shivas.wisdom said:

CHeifM4sterDiezL said:

Today we face a resurgence of the same backwards regressing political and economic ideations that had brought the world to the brink of destruction they fought 100 years ago. Why are people pushing for things like nationalism communism fascism anarchy general anti globalism sentiment any number of dumb shit.

---

I think you're wrong to include anarchism on that list for several reasons:

1) 'anti-globalism' is a loosely defined term. To anarchists protesting in Hamburg, it means resisting economic globalism - both the anti-democratic financial organizations, like the G20, making decisions that have global ramifications; and the neoliberal agenda they push that prevents borders from limiting the movement of capital, not people (free trade vs migrant detention).

To fascists, globalism is just a pejorative euphemism for recycled anti-Semitic conspiracies, where the (((globalists))) are a secret cabal of ruling elites seeking to eliminate national identity/Western culture/the white man in order to advance a global Zionist/Marxist/Liberal government.

These are not the same position, and they shouldn't be conflated.

---

Kryptos said:

Billionaires have the most to lose in a truly global environment.

Of course they will do everything in their power to stop the world from unifying.

---

Loaded Shaman said:

Kryptos said:

Billionaires have the most to lose in a truly global environment.

Of course they will do everything in their power to stop the world from unifying.

---

That's an oversimplified understanding.

Economically they'd benefit from connectivity on all levels because more revenue streams.

The difference is CONTROLLING those things, which they are conveniently masterful at doing. Anything that gains traction is conveniently co-opted and restructured. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Robinhood, etc. I'd argue we are where we are, right now, because of that exact behavior.

They don't give a fuck what the market does, just that they can control those ends, in the end.

It doesn't matter who writes the laws if you control the money.

---

Kryptos said:

Loaded Shaman said:

Kryptos said:

Billionaires have the most to lose in a truly global environment.

Of course they will do everything in their power to stop the world from unifying.

---

That's an oversimplified understanding.

Economically they'd benefit from connectivity on all levels because more revenue streams.

The difference is CONTROLLING those things, which they are conveniently masterful at doing. Anything that gains traction is conveniently co-opted and restructured. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Robinhood, etc. I'd argue we are where we are, right now, because of that exact behavior.

They don't give a fuck what the market does, just that they can control those ends, in the end.

It doesn't matter who writes the laws if you control the money.

---

I'll grant that it's an oversimplified argument. For the reasons you pointed out, more or less. It's an argument from praxis, not from theory. In the current state of affairs, globalism is reserved for the people rich enough to make laws that target everyone except for them. Therefore, true globalism is a direct threat to those people.

That's not to say that true globalism wouldn't open a whole new can of worms and loopholes, it's just that it will fix a majority of current loopholes and worm cans.

---