Nationalism vs. Globalism

Just wanted to see how this forum scales on Nationalism vs. Globalism

I am a nationalist. I believe that you cannot do more to help others without first taking care of your own. To that end, the interests of a nation must come before the interests of the world.

Cold War Communist wrote:I am a nationalist. I believe that you cannot do more to help others without first taking care of your own. To that end, the interests of a nation must come before the interests of the world.

I would like to disagree. It is important to help others regardless of what country they live in, their ethnicity, etc.

Since there are more people in the world than there are in any one nation, the interests of the world should come before the interests a nation.

Globalism works in the interests of the world as a whole and tries to find compromises that we can all agree on, rather than win-lose scenarios that benefit only one group of people.

I'm a bit split on mine issue. On one hand I think it's important for all societies to take care of themselves and stay strong. On another hand, it's also important for us to care for all people regardless of nationality. Also I'm mixed race, which would make me "an enemy" in the eyes of many super nationalists. Overall I'm I'm the middle.

As a Left-Wing person, I've never been a fan of the idea of Nationalism, but i feel as though in the modern era it is actually somewhat appropriate in most cases, espicially in preventing civil wars. I think I generally lean towards allowing the general populous to decide on matters of Nationalism vs. Globalism, but my hope is that there will eventually be a point in human history when Nationalism is no longer neccesary in preventing civil wars.

Nationalism>>>>>>

Those who research history are twice as likely to support nationalism.

DavidlVofGeorgia wrote:Those who research history are twice as likely to support nationalism.

Actually what people study has little to do with it.

Frankly both suck, so I picked neutral.

Globalism? Globalism is the planning and operation of policy on a global level. It's not an ideology. You can be a Globalist Nationalist without a problem. Globalist and Globalism as terms are very silly.

I'm pretty nationalist. That being said, I do see why people want to go Global. However, someone said Globalism works for everyone's benefit. Not true. Good intentions do not necessarily mean good results. Lots of exploitation under the "globalist" banner

Leaning towards globalism. Nationalism, in my opinion, is quickly becoming a more dangerous stance in an increasingly interconnected world. However, I also recognize the risks of globalism. The two must be balanced, but I lean towards increased connections between states.

Carl Hamilton wrote:Globalism? Globalism is the planning and operation of policy on a global level. It's not an ideology. You can be a Globalist Nationalist without a problem. Globalist and Globalism as terms are very silly.

Um... no Carl. Look at the words. GLOBALism and NATIONALism. Nationalism is when you support and work with your country over the entire earth (e.g. other countries, other businesses, other regional unions), when globalism is when you associate whith those examples over your own nation. How can you be a gloalist nationalist when when you substantialy work with other nations at the expense of your own, when you still favor your country over others?

Winston Churchill wrote:
I would like to disagree. It is important to help others regardless of what country they live in, their ethnicity, etc.

He didn't want to say that you can't help the others if they are not of your country of if they don't look alike. He clearly said that before helping the others first you have to take care of your own, and in this matter we are talking about taking care of the country, improving the life of their citizens, etc.

Being nationalist doesn't mean that you are racist and xenophobic, that's the common misconception that the people have about this term, why? dunno

Malotun wrote:

Winston Churchill wrote:
I would like to disagree. It is important to help others regardless of what country they live in, their ethnicity, etc.

He didn't want to say that you can't help the others if they are not of your country of if they don't look alike. He clearly said that before helping the others first you have to take care of your own, and in this matter we are talking about taking care of the country, improving the life of their citizens, etc.

Being nationalist doesn't mean that you are racist and xenophobic, that's the common misconception that the people have about this term, why? dunno

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was accusing all nationalists of being racist and xenophobic; they're obviously not. By this comment I meant that if a person is in need of your help, and you can realistically help them, you should, whether they are in your country and part of your culture or not.

If there is a famine in Country A, the government of Country B should help the citizens of Country A if it can, even if there are serious problems in Country B.

