5 ms·

The Battle in Seattle in 1999 was when I first became aware of opposition to globalism. At the time I was confused because I'd always been taught more connectio

The Battle in Seattle in 1999 was when I first became aware of opposition to globalism. At the time I was confused because I'd always been taught more connections between the peoples and nations of the world was always good. To see people who I recognized as having very similar values to my own fighting so passionately against something I had until then never questioned being good was quite the wake up call to learn more about all sides of the issue. So now it's very odd to me to see many of the same people and groups have turned into cheerleaders for globalism. The position now doesn't seem to be so much a position as an anti-position against the anti-globalist views of the rising populist groups. The speed at which it has happened is what's really surprising.

jariel 6y ago
Globalism is not so much about 'connecting people'. It mostly has a neolibaral foundation, and secondarily a governance and NGO ethos. Anti-Globalism in the 1990's was by the Left, and they were against the WTO and mostly neoliberal world order. Anti-Globalism today is much more complicated issue, but with the more popular versions being more or less Nationalist, anti-UN/WHO/Multilaterialism. Personally - I think there are very good arguments on all sides of this subject and it's sad that it's ideologically aligned. Global neoliberalism has brought zillions out of poverty, but has wicked externalizations and a lot of inequality. Globalist institutions have a certain kind of individual corruption (think FIFA) and are also subject to the completely antithetical influences of bad actor states (think Saudi Arabia on Human Rights) etc. and finally, very susceptible to ideological institutionalization, elitism and creeping, ineffectiveness and bureaucracy. Yet at the same time there are some parts of some orgs that are super essential. Like the WHO right now and probably the IPCC for a few reasons.
- nickik 6y ago
  The whole concept of 'neoliberalism' is simply the far left being angry at literally everybody to the right of them. People from right wing nationalists, libertarians, center leftists all with diverse opinions were all simply called neoliberal. Neoliberalism has never been an actual movement or philosophy or anything coherent but rather is everything the far left doesn't like since the late 70s. What both the left and the right complain about in their 'anti-globalist' is 'we are unhappy with the situation here' and we blame the rest of the globe. The left believes that all changes to the economy they don't like could just not effect them if you didn't have free trade. And the right, by now is basically the party of the white working class has the same issue. This is also why the left is now the pro globalism party, they are now the party of the urban people rather then the (white) working class and cities have much fewer of the problems from change in industrial structure.
- mauflows 6y ago
  Great comment. I think globalizations problems are those of accountability at scale. I think one constant of humanity is that hierarchies / cultures / institutions will grow. So in that sense I see globalization as inevitable, but we haven't solved accountability. If we want to go the liberal route, our institutions need to be accountable for the externalities. I think this is almost impossible without backsliding into (also potentially-apocalyptic) factionalism
bhk 6y ago
First order: people want to be seen as having the correct opinions, so when the definition of correct changes, they change what they espouse. Free speech used to be popular.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  > Free speech used to be popular. Still is with us rebels. How the hell free speech became counter culture I have no idea, but I’m 90% sure it has to do with almost all media in the USA being run by 6 corporations.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Real free speech is always counter cultural. You only need it when you're saying something counter to what the culture thinks. But I'm talking about the speech itself, and you're talking about support for free speech. You'd expect support for free speech to not be counter-cultural. But when what's being expressed is counter-cultural, support for the speech may be somewhat weaker among the culture, at least among those who aren't sticklers for principle.
- scsilver 6y ago
  I keep hearing people say there is an attack on free speech, on platform after platform after platform. It's like a canary in a coal mine, It seems perfectly alive to me, I'll be concerned when I dont see that statement any more. Personally, I find the government censoring the CDC, and not getting accurate information from government agencies a much larger imposition on free speech. The silencing or the Florida data scientist sharing public information that conflicted with official reports. Why? Because the government is using legal threats to silence someone on every channel.
bjourne 6y ago
Most of those people are still fighting global capitalism though. Six American tech giants, more or less, having a global monopoly on media discourse, advertising, and payment processing... Well, that's exactly what they were warning us about. I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, but the fact that half-a-dozen mega corporations can effectively silence the American president is frightening.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Well it's the politician's own fault if they use Twitter et al to communicate. It's not like they don't have the means to make their voices heard in other ways. Imo we should ban all politicians (and police departments etc) from using platforms controlled by private entities for official communication.
  - bjourne 6y ago
    You completely missed my point. An incredibly small group of people have amassed an incredibly large amount of power. That is not good for Democracy.
    - adrianN 6y ago
      Has that ever been different? I can't think of a time in history where power wasn't held by just a handful of people.
      - bjourne 6y ago
        Yes, it has been different. Global power-inequality has never been greater than at the present.
- pricecomstock 6y ago
  Silence? Or just force him to use the means of communication used by every other president in history? Obviously there is some interesting power here that I'm not sure if I feel comfortable with Twitter having, but having to use press releases and TV speeches instead of hammering a first draft tweet out into the internet is what the vast majority of presidential communication has been
binthis25 6y ago
Same. I was there, and young, and righteous/whatnot. It was a mad experience that taught me a lot about media and power. At the time, the "left" was rabidly anti-globalism and anti-GMO-those were themes. I was on a youthful anarchy kick that was informed by the archives of 80s non-leftist anarchist zine world, but also interested in economics and futurism. As an aside wrt today: my area was tear gassed to such an extreme that I had to carry a guy a dozen blocks while throwing up ropes of phlegm and while national guard stalked through the zero-visibility beating anyone they found with what looked like long wooden dowels. Later, helicopters lobbed flash bangs and cs gas into residential neighborhoods through which I was slowly escaping. At choke points, random people would band together to make fire barricades before escaping. So, what's happening now is not especially crazy.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
There are so many issues like this that have effectively flipped. It’s maddening. Take for example the anti-war stance. As far as I know Trump is the only one continually advocating for a troop withdrawal in the Middle East. This used to be a solid progressive issue.
- badlucklottery 6y ago
  >Take for example the anti-war stance. As far as I know Trump is the only one continually advocating for a troop withdrawal in the Middle East. Not to be pedantic but you're conflating two issues: being anti-war and being pro-troop presence. One of the big reasons the US has kept a troop presence in the middle east is to deal with the human cost of the instability that was created in the 2000s by those wars of choice. I can't speak for all progressives but those that I know have both anti-war views (stop shit-stirring with Iran) and pro-troop presence (try to stabilize the region before withdrawal). I will admit that both have been going very poorly lately.
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    My sentiment is that after 20 years, something has got to give, and I wish more politicians were talking about getting out.
    - badlucklottery 6y ago
      Obama reduced the number of troops in Iraq/Afghanistan quite a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq_(2007%E2%80%932011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from... The remaining troops were there in an advisory capacity. And Trump has been trying to pull out those advisors. The needle has been pretty steadily moving for the last 10 years, it's just been slow going. It's also debatable if the number of troops there should ever be zero if they're only acting as advisors.
      - 6y ago
joveian 6y ago
What groups have changed position? I don't follow such things that closely but I haven't noticed a change.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Is it not ironic that democrats are pro union and pro immigration? Unions are extraordinarily anti immigration. Yet here we are...

