If you are interested in Political Philosophy then check out... - Philosophy Vibe Ethics & Political Philosophy paperback anthology, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3 - Political Philosophy eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe9
Thank you for making an unbiased video about globalism and nationalism. I think it would have been better to see the advantages and disadvantages of nationalism and globalism presented in a debate format, just like you debated other theories with John. But still thank you again for this insightful presentation. Laslty, I would say that Philosophy Vibe is one of my favourite channels. So, I'm giving this super thanks to you. And I also gave another super thanks in your video about shopping cart theory. Please also check that out.
Your support of the channel is so very much appreciated, thank you! Glad you enjoyed the video, and a back and forth debate with John on this subject is an excellent idea.
Damn this video was one of ur best ones definitely. The music inputs with the conclusion‘s speeches was such a good ending. Great, informative and thought provoking. 10/10
@@Kar-Kan well put. It’s like picking between a douche or a turd sandwich. Both are equally bad for different reasons. The only difference is that nationalism is easier in practice but it could potentially destroy the world in a lot of ways.
As David Graeber says about globalism in his interview with Charlie Rose, "we don't consider international corporations exploiting the third world to be true globalism". Bourgeois internationalism is qualitatively distinct from proletarian internationalism. You should read Harpal Brar's "Bourgeois Nationalism vs Proletarian Internationalism".
Fantastic and clear summary of the current political divide. One important point I feel is the power of violence we give to the government. While I personally may be willing to live more humbly for the benefit of others, I do not condone the government’s right to force me to do so. Where does one’s consent to be governed encroach on the individual’s right to life, work, and property.
The US has tried doing the globalism thing since World War II with the Breton woods agreements, etc. The idea of integrating the free world economically against the Soviet union made sense at that time. After the fall the Soviet union it made sense to try and integrate China and the former Soviet union into the world economic order because presumably that would promote peace and prosperity. However, it’s clear that unfortunately, this goal has failed. China has used this time to build up its armed forces and economy at the expense of the United States and rest of the global order so that it can become either a global leader or at least hemispheric hegemon. Rather than integrate into the world economic order, Russia continues to wish for a huge sphere of influence and essential role on the world stage. Both of these countries have used the benefits drives from globalism to fund enemies of the world order like North Korea and Iran, rather than play nice with the global order.
Amazing video. My recent dive into the political world has made me start thinking hard about this topic, I often find myself transposing between being a Globalist today and a Nationalist the next day. The majority of those transpositions however were spent as a Nationalist, mostly because I think it's naive to assume that lowering your guard as a nation in the name of progress, inclusion, and humanity will make other nations do the same, especially if these countries consider you a competition/rival. I think if globalism is at all to become a reality, it will be because all individual nations have become so secure and trusting of each other, and they now see no reason for borders and boundaries. But this vision of the future seems only feasible in fiction stories and movies with happy endings, and not what you can see in reality.
What do they say on an airplane? Put your own oxygen mask first before you try to take care of your child (or person sitting next to you.) A weak American cannot do much for other nations in need. America First. :)
The question around Ukraine is “what is the endgame”? Is Ukraine really going to be able to “defeat” Russia? There’s no way without committing NATO forces. Committing NATO forces likely means nuclear escalation. Could Putin fall? Maybe, but it’s more likely that a more nationalist hardliner would take his place than some kind of pro western liberal democrat. All of those guys have been killed off over the last 20 years. We are quite lucky that the Ukrainian invasion into Kursk didn’t result in the release of at least tactical nuclear weapons. I’m really surprised at how simplistic your presentation is in these matters. Generally, your videos are really well thought out. Obviously, there are more sophisticated reasons to have doubts about how the Ukrainian war is going than “just not interested in Ukraine, or helping out the global order, only interested in selfish local concerns”.
I first watched this channel in 2017/2018, I loved the clear voice and rational thought that I could find, however in 2020 I suffered what was about to become a 2.5 year long schizophrenic episode that would after getting better still make me lose most of my interests, from philosophy and politics, to gaming and relationships (I was nr. 7 in europe in the game Overwatch). I am happy that you are still making content and my mind always longs again for the times where it felt like I had a complete system by which I could understand difficult problems and the world. I'm a libertarian, compatibilist,, existentialist neo-Kantian.
The issue with globalism is that we are not lifting up other countries to our level of prosperity. We are being dragged down to their level of poverty. We are importing the third world and becoming the third world.
