Problems with the anti-Globalist position

Post Reply New Topic

And not rendered any less vague by the fact that Globalism (or globalisation) is itself a vague term.

The problem with this thread is that "The Anti-Globalist Position" is a flawed premise.

I would point out that many anti-globalists are vague in their conspiracies and it is used as a buzzword with negative connotations, without much explanation or nuance. Just like that interviewee I used as and example.

But by doing so you wouldn't be necessarily challenging a prevalent or majority position. Some people have stupid opinions and beliefs, that's hardly news. By addressing "The Anti-Globalist Position" as if it were monolithic, you're creating a false narrative built around an opposition that in reality can easily be dismissed as insignificant.

You characterised such opposition in the following manner:



a. Does that mean that e.g. the rich descendant of a slave-owner cannot oppose slavery or claim to not wish to own slaves?
b. Whether or not they understand the economics may be immaterial to such people if they're directly experiencing the social conflict that often accompanies a large influx of migrant workers. Whether or not such a workforce is a net benefit is entirely up for debate.

As you mentioned in your OP, the primary opposition to globalism is that against anti-democratic political union - an example of which is the EU. The mere notion of the highest authority in the land being supranational is justification enough to oppose this type of union.

That aside, you've opted to focus on trade, and those who oppose it. How many anti-globalists have you encountered who are against international trade? Of those, how many are opposed to trade specifically, and how many are opposed to specific deals which they perceive as not providing a net gain or as significantly impacting their society in a negative way?