jariel 6y ago

Globalism is not so much about 'connecting people'. It mostly has a neolibaral foundation, and secondarily a governance and NGO ethos. Anti-Globalism in the 1990's was by the Left, and they were against the WTO and mostly neoliberal world order. Anti-Globalism today is much more complicated issue, but with the more popular versions being more or less Nationalist, anti-UN/WHO/Multilaterialism. Personally - I think there are very good arguments on all sides of this subject and it's sad that it's ideologically aligned. Global neoliberalism has brought zillions out of poverty, but has wicked externalizations and a lot of inequality. Globalist institutions have a certain kind of individual corruption (think FIFA) and are also subject to the completely antithetical influences of bad actor states (think Saudi Arabia on Human Rights) etc. and finally, very susceptible to ideological institutionalization, elitism and creeping, ineffectiveness and bureaucracy. Yet at the same time there are some parts of some orgs that are super essential. Like the WHO right now and probably the IPCC for a few reasons.

nickik 6y ago
The whole concept of 'neoliberalism' is simply the far left being angry at literally everybody to the right of them. People from right wing nationalists, libertarians, center leftists all with diverse opinions were all simply called neoliberal. Neoliberalism has never been an actual movement or philosophy or anything coherent but rather is everything the far left doesn't like since the late 70s. What both the left and the right complain about in their 'anti-globalist' is 'we are unhappy with the situation here' and we blame the rest of the globe. The left believes that all changes to the economy they don't like could just not effect them if you didn't have free trade. And the right, by now is basically the party of the white working class has the same issue. This is also why the left is now the pro globalism party, they are now the party of the urban people rather then the (white) working class and cities have much fewer of the problems from change in industrial structure.
mauflows 6y ago
Great comment. I think globalizations problems are those of accountability at scale. I think one constant of humanity is that hierarchies / cultures / institutions will grow. So in that sense I see globalization as inevitable, but we haven't solved accountability. If we want to go the liberal route, our institutions need to be accountable for the externalities. I think this is almost impossible without backsliding into (also potentially-apocalyptic) factionalism