So then why don’t we lift them all up??????? A lot of western nations have a level of industrialization that isn’t sustainable if EVERY country reaches it. It REQUIRES that the global south is being exploited. We should abolish that level of prosperity if it requires the suffering of others
Not true at all. I'd argue that immigration is mutually beneficial. Learning about other cultures, experiencing new foods and ideas. A genius can come from anywhere. Someone from a different country has different skills. So although someone might come from a third world country, they could offer unique things and contribute to the economy in ways you might not realize.
@RS__7 immigration is better in a number of ways weather, raising gdp, being fiscally beneficial to government. Or even raising wages based on increased demand. It hugely benefits the host country. But it also benefits the emigrating country. With remittances Giving them increased fiscal income, increased gdp, and more money to invest in human capital. The U.S has been importing the third world since the 1800 hundreds and now we are one of the best first world countries.
@@magnificentmacarons1472 A nation is not a business. By importing migrants and exploiting them for cheap labour, you're actively shunning the people that were born in the nation and force them to compete with people that work for below minimum wage. You're doing nothing to improve the lives of the people in your nation by importing immigrants.
You guys always deliver topics really clearly. I always love when people are able to do that. Although I don’t know a ton about politics, I think the argument you gave made sense. I think it can definitely be argued that the political divide is shaping into a globalist vs nationalist one. Granted, I don’t have a ton of evidence, but it seems likely, especially in regards to Trump and Harris. He’s always been an “America First” type of politician and she seems to be more of a globally focused politician. Although nobody will always perfectly align into one camp or the other, I think your argument made sense overall. Very well done!
please do more political philosophy vides they are very interesting, important and informative. i am doing a degree in 'Philosophy politics and ethics'
Id say that the "two sides fighting the most" is definitly an oversimplification. There can be three factions with different ideologies in equal proportion for example. Two-party factionalism is generally a result of our first-past-the-post voting system
This is really the most exciting and needed video of today's time!! 🥲👌🏻🥂 I've known about it since years but with different terms.. Nationalism vs. Internationalism i read more as in India, we had freedom strugglers with both the ideologies but nationalism was / is more popular and known around us i feel 🤔 But, soon i got to know about those freedom strugglers and leaders who carried Internationalism in their core even during 18th-19th centuries when British ruled India and still some leaders had that far and wide vision of a 'one world' for all which really captured my attention as what a Buddhist is taught since childhood about treating every being as our own brothers and sisters 🫶🏻🤍 His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the perfect example of such a leader who thinks of the whole world for a peaceful state and happiness while still keeping his own Tibetan community safe and preserved! 🌟 In my opinion so far, i believe in what His Holiness believes in the political lens as we all know his ocean of wisdom and compassion with ancient Indian wisdom along with modern scientific approach to make the best of both worlds 🌎🙏🏻 Therefore, maybe I'm on the middleway as what Buddha taught to reject the two extremes! Still, somewhere deep down I'm more inclined towards globalism for now due to the need of the hour or maybe due to my short-sightedness IDK 🥲 I'll lie on 50-50 to 75-25 of globalism - nationalism in the coming years I'm sure!! 🤔🫣 Global warming is my top concern as we got only 4-5 years to not touch the few degrees of rise in global temperature which is why I'm vocal on veganism and green energy too ✌🏻🌱 Also, a culture exchange is really healthy in many aspects i feel to educate and aware ourselves of the differences and culture shocks we have around us while preserving our different cultural identity as well since my motherland i.e., Ladakh got really unique and rich culture and traditions to celebrate! Thus, a perfect world is possible for sure with loyalty, trust, and care for each other from our own locality till global scale but it'll take time and effort for sure with some sacrifices to be made.. and the sacrifices must be done on the material parts which are unnecessary or fall on the greed part more than our needs; not to be made on humanity and making a chaotic world due to misunderstanding of the globalist's approach with weak skillfulness 🥹🤞🏻 May all beings find genuine transcendental happiness and shuns all miseries in lives 🌱🙏🏻🌎 P.S. a leader / union with an ultimate wisdom + compassion for all with a great skillfulness is needed the most for a perfect world keeping both in balance ⚖️🤞🏻
The way i see it goes something like this "Poland (Nation-state based upon particularism)" and "European Union (Empire based upon universalism). Particularism means ancestry, universalism means non-ancestry.
Can there be a mixture of the two philosophies? For instance , global agreements for only certain issues? Does it have to be one or the other? When there is a threat-famine , war , etc-people , and nations have come together to address it. BUT...the addressing of such threats usually come in the aftermath , with repercussions , such as more nationalism , it seems to me. Very interesting discussion Thank you
Good video. Globalism has been around for a lot longer than you seem to imply. I refer, for example, to the Settembrini character in Magic Mountain and to utterances of Bertrand Russell in the 1950s.