Big_Appa wrote:Leaning towards globalism. Nationalism, in my opinion, is quickly becoming a more dangerous stance in an increasingly interconnected world. However, I also recognize the risks of globalism. The two must be balanced, but I lean towards increased connections between states.

This is sadly so true. So many nationalists (I'm not saying they're a majority or something), just look at a person of another skin colour and just start judging them.

Nishanth128 wrote:
This is sadly so true. So many nationalists (I'm not saying they're a majority or something), just look at a person of another skin colour and just start judging them.

That's a racist not a nationalist. It's annoying that the people cannot notice the huge difference between this two words.

Nationalists are not racist. If there is an legal mexican citizen living in Ohio, I'm cool with them. But illegal, nah. Though I don't really focus on nationalism on a domestic scale as I do on a international scale.

BigMacArthur wrote:If there is an legal mexican citizen living in Ohio, I'm cool with them. But illegal, nah.

Which solution to this problem do you think would be best: deporting illegal immigrants, making it easier to enter the U.S. legally, or both?

Winston Churchill wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:I am a nationalist. I believe that you cannot do more to help others without first taking care of your own. To that end, the interests of a nation must come before the interests of the world.

I would like to disagree. It is important to help others regardless of what country they live in, their ethnicity, etc.

We agree here so far.

Since there are more people in the world than there are in any one nation, the interests of the world should come before the interests a nation.

This is where we start to disagree. In order to help the world, or aid the world in pursuing her interests, we should take care of our communities first. It is too difficult to provide aid to others when you and your family are starving, or to rephrase: you have to help those immediately around you in your country by addressing their needs before you can start helping others. If not, the response is going to be chaotic and useless, if it happens at all.

Globalism works in the interests of the world as a whole and tries to find compromises that we can all agree on, rather than win-lose scenarios that benefit only one group of people.

We also find disagreement here. Globalism suffers from the same pitfalls as any system of government, albeit the beneficiaries might be different and might have little to do with the countries being exploited for gain. The cause of globalization might be noble, but the reality tends to be like putting out a fire across the street while your house burns.

Which solution to this problem do you think would be best: deporting illegal immigrants, making it easier to enter the U.S. legally, or both?

Figured I would take a stab at this. Both, with an amendment to the Constitution legalizing certain illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. There is no way we can progress forward with 11 million illegal citizens and no path for them to legalize.

Cold War Communist wrote:In order to help the world, or aid the world in pursuing her interests, we should take care of our communities first. It is too difficult to provide aid to others when you and your family are starving, or to rephrase: you have to help those immediately around you in your country by addressing their needs before you can start helping others. If not, the response is going to be chaotic and useless, if it happens at all.

The cause of globalization might be noble, but the reality tends to be like putting out a fire across the street while your house burns.

I agree that if a country has major problems, its government should focus on them, rather than helping everyone else only to crumble itself. I'm only saying that if a government can realistically and feasibly work with other governments to help people in various countries, it should. For example, if there is a drought in East Africa, it is not the responsibility of a poor West African country to contribute aid, because it has problems itself. But a wealthy country, like the U.S., should help, because it is peaceful and stable, and can realistically help. (Yes, there is poverty in the U.S., but the country is not crippled by it.)

Figured I would take a stab at this. Both, with an amendment to the Constitution legalizing certain illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. There is no way we can progress forward with 11 million illegal citizens and no path for them to legalize.

I wholeheartedly agree that legalizing some, but not all, illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. is a good idea.

Which solution to this problem do you think would be best: deporting illegal immigrants, making it easier to enter the U.S. legally, or both?[/quote]

I would do a little bit of both. I hate DT, and his wall. But I do want us to increase border control, by maybe build a wall in cities and increase border patrols (though this is all on us and no Mexico should be involved). Once we take contol of our borders, we should legalize all illegal immigrants that have been in America for more than 5 years or have not commited a crime, and either deport or keep the rest in a limbo.

