User blog comment:ZohiusGaming/The Positives of Globalism/@comment-820641-20190722151450

Disagree. Globalism is not empowering but disenfranchising. Think about it: individuals are no longer competing against the people within their nations for work (of which they can control these conditions through the ballot box), they are competing against the entire world (of which they have no control). Within a nation, people are able to impact decisions - from the education system to pollution controls. With globalism, this is not possible: disenfranchisement.

Nations and their people are entirely at the mercy of large internationals who can leverage (threaten? hold hostage?) their jobs to get whatever they want, further eroding the ability of regular people to control their circumstances. Go ahead, put in pollution controls and watch the jobs evaporate.

Finally, it does not ensure the sovereignty of nations and people; instead it erodes their very being. Identity plays a major part throughout the world, it's the basis of nations and peoples. Instead, globalism is about commodifying everything, including culture. If a culture cannot necessarily be commodified, then it will be replaced by one that is. This is called "cultural imperialism".

To look at your topics singly: 1. "To reduce and end conflict" ... has it? How much conflict is a backlash to globalism? While certainly there haven't been any world wars as of late, smaller actors have replace nation-states as the primary instigators of conflict. 2. "To spread the wealth and prosperity of wealthier nations to poorer nations" ... I believe this is called redistribution. How many small towns and medium cities throughout the West have seen their industrial base dry up? Poverty has risen immensely in such places, destroying whole communities (and I don't meant the physical place) of people as well as their whole way of life. Instead of creating wealth, globalism has merely moved it from some pockets to other; that's a recipe for anger and backlash. Brexit in Britain, PEGIDA & AfD in Germany, Le Pen in France, Donald Trump in the US, even Islamic terrorism are all backlashes.

Remember, we have the viewpoints of medieval peasants. If you were to ask one, they would state their economic system as manorialism, their political system as hierarchy, and their social system as communalist. They could not think of a different world or series of systems. What a terrible system! But they could probably conceive of no other.

We are the same. What are the alternatives to global capitalism, global individualism, and seemingly straitjacketed democracy? It's hard to imagine.

Our globalist system just moves money from one bucket to another without respect to those it gives it to nor those it takes from.

3. "To stop persecution and protect rights on a global level": I don't think this has happened nearly as much as is claimed.

4. "To ensure that cooperation becomes a long term tentative alternative to conflict": this has certainly been attempted. The UN & the EU are such examples. However, they are certainly controversial and somewhat ineffective. And remember, most armed conflict is no longer really between nation-states but between smaller actors - who are often reacting to globalism.

5. "To raise up those at the bottom when it comes to social, political or economic status": again, this is redistribution. It is at the cost of the abject material, social, and physical wellbeing of many in the West. The reverse effect of imperialism?

6. "To ensure the sovereignty of all nations and peoples": Globalism has a goal of turning us from community-minded people to extremely individualistic ones - easier to sell things to us then. Hardly what I would call "sovereignty".

Similarly, globalism encourages supranational immigration which is often seen as a force eroding the values and identity of those communities in which immigrants settle. One or two families is not a big deal to most communities. Larger numbers that reshape an entire town or region really call into question the sovereignty of the original peoples who live there: can they really control their own lives if they are replaced or displaced by foreign people?

I had much more and much better written but I lost it and unfortunately do not have the time to add to it at this moment.