|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 2, 2019 0:54:25 GMT
What do YOU think?  |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 2, 2019 1:57:26 GMT
What do YOU think? No. I consider them to be political ideologies. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 2, 2019 2:00:03 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 2, 2019 2:11:17 GMT
Thanks to clusium and politicidal for their input, even if it doesn't match up with my conclusions.
As I see it, Nationalism does not need Globalism in order to survive, but Globalism is to Nationalism like a parasite is to a host.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 2, 2019 5:25:51 GMT
Nationalism versus Globalism:
God in Heaven knows how much I despise Globalism, but it's going to prevail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 2, 2019 7:22:05 GMT
Anything may be right or wrong in certain contexts. Nationalism would be a great virtue when your country is occupied by evil colonialist forces and you are trying to rid your country of outsiders. It may be wrong when you are trying to build an empire by threats and force.
International trade has been shown to be a source of creating efficiency but globalism may be bad for certain niche industries in certain countries. Thus globalism has its own positives and negatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 2, 2019 9:48:15 GMT
I checked definitions of globalism, nationalism and religion, and came to the conclusion that globalism is not a religion. Nationalism probably isn't either, but it's less certain.
Since this asymmetry between nationalism and globalism makes the question from the OP a loaded question, I didn't answer the poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 10:57:20 GMT
When people raise their children they often use rewards to influence the children's behavior. Later as adults it might also happen that some behavior improves their lot in life, for example better work performance might lead to higher pay. In many cases however rewards are not a practical means of influencing behavior. It is not practical to issue a reward to everyone who stops at a stop sign. Instead, punishments are used on the people who do not stop at stop signs. All sorts of rewards and punishments happen in life with and without intention. A sensible goal is to ensure wherever possible and practical that they are expedient. If some bad behavior is being rewarded, that is inexpedient. If some good behavior is being punished, that is inexpedient. People will not learn well or fast in such conditions. Attempts are then made to adjust rewards and punishments to help people learn to make choices that are good in the long run, that are just as good later as they are now. A problem with "globalism" especially lately is that many people tend to prefer a rewards based system and avoid punishments even when punishments are more effective and efficient at correcting certain types of behavior. Part of that might be caused by bad parenting. Part of it might be that liberalism is a mental disorder. The problem with opposing such "globalism" is that opposing it does not solve the problem. Opposing it cannot use punishment any better than the "globalism" itself does and in fact is worse at using it. Using anarchism to solve totalitarianism is jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Neither are good ideas. There are many people including Trump followers who recognize that government has become a serious problem lately. Reagan noticed it some time ago. It has only gotten worse. Those with too little education and too regimented thinking and who are too short-sighted have the idea that taking a wrecking ball to government is the solution. That is not exactly right. They stray too far into anarchism. They grew up in a country that fought communism (correctly) and see their cause as a continuation (incorrectly) of that. Aj_June mentioned that a global economy is more efficient. Much data suggests that is in fact the case. What personal value you place on "efficiency" is a matter of your preferences, but efficient it is. What is needed in the world today is the ability to say "no" at the proper time. What is needed is the ability to assess "punishments" of various degrees. What is needed is to break the bad habit of depending totally on rewards. Trump nationalists are saying "no" but only to people they consider outsiders. They do not follow any rules themselves. Membership has all privileges for them and no one else. That's why they will fail. What is needed is a religion that tells people "no." Thou shalt not. Obviously globalism is not that religion. Obviously Trump's followers are not saying no to any particular behavior, only to particular people. Obviously that "nationalism" is not the needed religion either. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 2, 2019 11:23:51 GMT
Aj_June mentioned that a global economy is more efficient. Much data suggests that is in fact the case. What personal value you place on "efficiency" is a matter of your preferences, but efficient it is. What is needed in the world today is the ability to say "no" at the proper time. The problem is that there are many different ideologies. Not just social ideologies but even economic ideologies. One may say no to something but the other group will say yes. Even if you see views of just two parties they change over time and what Democratic party says today may be what Republican party will say tomorrow. Striking a good balance is important but people do not always agree on what should be a good balance. Even the classical economist, however, had accepted the importance of international trade in causing overall betterment of all parties involved in the trade. But as we humans progress we have new issues on our hands each and every day. Earlier it was easy to make a trade if it benefited you. Now you have to do stakeholder analysis and see if the product you are buying didn't utilise child labour or abuse of environment/communities. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 11:52:23 GMT
Aj_June mentioned that a global economy is more efficient. Much data suggests that is in fact the case. What personal value you place on "efficiency" is a matter of your preferences, but efficient it is. What is needed in the world today is the ability to say "no" at the proper time. The problem is that there are many different ideologies. Not just social ideologies but even economic ideologies. One may say no to something but the other group will say yes. Even if you see views of just two parties they change over time and what Democratic party says today may be what Republican party will say tomorrow. Striking a good balance is important but people do not always agree on what should be a good balance. Even the classical economist, however, had accepted the importance of international trade in causing overall betterment of all parties involved in the trade. But as we humans progress we have new issues on our hands each and every day. Earlier it was easy to make a trade if it benefited you. Now you have to do stakeholder analysis and see if the product you are buying didn't utilise child labour or abuse of environment/communities. I have no quarrel with any of that. What my study of economics shows is that a global economy is really more efficient, that is, for all parties concerned. It is not a "zero sum" phenomena. At the same time in some parts of the world there might the illusion of efficiency, that is, some parties benefit at the expense of other parties, or "zero sum" or "illusory" efficiency. The real improvement in efficiency does not require exploiting anyone. Specialization favors all parties because they choose that with the lower opportunity cost for them. It is by no means necessary to exploit any people or the environment. When people disagree over when to say "no," it might be for better or worse reasons. Sometimes people will refuse to say "no" because they are short-sighted and do not see the harm down the line. It is necessary to explain it to them. Sometimes people refuse to say "no" because they want the same privileges other people seem to have. Then it is necessary to explain it to all those bad boys. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2019 11:58:50 GMT
Social Justice is like a religion.
