4 ms·
Globalism destroys national identity, a convenient source of self esteem. If anything, globalism favors the corporate mentality of dehumanizing people as it see
by bawana 1y ago
Globalism destroys national identity, a convenient source of self esteem. If anything, globalism favors the corporate mentality of dehumanizing people as it seeks to maximize profit by exporting services to the least expensive provider. This precept of Ricardo that has been extolled by billionaires like Buffett has been twisted into 'let the people who can provide the most output for the least input' prevail. Using this mentality, we will soon return to child labor and slavery. The significant intangible of nationalism is that it puts a floor under this race to the bottom and provides a foundation deeply rooted in our evolution for humans to coexist within a homogeneous pool - a shared culture - a set of behaviors that have a low cognitive burden, are easily maintained and transmitted.
Under globalization, we have confusing alternatives that require constant cognitive function to evaluate and maintain. As we seek conformity and agreement, we tend to a homogeneous gruel and the rich diversity of the world becomes an average gray standard.
- bamboozled 1y agoYeah right, no one has ever been exploited under isolationism. It was all so much better when it was a bunch of little countries having little economies and hardly any trade between them. This comments section is a cesspool.
- lazyeye 1y agoThere is probably a middle ground between globalism and isolationism that might work best. We can talk about this without people trying to shut down the conversation with inflammatory labels like "cesspool".
- bamboozled 1y agoThere is but that level of sanity isn’t what’s on offer in the comments so far or in the article itself…people were literally asking , what’s wrong with etho-nationalism in Japan , as if we’ve not had that issue before ?
- lazyeye 1y agoHuh...we've had "ethno-nationalism" before and had no problems, and had it before with problems. I'm entirely comfortable with Japan managing their immigration however they see fit. The idea that they should design their society around the ideology of some stupid fools in Western academia is absurd to me. It's ok for them to value their own extraordinary culture, I'm not threatened by that.
- bamboozled 1y agoIf you can't understand why revoking the basic human rights of 3 million+ people are and the devastating effects such a move that would have on the Japanese people themselves, then you're really not worth the time. I personally think the Japanese are beyond this level of stupidity, America, I'm not so sure.
- lazyeye 1y agoI've no idea what your talking about.
- bamboozled 1y agoI know...and that is why you shouldn't comment on things you don't understand, because you're ignorant.
- lazyeye 1y agoI was thinking more that you should stop with the dumb hyperbole that is completely disconnected from reality.
- shadowgovt 1y agoGive an example of when we've had enthno-nationalism before with no problems, and an example of when we've had it with problems. I suspect you'll discover that, in context, there's more than meets the eye here than "sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't."
- bawana 1y agoYes , I know my comment was extreme and appreciate your moderation. Certainly, smaller nation states tend to stagnate in isolation. And that isolation allows rapid degeneration. Abuses of humanity seem to be more extreme in these isolated pools. But I did not imply isolation as a necessary and defining character of nation states. I should amend my statement by adding another dimension to this 'thought vector'. Nation states that have an implicit requirement to trade and interact will foster a competition that mimics evolution. One large nation state-the end result of hyper globalization- (imagine Amazon establishes its own currency and takes over all retail) will have the same pitfalls as any monopoly.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoFurthermore, markets have no responsibility to national identity. If national identity is sub-optimal, the market will route around it like damage. In the end, markets rule all, and if folks have to trade gruel, self-esteem, child labor protections, we'll be told that we live like kings and queens compared to 15th century peasants.
- Hammershaft 1y ago> This precept of Ricardo that has been extolled by billionaires like Buffett has been twisted into 'let the people who can provide the most output for the least input' prevail. What you're describing are literally the productivity gains that have brought people out of abject poverty.
- bawana 1y agoI disagree-there are so many other factors that reduced 'poverty'. Technological and scientific advances had more to do with it than division of labor.