4 ms·
By nations, I'm guessing you mean "nation-state". Some elites ( globalists ) want to destroy nations today for the same reason elites in the past destroyed tri
by sacrificedcapon 7y ago
By nations, I'm guessing you mean "nation-state".
Some elites ( globalists ) want to destroy nations today for the same reason elites in the past destroyed tribes to form nations. They create a bigger "slave and land base" on which to enrich themselves.
Think about what nations limit. It sections off resources (human,mineral,energy,etc) from the elites who want access to them. Under globalism, nation-states would exist in name only as they are superceded by a globalist political structure. Then these elites would have access to and control over all the world's human and natural resources.
Under a global political structure, an "american" CEO doesn't need to negotiate with Chinese government to gain access to and exploit its resources. And a "chinese" CEO wouldn't need to negotiate with an american government to gain access to and exploit its resources. Under globalism, the entire world and its people are freely available to the elites to exploit.
In a perverse way, globalism is communism for the elites. Whilest communists wanted to destroy nations to unite the workers, globalists want to destroy the nations to unite the elites. To a communist, a factory worker in china or germany or brazil has more commonality with each other than a chinese factory worker does to a chinese factory owner. To a globalist, an elite in china or germany or brazil has more commonality with each other than they do to their national commoners.
Of course some of the elites stand lose a lot while others will gain under globalism. That's why we are having a nationalist vs globalist struggle right now.
- necovek 7y agoI think that those are separate issues: nations/states as currently instituted might stop some of the bad effects you are referring to, but if we really cared about those, we should work on solving them independently. Eg. movement of people is not a negative for the people. While it does benefit wealthy corporations and their operators (cheap labour is easier to come by), we should look into ensuring that it does not play into their hands like that instead. However, that pretty much happens organically, just over a longer period (eg. 20-30 years for salaries to catch up in a poorer state). I am also not a fan of the term "elites". While I dislike any sort of elitism, I would hope that the term is at least used for intellectual or cultural "elites," those able to define and deploy smart and empowering agendas.
- sacrificedcapon 7y ago> Eg. movement of people is not a negative for the people. What does this mean? Globalism doesn't necessarily need to move people. Capital can move to where the people are - like capital moving to China. And movement of people certainly can be a negative for the people - the native americans who got wiped out or the african who were enslaved and shipped across the atlantic. > I would hope that the term is at least used for intellectual or cultural "elites," those able to define and deploy smart and empowering agendas. Intellectual or cultural elites aren't necessarily good nor interested in deploying smart and empowering agendas. Intellectual or cultural elites were behind some of the most horrific and racist mass murders in the 20th century.