Are they the same, similar or completely different?
This thread isn’t for people who don’t believe globalism exists.
If you don’t believe it exists, start a different thread.
To me, globalism is the ideology of the ruling class.
Who are the globalists?
They’re billionaires, the largest shareholders of megabanks, multinationals and their representatives in business, media and politics.
Naturally they promote policies that benefit them often at our expense.
They largely control most of the major political parties in the western world and many in the developing world.
They’re political, often as involved in politics as businesses.
They bribe, blackmail, extort and assassinate politicians.
It doesn’t matter if you vote labour, liberal or conservative, what you think of as your politics is in fact their politics.
Me and iam both agree that the globalists exist, are self-interested crony capitalists and largely control both sides of the political debate in America and the west.
Where we differ is, I believe the globalists are more organized than he does and that they have a master plan rather than just some short term goals.
Iam’s views are more moderate, people are more likely to entertain/give them the time of day, my views are more extreme/fringe, but they’ve gained some ground with the public ever since p(l)andemic.
Yeah, leaving aside the different ways in which we construe “I” at the existential intersection of identity and value judgments – re my signature threads – we have similar narratives in regard to political economy.
Anyone who does not grasp the extent to which the rich and powerful billionaire class run the global economy in order to sustain their own perceived self-interests is hopelessly naive in my view. The “show me the money” moral nihilists think of the “globe” solely in terms of markets, cheap labor and natural resources. And the Clinton, Obama, Biden Democrats are right there in the thick of it. No less so than their counterparts in the Republican Party.
Instead, where “moderation, negotiation and compromise” can come into play is in regard to so-called “value voter” issues. But even here those in power will pursue a “divide and conquer” approach to keep the races and the genders and the sexuality camps going after each other instead of after them.
As for Marxism, as a materialism more so than an idealism, it is able to describe the world around us more realistically. But, as with all “isms”, the fulminating fanatic objectivists among them can be just as naive in regard to their own rendition of “the revolution”.
Come on, how much more entrenched can the crony/state capitalist globalists possibly be?
Iam, would you place crony capitalism on the right side of the political spectrum, the left or somewhere else?
Political economy
While elements of both capitalism and socialism have been around since antiquity, if rightwing means the old way, modern capitalism is older than modern socialism, placing capitalism to the right of socialism.
Capitalism is private property, or one way of doing it, distributism is another, socialism is public property, or one way of doing it.
What they have in common is, both are based on equal rights, in theory at least, where they differ is, capitalism = negative rights, freedom from force and fraud, socialism = positive rights, access to goods and services.
So what about crony capitalism, the preferred economy of the globalist?
And if there’s a crony capitalism, is there a crony socialism?
Rightwing:
Political: Republicanism (limited, representative)
Fiscal: Capitalism (equal fiscal liberty)
Social: Liberalism (equal social liberty)
Nationalism
Leftwing:
Political: Democracy (absolute, direct)
Fiscal: Socialism (equal fiscal outcomes)
Social: Progressivism (equal social outcomes)
Globalism
Synthesis:
Democratic republicanism
Social capitalism (equal fiscal opportunity)
Progressive liberalism
Internationalism
Capitalism and socialism are really two sides of the same coin, the equality coin, the former favoring negative rights, the latter favoring positive rights.
I think of it all as -
Marxism is a method - based on a theory concerning social economics (communism).
Communism is both a social and economic scheme - based on a fantasy ideological social goal.
Globalism is an ideology - based on the use of the communist ideology.
Capitalism is an economic scheme based on natural survival instincts.
Globalization is social and economic scheme based on national survival relations.
I see, so globalism isn’t communism, but uses it.
So what is globalism in and of itself?
Or is globalism a feature of communism, like globalization or internationalism is a feature of capitalism?
You could say commercial, industrial and finance capitalism was an alternative to agrarian serfdom (Europe) and slavery (the South), socialism and communism an alternative to capitalism.
So serfdom and slavery are rightwing, capitalism is centrist, socialism and communism are leftwing.
Rightwing:
Political: Monarchism (earlier absolute, later limited)
Fiscal: Serfdom and Slavery
Social: Conservatism
Nationalism
Centrist:
Political: Republicanism (limited, representative)
Fiscal: Capitalism (equal fiscal liberty)
Social: Liberalism (equal social liberty)
Internationalism
Leftwing:
Political: Democracy (absolute, direct)
Fiscal: Socialism and Communism (equal fiscal outcomes)
Social: Progressivism (equal social outcomes)
Globalism
And then they can be synthesized in various ways.
Well - now I have to go back and divide up communism into its 2 definitions -
- fantasy communism and
- authoritarian communism
Marxism is a METHOD derived from a THEORY involving the FANTASY COMMUNISM. The method or strategy is to simply destroy the establishment because the theory suggests that every time an establishment falls, a more controlled social order rises from the ashes (capitalism-to-socialism). Of course Marxists always leave out the probability that simply destroying what exists is most likely going to lead to authoritarian dominance (that isn’t a part of the fantasy). That is the feature of Marxism that globalists use.
Globalism is AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNISM (an ideology) using Marxism and any other strategy that will gain and maintain absolute control over all things - especially life. It is actually an empire - despite claims of democracy.
Serfdom and slavery were based on inequality, elitism.
Capitalism, socialism and communism on equality in theory, egalitarianism.
Crony capitalism, crony socialism and communism is what happens when theory meets reality.
In crony capitalism, some people’s negative rights, fiscal and social liberty, are protected more than others.
In crony socialism, some people’s positive rights, fiscal and social welfare, are protected more than others.
In crony social capitalism, which’s the system we have now, some people’s negative and positive, fiscal and social liberty and welfare, are protected more than others.
