Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Globalism is about centralizing political, social and economic control through multinational organizations that transcend the authority of individual nations and their governments, with the apparent ultimate goal of implementing a one-world government.
Internationalism is the voluntary interaction of nations with each other in terms of political alignments, social interactions, and economic trade and advancement - without any need to submit to an unaccountable, overreaching and imposing global authoritarianism. It is based on the ideas of market economics, freedom and liberty among these nations.
Internationalism is the best arrangement for humanity and globalism is not, as we have had to learn the hard way over the last 30 years or so. What is interesting about that is how quickly the fundamental flaws of globalism have manifested themselves - ~30 years. Meanwhile, internationalism has been ongoing for thousands of years, and unless we wipe ourselves out first, is likely to keep on working for us for thousands more.
Ugh. Then put me in the "NO" column for the Globalization project then, thank you very much.
Just on the face of it, that sort of "centralized power at a distance" approach does not have the best of track records historically.
Please note that the topic wasn't to provide an intellectual defense of globalism, but "what is your definition of nationalism". Why should anyone answer a question that wasn't asked? And what is globalism anyway? It's not at the top of most people's list of things to think about. Who even cares? Other than you, apparently no one in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Please take note that they do not even try to make an intellectual defense of globalism. Rather they just hurl unsubstantiated insults and slurs, and then run away.
What defense is there remaining for globalism at this point? Does anyone know? Is there any advocate for it who is both courageous enough and capable of trying to make a persuasive case for it?
Please note that the topic wasn't to provide an intellectual defense of globalism, but "what is your definition of nationalism". Why should anyone answer a question that wasn't asked? And what is globalism anyway? It's not at the top of most people's list of things to think about. Who even cares? Other than you, apparently no one in this thread.
Globalism is the supposed alternative to internationalism. If you want to reject nationalism, as you seem to, then what do you support instead?
The definition of nationalism in the context it is being discussed does not mean much without considering what is being pushed as its alternative.
So, do not say that nobody is asking. I am asking about globalism vs internationalism here, because it needs to be asked.
It appears that the reason you do not want the question to be asked is because you have no answer. Or if you do, prove me wrong and post it. Will you be an advocate for globalism here? Will anyone?
Please take note that they do not even try to make an intellectual defense of globalism. Rather they just hurl unsubstantiated insults and slurs, and then run away.
What defense is there remaining for globalism at this point? Does anyone know? Is there any advocate for it who is both courageous enough and capable of trying to make a persuasive case for it?
The founders were wealthy plutocrats. They set up a government designed to protect the interests of wealthy plutocrats.
Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to make some reforms during the New Deal era, but he was vilified (by wealthy plutocrats) for doing so.
Of course this is partially true. If by plutocrats you mean wealthy people, then sure the government protects their interests. Should it not? But of course, it doesn't only protect their interests.
Don't expect a viable answer from these race card pullers. Nationalism isn't akin to racism because all nations have several different races who are citizens of their own country. Nationalism is simply being patriotic towards one's own country.
Of course this is partially true. If by plutocrats you mean wealthy people, then sure the government protects their interests. Should it not? But of course, it doesn't only protect their interests.
I think it's safe to say that our nation's founders were very self-driven, hard-working, successful people and such people typically acquire wealth. There is a segment of people that believe all wealth is ill-gotten and that hard-working people are obligated to give their wealth to others.
I think it's safe to say that our nation's founders were very self-driven, hard-working, successful people and such people typically acquire wealth. There is a segment of people that believe all wealth is ill-gotten and that hard-working people are obligated to give their wealth to others.
I'd agree and add that in contemporary American society, those that are very self-driven and hard-working will ceteris paribus tend to be those that acquire wealth. And in doing so increase the wealth of many others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
