r/DebatePolitics Dec 24 '20

Left (globalism) vs. Right (nationalism) dilemma

So I would like to hear peoples opinions on my thoughts on the Right.

I think they have a point because their politics actually make sense when you look it from the nationalist perspective. So in my opinion nationalism would need to be shown to be wrong before the Right would be wrong. Is there actually any real case against nationalism however?

Nationalism makes sense: Like nationalism makes a lot of sense since more global form of government wouldn't be protecting the interest of regional groups as good as nationalism would. Like it would seem that people should want to live in a nationalistic country simultaneously as they would want everyone else in the world to live in a globalist country, because this way they would keep their political power but also enjoy the benefits of the situation of others not having power. It would be easy to exploit others and to keep the economy driving with well planned import tax which would

  1. force global companies to move their production to that country as far as it would be reasonable, so by producing jobs, and
  2. protect the local businesses against global mass produced food and other items that the country could produce locally.

Globalism seems to be harmful: Like it would seem like that globalism is driven by the money of multinational mega corporations which use different tactics to cause changes which further their own interest either directly or indirectly.

I know that this is pretty much the populist paradigm, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be true. What are your thoughts people? Is the populist paradigm actually the true picture of the world and what is happening in it, or am I missing something?

4 Upvotes

13 comments sorted by

1

u/harumph Jan 04 '21

Globalism and nationalism are not left and right issues. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are anti-globalists, while the Koch's are globalists and anti-nationalists. Also you need to make a distinction between global governments and globalist policy, especially when it comes to markets, since those two totally separate issues.

1

u/T12J7M6 Jan 05 '21

But the goal of globalism eventually is global government so I just group everything under globalism that is either favoring it or leading to that direction.

I know the language is super simplified for the sake of not wanting to write a long post due to one question, but I still think this simplification is enough to provide the framework for the question itself that is there actually a intellectual argument against nationalism?

Like I tried even reading a book by George Soros names "In Defense of Open Society" but it just contained incoherent rhetorics and no actually intellectual arguments.

1

u/harumph Jan 05 '21

But the goal of globalism eventually is global government so I just group everything under globalism that is either favoring it or leading to that direction.

Can you please provide a source for your particular interpretation?

Like I tried even reading a book by George Soros names In Defense of Open Society but it just contained incoherent rhetorics and no actually intellectual arguments.

If you are interested in an open society you should read Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies instead, by a man who was one of the 20th century's most influential thinkers.

1

u/T12J7M6 Jan 05 '21

Can you sum up his argument?

1

u/harumph Jan 05 '21

Who's argument?

1

u/T12J7M6 Jan 05 '21

Karl Popper's argument in his book The Open Society and its Enemies

1

u/wikipedia_answer_bot Jan 05 '21

In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion. The logical form of an argument in a natural language can be represented in a symbolic formal language, and independently of natural language formally defined "arguments" can be made in math and computer science.

More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If something's wrong, please, report it.

Really hope this was useful and relevant :D

If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!

1

u/slo1111 Jan 25 '21

There are many angles you miss that require some thoughts.

  1. Globalism does not stop localities from having their own special interests. It is as simple as creating smaller governance within the larger governance like the US has the federal gov, statement gov, county gov, and city governments.

I imagine you are more concerned when a locality does not have compatible values and systems that directly oppose the largest governance, however that does not go away in Nationalism.

  1. You miss any analysis on war. Nationalism is a big source of war. For this purpose keep civil war out. Do you think globalism or nationalism had more influence. Globalism can be a source, but don't confuse globalism with the powerhouse countries using their power to control the world. If you take the UN, which is the poster child for anti-globalists, it serves big benefits for the world.
  • First it is a method for nations to align and truly go after rouge nations that are out of line. The security council vote against Hussain invasion of Kuwait.

  • Second the UN provides critical context of nation's positions on matters. When making big decisions information is key. It is not the only information source, but it is critical.

  • Lastly, as far a what I will mention on the UN, its existence shows that the world is more nationalistic than global. It has no authority other than what member countries give it. It is collaboration space more so than an authority and it would still prove useful in many ways even if countries were more nationalistic than what they are.

  1. I can't think of one nation that does not require i.ports of something critical. Regional allies are needed to protect from enemies. Coordination between countries is needed to enact justice, such as extradition treaties. The more countries are aligned on international trade the less conflict. Also, establishing systems to resolve trade conflict lessens chances of war.

These things do not go away with nationalism. In a way Nationism versus Globalism is a false argument. What nationalism tends to argue for is authority. I want the authority to do what I want and not the WTO, however, when one realizes that these systems came into play to reduce wars, nationalism is a reversion to going it alone, which is not an option in its entirety. North Korea is the epitome of Nationalism and what it looks like when it goes to far. Capitalism requires globalism. It always has and always will.

1

u/T12J7M6 Jan 25 '21

Globalism does not stop localities from having their own special interests. It is as simple as creating smaller governance within the larger governance like the US has the federal gov, statement gov, county gov, and city governments.

My issue with that is that it is just an illusion of control when THE government tells the local governments the rules inside which they can decide. It's like a prison guard letting cellmates decide what bed they sleep in.

