Talk:Globalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Burgesspfc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

History

With regards to "globalism", it would be constructive perhaps to know and recall some of the history. I think as a precursor to it was the rediscovery of the new world in 1492 by Christopher Columbus. This led to and proved the roundness of the planet to the establishment at large. Then in around 1870 ish Sir Sanford Fleming invented the Standard Time Zones which have greatly coordinated human activity. This then in a sense remained somewhat hypothetical itself until perhaps April 1,1960 when some of the first satellite images supported and confirmed the existence of the planetary sphere. Now the idea of "noosphere" has entered the lexicon which while somewhat interesting is somewhat speculative to and perhaps self referencing. Globalism itself to might be somewhat of a transcendant and self referencing notion. But Globalism and perhaps its degrees are in itself then nothing new but just perhaps a rose by another name. To imply an ideology and doctrine to it is perhaps giving it something which should be a matter of a more democracatic nature, within say the auspices of the United Nations. Perhaps the idea of "Democratic Globalism" is warranted or pertinent to the discussion and a necessary distinction that must be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.15.18 (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2005 (UTC)

POV

This page takes a very slanted view and fails to point out the positives of globalism. I don't know enough on the subject, but I know an unbalanced article when I see one. "Apotheosis" in the first sentence shows immediate bias. Nelson Ricardo 11:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's true the article focus a lot on the colonialism or unilateralism, where it could deal with multilateralism. Maybe I am mistaken, but the article could also deal with community-base relations, as the Internet itself is a globalist system (many-to-many relations), globalism is not only about country-to-country relations. Fafner 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps should just redirect to "Globalization", since "Globalism" is simply the "pro-" or at least, inevitablist, side of globalization. Stirling Newberry 22:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Almost the entire article consists of discussion about the meaning and use of the term itself. However, the only thing listed under "Definitions" is a quote from a more than questionable source. I looked into the source document and tried to read the relevant part of it and... wow, what can I say other than a genuine warning to you: just don't. (If had was going to die and the only way to stay alive was reading the rest of that book, I would kill myself. Twice.)

What made me smile anyway was how hard this reference fails in a different way though. The source is literally a book in which the writer first mentions that he is going to redefine a word, and then asserts the new definition without any explanation.

The source for the quote that supposedly defines globalism is a book by James Paul (see reference 3, link to PDF, remember that you've been warned!) which has a section at the beginning called "Defining Globalism, Nationalism and Tribalism". This starts at on page 20, where the author writes:

′What I intend to do here is use old words rather than neologisms, but to define a few key concepts in relation to each other as part of an interconnected method of understanding. Each new definition will appear to ‘standalone’, as much as it is possible for the meaning of any concept to standalone. Beyond that, a deeper understanding of the revisited old terms does depend upon understanding how they fit into the weaving of the overall theoretical approach. From this it should be possible to work out the definitions of the thousand other concepts that have been left implicitly rather than rigorously defined.′

One of these 'key concepts' is globalism, and the author then conveniently provides us with his 'new definition' on page 24:

"The associated concept of ‘globalism’, at least in its more specific use,is defined as the dominant ideology and subjectivity associated with different historically-dominant formations of global extension.″

(Just in case you're wondering, the part right before this quote doesn't mention the word globalism once.

I think this whole article should be removed since it adds no real information and the given definitions are incoherent, poorly sourced and not very useful to actually clarify anything. There are also multiple things on the page that look biased. We can try to find decent source for definitions of globalism and add the information to the page about Globalization.

Dennisoosterwaal —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Original Article here:

{{POV}}

Globalism is the apotheosis of the British doctrine of Free Trade. Under globalism, the concept of national sovereignty with respect to economic policy is effectively banned, and this ban is enforced by international agencies such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. Proponents of globalism argue that it is necessary to eliminate protectionism because it is an impediment to greater economic efficiencies, which may be realized through the unrestricted movement of capital. Opponents of globalism hold that it is simply a disguised form of colonialism, and that rather than seeking to improve the economic performance of most of the world, it is designed to retard and stifle it, to maintain the Third World, in particular, as a vast reserve of cheap labor and cheap raw materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirling Newberry (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Globalism and war

A provocative new book was recently released, which sheds some light on the relationship between Globalism and the doctrine of preventive war, as practiced by the U.S. in Iraq. Entitled The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century, it was written by Thomas P.M. Barnett, who is the top strategist in the Office of Force Transformation (OFT), under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Barnett, who is otherwise on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College, promotes a new geopolitical doctrine, which is said to be hegemonic theory among Pentagon war planners.

