08 May 2020, 3:49 pm
Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Globalism is a bit of a slippery formless word: there are many very different streams of thought & belief that could be meaningfully classed as “globalist”: the term has been used by various political extremists (including Hitler incidentally) and seems to lack any substantive meaning beyond “all forms of inter/trans national organisation & cooperation, which one, the speaker, maintains to be inherently bad”.
I'm curious for other folks take on this matter, but I've always assumed 'globalism' is synonymous (or at least roughly enough) with the term internationalism, like the Marxist jargon term. The term globalism seems more common in liberal (capitalist) circles, as well as among reactionary populist nationalists who are hostile to it; internationalism seems more common in left-wing circles.
Yes: I’m used to hearing:
• ”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
• ”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
• ”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
• internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.
It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.
I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,
In truth the terms left and right wing were born obsolete: there were three political groupings at the birth of modern democratic governance, not two.
One of them was suppressed for several generations*, in any case a lot of shifts of ideology and interest have happened since then leading to modern political groupings being weird Frankenstein’s monsters if one makes the effort of trying to look through the eyes of our C18th forebears.
Yeah, I’d call that example “Capitalism”: a large capital-rich firm dominating many markets at the expense of smaller local family firms.
The problems of discourse eh?
One wants to clearly and rationally object to a phenomena of modern life, but the only go-to terms available are those used by either communists or fascists, neither of which one wants to be associated with.
The concept of smaller scale local governments and smaller businesses is popular in some British left-wing circles: they call it “localism” however.
__________________________
* indeed, has never had a successful independent existence in US Politics: hence the primacy in an American dominated world of assuming two political groupings when most other democratic countries have at least four, sometimes many more: we have seven in the UK legislature, and another three who would like to be but don’t have enough public support.
Greatshield17
Velociraptor
Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia-Kootenay Region, British Columbia
09 May 2020, 3:38 pm
Karamazov wrote:
Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Yes: I’m used to hearing:
• ”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
• ”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
• ”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
• internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.
It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.
• ”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
• ”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
• ”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
• internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.
It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.
I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,
In truth the terms left and right wing were born obsolete: there were three political groupings at the birth of modern democratic governance, not two.
One of them was suppressed for several generations*, in any case a lot of shifts of ideology and interest have happened since then leading to modern political groupings being weird Frankenstein’s monsters if one makes the effort of trying to look through the eyes of our C18th forebears.
Yeah, I’d call that example “Capitalism”: a large capital-rich firm dominating many markets at the expense of smaller local family firms.
The problems of discourse eh?
One wants to clearly and rationally object to a phenomena of modern life, but the only go-to terms available are those used by either communists or fascists, neither of which one wants to be associated with.
The concept of smaller scale local governments and smaller businesses is popular in some British left-wing circles: they call it “localism” however.
__________________________
* indeed, has never had a successful independent existence in US Politics: hence the primacy in an American dominated world of assuming two political groupings when most other democratic countries have at least four, sometimes many more: we have seven in the UK legislature, and another three who would like to be but don’t have enough public support.
I like to call it global capitalism or status-quo capitalism, I'm not sure how much I'd fall under the category of localism, but my economic views would be somewhere between local capitalism and an idea proposed by Catholic philosophers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton called Distributism.
Distributism, could be described as a form of "extreme" localism and "extreme" self-sufficiency. Distributism is best summed-up by G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," everyone has as much access to their own land and their own resources and raw materials as possible. Among Catholics, distributism has been attacked by capitalists as a form of "socialism," but most of these accusations stem from misunderstandings regarding the name and certain terms used. "Distributism" sounds like "the redistribution of property," but it actually comes Pope Leo XIII's phrase "distributive justice." Likewise, people have taken G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," to literally mean that every single person on the planet should be given three acres and a cow and thus, distributists are advocating for an agrarian egalitarian utopia; but in reality the slogan merely advocates for as many people as humanly possible, to get as much access to their own land and resources.
There of course are some flaws when it comes distributism, and perhaps even local capitalism. The big flaw being, there are certain areas I can see in the economy, where one may need a large company to fill; particularly in the sectors of travel, and and the manufacturing of large air and naval vehicles.
09 May 2020, 4:06 pm
10 May 2020, 5:01 am
^ Nice meme!
Elegant demonstration of the cognitive split between judging a symptom and analysing the cause behind it.
__________________________
Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Yes: I’m used to hearing:
• ”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
• ”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
• ”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
• internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.
It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.
• ”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
• ”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
• ”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
• internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.
It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.
I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,
In truth the terms left and right wing were born obsolete: there were three political groupings at the birth of modern democratic governance, not two.
One of them was suppressed for several generations*, in any case a lot of shifts of ideology and interest have happened since then leading to modern political groupings being weird Frankenstein’s monsters if one makes the effort of trying to look through the eyes of our C18th forebears.
Yeah, I’d call that example “Capitalism”: a large capital-rich firm dominating many markets at the expense of smaller local family firms.
The problems of discourse eh?
One wants to clearly and rationally object to a phenomena of modern life, but the only go-to terms available are those used by either communists or fascists, neither of which one wants to be associated with.
The concept of smaller scale local governments and smaller businesses is popular in some British left-wing circles: they call it “localism” however.
__________________________
* indeed, has never had a successful independent existence in US Politics: hence the primacy in an American dominated world of assuming two political groupings when most other democratic countries have at least four, sometimes many more: we have seven in the UK legislature, and another three who would like to be but don’t have enough public support.
I like to call it global capitalism or status-quo capitalism, I'm not sure how much I'd fall under the category of localism, but my economic views would be somewhere between local capitalism and an idea proposed by Catholic philosophers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton called Distributism.
Distributism, could be described as a form of "extreme" localism and "extreme" self-sufficiency. Distributism is best summed-up by G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," everyone has as much access to their own land and their own resources and raw materials as possible. Among Catholics, distributism has been attacked by capitalists as a form of "socialism," but most of these accusations stem from misunderstandings regarding the name and certain terms used. "Distributism" sounds like "the redistribution of property," but it actually comes Pope Leo XIII's phrase "distributive justice." Likewise, people have taken G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," to literally mean that every single person on the planet should be given three acres and a cow and thus, distributists are advocating for an agrarian egalitarian utopia; but in reality the slogan merely advocates for as many people as humanly possible, to get as much access to their own land and resources.
There of course are some flaws when it comes distributism, and perhaps even local capitalism. The big flaw being, there are certain areas I can see in the economy, where one may need a large company to fill; particularly in the sectors of travel, and and the manufacturing of large air and naval vehicles.
Yes, I see some conceptual overlaps (Although not identity) there with aspects of the Leveller and Digger positions during my country’s civil war.*
For myself I tend to see the development of industrial production and processing methods and the large-scale capitalisation of trade & industry, along with the bureaucratic giganticification of states, charities and many religious institutions as a one-way historical process: the question of moment being not “what would I ideally rather have than this?” but “how do we deal with the absolute reality that this is what we have?”.
Although I certainly am biased towards maintaining as much market room for sole-trading and family businesses as is viable: I also tend towards the view that too many aspects of my own country’s state activity are centralised to a degree that precludes flexible application of policy to the various local cities and counties, many of which have subtly different cultures and markedly different economic needs regarding support, regulation and freedom of the market.
__________________________
*Understanding of course that in the context of their own time they were disputing the priorities and manner in which feudal land use and customary rights were being replaced by modern private property in land, and were not, strictly speaking, revolutionaries: however proto-communist some of their writings may appear from the hindsight of almost four centuries.
