Was globalism a mistake?

[Peter1469]

Was globalism a mistake?

This is an interesting article about big-time globalists second thinking their past choices.

For some, 2018 has been a year of disappointing clarity. Speaking from his hotel suite by Lake Zurich, billionaire patron of liberal causes George Soros lamented the fate of the globalized world. "Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong," he said:

His favored presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to President Donald Trump, whose "America First" platform runs counter to the globalism Soros embraces. Trump, he said, "is willing to destroy the world." The European Union, which Soros once hoped would be so successful that he could end his charitable work in the region, is contending with the impending loss of Britain and a rise of anti-immigrant sentiment. And Soros himself has emerged as a political target in elections from Hungary to California, where his donations have been used as a cudgel against the causes he supports.

Though Soros defiantly vowed to double down on his efforts despite setbacks, Reihan Salam of The Atlantic is willing to consider the alternative: maybe globalization itself, or at least the way it was implemented, was a big mistake. Salam argues it facilitated Beijing's entry into corporate networks which now constitute "Chimerica," the meld of multinational corporations with "China-centric supply chains" that, like Frankenstein's monster, Washington can no longer rid themselves of.


Had America been more careful, Salam argues:

... [the U.S. could] have entered the age of globalization under markedly different terms: Instead of offshoring much of its industrial base to an often-hostile authoritarian power, perhaps it would have deepened its economic ties to democratizing states in Latin America, Asia, and the wider world. ... There is no going back. We can’t rewrite history. ... The question is what we should do now. For starters, I propose admitting that we made a grave mistake.

"A grave mistake."


The public acrimony following the conclusion of the recent G7 summit only confirmed the breakup of the "international world order." Trump is already treating it like a dying institution. "Donald Trump Prefers Unscripted Kim Summit in Singapore to G7 Ritual," writes the BBC.


Salon summarizes the analysis of Yanis Varoufakis, "a leftist academic who briefly served as the Greek finance minister at the apex of that nation’s debt crisis in 2015," of the global economy. In his book, Varoufakis describes the international order as a fraud with no more basis in reality than TheWizard of Oz:

[Dr. Who]

Was globalism a mistake?

This is an interesting article about big-time globalists second thinking their past choices.

Globalism was inevitable. The world is shrinking because of technology. You can't put the cork back in that bottle. The big danger in globalism is in multi-nationals controlling the world to their own ends.

[Peter1469]

Globalism was inevitable. The world is shrinking because of technology. You can't put the cork back in that bottle. The big danger in globalism is in multi-nationals controlling the world to their own ends.

I break globalism into two part: economic and cultural. It was the cultural globalism that has cause the recent blow back.

Anyway, some of the comments in the article were interesting.

[Dr. Who]

I break globalism into two part: economic and cultural. It was the cultural globalism that has cause the recent blow back.

Anyway, some of the comments in the article were interesting.

I don't think that theocrats and secularists can make instantly harmonious bedfellows. I think I've already commented that willy-nilly acceptance of refugees from what might as well be different planets, without ensuring first that people who are so fundamentally dissimilar are not foisted upon one another is irresponsible. It's just a recipe for disaster. It wouldn't be any different than taking in 16th or 17th century Americans into the 21st century. That said, people from those 'other planets' who immigrate the usual way are better prepared for the cultural differences and have a stake in making a successful transition. It often costs them their life's savings to move. There are always a few that really can't accept the differences, but that just means that those who are doing the deciding need to ask better questions and disabuse anyone from thinking that any of a number of unacceptable practices will be remotely tolerated or that they can bend the legal landscape of their new country to their will.

People from different cultures can get along when they focus on what they have in common. Furthermore, given our shrinking world, cultures are bleeding into each other through food, music, art and the written word. I don't think that the distinctions will disappear for a very long time, but eventually, barring any reset to the dark ages, cultures will be blurred. It's inevitable. Cultures have always changed through outside contact starting with the ancient trade routes, spice trade, imperialism, wars ... Change is the only thing that you can count on, other than death. The world has never stood still.

