The whole "it's inevitable, so just accept it" argument about globalisation --to me, at least-- sounds eerily similar to the hype surrounding the whole AI thing.
"It'll change the world for the better, and usher in a new Paradise! But we can't let China beat us, because it'll be the literal Apocalypse! Oh, and you can't stop any of it, either."
I guess our Age is doomed to never learn from its own mistakes...
This was an interesting article; glad I came across it. All the best, my friend.
Thank you! I really like your comparison to AI. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. But yes, I think with AI as well as globalization, the aura of inevitability makes it harder to address the real dangers. I guess the question is this... in the '90s there were ways to actively resist globalization if you wanted to (not just to mitigate its harms), but people didn't take them up. *Are* there ways to stop AI? My concern is that if, say, the US and EU governments halted AI research, you'd just get the Chinese government doing more of it and getting an advantage, and that doesn't seem like a win.
It's funny you should bring up Ukraine purely in the context of irredentist conquest, because the Ukraine War is much more significant in this globalization context. The Euromaidan Protests in 2014 that set all this off were fundamentally a demand that the Ukrainian state globalize and integrate into the dominant Western order. The government they overthrew had a nationalist self-interest and prioritized the quality of the deals it was offered by foreign states over the ideological agenda of the foreign states that were offering the deals.
That Ukraine's hard turn to globalization directly led to a political situation that looks like something out of the early twentieth century is an irony we really shouldn't lose sight of. It's not even like globalization can be argued to be democratic the way late twentieth century capitalist leaders implied. The Euromaidan Protests overthrew a democratically elected government, and the current one doesn't even have elections at all anymore.
Interesting take. In retrospect the pre-Euromaidan Ukraine government looks like it was a surprising precursor of the world now emerging - which is not to say it was a good thing.
It's a good question. The answer is that it's complex: there are benefits and drawbacks to each. My biggest objection is to the way globalization was effectively forced on us for decades: the claims of inevitability allowed people to sidestep the question of when and whether it's good or bad. And whenever that question is sidestepped, the result usually winds up worse than it had to be.
Given that you have reservations to forced globalization, what are your objections to growing nationalism and reciprocal tariffs? I know it's a complex issue but I'm hopeful that you might consider writing a longer piece explaining your own stance more definitively. I guess many people (myself included) have inchoate ideas of what the words globalization or nationalism and/or tariffs are. These ideas and systems are usually not completely supported nor rejected by most people, the details matter. Unless one is a complete Libertarian or Communist, many fall somewhere in between and can shift on particular policy. I guess I think it would be helpful if you wrote in more detail what your policy prescriptions might be, or at least lay out in more detail these issues. I just found you through DeBoer and enjoy your writing.
Thank you! Very happy to hear you're enjoying my writing. On your question, a start is this: I agree with the "most people" you describe for whom the details really matter. I have no objection *in principle* to tariffs. They can serve many useful purposes, from protecting vulnerable local industries and jobs to avoiding dependence on a potentially hostile foreign power. But they do raise prices and hurt overall economic growth, so you have to use them delicately, carefully, in a way that is really targeted to the goal you're trying to seek. As far as I can tell, everything Trump has tried to do is the exact opposite of that: showering out tariffs left and right without even being clear about what they are supposed to accomplish, let alone whether they are actually going to accomplish it.
My approach to nationalism in general is similar: I don't think that nationalism, including cultural nationalism, is necessarily a bad thing (though there are clearly many cases where it has been). I explained some of that reasoning in this post last year: https://loveofallwisdom.substack.com/p/our-home-and-native-land
I was amused during the last election cycle in Canada when one of the Conservative platforms was that Canada would be prepared for another pandemic with domestic vaccine production. Which is a neat trick, running on fixing what they f'ed up under Mulroney. Isn't neo-liberal economics wonderful?
It seems to me that you should read these three references on the now Globalized world wherein everyone and everything is instantaneously interconnected.
The whole "it's inevitable, so just accept it" argument about globalisation --to me, at least-- sounds eerily similar to the hype surrounding the whole AI thing.
"It'll change the world for the better, and usher in a new Paradise! But we can't let China beat us, because it'll be the literal Apocalypse! Oh, and you can't stop any of it, either."
