Globalists: how do we respond to resurgent nationalism?

[Theodorex]

>Assumes Globalism is strictly a leftist phenomenon.
>Ignores the fact that globalism is primarily promulgated by a neoliberal capitalist class that wishes to obliterate boundaries to labor markets, allowing them to simply remove labor resistance as a factor in their bottom line.

Neither does he assume in this video that globalism is leftist phenomenon nor does he even talk about globalism in this video. How can he ignore who globalism is promulgated by if he doesn't even talk about It? What else is he ignoring? That Hitler was an evil murderer? May be he is or has been somewhere before or will be in the future. What are you talking about?

[New Werpland]

Whatever messed up problems race relations in the US generate is not relevant here. That's not "multiculturalism", that's slavery and its after effects.

US is not multicultural, Christmas is national holiday etc. When Estonia broke away from Soviet Union, there was large population of Russians who had been brought to Estonia during the Soviet Union (we call It Russian occupation). Large part of them were not loyal to Estonia. Estonia is a nation state with one state language. Large part of those Russians today don't speak almost no Estonian at all, they watch Russian television and are influenced by what is said in Russian news. For example during conflicts like Georgia or Ukraine their view of the conflict is very close to Putin's view. Estonia did not give those Russians citizenship automatically(even the ones who were born In Estonia during Soviet Union didn't get it) It was always justified by nationalists that those people are not loyal to Estonia and if they could vote, they would vote us into Содружество Независимых Государств. Openly they talked about language exams etc. For a true multiculturalist these Russians should have been given a citizenship. Similar thing is going on with Turkish people in Germany and Netherlands. I personally don't believe that multiculturalism could work in democracy. You would have different identity groups in parliament fighting each other on issues that otherwise would not be there. We are talking about two groups here that are both Christians and sure cannot be that different than say Somalies and Estonians. You would not have traditional left right wing politics but these groups start fighting each other. Assimilation is not a thing for a multiculturalist, all cultures are beautiful.

The US has large ethnic minorities with citizenship.

[Khalisako]

Globalism is one step away from treason and national suicide.

as long as peope are able to preserve their culturual/triabl identities while bein able t o contribute to global phenemona, I cool with it. Especially if globa government give incentiv for tribals to mainting their culture./.

[Theodorex]

The US has large ethnic minorities with citizenship.

Your point?

[New Werpland]

The US has large ethnic minorities with citizenship.

Your point?

Your statement on the US appeared to contradict your criteria for a non-multicultural country, though I understand there might have been things you didn't say.

[Lorkhan]

Wait for them to screw up again, and -- if you survive -- you get to enjoy seven or eight decades of pointing the blame on them for all the horrible things that happened during this period.

Other than that, there's not a whole lot you can do that isn't already being done.

[Theodorex]

Your statement on the US appeared to contradict your criteria for a non-multicultural country, though I understand there might have been things you didn't say.

Yes, It is not multicultural really. There is one dominant culture. It is not multinational either. For UK, Spain etc you can say that these are multinational countries. All the immigration that has happened in US in past was associated with the idea that newcomers would assimilate and integrate. They have a lot of people in America who say that their grandparents or even parents are from Latvia, Hungary, Italy etc. They might say that they feel they have that identity but usually they don't speak the language, more likely have never been in those countries and know very little about those countries or cultures. They are Americans more than anything else. I've met a blue eyed blond in US who said he was a Gypsy. Real Gypsies would never consider him Gypsy of course. Real Latvians don't consider an American who says his grandfather was Latvian but he cannot speak the lanuage to be a Latvian. He is an American to them.

[Ashkera]

You referred to Middle Eastern Muslims as natural enemies of the West. Generally when something is to be considered a natural enemy it is generally considered to be worth destroying. Further, going by your logic, one doesn't need to commit genocide to obliterate a culture, because they're so fragile that a few people from another moving can place a culture in jeopardy of extinction. What benefits are the Middle East getting anyway? A daily delivery of cluster bombs compliments of a Russian airplane? Durka Durkas being allowed to enter countries that they weren't born in, to escape a Civil War?

It is far easier to destroy than it is to create. This applies not only to buildings, works of art, and heavy infrastructure, but also to institutions and the cultures that create and maintain those institutions.