Well you kinda explain it in a way where one would be an extremist nationalist or globalist, which I guess makes sense if you wanna explain the general idea, but are there many people who would in reality think like that?
I mean if the US has to be selfish in order to be a better place then so be it, I'm tired of living paycheck to paycheck with a normal job and I'm tired of having to worry if I'ma get locked up or not for defending myself... I just want a leader that'll help the working middle class reach their goals more conveniently
After watching it the second time: Isnt the endgoal of globalism (a global government) also some kind of imperialism? Because constructing such an world government would mean to overcome other powerful nations.
Can you help me in following question below what is relation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and logic arguments making which is more mentally demanding?please answer thank you
This was a great thought provoking discussion. I do think there is a bit of a middle ground. I would say in general I have more nationalist tendencies the way both are defined. However I'm a leftist atheist and see climate change as a global and American priority, as everyone needs to breath including your nation.
Haven't we learned that there's a vast spectrum between globalism and nationalism. If nature takes the middle ground between up and down and right and left. Why can't we rest in the moderation between globalism and nationalism. Hey, there's a little socialism in capitalism and let's not begin to talk about communism in socialism. Take heed!
I don't think you represent any view accurately here. I don't think anyone holds the views you describe as globalism. I don't think any of the policies you mentioned are relevant to nationalism. Nationalists either favor or reject climate change, immigration, trade or foreign intervention based on the expected relative gain in power for the nation. Concretely, weakening Russia is definitely the nationalist strategy for the US, as it gives the US more power over global resources. Reducing climate change is the US nationalist strategy, although the US has to navigate a prisoner's dilemma.
I feel in terms of identity I am more of a nationalist but in terms of who I think the government should serve I am more globalist. Reasoning being that if everyone is serving their own interests we will have conflict and a worse standard of life.
The problem is countries have too many problems within their country so I think we should be nationalist until we advance enough to have very minimal issues within to then bring up other countries
i do agree with globalism, but first it must start with nationalism. and after people see how great our country is, then they willingly want to join us.
I have become a stonch nationalist in the last 3 years. I want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to look back on me fondly not the great grandchildren of a nation 10,000 miles away!
Are the Laws of Physics the same all over the planet? Do Durable Consumer Goods, like automobiles, wear out all over the planet? Where are the economists in every nation talking about the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods? What does unnecessary manufacturing for planned obsolescence do for CO2 production? Duh, what is *Net Domestic Product?*
I think that the way you select your definitions has an ethical bias. I’m not sure that nationalism is the best term for what we have in the United States anyway. Probably more like isolationism, which has been very strong before World War I and between the wars. Also to me, globalism means more something like integration of separate national governments into something approximating a world government. And then nationalism would be more about not putting important decisions that affect the people of your nation into the hands of unaccountable unelected bureaucrats someplace that don’t understand your local conditions and problems.
Open vs closed is a beter term then globalism vs nationalism. The left wing is generaly anti globalist and internationalist apart from social-democrats and social-liberals. Globalism is more a trait of centre-right and centre-left politics.
I appreciate the effort to try and point out how the political divides have changed over the last 20 years, however, your presentation is highly highly oversimplified and ethically biased. For example, if your country’s traditions include western liberal democracy, and that’s important to you, then protecting your country’s traditions would presumably be a good thing and not short sighted navel gazing. Also, globalism will require the imposition of policies and programs by the use of force by an authoritarian global regime, which presumably you might find undesirable.
The divide is not "democracy vs dictatorship". Capitalist countries are bourgeois dictatorships, and dictatorships do not require a single dictator. A democratic group of representatives dictates policy, whether they be bourgeois or proletarian, it is still democracy and it is still dictatorial. Both capitalism and socialism are democracies and dictatorships. Further, socialism is a superior form of democracy, as the state represents the vast majority of citizens, the workers, rather than the bourgeois interest.
I mean, ideally you want both, but given the choice, and knowing how human nature is, I vote for nationalism. I'm sorry, but China doesn't care. India doesn't care. These nations don't give a rats ass about us aside from what they can gain, and this naive view that if we just set a better example they will follow has been shown over and over again to not be the right option. We're not robots. We value the preservation of self above all others, and extend it to those close to us. It seems harsh and uncaring, but then again the world is harsh and uncaring, and we need to ask ourselves why we think it needs to be changed.
The ruling class of the US and UK want their poor to believe that globalism is their problem rather than the fact that those countries do very little to help them succeed in the new economy. I swear, no rich country allows the brains of their poorest to rot in poverty like those two, it's heartbreaking.