[Peter1469]

I don't think that theocrats and secularists can make instantly harmonious bedfellows. I think I've already commented that willy-nilly acceptance of refugees from what might as well be different planets, without ensuring first that people who are so fundamentally dissimilar are not foisted upon one another is irresponsible. It's just a recipe for disaster. It wouldn't be any different than taking in 16th or 17th century Americans into the 21st century. That said, people from those 'other planets' who immigrate the usual way are better prepared for the cultural differences and have a stake in making a successful transition. It often costs them their life's savings to move. There are always a few that really can't accept the differences, but that just means that those who are doing the deciding need to ask better questions and disabuse anyone from thinking that any of a number of unacceptable practices will be remotely tolerated or that they can bend the legal landscape of their new country to their will.

People from different cultures can get along when they focus on what they have in common. Furthermore, given our shrinking world, cultures are bleeding into each other through food, music, art and the written word. I don't think that the distinctions will disappear for a very long time, but eventually, barring any reset to the dark ages, cultures will be blurred. It's inevitable. Cultures have always changed through outside contact starting with the ancient trade routes, spice trade, imperialism, wars ... Change is the only thing that you can count on, other than death. The world has never stood still.

I am not referring to immigration which is voluntary and as you say immigrants often want to be part of their new country. I am referring to migrant streams such as what we have seen in Europe coming from North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

[Dr. Who]

I am not referring to immigration which is voluntary and as you say immigrants often want to be part of their new country. I am referring to migrant streams such as what we have seen in Europe coming from North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

I agree that forcing people from dissimilar worlds who have no stake in making the transition, to live in an alien landscape is irresponsible and dangerous for the unprepared hosts. If the situation were reversed, it would also be a disaster. It's not all rainbows and unicorns. Refugees should be housed in camps and educated as to the new society that they live in, taught the language, the rules and the culture and then allowed interaction on a limited basis. Those that exhibit hostility to the new culture should not be allowed even limited interaction and should be relocated to something more familiar ASAP.

[Mister D]

Once in a while, progressives will admit that what they really desire is the obliteration of human diversity. I've long argued as much and we see it here once again although I have no doubt it will be vociferously denied. They'll say it's "inevitable" (nonsense) or make inane appeals to "change" but it's something they crave. They perceive real human difference as something bad. It supposedly divides people. They have a profound fear of difference and will only tolerate that which is trivial. What makes them uncomfortable is the capitalist nature of globalization and that the term refers to an ever expanding market society. It entails the adoption of Western lifestyles and economic behavior by the entire planet. Alain de Benoist wrote that "capitalism proposes to succeed where Communism has failed: to create a planet with no borders, inhabited by a "new man". But this new man is no longer the worker or the citizen but the "plugged in" consumer who shares the common destiny of an undifferentiated humanity connected only by the Internet and the supermarket." On some level, progressives sense something wrong so they warn us about multinationals and so forth as if globalization was not at least partly a product of the global financial system! Yet they continue to cheer for the homogenization of humanity.

What happened to the left? Their ideals have become closely aligned with those of the so called neoliberals.

[Chris]

I break globalism into two part: economic and cultural. It was the cultural globalism that has cause the recent blow back.

Anyway, some of the comments in the article were interesting.

A good, clear distinction for the world has always been more or less economically global. Isolated prehistoric tribes tended to die out.

Still, as D points out, citing Alain de Benoist, capitalism has succeeded where communism failed, economism has driven cultural globalization.

[The Xl]

Culturally, forced globalism is a disaster, look at the lack of assimilation in Europe. Economically, it's hard to say it was a success for most as well. The middle and working classes in the West are struggling, and the poor in 3rd world countries are still poor.

[jimmyz]

Can an individual undo economic globalism personally by spending on domestically produced products? A one man at a time sort of thing.