So yes, culture is fragile. Just look at the economic damage caused by a relatively small group of hijackers nabbing a few passenger airliners and destroying a few buildings. First, the immediate damage was quite significant. Then there was the secondary damage to the markets, and that's before we even get to the damage that resulted from the politics, including enabling the start of a multi-trillion-dollar war that would not have been possible without it. A war that you would likely oppose because of its disastrous intervention in the Middle East. No 9/11 means it doesn't happen.

But culture doesn't matter. All religions are the same. There are no risks we need to worry about. Why, the number of deaths annually is quite low once we cut out the single biggest attack! Honor killings are just part of the culture, too, you know.

Ultimately, because of politics, none of this will actually be resolved, including the bombings and truck attacks. Ideally, people would suffer the results of their own ideologies instead of inflicting them on others - Neoconservatives and DAESH types included. But that means Nationalism, not Globalism.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Your statement on the US appeared to contradict your criteria for a non-multicultural country, though I understand there might have been things you didn't say.

Yes, It is not multicultural really. There is one dominant culture. It is not multinational either. For UK, Spain etc you can say that these are multinational countries. All the immigration that has happened in US in past was associated with the idea that newcomers would assimilate and integrate. They have a lot of people in America who say that their grandparents or even parents are from Latvia, Hungary, Italy etc. They might say that they feel they have that identity but usually they don't speak the language, more likely have never been in those countries and know very little about those countries or cultures. They are Americans more than anything else. I've met a blue eyed blond in US who said he was a Gypsy. Real Gypsies would never consider him Gypsy of course. Real Latvians don't consider an American who says his grandfather was Latvian but he cannot speak the lanuage to be a Latvian. He is an American to them.

The US is genuinely multinational - you can tell the areas inhabited by Italians etc. who are actual Italians. They look like Italy. Of course there are many more Anglo-Germans with small Italian admixture who call themselves Italians.

In the recent past, the US had dominant Anglo-German majority. The Anglo and German components were actually different to one another, and the Anglo component was itself five or six subnationalities. But nonetheless, all quite similar in many respects.

What is changing now is the US is transitioning from a national empire in which a dominant culture exercises hegemony over fringe cultures, to a non-national empire where no one can exercise power without explicit inter-ethnic power sharing arrangements. India is an example of this. So was Yugoslavia.

[Theodorex]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/08/no-panacea-political-ills-why-democracy-trouble

The trouble is that not all the ailments Coggan identifies are curable. It is hardly accidental that the spread of democracy into the former Yugoslavia occurred at the same time as ethnic cleansing. The same was true after the collapse of the Hapsburg empire in interwar central Europe and in much of postcolonial Africa, while something not dissimilar seems to be happening in Myanmar along with the move from military dictatorship.

Democracy requires a high level of mutual trust, which is difficult to sustain when a state contains permanent minorities. If communities that are culturally distinct and geographically concentrated fear frequently losing out under majority rule, they may prefer to opt for separatism. That is why the spread of democracy has so often gone with the rise of secessionist movements demanding national self-determination.
Reflecting on these questions, Coggan asks: “Could the answer be to get rid of national self-determination? Possibly the whole idea of nationalism may turn out to be a temporary concept, like the city states of the Middle Ages.” It is an attractive suggestion. Even in its supposedly civil varieties, nationalism historically has been responsible for spilling vast quantities of blood.

Yet transcending nationalism is barely conceivable when populations all over the world are demanding self-government. Democracy’s connection with the nation state is not incidental. A democratic polity requires nation-building, a process that is often repressive and at times extremely violent, and with all its faults the nation state is in practice the upper limit of democratic accountability. There are exceptions – multinational democracies that are stable and widely accepted as legitimate but, embarrassingly for progressives, they are inheritances of empire or monarchy: Spain, Canada and the UK, for instance. Aside from these relics, cosmopolitan democracy is a figment of the imagination.

The condition of the eurozone, where there has been a concerted attempt to transcend national self-determination, illustrates the point. Coggan cites Sheri Berman, an American professor of political science at Columbia University, who writes: “The lack of authoritative democratic political institutions at the regional level has robbed the EU of the ability to respond forcefully to the crisis, thereby fanning the flames of nationalism and creating a backlash against the European project itself.”