I am seeing nationalistic, conservative, Christian capitalism in the red corner and globalistic, libertarian, atheistic communism in the blue corner. There are two clear PACKAGES.
17:15 It's quite complex. The red corner is capitalist from identity concerns, but still socialist when it comes to the state control regulations to conserve the nationalist practices.
How is it obviously better? Please elaborate. Also, please explain what typically happens when a nation enacts protectionist measures and becomes isolationist.
@@jessetheskeptic601 No one is saying to be ultra nationalist, but as someone who cares about their own country, Its obviously better to be nationalist insofar as not picking sides on a global scale. Really all I know is 'bout me, I got mine, it is simply the most reasonable.
@@jessetheskeptic601 Also, I cannot explain your cherry picked prompt since it is a fallacy from the get-go. Caring about your own Republic is simply better than minding others. In this case specificity does not lend any utility to the goals and standards said today. May you respect the Bill of Rights
@@Aj-yu6ec A middle ground is obviously best. There was for example one case, I can't remember which countries, where one country decided to use a ton of water from a large river that flows into a neighbouring country, who also needed that river. Nationalism says that the first country doesn't need to care, while the 2nd country puts their citizens interests first which means getting that river back so they threathened to start a war over it. It would be better trying to come to an agreement, because countries affect other countries even if they are nationalist.
No it’s definitely not. As he said, it results in more war and mass suffering. In the end they both have equal pros and cons. Globalism is impossible because, ironically, it’s similar to communism in that while good in theory, in some respects, it’s terrible/impossible in practice, or at least the way it’s being done. At the end of the day the world needs a combination of both.
I'm personally more of a British nationalist as it makes sense for the island of Great Britain to be one single political unit. Plus as an Englishman from the North East, I have more in common culturally with someone from Edinburgh than someone from Cambridge.
I live in my country. I want my government to make the place I live better. Why the hell would I vote for someone who would make my life worse so another country can benefit from my labor
Great video! As a UK resident, I have to say that unfortunately, Brits have become more and more believers of Nationalism in recent years. They were once imperialists, then globalists and are becoming more nationalists. It's a shame.
I generally love this channel. This particular video was very bad. Innumerable propositions in this video were completely baseless. The american election, for example, is not nationalist vs. Globalist. Right now, its more cult of personality vs. policy. Obviously trump says he knows whats best for America, but he had 4 years and he showed that he cant do anything for americans except lie and harm them. Vote Kamala.
Biden wasn't good either. All of your politicians are snakeoil salesman who work for the oligarchs, not the people. Your "democracy" is just hollywood theater.
The question around Ukraine is open “what is the endgame”? Is Ukraine really going to be able to “defeat” Russia? There’s no way without committing NATO forces. Committing NATO forces likely means nuclear escalation. Could Putin fall? Maybe, but it’s more likely that a more nationalist hardliner would take his place than some kind of pro western liberal democrat. All of those guys have been killed off over the last 20 years. We are quite lucky that the Ukrainian invasion into Kursk didn’t result in the release of at least tactical nuclear weapons. I’m really surprised at how simplistic your presentation is in these matters. Generally, your videos are really well thought out. Obviously, there are more sophisticated reasons to have doubts about how the Ukrainian war is going than “just not interested in Ukraine, or helping out the global order, only interested in selfish local concerns”.
If you are interested in Political Philosophy then check out...
- Philosophy Vibe Ethics & Political Philosophy paperback anthology, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
- Political Philosophy eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe9
Thank you for making an unbiased video about globalism and nationalism. I think it would have been better to see the advantages and disadvantages of nationalism and globalism presented in a debate format, just like you debated other theories with John. But still thank you again for this insightful presentation. Laslty, I would say that Philosophy Vibe is one of my favourite channels. So, I'm giving this super thanks to you. And I also gave another super thanks in your video about shopping cart theory. Please also check that out.
Your support of the channel is so very much appreciated, thank you! Glad you enjoyed the video, and a back and forth debate with John on this subject is an excellent idea.
Damn this video was one of ur best ones definitely. The music inputs with the conclusion‘s speeches was such a good ending. Great, informative and thought provoking. 10/10
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed.
So nationalism is self self-centred egoism and globalism is self-destructive lunacy.
@@Kar-Kan well put. It’s like picking between a douche or a turd sandwich. Both are equally bad for different reasons. The only difference is that nationalism is easier in practice but it could potentially destroy the world in a lot of ways.
As David Graeber says about globalism in his interview with Charlie Rose, "we don't consider international corporations exploiting the third world to be true globalism". Bourgeois internationalism is qualitatively distinct from proletarian internationalism.
