Living beings have two basic concerns, security and comfort. Relative global border security created by the conviction recently crystallized in the mind of mankind, that conquering others is a losing proposition in the long run, has made nations feel more secure within their borders. The broad coalition formed against Iraq in the Desert Storm war portrayed this conviction. This has allowed nations to shift more energy towards material gains, intensifying their productions. To achieve high values for the participants, international division of labor is inevitable, which cannot flourish without massive international trade. As a result, and supported by the fast and massive communication and transportation facilities, the tide of international trade is rising. Thus, progression of economic globalization is an undefeatable factor of today’s life. During this early phase of globalization, some national authorities are trying to keep the tide out. But these efforts are doomed to fail, like the Jackson era attempt of killing the then budding banking industry failed. In a handful number of generations the international trade of material, labor and services will become quite cohesive and will resemble, to a degree, to our interstate commerce.

Prior to the industrial age, cultural influences used to migrate, almost exclusively by face to face human contact, on coattails of trade, as trade requires two way trips to other lands. The story of the Venetian merchant, Marco Polo, provides a vivid example of this. Conquering cultures met with deep resentments from the conquered. The fusion of these cultures was very slow and temporary for the most part. Because of the much slower pace of international exchange of the period, the trade inspired interfacing of cultures was slow and gradual, but the results were cumulative. Today’s fast and massive commodity/information exchange all over the world is merging cultures of the world at an accelerating pace. As cultures fuse together, the ideologies will converge. The more forgiving cultures will merge sooner than the fanatic ones, but the process is non-reversible. As armed violence takes back seat, the culture fusion becomes easier. Man's pursuit of happiness is relentless throughout the times. This will encourage the learning and adopting the good values from others.

Globalism has existed in some form as long as humans have been able to travel over distances and come back, and thus engage in trade. Technology has just made it more doable in recent centuries.

There is no alternative to globalism. What do people expect, for countries to shut their borders down and prevent anyone from coming and going?

I worked for eight years for a company with 'Global' in its name. I used to joke that when they had riots in Davos about the evils of globalism, it was against that company.

One point about globalism is that it provides vast economies of scale for global corporations. Global companies like Apple, who are now again the most valuable corporation in the world (and in history) are able to move and allocate people, technology, revenue, and resources wherever they like in the world. So they can manufacture in places that have the lowest cost and highest efficiency, pay taxes in the countries that have the lowest taxes - and so on.

This does have many obvious pay-offs - after all I don't think anyone can disagree that the technology produced by Apple is truly astonishing. (I think, overall, the iPhone is the most influential single piece of technology ever released.) We can all have high-definition television, guatamelan mangoes, scottish whisky, whatever - it's truly a global village and global marketplace nowadays.

But on the downside, global capitalism has very little respect for culture other than its own. Once modern media and technology become freely available, they will inevitably undermine whatever indigenous culture they encounter. Partially because they're wildly seductive, and because the products of the global entertainment industry (not to mention unlimited free pornography) tend to dissolve traditional culture in a matter of a generation or two.

Globalisation is also, I think, strongly linked with the neo-liberalist view of life - the outlook of technocrats, the modern urban elite, silicon valley and Wall Street. (Have a look at George Monbiot's criticism of neo-liberalism if you haven't seen it.) That is one of the reasons for the backlash against it - in the Rust Belt in the USA, there is a strong sense of resentment that the benefits of globalisation have been so unevenly distributed. What's the use of a high definition television for the permanently unemployed, for those whose slice of the pie has been offshored?

The last point I will mention is the expectations of the vast populations in India and China to have the same kinds of living standards that the West has enjoyed during the 20th Century. The world doesn't actually have enough resources for that to happen. I think this is going to be a major stress factor in the decades ahead, it will be interesting to see how we cope with it.

What do people expect, for countries to shut their borders down and prevent anyone from coming and going? — Marchesk

It's been done, and in terms of world history, seconds ago. In fact, quite a few countries have closed their borders in various ways--take the Great Fire Wall of China, for example. Or Iran pulling the plug on the Internet when things were bubbling over for a bit, or North Vietnam, or the USSR and the German Democratic Republic et al until 1991 -- not very long ago at all.

An interest in "the Globe" and what else might be over the horizon has been around for a long time, true. But "globalism" is more recent -- like, the British, French, Hapsburg, Russian, and various other empires. And "globalism has a much more complex agenda than finding out what surprises might be over the horizon. Like, making sure there are no surprises.

Thanks a lot for stealing all of my thunder. But I did like this highlighted quote in the Monbiot piece

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'

I believe that it should be one of the goals of human society. To be able to coexist peacefully with one another. — MonfortS26

I'll drink to that several times -- "And they all coexisted peacefully with one another ever after. The End." But Globalism as we have seen it in operation over the last couple of centuries, as "peaceful coexistence", has not been very peaceful or even mutually tolerant a good share of the time.

Globalism has become a highly ameliorated euphemism for the same old competition for profits, resources, territory, influence, power, and so forth

That has been on a roll since 1492
When Columbus sailed the oceans blue,
And paved the way for them all getting screwed.

There is an alternate version of globalism that doesn't get mentioned a lot at Davos: "Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, and a world to gain." Labor still creates all wealth, and the working class of the world (which is just about everybody) also consumes most of the goods it makes. It doesn't need Capitalists to exist, thrive, and prosper. indeed, the sooner we get rid of Capital, the better.

Ok, ok, I get it -- not going to happen in your life time. But, NEWSFLASH global peace, motherhood, and apple strudel aren't going to happen in your lifetime either, as long as a few thousand Apples. Exxons, Archer Daniel Midlands, Volkswagens, Gazproms, and any number of hedge funds are toiling over the world to squeeze out the last dollar they can get.

and "IF the lazy blue collar workers in Indiana won't work for 93¢ an hour, somebody in Asia, Africa, or South America will. So fuck you greedy Hoosier bastards -- not willing to WORK for 93¢! We live in a global economy, now. We don't need you sons of bitches."

And, of course, they don't need them.

What are some arguments against/for it?... — MonfortS26

Against:

1.) That it is not universally desired or desirable. Read Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri-Prakash. The edition that I read was the 1998 edition.

2.) It undermines local communities' ability to meet their needs. "The Idea of a Local Economy", by Wendell Berry, effectively makes that point.

I believe that it should be one of the goals of human society. To be able to coexist peacefully with one another. Any thoughts? — MonfortS26

But can anything that has been done to advance global capitalism be considered peaceful?

It depends on your definition of globalism. I personally do not believe the initiative behind globalism has much to do with peaceful coexistence between countries, cultures, religions and even ideas, yet the advancement of western philosophy and sometimes even coercion into complying with it.

If we are talking about global peaceful coexistence, then that is an ideal I would love to embrace but one that should be viewed with fresh eyes and a new philosophy that leaves western politics out of it. However, I do not have much hope for that idea considering the state of the world today is dominated by, as stated above, "global capitalism".

Globalism gives more power to the corporations and less to the people and their governments, completely overturning the meaning and purpose of democracy itself, and the hundreds of years people have fought for it, in just a few decades.

The problem is in accountability. It's much more easier to control your local council at a town hall meeting than a faceless global company that pays its taxes in some offshore entity. That and the inherent corruption and ineffectiveness of major international organisations like the UN and EU gives globalism a bad name. On the other hand we all love the global internet and ultimately benefit from international agreements facilitating global travel, currency exchange and goods delivery. The simple answer is - globalism is good, but it is still to crude to be satisfactory. More accountability and transparency will deprive it from its bias towards corruption and waste covered by secrecy.