The positive and negative rights of the rich and powerful are protected more than the rights of the poor and powerless.
What about distributism or libertarian socialism and communism?
They’ve never been put into practice on a large scale for a long time.
They’re an attempt to maximize both negative liberty and positive welfare simultaneously, a collaboration of sorts rather than the compromise of social capitalism.
Social capitalism, mostly capitalism with some socialism won out, we haven’t had pure capitalism since Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal.
Distributism seems to work best with anarchism, social capitalism with democratic republicanism.
The way I see it, distributism is to the left of socialism, socialism to the left of social capitalism, social capitalism to the left of capitalism and capitalism to the left of serfdom.
Gloom,
Awhile back we discussed political dimensions. How many would you estimate there are, and which are the most dominant across humanity? Like Totalitarian vs Egalitarian, or Capitalism vs Socialism (Economics), etc.
IOW, are there like 3 dimensions which apply to all countries and peoples, or 5, 8, more or less?
I remember.
I’d say there’s as many as you want there to be.
Right now I’m going with 4, political, fiscal, social and geopolitical, that seems to be working for me for now, for example:
Political: Republicanism (limited, representative)
Fiscal: Capitalism (equal fiscal liberty)
Social: Liberalism (equal social liberty)
Geopolitical: Internationalism
However, libertarian/totalitarian and egalitarian/elitist are also important.
Any dogma, spiritual or secular, is globalist if it is messianic.
Messianism is founded on fanaticism, i.e., zealotry, the defensive psychological reaction to a profound sense of insecurity, vulnerability, uncertainty.
Stress is the foundation of capitalism. Maintaining a low grade of constant stress, anxiety, need/desire, is how the market flow and grow.
If it claims to be the final, complete absolute truth and can tolerate no alternatives.
Abrahamism is Globalizing and so is Marxism, its secular outcrop…and so is Americanism the empire founded on Judeo-Puritanism.
America’s “mission” is to save mankind from itself, by spreading the ideology of Americanism, i.e., American Individualism, culture-of-no-culture, identity a product or service to be purchased on the market, open borders, techno-utopia, a.k.a., Star Trek future…etc.
Here’s what I got so far:
Medieval Europe was largely agrarian, elitist, traditional and so, rightwing.
It was based on serfdom and slavery.
Early modern Europe, particularly the UK, and the early modern Americas, particularly the US (during the 19th century particularly the abolitionist, industrial north as opposed to the agrarian south), was a chance for a new beginning, to breakaway from the old world.
For better or worse, we came up with commercial, industrial and financial systems, egalitarian and untraditional.
The first was capitalism with all its strength and weaknesses, which became increasingly unworkable at the turn of the 20th century, then socialism, and social capitalism (AKA Keynesianism (some socialism) and neoliberalism (little socialism), which too became increasingly unworkable, Keynesianism fell during the Reagan era, socialism in 1991 and neoliberalism appears to be collapsing in real time (at least in part by design/on purpose), it may not outlive this decade.
Communism and anarchism were never really put into practice.
Paternalistic conservatism and fascism were attempts to bring elitism and traditionalism into the commercial, industrial and financial age.
Rather than serfdom and slavery, the fascist economy was based on class collaboration.
Rather than attempting to fully or partly level capitalistic hierarchies the way socialism and social capitalism attempt to, the fascist economy attempts to maintain and strengthen them, iron out the kinks and imbalances.
Fascism largely fell in 1945, tho some countries continued to practice diluted variants of it.
You could say fascism wasn’t as radically elitist as say an industrial serfdom or slavery would’ve been, it was more moderate.
So capitalism, fascism, Keynesianism and socialism have all fallen, how much longer will neoliberalism last, and what, if anything, will replace it?
That brings us to ‘globalism’, the crony capitalists are working on replacing neoliberalism with a new system, that’s what the 4th industrial revolution, agenda 2030, build back better and the great reset/NWO are.
We can either ignore, embrace it or opt for something else, an older system, or another new system, but the one certainty in my mind is, neoliberalism will fall, sooner than later.
While all these systems, from capitalism to socialism became corrupt, with the partial exception of fascism they were all attempts to create a more egalitarian world.
They had successes and failures.
Is the quasi-egalitarian world we built coming to an end?
Are we headed for postindustrial serfdom and slavery, or, alternatively, the plastic age collapse, the way the bronze age collapsed in the 2nd millennium BC?
Or can both dystopia and disaster, manmade like WW3 or natural, be averted?
When we think of elitism, we tend to think of traditionalism, but I think the system crony capitalists like Klaus Schwab are setting up will be as radically untraditional as it will be radically elitist, should it come to fruition.
This combination of both radical elitism and radical untraditionalism is what throws people off.
Is ‘globalism’, for lack of a better term, right or leftwing?
In my estimation it’s both/neither.
If paternalistic conservativism and fascism were attempts to bring elitism and traditionalism into the modern age, then the globalism of Klaus Schwab is an attempt to bring elitism into the modern age without traditionalism.
Politically: Corporatocracy & Technocracy
Fiscally: Pseudosocial hyper-crony capitalism, serfdom and slavery.
Socially: Allopathy, depopulation, scientism and transhumanism, aracialism and asexualism, mass surveillance, mind and gun control, permanent emergency and martial law.
Geopolitically: Globalism
Lots of socioeconomic liberty and welfare for the 1-0.01%, little socioeconomic liberty and welfare for the 99-99.99%.
Right, the great reset/NWO, which’s what I meant by ‘globalism’, is but one form of globalism.
Anything can be globalism if it’s fanatical enough, from Judaism, Christianity and Islam to capitalism, Marxism and fascism.