You should read Harpal Brar's "Bourgeois Nationalism vs Proletarian Internationalism".
Very well said
Fantastic and clear summary of the current political divide. One important point I feel is the power of violence we give to the government. While I personally may be willing to live more humbly for the benefit of others, I do not condone the government’s right to force me to do so. Where does one’s consent to be governed encroach on the individual’s right to life, work, and property.
Thank you for your perspective. One of many perspectives of truth seen through the eyes of limitation.
I like that saying!
Well done and thank you for your "over all" cohesive and concise explanation. Mind boggling is an understatement! "The Game is a foot..."
You nailed it
The US has tried doing the globalism thing since World War II with the Breton woods agreements, etc.
The idea of integrating the free world economically against the Soviet union made sense at that time.
After the fall the Soviet union it made sense to try and integrate China and the former Soviet union into the world economic order because presumably that would promote peace and prosperity.
However, it’s clear that unfortunately, this goal has failed. China has used this time to build up its armed forces and economy at the expense of the United States and rest of the global order so that it can become either a global leader or at least hemispheric hegemon.
Rather than integrate into the world economic order, Russia continues to wish for a huge sphere of influence and essential role on the world stage.
Both of these countries have used the benefits drives from globalism to fund enemies of the world order like North Korea and Iran, rather than play nice with the global order.
Amazing video.
My recent dive into the political world has made me start thinking hard about this topic, I often find myself transposing between being a Globalist today and a Nationalist the next day. The majority of those transpositions however were spent as a Nationalist, mostly because I think it's naive to assume that lowering your guard as a nation in the name of progress, inclusion, and humanity will make other nations do the same, especially if these countries consider you a competition/rival.
I think if globalism is at all to become a reality, it will be because all individual nations have become so secure and trusting of each other, and they now see no reason for borders and boundaries. But this vision of the future seems only feasible in fiction stories and movies with happy endings, and not what you can see in reality.
What do they say on an airplane? Put your own oxygen mask first before you try to take care of your child (or person sitting next to you.) A weak American cannot do much for other nations in need. America First. :)
The question around Ukraine is “what is the endgame”? Is Ukraine really going to be able to “defeat” Russia? There’s no way without committing NATO forces. Committing NATO forces likely means nuclear escalation. Could Putin fall? Maybe, but it’s more likely that a more nationalist hardliner would take his place than some kind of pro western liberal democrat. All of those guys have been killed off over the last 20 years.
We are quite lucky that the Ukrainian invasion into Kursk didn’t result in the release of at least tactical nuclear weapons.
I’m really surprised at how simplistic your presentation is in these matters. Generally, your videos are really well thought out.
Obviously, there are more sophisticated reasons to have doubts about how the Ukrainian war is going than “just not interested in Ukraine, or helping out the global order, only interested in selfish local concerns”.
I first watched this channel in 2017/2018, I loved the clear voice and rational thought that I could find, however in 2020 I suffered what was about to become a 2.5 year long schizophrenic episode that would after getting better still make me lose most of my interests, from philosophy and politics, to gaming and relationships (I was nr. 7 in europe in the game Overwatch). I am happy that you are still making content and my mind always longs again for the times where it felt like I had a complete system by which I could understand difficult problems and the world. I'm a libertarian, compatibilist,, existentialist neo-Kantian.
The issue with globalism is that we are not lifting up other countries to our level of prosperity. We are being dragged down to their level of poverty. We are importing the third world and becoming the third world.
So then why don’t we lift them all up??????? A lot of western nations have a level of industrialization that isn’t sustainable if EVERY country reaches it. It REQUIRES that the global south is being exploited. We should abolish that level of prosperity if it requires the suffering of others
Not true at all. I'd argue that immigration is mutually beneficial. Learning about other cultures, experiencing new foods and ideas. A genius can come from anywhere. Someone from a different country has different skills. So although someone might come from a third world country, they could offer unique things and contribute to the economy in ways you might not realize.
@@digitalparty9891 you just did the meme... Destroying your country because mmmmm their food is so yummy 😂
@RS__7 immigration is better in a number of ways weather, raising gdp, being fiscally beneficial to government. Or even raising wages based on increased demand. It hugely benefits the host country. But it also benefits the emigrating country. With remittances Giving them increased fiscal income, increased gdp, and more money to invest in human capital. The U.S has been importing the third world since the 1800 hundreds and now we are one of the best first world countries.