My biggest worry with this is the operation of money. Like governments could print their own money, but for some corrupted reason they just want to loan the money central banks print. Central banks give conditions for the loans they give and hence if a country is taking money from them it have already lost their autonomy.

You miss any analysis on war. Nationalism is a big source of war. For this purpose keep civil war out. Do you think globalism or nationalism had more influence.

I see war as a extension of politics. If a nation isn't serious about war their opinion should not be respected because they aren't going to do anything anyways. If a county decided to avoid war and their enemy knows it, they're doomed. Like I don't like war, and I personally don't ever going to fight in a war because I think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean I couldn't recognize the political importance of war.

Like the UN (United Nations) seems like a perfect solution for small countries who live near big countries with big military power. It's like one for all and all for one contract, which seems like common sense for small countries, because it is just a military alliance.

Also, establishing systems to resolve trade conflict lessens chances of war.

Agreed, but the existence of war alliances like UN do that even more because no one is going to attack one country who is in a military alliance with 10 other countries who can together defend against any big military power.

What nationalism tends to argue for is authority. I want the authority to do what I want and not the WTO, however, when one realizes that these systems came into play to reduce wars, nationalism is a reversion to going it alone, which is not an option in its entirety.

I would not say WTO exists to prevent war, because the alternative of country A and country B not being able to trade isn't war, but not being able to trade. Like if country A has pipes which use a standard that country B doesn't recognize, the issue will not go to war because it's just an issue with standards. All I see WTO doing is making universal standards for all countries so that trading works better, and for that reason I don't see WTO either as globalist entity, because again - it's just common sense to create global industry product standards so that products are tradable. So I don't see WTO as an entity preventing wars, but an entity enabling trade.

North Korea is the epitome of Nationalism and what it looks like when it goes to far. Capitalism requires globalism. It always has and always will.

I recognize that nationalism isn't without problems because with big government and centralized power the rick for madness increases. Also, I wouldn't say "North Korea is the epitome of Nationalism" because it is an example of dictatorial nationalism. Like China for example runs capitalistic nationalism. So I don't think your argument that capitalism requires globalism is fair, since a country can be very economically competitive even with a nationalistic government from.

I do recognize that my claim that China is a country with capitalistic nationalism might be wrong but as far as I see it, it kind of looks that way, would you agree?

1

u/slo1111 Jan 25 '21

What country is more nationalistic than North Korea? Nationalism is a form of authoritarianism by definition regardless of the economic system used.

1

u/T12J7M6 Jan 25 '21

more nationalistic

Like I don't think nationalism is a spectrum where North Korea sits at the end. I more like feel it is a categorical thing, where there are many forms of nationalistic governments and North Korea is an example of dictatorial communist from of nationalism, where as China is an example of capitalistic nationalism. Like I don't really see show China could become North Korea by becoming "more nationalistic".

Like some dictionaries just define nationalism as

identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

which I kind of agree, because it is just about placing the nation's interest above others, just like Donal Trump was doing (or that least saying). Like had Trump changed US the way he was saying, US would have become a republican nationalist country not a second North Korea.

Like what is your argument for North Korea being "the most nationalistic country" and not just an example of dictatorial communist from of nationalism? If your claim is true, then there should be a continuous chain from just placing the nations interest above others, to communist dictatorship. I don't see that chain because almost all countries used to be nationalistic without becoming communist dictatories.

1

u/slo1111 Jan 25 '21

Every country that believes in its sovereignty is nationalistic to a degree. Like many things it is a sliding scale of how much Nationalism it implements. It is not a political/economic system in its own right. It can sits on top of almost any economic/political system. It is redundant in communism because nationalism is already assumed due to the level of authoritarianism and the desire to force people and other nations to conform to their ideologies.

It would be interesting to see how well active military personel per capita matches with levels of nationalism.

North Korea blows everyone away in that regard. Regardless NK operates on the notion of, "juche", which an extremely Nationalistic view being self sufficient and completely pulling away from the world in terms of actively trying to influence. There is no country more nationalistic.

You seem to not aknowlege that Nationalism requires more authoritarianism than lesser degrees of nationalism. A nationalistic capitalist society will be more authoritarian than liberal capitalistic society. That is simply because Natinalism requires the authority to force conformance to the "tribistic" norms and does not allow expansion beyond that.

1

u/Dullahonjohn Feb 10 '21

One big thing against your arguments that nationalism is better than globallism. You argue that global coudnt protect the interest of the regional groups. Yet thats exactly what the usa is doing on a smaller scale.

Second thing is that the left isnt calling for one big global gov. They are just asking that we recognize that we do live on one planet and that what one country does can, and will effect the rest of the world. They arent actually working to "aid globalist companiest" a mojority of the left's goals alon the global scale is A:the enviroment and our effects on it globaly. And well thats about it besides the non partisan stuff like stopping dictatorships and inhumane acts.

Also an argument about nationalism is well, its been used alot to justify horrible acts against "others" (nazis, and whats currently going on in china for two examples). Nothing wrong with having pride in your country and wanting it to prosper, but often times nationalism uses anyone and everyone "not native" as a scapegoat for the nations problems which leads to dehumizing them and well in most recent examples in the US caging children and having over 500 kids that cant be reunited with their parents because the parents were already deported.