidents to preserve the stability of your federation?

If your answer to any of these questions is no, then your federation would not survive.

Yeah, but now you've just come back to the OP. Your argument now is not that a globalist political identity cannot exist, or that it cannot be used as the foundation of a political project. You're now arguing that the political project is unstable, regardless of any supranational culture or identity that it is based on. Which could be true, sure, but then it is always true of any political project. So it becomes a question of how we can pragmatically overcome these problems and ensure that a sufficient number of people comes along for the ride to make it work. I.e. how can we respond to people who value their nationalist identities so much that they would want to disrupt a world that has brought more peace, more cultural exchange and more people lifted out of abject poverty than ever before? I don't know the answer to that question - that's why I wrote the OP.

[Republic of the Cristo]

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

I don't think "clubs" are an appropriate analogy

I think it is.

In order for a group or, tribe, to be formed, you must adopt and believe in certain principles or be of a certain disposition. If you are not in line with a groups principles or their disposition, then you are not welcome.

With this in mind, not everyone can be apart of everything. Tribes or groups are naturally exclusive to some extent and simply will not allow some people into their fold.

[PaNTuXIa]

Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.

The systems that led to major war mongering and imperialism?

[PaNTuXIa]

Nationalism is inevitable. Globalism is, by its nature, an unfavorable system. Nationalism doesn't mean Nazi Germany, it means a return to Napoleonic and Roman political systems.

The systems that led to major war mongering and imperialism?

War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The systems that led to major war mongering and imperialism?

War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?

[Republic of the Cristo]

War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?

No war has been fought for the world as a whole. Non ever.

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

[Kerbodine]

I'm by no means a globalist, but to the globalists here (since I think this is a very open discussion): don't be too overly optimistic about the future being more 'pro-globalist'. The youngest generation shows some very interesting trends, many of which are non-globalist.

Interesting trends that are found where? I mean, I live in the most Republican town in my state, and I can say a lot about the political trends in my school.

Bit late, but in general Gen Z is more conservative in a lot of ways than the generations before. (For example, church attendance is at like 40%, while even Baby Boomers were only like 25% when they were that age, and the two in between were maybe 20%)

Wikipedia has a page on Gen Z, including basic trends; not a bad place to glimpse at it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?

No war has been fought for the world as a whole. Non ever.

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

What, because some nation goes to war for trade interests?

[Neu Leonstein]

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

That's a big enough claim to deserve more than one line, no?

[Republic of the Cristo]

No war has been fought for the world as a whole. Non ever.

But globalism does promote war more so than nationalism.

What, because some nation goes to war for trade interests?

Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.

All fall in line with the globalist expansion.

[Conserative Morality]

Bit late, but in general Gen Z is more conservative in a lot of ways than the generations before. (For example, church attendance is at like 40%, while even Baby Boomers were only like 25% when they were that age, and the two in between were maybe 20%)

Wikipedia has a page on Gen Z, including basic trends; not a bad place to glimpse at it.

[/quote]
'Gen Z' is an incredibly inconsistently categorized and young demographic. Also, I'd call into question those church attendance numbers.

[PaNTuXIa]

War is natural. There is no way to prevent war - if anything, internationalism promotes war more than nationalism and isolationism.

Is it though? How many wars were fought in interests of a nation, rqther then the interests of the world as a whole?

War is primarily motivated by corporate interests, trade interests, and foreign influence on government, such as the War in Iraq being fought for Big Oil and Israel, or the Vietnam War being fought due to communism being a threat to businesses influence on government. If these were removed, and an isolationist foreign policy were pursued, war would be scarce.

[Internationalist Bastard]

What, because some nation goes to war for trade interests?

Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.

All fall in line with the globalist expansion.

No, all of those are goals on expanding national power. Globalism may have been an excuse for things say, America installing pro American democracies, but it's no more globalist then invading a country for oil

[PaNTuXIa]

Trade, to spread democracy, Hegemony, etc.

All fall in line with the globalist expansion.

No, all of those are goals on expanding national power. Globalism may have been an excuse for things say, America installing pro American democracies, but it's no more globalist then invading a country for oil

The Iraq War was motivated by the Israel and the Oil lobby, which, under a nationalist government, would've been far less likely to happen.