What is globalism/globalization?

[Geolibertarian]

The reason I'm creating this thread is that, ever since the financial meltdown of 2008, it has become alarmingly fashionable to suggest or imply that free trade is either synonymous with globalism or at least the primary means by which globablists advance their agenda.

Wikipedia defines "globalism" thusly:

------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism

Globalism can have at least two different and opposing meanings. One meaning is the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations. Another is viewing the entire world as a proper sphere for one nation to project political influence.

Political scientist Joseph Nye, co-founder of the international relations theory of neoliberalism, argues that globalism refers to any description and explanation of a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances; while globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism. Globalism may be contrasted with individualism, localism, nationalism, regionalism or internationalism.

------------------------------

Wikipedia defines "globalization" as follows:

------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

Globalization (or globalisation) describes the process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of communication, transportation, and trade. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology. However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors. The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.

Definitions

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'globalization' was first employed in 1930, to denote a holistic view of human experience in education. An early description of globalization was penned by the American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell who coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897, although it was not until the 1960s that the term began to be widely used by economists and other social scientists. The term has since then achieved widespread use in the mainstream press by the later half of the 1980s. Since its inception, the concept of globalization has inspired numerous competing definitions and interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire across Asia and the Indian Ocean from the 15th century onwards.

The United Nations ESCWA has globalization "is a widely-used term that can be defined in a number of different ways. When used in an economic context, it refers to the reduction and removal of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of goods, capital, services and labor... although considerable barriers remain to the flow of labor... Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It began in the late nineteenth century, but it slowed down during the period from the start of the First World War until the third quarter of the twentieth century. This slowdown can be attributed to the inward-looking policies pursued by a number of countries in order to protect their respective industries... however, the pace of globalization picked up rapidly during the fourth quarter of the twentieth century..."

Saskia Sassen writes that "a good part of globalization consists of an enormous variety of micro-processes that begin to denationalize what had been constructed as national — whether policies, capital, political subjectivity, urban spaces, temporal frames, or any other of a variety of dynamics and domains."

Tom J. Palmer of the Cato Institute defines globalization as "the diminution or elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result."

Thomas L. Friedman has examined the impact of the "flattening" of the world, and argues that globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces have changed the world permanently, for both better and worse. He also argues that the pace of globalization is quickening and will continue to have a growing impact on business organization and practice.

Noam Chomsky argues that the word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense, to describe the neoliberal form of economic globalization.

Herman E. Daly argues that sometimes the terms internationalization and globalization are used interchangeably but there is a significant formal difference. The term "internationalization" (or internationalisation) refers to the importance of international trade, relations, treaties etc. owing to the (hypothetical) immobility of labor and capital between or among nations.

Finally, Takis Fotopoulos argues that globalization is the result of systemic trends manifesting the market economy's grow-or-die dynamic, following the rapid expansion of transnational corporations. Because these trends have not been offset effectively by counter-tendencies that could have emanated from trade-union action and other forms of political activity, the outcome has been globalization. This is a multi-faceted and irreversible phenomenon within the system of the market economy and it is expressed as: economic globalization, namely, the opening and deregulation of commodity, capital and labour markets which led to the present form of neoliberal globalization; political globalization, i.e., the emergence of a transnational elite and the phasing out of the all powerful-nation state of the statist period; cultural globalization, i.e., the worldwide homogenisation of culture; ideological globalization; technological globalization; social globalization.

[Continued...]

------------------------------

According to Ron Paul, "free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods."

Yet to hear countless others talk, globalization is what occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods. By that measure, Ron Paul is a "globalist," because he advocates such "absence."

Now does everyone see why I've raised the question of what the terms "globalism" and "globalization" truly mean?

As I understand it, to be a "globalist" is to oppose national sovereignty. Doesn't that alone disqualify Ron Paul as a globalist, since it was he who authored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act?

If so, then doesn't that, in turn, invalidate the notion that one cannot advocate free trade without also advocating globalization?

[SongBird]

Talking in a nwo sense i see it as standardization, having all the countries at basically the same level financially, with perhaps the hope of a one world religion too, i.e. the carbon footprints in the sand, anti-human dominant gene brain fart.

[Geolibertarian]

Talking in a nwo sense i see it as standardization, having all the countries at basically the same level financially, with perhaps the hope of a one world religion too, i.e. the carbon footprints in the sand, anti-human dominant gene brain fart.

Yes, but my point is that many seem to believe that "free trade" is one of the primary methods (if not the primary method) by which the global elite are advancing that agenda.

Do you share that belief? Why or why not?

[SongBird]

I don't understand free-trade really, all the financial stuff is way above me, Geo, no worries though.

[TonkaTim]

Yes, but my point is that many seem to believe that "free trade" is one of the primary methods (if not the primary method) by which the global elite are advancing that agenda.

Do you share that belief? Why or why not?

It is how they are doing it.

Through "trade agreements". The laws of the sea. Admiralty law.

Only the naive think that "utopia' can be achieved through globalization; unrestrained power handed to a principle party.

It always comes down to the distribution of power.