@@magnificentmacarons1472 A nation is not a business. By importing migrants and exploiting them for cheap labour, you're actively shunning the people that were born in the nation and force them to compete with people that work for below minimum wage. You're doing nothing to improve the lives of the people in your nation by importing immigrants.
You guys always deliver topics really clearly. I always love when people are able to do that. Although I don’t know a ton about politics, I think the argument you gave made sense. I think it can definitely be argued that the political divide is shaping into a globalist vs nationalist one. Granted, I don’t have a ton of evidence, but it seems likely, especially in regards to Trump and Harris. He’s always been an “America First” type of politician and she seems to be more of a globally focused politician. Although nobody will always perfectly align into one camp or the other, I think your argument made sense overall. Very well done!
Thank you :)
Nationalists vs internationalists
please do more political philosophy vides they are very interesting, important and informative. i am doing a degree in 'Philosophy politics and ethics'
Id say that the "two sides fighting the most" is definitly an oversimplification. There can be three factions with different ideologies in equal proportion for example.
Two-party factionalism is generally a result of our first-past-the-post voting system
I believe both are important, but to rush into globalism when the world isn't ready for it is a mistake.
In my view, longer form videos are where this channel really excels. You can do any topic, just make more long videos! :-)
Noted.
Ooh, I was just wondering when you guys would post a vid.
This is really the most exciting and needed video of today's time!! 🥲👌🏻🥂
I've known about it since years but with different terms.. Nationalism vs. Internationalism i read more as in India, we had freedom strugglers with both the ideologies but nationalism was / is more popular and known around us i feel 🤔
But, soon i got to know about those freedom strugglers and leaders who carried Internationalism in their core even during 18th-19th centuries when British ruled India and still some leaders had that far and wide vision of a 'one world' for all which really captured my attention as what a Buddhist is taught since childhood about treating every being as our own brothers and sisters 🫶🏻🤍
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the perfect example of such a leader who thinks of the whole world for a peaceful state and happiness while still keeping his own Tibetan community safe and preserved! 🌟
In my opinion so far, i believe in what His Holiness believes in the political lens as we all know his ocean of wisdom and compassion with ancient Indian wisdom along with modern scientific approach to make the best of both worlds 🌎🙏🏻
Therefore, maybe I'm on the middleway as what Buddha taught to reject the two extremes!
Still, somewhere deep down I'm more inclined towards globalism for now due to the need of the hour or maybe due to my short-sightedness IDK 🥲
I'll lie on 50-50 to 75-25 of globalism - nationalism in the coming years I'm sure!! 🤔🫣
Global warming is my top concern as we got only 4-5 years to not touch the few degrees of rise in global temperature which is why I'm vocal on veganism and green energy too ✌🏻🌱
Also, a culture exchange is really healthy in many aspects i feel to educate and aware ourselves of the differences and culture shocks we have around us while preserving our different cultural identity as well since my motherland i.e., Ladakh got really unique and rich culture and traditions to celebrate!
Thus, a perfect world is possible for sure with loyalty, trust, and care for each other from our own locality till global scale but it'll take time and effort for sure with some sacrifices to be made.. and the sacrifices must be done on the material parts which are unnecessary or fall on the greed part more than our needs; not to be made on humanity and making a chaotic world due to misunderstanding of the globalist's approach with weak skillfulness 🥹🤞🏻
May all beings find genuine transcendental happiness and shuns all miseries in lives 🌱🙏🏻🌎
P.S. a leader / union with an ultimate wisdom + compassion for all with a great skillfulness is needed the most for a perfect world keeping both in balance ⚖️🤞🏻
I was too drunk to appreciate this And this is so serious
great video! nice work. you got a new follower
This was f*cking brilliant. Thank you.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
The way i see it goes something like this "Poland (Nation-state based upon particularism)" and "European Union (Empire based upon universalism). Particularism means ancestry, universalism means non-ancestry.
Where did john go?
Can there be a mixture of the two philosophies? For instance , global agreements for only certain issues? Does it have to be one or the other? When there is a threat-famine , war , etc-people , and nations have come together to address it. BUT...the addressing of such threats usually come in the aftermath , with repercussions , such as more nationalism , it seems to me.
Very interesting discussion
Thank you
Fantastic video! Much appreciated!
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Good video. Globalism has been around for a lot longer than you seem to imply. I refer, for example, to the
Settembrini character in Magic Mountain and to utterances of Bertrand Russell in the 1950s.
Well you kinda explain it in a way where one would be an extremist nationalist or globalist, which I guess makes sense if you wanna explain the general idea, but are there many people who would in reality think like that?