bhk 6y ago

First order: people want to be seen as having the correct opinions, so when the definition of correct changes, they change what they espouse. Free speech used to be popular.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> Free speech used to be popular. Still is with us rebels. How the hell free speech became counter culture I have no idea, but I’m 90% sure it has to do with almost all media in the USA being run by 6 corporations.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Real free speech is always counter cultural. You only need it when you're saying something counter to what the culture thinks. But I'm talking about the speech itself, and you're talking about support for free speech. You'd expect support for free speech to not be counter-cultural. But when what's being expressed is counter-cultural, support for the speech may be somewhat weaker among the culture, at least among those who aren't sticklers for principle.
scsilver 6y ago
I keep hearing people say there is an attack on free speech, on platform after platform after platform. It's like a canary in a coal mine, It seems perfectly alive to me, I'll be concerned when I dont see that statement any more. Personally, I find the government censoring the CDC, and not getting accurate information from government agencies a much larger imposition on free speech. The silencing or the Florida data scientist sharing public information that conflicted with official reports. Why? Because the government is using legal threats to silence someone on every channel.

bjourne 6y ago

Most of those people are still fighting global capitalism though. Six American tech giants, more or less, having a global monopoly on media discourse, advertising, and payment processing... Well, that's exactly what they were warning us about. I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, but the fact that half-a-dozen mega corporations can effectively silence the American president is frightening.

adrianN 6y ago
Well it's the politician's own fault if they use Twitter et al to communicate. It's not like they don't have the means to make their voices heard in other ways. Imo we should ban all politicians (and police departments etc) from using platforms controlled by private entities for official communication.
- bjourne 6y ago
  You completely missed my point. An incredibly small group of people have amassed an incredibly large amount of power. That is not good for Democracy.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Has that ever been different? I can't think of a time in history where power wasn't held by just a handful of people.
    - bjourne 6y ago
      Yes, it has been different. Global power-inequality has never been greater than at the present.
pricecomstock 6y ago
Silence? Or just force him to use the means of communication used by every other president in history? Obviously there is some interesting power here that I'm not sure if I feel comfortable with Twitter having, but having to use press releases and TV speeches instead of hammering a first draft tweet out into the internet is what the vast majority of presidential communication has been

binthis25 6y ago

Same. I was there, and young, and righteous/whatnot. It was a mad experience that taught me a lot about media and power. At the time, the "left" was rabidly anti-globalism and anti-GMO-those were themes. I was on a youthful anarchy kick that was informed by the archives of 80s non-leftist anarchist zine world, but also interested in economics and futurism. As an aside wrt today: my area was tear gassed to such an extreme that I had to carry a guy a dozen blocks while throwing up ropes of phlegm and while national guard stalked through the zero-visibility beating anyone they found with what looked like long wooden dowels. Later, helicopters lobbed flash bangs and cs gas into residential neighborhoods through which I was slowly escaping. At choke points, random people would band together to make fire barricades before escaping. So, what's happening now is not especially crazy.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

There are so many issues like this that have effectively flipped. It’s maddening. Take for example the anti-war stance. As far as I know Trump is the only one continually advocating for a troop withdrawal in the Middle East. This used to be a solid progressive issue.

badlucklottery 6y ago
>Take for example the anti-war stance. As far as I know Trump is the only one continually advocating for a troop withdrawal in the Middle East. Not to be pedantic but you're conflating two issues: being anti-war and being pro-troop presence. One of the big reasons the US has kept a troop presence in the middle east is to deal with the human cost of the instability that was created in the 2000s by those wars of choice. I can't speak for all progressives but those that I know have both anti-war views (stop shit-stirring with Iran) and pro-troop presence (try to stabilize the region before withdrawal). I will admit that both have been going very poorly lately.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  My sentiment is that after 20 years, something has got to give, and I wish more politicians were talking about getting out.
  - badlucklottery 6y ago
    Obama reduced the number of troops in Iraq/Afghanistan quite a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq_(2007%E2%80%932011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from... The remaining troops were there in an advisory capacity. And Trump has been trying to pull out those advisors. The needle has been pretty steadily moving for the last 10 years, it's just been slow going. It's also debatable if the number of troops there should ever be zero if they're only acting as advisors.
    - 6y ago

joveian 6y ago

What groups have changed position? I don't follow such things that closely but I haven't noticed a change.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Is it not ironic that democrats are pro union and pro immigration? Unions are extraordinarily anti immigration. Yet here we are...