When power is centralized into the hands of the few, Liberty is crushed.

When power is decentralized into the hands of the many, Liberty flourishes.

[Michal Ptacnik]

The problem is that free trade is just a temporary affair. When the power centers become big enough, they will coagulate and then free market that used to be perhaps to some beneficial (but I say that I would not want to live in the social situation of the mid 19th century) turns into a new type of oligarchy and while in the past the serfs worked the fields, now they will be working the industries and factories. Just as the serfs of the past had no power over their lords, so now the workers have little power over the board of stockholders.

The world moves on. Hegelian dialectics in itself is not evil, it just describes the process that society develops and we can not go back to the pipe dreams of austrian economics. Capitalism is the thesis, Socialism the antithesis, all that remains to be seen whether the Synthesis will be a living Hell on Earth or something better.

But it will most certainly not be free market, free and unregulated. That was then, this is now. Free Marketists tend to ignore the fact how big a criminogenic factor poverty and social insecurity is, and that is what we would get if we went back. Could a solution be in part based on or resembling of something like free market, but new? Perhaps, but I for one would never want to go back.

[birther truther tenther]

Let's see, Communism is an authoritarian state which dictates the quantity of goods produced, and Fascism is where industry is the government.  Both -isms make up the phony left-right paradigm.  Both -isms are fronts for the banks so we debate all day whether we want a state running our life or we want mega-corporations running our life.  Either way, it's a top-down centralized system where the banks make up the eye of the pyramid, and you are their slave.

"Free trade" is the corporate rule half of the bankster paradigm.  With "free trade" you have mega-corporations like GE, Monsanto, Wal-mart, BP, etc financing unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the WTO.  Free trade is third world sweatshops cranking out goods to flood first world markets which makes it impossible for the first world to compete.  Domestic production shuts down, jobs offshore, and you end up with rust belts and the only job in town is either working at Wal-Mart (a service job) or working for the State Government.

I disagree with "free trade" because I am an economic protectionist.  You need "government" (which needs to be electable, held accountable, and transparent) to enforce protectionist roadblocks like tariffs, port authorities, customs, etc.  If you let mega-corporations do whatever the heck they want, uninterrupted, you will be their slave.  The only people allowed to vote in mega-corporations are the multi-millionaires who serve on their boards, which makes a de-facto ruling class.

The whole goal of liberty is for corporations, government, science, and religion perpetually fighting amongst themselves because it allows liberty to flourish.  If those facets of society collude, we become their slaves.

[MrSwe]

To all of you who say you do not believe in free market.. The Elite corporations doesn't either. That's why John D Rockefeller said competition is a sin.

[birther truther tenther]

To all of you who say you do not believe in free market.. The Elite corporations doesn't either. That's why John D Rockefeller said competition is a sin.

The Free market peddled by the Austrian school means corporations like Monsanto, Wal-Mart, BP, etc. get to rule over your life and do basically whatever the f**k they want.  hence ANARCHO-capitalism.

Yes, I do support some government interference.  I don't want a strip club next to my house (zoning law), I don't want a 500ft tall steeple next to my house (zoning law), I don't want a factory dumping waste out in the desert (environmental law),  I don't want a company mislabeling their product saying there is 6 lbs when there is only 5lbs (weights and measures law); those are all forms of government "intervention". On the other hand, those types of regulations are covered under the tenth amendment, or in the case of weights and measures...under the US Constitution.  Global government shouldn't even exist, the Federal government has its few functions, and everything else is up to State, local, family, or individuals, as called for in the tenth amendment.

The joke is that those mega corporations aren't free market, because they get corporate welfare handouts.  The GOPers, and "moderate Democrats" talk about how evil welfare is for the poor, but they will gladly handout billions to GE, Raytheon, Boeing, Xe, Monsanto, etc.

Let's assume the Big L libertarians takeover in the year 2020, and all corporate welfare is eliminated.  The mega-corps will fall apart, but you will have the robber baron Rockefeller style companies gain steam and eventually create monopolies. Then the big-L's will tell you the government has no right to split them up, and you are right back to "competition being a sin".

The Rockefellers got to be where they are at because of Austrian School views.  Glenn Beck will never tell you this, but Progressivism was a real grassroots movement back in the day, but it eventually got fully co-opted by the Rockefellers.

Ergonomic laws, paid vacations, 40 hour workweek, safety regulations, etc, where all progressive views.  The Rockefellers, Carnegies, harrimans, Fords etc, knew their robber baron days were numbered so they co-opted Progressivism.  Now Progressivism is all about race pimping, eugenics, abortions, and feminism.  It's now about breaking up the family, and having everyone as part of either a corporate borg or State borg, depending on the flavor of the phony communism/fascism bankster paradigm.

The same thing is happening to the TEA Party in 2009, that happened to Progressives in 1909.

Big business is not the solution to big government, the same way that Mussolini is not the solution to Stalin.

If you have no government interference, big corporations do whatever the f**k they want; if you have too much government interference, nothing gets done.  It's a tightrope.

[Michal Ptacnik]

The Free market peddled by the Austrian school means corporations like Monsanto, Wal-Mart, BP, etc. get to rule over your life and do basically whatever the f**k they want.  hence ANARCHO-capitalism.