Barnett argues that globalization is here to stay, and that the mission of the United States is to be the guarantors of the globalization system of free trade, which he equates with "democracy." There are two kinds of countries in Barnett's geopolitical framework: "Core" countries that are integrated into the globalization system, and "Gap" countries that are still outside the system. The "Gap" states are the hotbeds of terrorism, drug trafficking, crime, corruption and every other form of evil on the planet. Barnett argued, in a March 2003 essay in Esquire magazine, that summarized a power-point briefing that, he claims, he has given 125 times in recent years to military, banking, business and government leaders, that a preventive war against Saddam Hussein is both justifiable and necessary, not because of Saddam's supposed WMD or terror links, but because such an action by the United States would "...mark a historical tipping point--the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirling Newberry (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

External links

• Defense of Globalism by the American Enterprise Institute
• Professor Wilhelm Hankel's critique of globalism
• Critique and blog web-site
• Thomas Barnett's Esquire article
• A website on political globalisation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirling Newberry (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Globalism is a great idea like communism, and like comunism it should not be practised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.134.83 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and antisemitism

There is an article on Wikipedia called anti-globalization and antisemitism. It argues that several antisemites have made an association between globalism and classical conspiracy theories about a secretive Jewish cabal. The current article should maybe explore these surrounding issues that characterize much of contemporary hostility towards globalism. ADM (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's 2018 (nine years later) and the word "globalist" is synonymous with "Jew" within the Alt-Right and White Nationalist groups. I think the association between the word "globalist" and "Jew" is a defined reality at this point, and Article should reflect this fact.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Evidence for this argument has not been provided, and the idea that there is any "defined reality" is a type of argument meant to eliminate rebuttals. Reality is constructed through argument and is not merely one's political observation. Globalism is a politically problematic argument that began on the left, and arguably with many Jewish proponents. And now that movement has spread to many identiy groups, but their use of the term does not erode their claim. There are perhaps tens of millions of "anti-globalists" across the US and Europe now, so there is a significant and legitimate worldwide movement against political global identity and neoliberalism as an ideology and against globalized markets as exploitations of local economies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.148.126 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears whoever is editing this section is using this term to project a political bias. They are refusing edits which suggests their motivations are highly political. They are misusing and abusing the term anti-Semitism for what appears to be nefarious political reasons. They are projecting "emotions" rather than adequately looking at the use of the word with a non-biased filter. None of the sources used come reflect conservative thought on this which clearly shows their bias. Ben Shapiro and Stephan Richter are both critical of the Trump administration, but neither makes the obnoxious and fallacious leap to accuse it of anti-Semitism by using this term. The sources provided are simply parroting a political narrative from the left that is used as cudgel against Conservatives in general and Trump in particular without bothering to explore how Conservatives use this term. Using this free encyclopedia in this manner and misapplying anti-Semitic intent on Conservative Free Trade ideology by someone who appears to have political malice is despicable. Rufus377 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Not as despicable as trying to force in unsourced content first using an IP address and then with this account. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/06/nigel-farage-under-fire-alleged-antisemitic-tropes-far-right-us-talkshow-alex-jones "In the six identified interviews, which date from 2009 to last year, Farage, whose Brexit party is leading polls for the upcoming European elections, repeatedly uses words and phrases such as “globalists” and “new world order”, which regularly feature in antisemitic ideas." The mainstream press states that the term is antisemitic. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pejorative uses

https://qz.com/1433675/how-trump-defines-globalist-and-nationalist/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-origins-of-the-globalist-slur/555479/

https://forward.com/scribe/412627/yes-ranting-against-globalism-is-anti-semitic/

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-globalist-became-an-anti-semitic-slur-blame-bannon-1.5895925 Kaihsu (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Avner Falk

Regarding this edit:

I removed this for several reasons. For one, the relevant chapter by Avner Falk cites this specific Wikipedia article several times, making it a clear WP:CIRC issue. This, alone, is a good reason to reject this source. The ref tag mistakenly indicated this book was published in 1995 and listed the wrong page numbers, but it was published in 2008.