I guess our Age is doomed to never learn from its own mistakes...
This was an interesting article; glad I came across it. All the best, my friend.
Thank you! I really like your comparison to AI. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before. But yes, I think with AI as well as globalization, the aura of inevitability makes it harder to address the real dangers. I guess the question is this... in the '90s there were ways to actively resist globalization if you wanted to (not just to mitigate its harms), but people didn't take them up. *Are* there ways to stop AI? My concern is that if, say, the US and EU governments halted AI research, you'd just get the Chinese government doing more of it and getting an advantage, and that doesn't seem like a win.
It's funny you should bring up Ukraine purely in the context of irredentist conquest, because the Ukraine War is much more significant in this globalization context. The Euromaidan Protests in 2014 that set all this off were fundamentally a demand that the Ukrainian state globalize and integrate into the dominant Western order. The government they overthrew had a nationalist self-interest and prioritized the quality of the deals it was offered by foreign states over the ideological agenda of the foreign states that were offering the deals.
That Ukraine's hard turn to globalization directly led to a political situation that looks like something out of the early twentieth century is an irony we really shouldn't lose sight of. It's not even like globalization can be argued to be democratic the way late twentieth century capitalist leaders implied. The Euromaidan Protests overthrew a democratically elected government, and the current one doesn't even have elections at all anymore.
Interesting take. In retrospect the pre-Euromaidan Ukraine government looks like it was a surprising precursor of the world now emerging - which is not to say it was a good thing.
Curious, you seem to denegrate globalization - yet also denigrate nationalization - where do you stand on globalization? Good/Bad?
It's a good question. The answer is that it's complex: there are benefits and drawbacks to each. My biggest objection is to the way globalization was effectively forced on us for decades: the claims of inevitability allowed people to sidestep the question of when and whether it's good or bad. And whenever that question is sidestepped, the result usually winds up worse than it had to be.
Given that you have reservations to forced globalization, what are your objections to growing nationalism and reciprocal tariffs? I know it's a complex issue but I'm hopeful that you might consider writing a longer piece explaining your own stance more definitively. I guess many people (myself included) have inchoate ideas of what the words globalization or nationalism and/or tariffs are. These ideas and systems are usually not completely supported nor rejected by most people, the details matter. Unless one is a complete Libertarian or Communist, many fall somewhere in between and can shift on particular policy. I guess I think it would be helpful if you wrote in more detail what your policy prescriptions might be, or at least lay out in more detail these issues. I just found you through DeBoer and enjoy your writing.
Thank you! Very happy to hear you're enjoying my writing. On your question, a start is this: I agree with the "most people" you describe for whom the details really matter. I have no objection *in principle* to tariffs. They can serve many useful purposes, from protecting vulnerable local industries and jobs to avoiding dependence on a potentially hostile foreign power. But they do raise prices and hurt overall economic growth, so you have to use them delicately, carefully, in a way that is really targeted to the goal you're trying to seek. As far as I can tell, everything Trump has tried to do is the exact opposite of that: showering out tariffs left and right without even being clear about what they are supposed to accomplish, let alone whether they are actually going to accomplish it.
My approach to nationalism in general is similar: I don't think that nationalism, including cultural nationalism, is necessarily a bad thing (though there are clearly many cases where it has been). I explained some of that reasoning in this post last year: https://loveofallwisdom.substack.com/p/our-home-and-native-land
Now that I think about it, I've also said some things about it in this older post about a nationalistic teacher of mine: https://loveofallwisdom.com/blog/2018/03/lessons-from-a-favourite-teacher/
I was amused during the last election cycle in Canada when one of the Conservative platforms was that Canada would be prepared for another pandemic with domestic vaccine production. Which is a neat trick, running on fixing what they f'ed up under Mulroney. Isn't neo-liberal economics wonderful?
Yes. It's amazing how short-sighted the globalization-is-inevitable approach looks in retrospect.
It seems to me that you should read these three references on the now Globalized world wherein everyone and everything is instantaneously interconnected.
http://beezone.com/current/the-big-picture.html a 1995 talk
http://beezone.com/whats-new the Dark Engine/Force that now patterns & controls the entire world