Yes, I do support some government interference.  I don't want a strip club next to my house (zoning law), I don't want a 500ft tall steeple next to my house (zoning law), I don't want a factory dumping waste out in the desert (environmental law),  I don't want a company mislabeling their product saying there is 6 lbs when there is only 5lbs (weights and measures law); those are all forms of government "intervention". On the other hand, those types of regulations are covered under the tenth amendment, or in the case of weights and measures...under the US Constitution.  Global government shouldn't even exist, the Federal government has its few functions, and everything else is up to State, local, family, or individuals, as called for in the tenth amendment.

The joke is that those mega corporations aren't free market, because they get corporate welfare handouts.  The GOPers, and "moderate Democrats" talk about how evil welfare is for the poor, but they will gladly handout billions to GE, Raytheon, Boeing, Xe, Monsanto, etc.

Let's assume the Big L libertarians takeover in the year 2020, and all corporate welfare is eliminated.  The mega-corps will fall apart, but you will have the robber baron Rockefeller style companies gain steam and eventually create monopolies. Then the big-L's will tell you the government has no right to split them up, and you are right back to "competition being a sin".

The Rockefellers got to be where they are at because of Austrian School views.  Glenn Beck will never tell you this, but Progressivism was a real grassroots movement back in the day, but it eventually got fully co-opted by the Rockefellers.

Ergonomic laws, paid vacations, 40 hour workweek, safety regulations, etc, where all progressive views.  The Rockefellers, Carnegies, harrimans, Fords etc, knew their robber baron days were numbered so they co-opted Progressivism.  Now Progressivism is all about race pimping, eugenics, abortions, and feminism.  It's now about breaking up the family, and having everyone as part of either a corporate borg or State borg, depending on the flavor of the phony communism/fascism bankster paradigm.

The same thing is happening to the TEA Party in 2009, that happened to Progressives in 1909.

Big business is not the solution to big government, the same way that Mussolini is not the solution to Stalin.

If you have no government interference, big corporations do whatever the f**k they want; if you have too much government interference, nothing gets done.  It's a tightrope.

Finally someone with a good grip on modern socioeconomics.

Insert Quote
To all of you who say you do not believe in free market.. The Elite corporations doesn't either. That's why John D Rockefeller said competition is a sin.

John D. Rockefeller, while I would not use the word sin, is essentially correct, it is a waste, and it helps promote chaos, fear and scarcity and that in turn causes all manner of social and psychological problems.

In the current state, it is true that, as birther truther tenther has said, the economic powers in the state should be in a perpetual competitive war with each other, so that one won't dominate the others. It is, however, possible to imagine and to live in a system that would deal with this problem in a different way, the Hegelian Synthesis, though not the forced one of the Globalists; that way would promote cooperation and unity of individuals, rather than statism and competition. That's why I support ZtM, the much hated semi-theosophical alternative to NWO - It shows us that there is a possibility of building the future on different building blocks than competition OR socialism OR fascism; that the roads shown to us by the mainstream intellectual streams are not the only ways that can be.

What we should understand is that this crisis of value and economics is not a fictional fraud of the Globalists; they sure can use and misuse it, but it would have happened anyways. It is a crisis of growth, or decline if we react in a wrong manner; it is a crisis of the old growing, in essence, too old. Therefore something new must be found. Therefore there must be a new, with all the likelihood more global order of the world. The question is, will it be a NWO of the people by the people (NOT of the States by the States (the old dying king) or Of the Corporation by the Corporation (the pretender to the throne).

We must out-globalize the globalists or fade away as the old king's health deteriorates. ZtM, though naive and even downright dangerous in some ways, has already understood this. Who's next?

[Michal Ptacnik]

Btw. When ever if we discount the last three centuries have intellectuals and moralists promoted things like competition, struggle and essentially greed? People have a natural tendency for those anyways, shouldn't we try to DISSUADE them from these things, rather then outright support them? Is it no wonder that when kids learn this way at school, each generation seems less caring then the previous one?

Btw2. I do live in a country where theosophy is not a swear word, if you can believe it. Theosophy is not Hitler; Hitler misused Blavatski's spirituality because he was not spiritual; he was power hungry. His religion was Machiavellism and Utilitarianism. And so it has been with almost every other power hungry maniac in the recent history; the "mad scientist" is for the most part a myth, no such a person is ever going to be truly dangerous in and of himself. The psychopath is a reproducer and user, not a faithful adherent of a meme; and the psychopath will always dominate the mad scientist.

Himmler and the Thule people were the mad scientists, Hitler the power hungry madman. Who ruled? The Aryan mythology and their branch of Theosophy was riddiculled by Hitler in private, not embraced, just search it on the Google. I guess the NWO must be the same. H.G. Wells was the misguided intellectual who created radical new thoughts based on full exploration of atheism, then came the corporations and used his ideas; or not, we can't be sure; I don't believe the NWO has any ideology other than staying in power; just as it was with Hitler.

[ekimdrachir]

This should be discussed by ever high school student at length, with proper education prior to the discussion.