I mean if the US has to be selfish in order to be a better place then so be it, I'm tired of living paycheck to paycheck with a normal job and I'm tired of having to worry if I'ma get locked up or not for defending myself... I just want a leader that'll help the working middle class reach their goals more conveniently
After watching it the second time:
Isnt the endgoal of globalism (a global government) also some kind of imperialism? Because constructing such an world government would mean to overcome other powerful nations.
Can you help me in following question below what is relation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and logic arguments making which is more mentally demanding?please answer thank you
I wonder whether we can achieve Kardashev Scale 2.0 someday...
Globalism or more like communism?
What's globalism about WEF?
well this was really dishonest about Harris and her policy plans, she cares about climate change but its way down the list of priorities.
This was a great thought provoking discussion. I do think there is a bit of a middle ground. I would say in general I have more nationalist tendencies the way both are defined. However I'm a leftist atheist and see climate change as a global and American priority, as everyone needs to breath including your nation.
Haven't we learned that there's a vast spectrum between globalism and nationalism. If nature takes the middle ground between up and down and right and left. Why can't we rest in the moderation between globalism and nationalism. Hey, there's a little socialism in capitalism and let's not begin to talk about communism in socialism. Take heed!
I don't think you represent any view accurately here. I don't think anyone holds the views you describe as globalism. I don't think any of the policies you mentioned are relevant to nationalism. Nationalists either favor or reject climate change, immigration, trade or foreign intervention based on the expected relative gain in power for the nation. Concretely, weakening Russia is definitely the nationalist strategy for the US, as it gives the US more power over global resources. Reducing climate change is the US nationalist strategy, although the US has to navigate a prisoner's dilemma.
Nationalists vs internationalist. Yup
how can i care about other people when they refuse to make the right choice?
this matches the economics
I feel in terms of identity I am more of a nationalist but in terms of who I think the government should serve I am more globalist. Reasoning being that if everyone is serving their own interests we will have conflict and a worse standard of life.
The problem is countries have too many problems within their country so I think we should be nationalist until we advance enough to have very minimal issues within to then bring up other countries
i do agree with globalism, but first it must start with nationalism. and after people see how great our country is, then they willingly want to join us.
I have become a stonch nationalist in the last 3 years. I want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to look back on me fondly not the great grandchildren of a nation 10,000 miles away!
Establishment vs anti-establishment.
Are the Laws of Physics the same all over the planet?
Do Durable Consumer Goods, like automobiles, wear out all over the planet?
Where are the economists in every nation talking about the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods? What does unnecessary manufacturing for planned obsolescence do for CO2 production?
Duh, what is *Net Domestic Product?*
Federated Continental States
I m somewhere in the middle it depends 😅
Vive le nationalisme !
Vive l’individuidual !
(Long live nationalism !
Long live the individual !)
11:55
Good lord, the entire comment section skews rectionary and nationalist.
I think that the way you select your definitions has an ethical bias.
I’m not sure that nationalism is the best term for what we have in the United States anyway. Probably more like isolationism, which has been very strong before World War I and between the wars.
Also to me, globalism means more something like integration of separate national governments into something approximating a world government.
And then nationalism would be more about not putting important decisions that affect the people of your nation into the hands of unaccountable unelected bureaucrats someplace that don’t understand your local conditions and problems.
Continental states assembles and federal worlds congress
Open vs closed is a beter term then globalism vs nationalism. The left wing is generaly anti globalist and internationalist apart from social-democrats and social-liberals. Globalism is more a trait of centre-right and centre-left politics.
I appreciate the effort to try and point out how the political divides have changed over the last 20 years, however, your presentation is highly highly oversimplified and ethically biased. For example, if your country’s traditions include western liberal democracy, and that’s important to you, then protecting your country’s traditions would presumably be a good thing and not short sighted navel gazing.
Also, globalism will require the imposition of policies and programs by the use of force by an authoritarian global regime, which presumably you might find undesirable.
being an american is having a shit to of responsibility with the elections it's stressfull
The divide is not "democracy vs dictatorship". Capitalist countries are bourgeois dictatorships, and dictatorships do not require a single dictator. A democratic group of representatives dictates policy, whether they be bourgeois or proletarian, it is still democracy and it is still dictatorial. Both capitalism and socialism are democracies and dictatorships. Further, socialism is a superior form of democracy, as the state represents the vast majority of citizens, the workers, rather than the bourgeois interest.
I guess that the reason why the vast majority of citizens are poor on socialist countries.
