Why is globalisation so disdained?

  • From what I can tell via the definition of the word on Google, globalisation seems like a fairly reasonable course of action.

    Trade makes everyone better off in the long run, and it isn't as if we can just pretend that we don't live on a planet anyways, right?

    So then my question is, why do so many people seem to hate globalisation?

    Is it because of the potential short-term economic pains? Some other reason?

    Globalism is not generally disdained. The particular words "globalism" and "globalists" are mostly used by the alt-right, nationalists and some others on the right. Those in support are more likely to use works like "free trade" or "internationalism". People on the left who are critical of free trade are called "globalization critics" rather than "globalism critics".

    Comments are not for extended discussion. The conversation about the connotations of the terms "Globalism" and "Globalisation" has been moved to chat.

    "why do so many people seem to hate Globalisation?" Source?

    @Mast I think at this point you can look at the Community answer for sources on that... haha

    Comments deleted. If you would like to discuss the Globalism/Globalisation topic further, please use the provided chatroom.

    Isn't re-editing a post to bring it up to the front page a form of engaging in political discussion?

    I cannot answer the question due to low reputation. My answer (which I don't see covered elsewhere) is very simple: _globalization_ is really a new name for _imperialism_; or more correctly, _corporate imperialism_. (It might help to think of imperialism as an early form of globalization.) The other approach is _internationalization_. What characterizes globalization is an authoritarian imposition from one, onto many; whereas internationalization brings together peers: it is more _democratic_. If someone with sufficient rep wants to take this comment and turn it into an answer, sure go ahead.

    "Trade makes everyone better off in the long run" - not true. You seem to be conflating aggregate, overall with "everyone." There are certainly people who lose out in globalization. That may be outweighed, even in a large way, by the winners, but that would certainly refute the "everyone" claim.

  • Philipp

    Philipp Correct answer

    3 years ago

    There are critics of globalization both on the progressive and on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

    One of the most relevant progressive anti-globalization NGOs is the European Attac. The main concern from the left-wing perspective is not globalization in theory but rather the way it is currently being implemented in practice: with a focus on economic interests instead of social and environmental interests. The current approach to globalization allows large international corporations to form which can then use their dominant market position in an exploitive manner. Among their issues are things like:

    • Tax avoidance by using base erosion and profit shifting to offshore tax havens.
    • Circumventing inconvenient employment and environmental protection laws by moving production to countries with laxer laws. This might lead to a competition of which country can lower these the most. The problem is that the gains of cheaper goods are evenly spread, but the adverse effects are concentrated on certain people and industries.
    • Lowering national consumer protection standards under the pretext of international trade agreements (one of the most criticized part of the TTIP agreement)
    • Using their dominant market position to exploit developing countries (aka Neocolonialism)
    • Unless accompanied by serious economic reforms, immigration just hurts the working poor and benefits wealthy capital owners.
    • Eat Local! Some environmental advocates disdain globalism, because if everyone ate mostly local foods, the global environmental footprint would be lower.
    • Lose of cultural diversity: unique local businesses and restaurants getting displaced by the mono-culture of global chains

    But there are also globalization critics among the conservative. Among the reasons why conservatives dislike globalization are:

    • Importing products from other countries instead of producing them domestically hurts the domestic economy and results in more unemployment (anti-globalist counter-measure: Protectionism).
    • Globalization is also pro-immigration, which many conservatives are opposed to for economic reasons ("foreigners take our jobs!") or cultural reasons ("I feel like a stranger in my own country!"). Some social science research on diversity comes to the conclusion that diversity leads to lack of social trust, collective violence, and civic disintegration.
    • National Defense is often a right wing priority. A country may have industries that are prioritized in the national interest, its defense, or a competitive advantage, which globalization can threaten through a number of ways. For example, weapons technology can spread globally, or the flow of raw elements for wartime production can be threatened or halted if not controlled domestically. For this reason, many argue for limiting globalization's impact on the economy with protectionist policies for industries in the national defense.