..a real shitty one.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 2, 2019 12:13:31 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 2, 2019 12:13:37 GMT
Social Justice is like a religion. ..a real shitty one. Yet not half as bad as antisocial justice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 12:31:46 GMT
No, they are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 2, 2019 17:24:25 GMT
Neither are religions. In the end nationalism is the same as globalism but on a more limited, regional scale. Both have their benefits as well as capacity to oppress. A nationalist's distrust of globalism is like a proponent of a city-state being distrustful of nationalism.
The thing that colors nationalism in more recent centuries is its recurrent use in furthering the goals of right wing racist political movements as a means to attack or make a scapegoat of certain minority groups within the population of a country. It's probably not invariably so, but I can think of two very very prominent cases, both more recent than 100 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 2, 2019 19:01:26 GMT
No, they're political idealogies. Otherwise we might as well entertain the Ayn Randian argument for statism being a "religion".
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 4, 2019 17:22:34 GMT
Neither are religions. In the end nationalism is the same as globalism but on a more limited, regional scale. Both have their benefits as well as capacity to oppress. A nationalist's distrust of globalism is like a proponent of a city-state being distrustful of nationalism. The thing that colors nationalism in more recent centuries is its recurrent use in furthering the goals of right wing racist political movements as a means to attack or make a scapegoat of certain minority groups within the population of a country. It's probably not invariably so, but I can think of two very very prominent cases, both more recent than 100 years ago. Perhaps this is not true in every case. I'm getting sick of seeing the word "nationalism" preceded by the word "white" when only a small percentage of nationalists in my country play the white angle, and they are not endorsed by mainstream nationalist factions. I suppose nationalism needs a multi-nation world in order to thrive, but without nationalism globalism would have no enemy to hate, and no reason to be, yes? What are the two prominent cases you can think of? I'll bet the ranch that Nazi Germany is one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 4, 2019 17:27:59 GMT
I checked definitions of globalism, nationalism and religion, and came to the conclusion that globalism is not a religion. Nationalism probably isn't either, but it's less certain. Since this asymmetry between nationalism and globalism makes the question from the OP a loaded question, I didn't answer the poll. Sorry it took so long for me to reply to this, phludowin. If you'd like to explain how it's a loaded question when both of them motivate large groups of people to do things (sometimes awful things) that they wouldn't ordinarily do, I'm interested. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 4, 2019 17:45:56 GMT
Neither are religions. In the end nationalism is the same as globalism but on a more limited, regional scale. Both have their benefits as well as capacity to oppress. A nationalist's distrust of globalism is like a proponent of a city-state being distrustful of nationalism. The thing that colors nationalism in more recent centuries is its recurrent use in furthering the goals of right wing racist political movements as a means to attack or make a scapegoat of certain minority groups within the population of a country. It's probably not invariably so, but I can think of two very very prominent cases, both more recent than 100 years ago. Perhaps this is not true in every case. I'm getting sick of seeing the word "nationalism" preceded by the word "white" when only a small percentage of nationalists in my country play the white angle, and they are not endorsed by mainstream nationalist factions. 1) I suppose nationalism needs a multi-nation world in order to thrive, but without nationalism globalism would have no enemy to hate, and no reason to be, yes? 2) What are the two prominent cases you can think of? I'll bet the ranch that Nazi Germany is one of them. 1) I don't think so. For instance, prior to the unification of Germany and Italy in the latter half of the 19th century the perspective on nationalism was very different from our current view. Before then Germany and Italy were divided into a handful of duchies and principalities and the idea of a unified nation was a centuries-old dream in each case. To the people of these lands to view nationalism involved looking up, not down. Globalism was hardly a conscious thought back then. 2) Your ranch is quite safe. For the other one, it's neither long ago nor far away. |
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Jan 4, 2019 23:49:20 GMT
"Globalism" can mean anything from the existence of free trade between nations to a nefarious conspiracy by the elites to grab our guns, create a one world government and enslave the population or something. I don't know if globalism is a religion but there are a lot of religious nuts who believe globalist conspiracy theories and buy supplements and water purifiers from Alex Jones.
|
|
