Two kinds of globalization

It is confusing to find that something that was a Good Thing when I was young and naïve has become a Bad Thing. Of course it is two very different things under the same name. I suspect that the same thing has happened regarding the acceptability of the songs we used to sing while drinking beer in college.

Globalization in those days was a mixture of free trade and increasing cultural exchange due to more education, cultural developments like the film industries in small and developing nations and cheaper air fares. The great classical liberal Mario Vargas Llosa celebrated this cultural internationalism and he did not see it as an agent of western domination of the Third World. Education in those days was still by and large educational although it was on the turn. Multiculturalism was happening as a result of postwar migration and the infusion of elite Asian university students in the Columbo Plan. It was not yet weaponised by the left along with the grievance industries.

Even before the internet there was talk of a global village. In the most naïve book ever written some history and policy wonk celebrated the end of history due to the triumph of liberal democracy and democratic capitalism.

The other type of globalization is about world government, driven by the UN and its tentacles with an agenda that has nothing do with liberal democracy.

The point is that libertarians, conservatives and classical liberals need to broadly support the first kind of globalization and fight tooth and nail against the other.

This entry was posted in Cultural Issues, International, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Two kinds of globalization

  1. struth

    I find it utterly amazing how silent not only the main stream media is, but everyone, regarding the UN Sec Gen , his past and his ambitions.

    He’s your bog standard Socialist bureaucrat who wants to “rule ze vorld” AND ACTUALLY SAYS SO and proves with his actions.

    Leader of Socialist Intenationale……………the guy who really kicked this invasion of anyone from anywhere other than the west being declared refugees, regardless of the lack of war, threats of violence, wealth.

    The reason I bring him up all the time is the UN needs to have a human and one that is representative of it and can be seen as the bad guy he is.
    The UN to much of the public is a faceless bureaucracy for good and that’s exactly how they want it.

    We need to personify it, like the left did with Abbott.
    A photo of Gutterres and a brief outline of what he is and what he has done, with the caption, “this bloke is trying to rule ze vorld” or similar, should be splashed all over social media.
    I’m not on social media as I would immediately be kicked off and my business must be seen as politically neutral .

  2. Entropy

    Globalisation = free trade and individual cultural exchange. The power of government reduced.

    Globalism= capture of globalisation by the elite to drive centralisation, corporatism and collectivism via regulation, with those in charge setting the rules of course. A boot stomping on a face, forever.

  3. John Barr

    When I was very young I often thought of how good it was if the World would unite as one. The concept, like Communism is an ideal on.

    Unfortunately, like Communism, the Reality failed & failed miserably.

    The UN achieves nothing. A lot of talk. A lot of threats, but nothing concrete. It has become a self serving entity unto itself & a drain on every Nations economy.

  4. Entropy

    If you want to get really depressed, read the explanatory memorandum of any federal government Bill. Page after page describing how the Bill is complaint with a near endless list of UN conventions no doubt voted for by snouters from countries in constant violation of such conventions. And written like they are proud of our subservience.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    Nationalism provides quarantine against infections of the zeitgeist.
    Without national borders a toxic ideology can flood the world.
    One ring to rule them all, a boot stamping on a human face forever.
    Countries like Poland and Hungary are trying to keep the green-left religion from swamping them.

  6. Infidel Tiger

    We must reject globalism and corporatism and return to localism.

  7. max

    The members of the power elite, enter into positions of societal prominence through educations obtained at one of 20 “super-elite” universities

    The phrase “New World Order” has been around for over a century.
    The Progressives in the USA and the Old Boy Network of Great Britain — the Round Table Network — were pushing for globalization before World War I. So were the liberal Social Gospel Protestant theologians, who saw this as an extension of the kingdom of God. The Versailles peace conference was their golden opportunity. The League of Nations was the incarnation of their vision. This would be a New World Order.
    This week, I came across a book by Samuel Batten, The New World Order. It was published in 1919. It was a defense of the post-War globalism. It was written from the perspective of the Protestant Social Gospel.

  8. max

    What do I mean by the power elite? The phrase was coined by Leftist sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1956. His book remains a classic. Its main chapter is here. Liberal columnist Richard Rovere in 1956 called it the American Establishment. Conservatives refer to it as the Insiders or the Conspiracy. David Rothkopf, writing from inside, calls them the superclass. Sometimes they are called the PTB: the Powers that Be. I think conservative journalist and historian Otto Scott said it best: the behind-the-scenes fellows who are too clever by half.
    Who are they? They are men of influence and wealth who gain a lock on this wealth through political power. They use economic leverage — debt — recklessly because they can protect themselves from losses by means of political leverage: government bailouts. Some of them lose, but as a class they do not.
    The key to their economic position is their unseen political manipulation. They are the masters of backroom politics. Theirs is not the backroom politics of the old big city political bosses, who were their class enemies, and whom they had generally replaced by the late 1950s.

  9. bespoke

    Thanks Rafe, but it needs defined with out reference to other talking heads so normal peoples eyes don’t glaze over.

  10. max

    globalization has two dimensions, an economic and a political one.
    Economic globalization is synonymous with the cross-border division of labor. Today, no country produces solely to satisfy its own needs, but instead also for producers and consumers in other countries. And each country makes what it knows best, relatively speaking.
    Economic globalization, with free trade being a natural component, increases productivity. Without it, the poverty on this planet would not have been reduced to the extent it has been over the past decades.

    From the very outset, political globalization has nothing to do with economic globalization. It aims to direct and determine all relations between people on the various continents by way of authoritarian rule.

    The decision about what is being produced and consumed as well as where and at what time isn’t to be found by the free market, the division of labor and free trade, but instead by an ideological-political creative force.
    Of course, the thinking behind this opinion is purely socialist-collectivist.

    It is also the basis of the European Union (EU). Ultimately, it aims to create a European super state, in which nation states will dissolve like sugar cubes in a hot cup of tea.

  11. max

    we need to separate political globalism from economic globalism
    economic globalism is a force for enormous good in the world, but political globalism is primarily a tool for increasing the power of states. 
    Economic globalism brings wealth. Political globalism brings poverty. 
    Economic globalism is about getting government out the way. It’s about laissez-faire, being hands, off, and promoting the freedom to innovate, trade, and associate freely with others. 
    Political globalism, on the other hand, is about control, rules, central planning, and coercion.

  12. John Bayley

    The UN achieves nothing.

    To the contrary; they achieve plenty.
    For their own selves, of course.
    But then that’s what’s it’s always been about.

  13. Driftforge

    The first kind of Globalisation is the inherent precursor for the second though. Liberal Democracy is employed first in order to weaken and in many cases eliminate any systems of local order that support local governance. Then, having eliminated local capacity to resist, occupation follows.

    So – no, Liberal Democracy is not something that those who wish to avoid world government should promote.

Comments are closed.