Philosophers really fell off after Plato huhh
I mean, ideally you want both, but given the choice, and knowing how human nature is, I vote for nationalism. I'm sorry, but China doesn't care. India doesn't care. These nations don't give a rats ass about us aside from what they can gain, and this naive view that if we just set a better example they will follow has been shown over and over again to not be the right option. We're not robots. We value the preservation of self above all others, and extend it to those close to us. It seems harsh and uncaring, but then again the world is harsh and uncaring, and we need to ask ourselves why we think it needs to be changed.
The ruling class of the US and UK want their poor to believe that globalism is their problem rather than the fact that those countries do very little to help them succeed in the new economy. I swear, no rich country allows the brains of their poorest to rot in poverty like those two, it's heartbreaking.
I am seeing nationalistic, conservative, Christian capitalism in the red corner and globalistic, libertarian, atheistic communism in the blue corner. There are two clear PACKAGES.
Christianity is actually anti-capitalist. You just drank RNC koolaid.
17:15 It's quite complex. The red corner is capitalist from identity concerns, but still socialist when it comes to the state control regulations to conserve the nationalist practices.
woah, this video is so bad and gives so many banal dichotomies for absolutely no reason(?) - with pretty much faulty definitions.
Personally, I am for an ASI-autocracy.
first
Second 😡
@@samuelcharles7642lol
Nationalism is obviously better
How is it obviously better? Please elaborate.
Also, please explain what typically happens when a nation enacts protectionist measures and becomes isolationist.
@@jessetheskeptic601 No one is saying to be ultra nationalist, but as someone who cares about their own country, Its obviously better to be nationalist insofar as not picking sides on a global scale. Really all I know is 'bout me, I got mine, it is simply the most reasonable.
@@jessetheskeptic601 Also, I cannot explain your cherry picked prompt since it is a fallacy from the get-go. Caring about your own Republic is simply better than minding others. In this case specificity does not lend any utility to the goals and standards said today. May you respect the Bill of Rights
@@Aj-yu6ec A middle ground is obviously best. There was for example one case, I can't remember which countries, where one country decided to use a ton of water from a large river that flows into a neighbouring country, who also needed that river. Nationalism says that the first country doesn't need to care, while the 2nd country puts their citizens interests first which means getting that river back so they threathened to start a war over it. It would be better trying to come to an agreement, because countries affect other countries even if they are nationalist.
No it’s definitely not. As he said, it results in more war and mass suffering. In the end they both have equal pros and cons. Globalism is impossible because, ironically, it’s similar to communism in that while good in theory, in some respects, it’s terrible/impossible in practice, or at least the way it’s being done. At the end of the day the world needs a combination of both.
I'm 100% an English nationalist. Let's Make England Great Again
I'm personally more of a British nationalist as it makes sense for the island of Great Britain to be one single political unit. Plus as an Englishman from the North East, I have more in common culturally with someone from Edinburgh than someone from Cambridge.
I live in my country. I want my government to make the place I live better. Why the hell would I vote for someone who would make my life worse so another country can benefit from my labor
Great video!
As a UK resident, I have to say that unfortunately, Brits have become more and more believers of Nationalism in recent years. They were once imperialists, then globalists and are becoming more nationalists.
It's a shame.
What a loss for humanity if the wonderful cultures of European countries were to be lost.
#proglobalism
Guess which side I’m on. I’d point out that proper nationalism respects other nations.
As someone who's made a video recently describing both Capitalism and Communism as Left wing, what makes Capitalism Right wing to you?
I generally love this channel. This particular video was very bad. Innumerable propositions in this video were completely baseless.
The american election, for example, is not nationalist vs. Globalist. Right now, its more cult of personality vs. policy. Obviously trump says he knows whats best for America, but he had 4 years and he showed that he cant do anything for americans except lie and harm them. Vote Kamala.
I don't trust trump 😒
Biden wasn't good either. All of your politicians are snakeoil salesman who work for the oligarchs, not the people. Your "democracy" is just hollywood theater.
The question around Ukraine is open “what is the endgame”? Is Ukraine really going to be able to “defeat” Russia? There’s no way without committing NATO forces. Committing NATO forces likely means nuclear escalation. Could Putin fall? Maybe, but it’s more likely that a more nationalist hardliner would take his place than some kind of pro western liberal democrat. All of those guys have been killed off over the last 20 years.
We are quite lucky that the Ukrainian invasion into Kursk didn’t result in the release of at least tactical nuclear weapons.
I’m really surprised at how simplistic your presentation is in these matters. Generally, your videos are really well thought out.
Obviously, there are more sophisticated reasons to have doubts about how the Ukrainian war is going than “just not interested in Ukraine, or helping out the global order, only interested in selfish local concerns”.