Can countries survive globalization?

Post Reply New Topic

Globalization, the process whereby people around the world become increasingly integrated, has been happening for hundreds of years, ever since humanity has been able to sail around the world. Indeed one could argue that the process began much earlier than that when stone age peoples first stepped out of Africa and migrated around the world. Through it all countries, and other kinds of states, managed to form and function suggesting perhaps that states can weather globalization indefinitely.

I don't think so.

New Technologies such as the internet, and air travel have accelerated the pace of globalization, and future technologies will no doubt accelerate it further. I believe all the world's countries will be unable to maintain the integrity of their borders(even though they will try very hard to do so), because new technologies make people and things too mobile to be kept in or out of borders. Countries could try to preserve their sovereignty by not allowing their people access to these technologies, much like North Korea does with it's own people, but that leads to other problems.

I don't think countries will follow North Korea's example, hence I would not be surprised if countries became irrelevant by the end of this century.

Anyways that's what I think.
What do you all think?

I think it's a good thing.

There will never be a united single nation. Nation states will always exist and war with each other

Why?

I hope the nation state and the culture of individual nation states survives under a stronger, slightly more powerful UN, but I don't see this happening. The only plausible outcome is a worldwide version of the EU where a centralised, unelected, unaccountable, culturally-Marxist bureaucratic elite, in turn controlled by the banking elite, has the power.

Because humans aren’t a hive mind.
We disagree and don’t get along and that wont change.
Relations with China and Russia are getting worse, wars in Africa continue. We are not heading to a one nation world. The Star Trek federation is just fantasy

I don't recall mentioning a world state much less a hive mind. Only the nations would succumb to globalization. I never mentioned what might happen after they do so.

At any rate the fact remains. If nations cannot keep things in and out of their borders they will become irrelevant, and technology is making it increasingly difficult to keep things in and out of their borders so they will fade.

Historically, there have been several periods of globalization. The Bronze Age in the Mediterranean was probably the earliest example, bolstered by trade networks linking Egypt, Mycenae, and Babylon. It ended in 1177 BC due to a number of factors, including climate change and possible the Sea Peoples attacking coastal settlements.

The late 19th century was another example, ended by World War 1. So globalism is something that waxes and wanes throughout human history. It's like the tides in that it can't really be stopped. As prosperity and trade increases, so too does interconnectedness. However, not everyone feels like the benefit from this (they may benefit, but only do so indirectly), so there is friction. Eventually international tensions or climate change or some other factor will exacerbate those tensions, which will result in globalism retreating.

Right now we appear to be in a waning period for globalism, and it hopefully won't end in massive destruction the way previous globalist eras have ended. But globalism never goes away, and can never really take over.

I don't know about banking elite aspect of your idea, but I agree with everything else you've said.

World domination has been a goal for certain humans or groups of humans since ancient times. For those that have an unquenchable desire for political power I think it's always the ultimate goal. Obviously "globalization", that is, a world without nations ruled by a "one world government" would be by definition, world domination. That's elementary to me.

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. The world is too complicated and humans too erratic for any one group to run effectively. I'm not even convinced that a country or city can be run effectively.

Though I generally err on the side of pro-globalization, history shows that it comes and goes.

Globalization implies one entity.
Borders aren’t going anywhere. Take a flight and experience tsa.
The alternative to a one entit world is anarchy which isn’t globalism

It sometimes seems like the nation state is outmoded in this age of multinational corporations, but there isn't really anything yet to replace it. An actual world government probably wont happen within this century. But nations will probably band together into "clubs" like the EU. One might imagine the Islamic World banding together into an EU type economic alliance stretching from Morrocco to Pakistan. That if the region doesn't first break out into a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran first.

We were already globalized in the early 19th Century when Argentine wheat put British farmers out of the business of feeding England.

By 1900 the planet outside of the tiny continent of Europe was already pretty much politically unified. Unified under the heel of the colonial Empires of Europe. Northern and central Asia had fallen under the rule of Russia, the larger parts of Africa by France, the less vast but richer parts of Africa (along with the Indian subcontinent Australia, and Canada) by Britain, and even little Belgium had the vast Congo, and little Holland ruled what is now Indonesia.

But Europe itself was still divided into small mutually hostile tribal nations. The European tail wagged the Afroasian dog, but the tail itself was fragmented. And the result of that fragmentation was two world wars.

After two world wars that situation flipped around. The European powers (except Russia) gradually gave up their Afro Asian colonies, but at the same time they formed the common market and NATO (the former being the precurser to the modern EU). The rest of the world got fragmented, but Europe itself became unified.

Then after four decades the Cold War ended.

The end of Communism also meant the end of the last great European colonial Empire: the Empire that the Soviets inherited from the Czars. Soviet "Republics" in both Europe and in central Asia became independent nation states separate from Moscow.

But the coldwar era western alliance continued after the end of the cold war along with its institutions like the EU and NATO. But now public sentiment in the west is cycling back to nationalism and isolationism. But the forces of globalization are strong as ever despite public sentiment. There maybe future generational cycles of more globalization and then stasis then more globalization in the future. Hard to say what is to come. But the larger trend will be towards more globalization.

TSA is security theater.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... ty/357599/
And considering more than eleven million illegal may be in my country I suspect that at least my nation has borders that are at the very least imperfectly enforced.

Also anarchy does seem to be a possible ultimate outcome of globalization. Nations are becoming irrelevant. World government is unlikely to happen because few people want it, and I haven't heard ideas floated for an alternative form of governing so anarchy seems to be what's left.

I don't see why my country can't survive globalization.

Your country could survive global anarchy (which I don't think would ever happen). I don't remember where I read it, because it seemed far fetched, but it was some idea that in the event of some irreparably catastrophic global collapse, the super-rich could hole up in Australia and defend themselves from any attack.

Not to mention global nuclear war. Most of the radiation won't cross the equatorial trade winds.