Globalism: what does it actually mean?

there is a group here, that at every point attacks this concept
of "Globalism’'… but they actually never define this “Globalism”,
it is some vague, nebulous concept that is continuously attacked
as being well, something bad… but we aren’t told what exactly is
bad about it or even what it is…just he is a “Globalist” and we are left
to guess what that even means…

Magsj suggested that I responded to this concept of “Globalism”
and yet, to my knowledge, it has never been defined here…
and it would be difficult to respond to the various attacks upon
“Globalism” if we don’t even have a definition of “Globalism”…

so I offer the opponents to “Globalism” to define what they mean
and then I shall defend “Globalism” assuming of course, they
define it in a way that actually defines “Globalism” and doesn’t just
blurs the lines as most conservatives around here do…

So, what is “Globalism?”

Kropotkin

Globalism on the face of it appears to mean a view that any regional or national concern implies a more fundamental issue with international cooperation , as being foundamentally relevant. more so than starting with the pppositr. singular problems working their way up to form global , generea matters at hand.

Thr reason for this way of imyetpreting issues, OS primarily of historical necessity

Do called post modern historical analysts, for the most part, disconcerning with this type of analysis, claiming that historical antecedents have lost relevance with new ways of thinkong
The disjunction between the old and the new have atrophied any relationship between qualifying precepts with the vastly increasing mode of seeking relevance

However, does globalism it’s self have a prior defining foryhtellimg characteristic, which may counter such inordinate claims?

For one thing, far re a hing, forward thinking writets, suchas HG Wells and others had already established the seed of globalism in their time, in the late 1800’s , hiving Ross to the ideas we are entertaining today, and their views I believe were fueled with the feeling tjat the British rule on the world, colonized as it was, were wainimg, or son to do so.

The British empire did indeed curtailed to it’s present level, as much as. the US is seen to do so as well.

Colonialism de-jure, has now taken over a de-facto attribute, where even the literal meaning of colonialism has shifted to the appearent mode, that is . the currentode that is clearly by the economic manipulatord of global socioecenomic centers.

Globalism on the face of it appears to mean a view that any regional or national concern implies a more fundamental issue with international cooperation , as being foundamentally relevant. more so than starting with the pppositr. singular problems working their way up to form global , generea matters at hand.

Thr reason for this way of imyetpreting issues, OS primarily of historical necessity

Do called post modern historical analysts, for the most part, disconcerning with this type of analysis, claiming that historical antecedents have lost relevance with new ways of thinkong
The disjunction between the old and the new have atrophied any relationship between qualifying precepts with the vastly increasing mode of seeking relevance

However, does globalism it’s self have a prior defining foryhtellimg characteristic, which may counter such inordinate claims?

For one thing, far re a hing, forward thinking writets, suchas HG Wells and others had already established the seed of globalism in their time, in the late 1800’s , hiving Ross to the ideas we are entertaining today, and their views I believe were fueled with the feeling tjat the British rule on the world, colonized as it was, were wainimg, or son to do so.

The British empire did indeed curtailed to it’s present level, as much as. the US is seen to do so as well.

Colonialism de-jure, has now taken over a de-facto attribute, where even the literal meaning of colonialism has shifted to the appearent mode, that is . the currentode that is clearly by the economic manipulatord of global socioecenomic centers.

Sorry, Peter, double post.

People around the globe cooperating, I think.

worldaffairs.blog/2017/01/12/what-is-globalism/

IMO:
Free international trade makes globalism a must.

as the opponents of Globalism have yet to respond, I shall engage in
some pre-exploration of globalism…

K: I don’t see how this definition would generate such negative responses
that Globalism seems to get…No, I think this definition is just too simple…
because there is nothing, and I mean nothing that is controversial about
“People around the globe cooperating” this is a very good thing…
and shouldn’t create the vitriol that Globalism gets from conservatives…

so, once again, I ask the opponents to globalism to define it, so I
can then defend it…failure to do so means I get to define and
then defend that definition of Globalism… and that slant I put
on Globalism will not be to your liking…

Kropotkin

I would say globalization is the process of human relationships becoming increasingly long distance (for example, as a consequence of technological advancement.) That in itself opens up all sorts of dangers.

I think his definition is fine. It’s short but it captures the idea.

People around the globe cooperating can be a good thing – for some parties involved, at least. You have to ask whether it is beneficial for all or some of the parties involved (e.g. is it benefitting higher and lower classes while harming middle classes?)

I must say, I am not surprised… the opponents of globalism running away
from their beliefs…again…Ask them for a rendering of their beliefs, and
they run away like the cowards they are…there are a number of “Anti-Globalist”
on this website, and yet, they won’t come forward and admit as much…
they won’t even offer us a definition of Globalism…and yet, when
they want to attack someone, they call someone a “globalist”…

gutless cowards…

as advertised…

Kropotkin

Maybe those for globalism and those against can come to some advantageously reasonable common ground on which they can rest their laurels

K: I am more then happy to try this but those opposing globalism won’t even
attempt to work out an definition of Globalism… which is of course the start
of a discussion, any discussion… we have to work out exactly what we
are talking about before we can agree or disagree to that…

Kropotkin