Cold War Communist you are amazing.

BigMacArthur wrote:I hate DT, and his wall.

Yeah me too lol.

But I do want us to increase border control, by maybe build a wall in cities and increase border patrols (though this is all on us and no Mexico should be involved).

Why do you say Mexico shouldn't be involved? I think the Mexican government's help would be valuable in trying to find a solution to this problem.

Winston Churchill wrote:I agree that if a country has major problems, its government should focus on them, rather than helping everyone else only to crumble itself. I'm only saying that if a government can realistically and feasibly work with other governments to help people in various countries, it should. For example, if there is a drought in East Africa, it is not the responsibility of a poor West African country to contribute aid, because it has problems itself. But a wealthy country, like the U.S., should help, because it is peaceful and stable, and can realistically help. (Yes, there is poverty in the U.S., but the country is not crippled by it.)

I guess this would come down to how we perceive wealth, and our ideas of realistic and feasible. If we are talking about feasibility, globalization is certainly feasible. But is it realistic? I don't think so. I don't think that a system can exist where some countries help all countries, but not all countries help all countries. If some countries are putting themselves first out of necessity, then others will do the same, and our idea of necessity is different.

Let's take the idea of wealth and poverty in the U.S. If you look at the U.S. on the surface, it's a wealthy nation very capable of helping others. But that's just the surface, and what I think people are seeing is what they would see if you averaged the per capita income of a baseball stadium full of people below the poverty line and then Bill Gates. That is to say the average will look substantially better, but the wealth is highly concentrated in the hands of a very few. In the U.S., significant populations are crippled by things like poverty. Among developed nations, the U.S. has the worst infant mortality rate, and abysmal healthcare for war veterans and average persons alike.

My point is every country has fractures. Some are very large, say an East African country in a drought. Some are micro-fractures, as I would suggest is the case in a country most people perceive as significantly wealthy, such as the U.S. If nothing is done about the smaller cracks in a society, then they will connect and form much larger fissures. Thus I believe that non-crippling issues should be addressed even before the world can be helped. That way the aid can be sustained, and not distorted or interrupted, which could be far worse than letting a problem go unattended.

However, I agree that if there is a way to help without putting strain on a country, and with the support of its citizens, by all means they should help.

Yes. I live in Ohio, where jobs have been taken away from our great cities by outsourcing. Free Trade under Obama's and Clinton's globalist agenda have made China rise in power, just so US corperations can benefit, but their cities crumble. People look at the wealth that is being built by the cheap factories in China, and think that it must help America, but the need to take a look at the Rust Belt.

Well, first of, we are talking about nationalism like an ideology that does not allow a country to help another... and that's simply not true.

Winston Churchill wrote:1.-"If there is a famine in Country A, the government of Country B should help the citizens of Country A if it can, even if there are serious problems in Country B."

2.- "I agree that if a country has major problems, its government should focus on them, rather than helping everyone else only to crumble itself."

I know that a person can change is mind... but that quick? damn!... Ok, seriously I'm also agree with that, if the country can help, it have to help, or should help because it's not its obligation.

For instance in my country... we are fucked up but the government let the doors open to any immigrant that want to live here, problem? yeah, we don't have enough jobs to give them, I know people in first hand that struggle a lot to get a job and a lot of immigrants don't have to eat and/or they live in houses that look like the Chilean "favelas" of the 80s. Actually not only they have problems getting a job, also we the "natives" have the same problem. But no, the propaganda says that we are the best country in South America, maybe it's true, but if we have serious problem with ourselves, try to imagine how are the others.

So, if you want to provide some help, first of all you HAVE to be in conditions to provide that, and maybe just the "super powers" of the world are in conditions to do it BARELY

And yeah I'm talking about immigration, because naturally this went in that direction even if there are a lot of different ways to help another countries, like what happened in Haiti, but that does not really work so.