Second, based on the included text and the search-terms embedded in the google book link (which I cleaned up here) it appears this was being used to introduce info about The Globalist Manifesto, which Falk claims was the "foundation of globalism ideology". This is such a bold, confusing claim to introduce with no background or context that seems far more confusing than helpful. This manifesto was published via a subgroup of the Asian Institute of Management in 1995, so this is especially odd, since the article already includes a rather lengthy explanation of globalism's rise starting decades before this obscure manifesto was published.

Lacking context and better sources, I do not think this should be restored. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Added content nd sources on Arguments against globalism

I added "Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory" Bhikhu C. Parekh as a source to expand the section, which was previously poorly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.147.11.76 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Arguments sections need removal or a rewrite

The references in the "against" section do not substantiate the claim of opposition to "globalism" (whatever that might mean) coming from "the left within the context of the 1990s" and the linked WP article chiefly describes left-wing opposition to a particular, neoliberal model of global integration. This is why it's called the "alter-globalization" movement. The right-wing, contemporary usage of the term is verifiable.

More importantly, the rest of the section is dedicated to criticism of the term's usage, from critics describing it as a far-right conspiracy theory and anti-Semitic slur. That's not opposition to "globalism"; it's opposition to calling things "globalism" -- which is notably different.

In the "in favor" section, the World Economic Forum reference makes no mention of how "proponents of globalism believe in global citizenship" and The Nation simply describes "many citizens of the world" in the sense of various different citizens living in different parts of the world -- a concept that could just as easily have come from any hardline nationalist. I don't know whether the assertion of support for "global citizenship" is correct, in regard to the term's meaning (if indeed it means anything at all), but it's certainly not supported by the references given. fi (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Globalists worldview" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Globalists worldview and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Globalists worldview until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Anti semitism

I'm aware that some of the critics of globalism especially on the internet are far right people who make a connection between globalism and jews. But I remember my teacher also teaching us about the negative sides of globalism and he definitely was not far right or an anti semite. An online friend was also saying it was bad for workers rights and that I had no idea how bad it was and he wasn't these things either and was a person of color/ from India. I came here to learn about what globalism means but this wikipedia article is really misleading. I find a subpart about the article informing that there are far right conspiracies about it appropriate but it should definitely not insult anyone who is a critic of globalism in the first paragraph like this. The anti semitsm and far right claim does not belong in the basic definition part of the term which is the first paragraph. 2003:CD:5F3D:5300:D82D:5FF:FE6F:5561 (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Nazi-globalism/nazi-hegemonism

is based on a unipolar world, when one superpower, acting as the world's gendarme, imposes its will using military and economic intimidation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.119.54 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Victor Orban is not antisemitic, and criticism of the George Soros NGO network is not an "antisemitic trope"

Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán has used antisemitic tropes in accusations against globalists, espousing a conspiracy theory of a world network controlled by Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros

This paragraph somewhere between plain false and misleading.

Victor Orban is a strong and consistent supporter of Israel, and Hungary is a welcoming and safe country for Jews.

"In the 21st century, Hungary is known as one of the closest allies of Israel in Europe, breaking the European consensus many times and standing on Israel's side. The Hungarian and Israeli leaders have both made official visits many times." Hungary-Israel relations

Mr Soros' Open Society foundation has doled out billions of dollars to dozens of NGO's and middlemen in many countries. These dollars come with a clear political agenda. It is neither antisemitic, nor a "conspiracy theory" to point this out (as Mr. Orban did). SelfOwnedCat (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)