    Anti-authoritarian reasons for people not to like globalization are

    • Globalization empowers big national and super national governmental organizations that many anti-authoritarians don't like. A local government might make laws that make sense for their community (eg different definition of public indecency, more/less religion in public sphere, different spending priorities) that aren't universally agreed upon by global majorities. These anti-authoritarians want local, not global governing bodies to have power and authority. This anti-authoritarian localism can be seen in criticism of the UN, EU, and even the US federal government. A global monopoly government leads to tyranny from which there is no escape, as it is impossible to live on another planet. Monopolies never provide the best service as it is not in their interest to do so.

    Fringe arguments which can not be attributed to any mainstream political direction:

    • Freeman Dyson once formulated a theory that genetically isolated villages might in fact have favorable condition to breed unique, highly intelligent geniuses. The freedom of movement facilitated by globalism would prevent this genetic isolation from occuring.

    Note: Many of the facts presented in these reasons are disputed by pro-globalization advocates. Politics StackExchange answers are about describing real world political opinions, not arguing which opinions are correct.

    I turned this into a community wiki answer so others can add more reasons. Please make sure that they are arguments which are actually used by a non-negligible part of a relevant political direction. Do not add arguments because they are relevant to you personally.

    @Philipp - your last edit - it's neither left nor right argument. It's a lower class populist argument and as such is used by populists playing to working class from BOTH sides (in US, both Trump and Saunders used same exact arguments, just dressed somewhat differently, but boiling down to same bullet point)

    Please note that this is not a discussion forum. Please use comments only to talk about how the answer could be improved. Do not use them for political discussions.

    @Philipp One of the key arguments of Brexit (as the EU is seen as a step towards globalisation) is the ability for people to directly lobby/appeal to their politicians, where-as the relocation of key decision making to, say, Brussels, means only those that can afford international travel costs can directly lobby (read: transnational corporations' lobbyists), disempowering local involvement. Wasn't sure if this 'counts' so left as a comment.

    @Philipp Additional points; moving goods from one side of the globe (EG China to America, roughly 3,000-5,000 miles) costs in terms of oil/pollution (takes longer to complete a delivery by sea. If by plane, even more fuel is burnt). From a security standpoint, it means your country is dependent on another country that could pull the rug from under you at any time.

    Please remove the Brexit disinfo above. This is inflammatory rhetoric and wrong.

    @Sentinel I see no mentions of "Brexit", nor any in the edit history. Which part do you mean?

    @SSight3 I tried to convey the brexit/EU argument when I added the last conservative reason, but feel free to edit it if you want to make that more clear. I think your "eat local" for environmental reasons is a great liberal reason and the "we need to be able to provide for ourselves in wartime" is a great conservative reason. I think you should find some articles describing them in more depth and add both.

    Immigration doesn't hurt "the working poor" on net, though. Because it is disproportionately helpful to *working poor immigrants*.

    @Obie2.0 many of the "facts" in these reasons are heavily disputed by pro-globalization advocates. This answer just catalogs the reasons people use, it doesn't pass judgement or claim that these reasons are coherent, ethical, or factually accurate.

    @lazarusL I wonder if that "warning" might be something to include in the answer, though. It kind of looks as if these points were something there's a consensus about, or no valid counter-arguments - which certainly isn't true.

    @Luaan I agree. Added :)

    Generic "Nationalism" is also a great reason. People believe that their national identity, language etc. is important.

    @Sulthan That's conservative reason number 2.

    @BenVoigt Anthony is definitely mocking conservatives, but a healthy fear of unnecessary or radical change is an important foundation of conservative thought.

    @lazarusL: Also, it's important not to confuse desire to avoid predictable effects of certain changes with fear of change itself.

    Wow this is a good answer. Thank you for writing! +1 (or +10 if I could)

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution

Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM