Globalization or Nationalism?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't believe in cultural relativism, so I oppose nationalism.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think this question deserves a non-glib answer from myself, because I feel strongly on the issue:

I think all human beings as a birthright are entitled to reach their full potential. By that I believe all people should be able to get education, healthcare, housing, the chance to raise a family and retuire in relative comfort. A global system that doesn't work towards that goal - and indeed reinforces the differences that already exist between peoples strikes me as deeply immoral.

Look at it from a Rowlsian perspective: if you didn't know anything about your circumstances of birth, but you had an option to design the system you are going to be born into; would you chose the nation-state system, where the majority of all newborns are born in countries that automatically condemn them to poverty unless they are blessed with a combo of luck/intelligence/ambition? I would assume not, you would design an egalitarian system where humans are entitled to the same privileges.

And the economic effect of nationalism is crippling. Not even tariffs, even though they are dumb and almost never work and have distorted the world economy (and I know everybody is like OMG globalist elites, but the actual elite's attraction to anti-protectionism is skin-deep, the equivalent of sadly bemoaning tariffs every G20 meeting). Not even the expense and fundamental uselessness of most military stand-offs, where enormous amounts of time and brainpower is invested in bickering over random islands.

And culturally it's even worse. Far from "protecting cultures" nations instead brutalise them, forcing all inhabitants to pretend they share the same values, that there is something inherent about being British or Mexican or Black or White or Chinese or Russian or Ukrainian that no other peoples share; that your countries success is equivalent to your personal success and pretending there are no universal values that all humans share. To me nationalism represents the destruction of minority cultures (Israel, France, Turkey represent three notorious cases of urban elites pushing their project on the proles) and forced conformity to some false narrative (e.g. China cutting off its entire citizenry from the outside world to protect its elites, again justified in reactionary nationalism; literally every act of ethnic cleansing the world over).

And I don't think this can stop by nations "just being nice to each other". One, because the global elite uses the sort of quasi-globalised world we have at the moment to take advantage of nationalism. This is the key killer of the left atm - because the elite can flit between locales they can undermine everybody. Country A has a nice labour regulation? Well sorry, but Country B is undermining you and attracting investment, better cut that to steal investment from them; and while there at it, could B cut its tax? k thanks. And two, because politicians genuinely don't have incentive to promote historic injustice (because they only need voters, not moral victories) they simply don't (this is actually related to one of the worst parts of quasi-globalism, the phenomena of non-voting migrant underclasses common in Europe, the US and Gulf (yeah I know Gulf citiizns don't vote, but they have a hell a lot more rights than the people they enslave)).

(Incidentally, despite all this I know it's just an ideal, I know that humanity is not prepared, and especially the opening of borders would be folly without major investment into the poorer regions of Africa)