I’m confused by the G-20 protests; specifically those related to protests against ‘globalism’.
It seems that these are the same people that are protesting the trend of ‘nationalism’ as well.
As in ‘we are protesting Trump and others who are leading the charge of Nationalism…we are also protesting globalism…’
Im confused because it seems to me (incorrectly??) that “globalism” and “nationalism” are essentially opposites.
Am I incorrect in my understanding of the terms? If so, please explain so I can understand the mentality.
Is it possible the protesters don’t understand the dissonance?
Young fairly affluent and bored people. That’s all we need to know.
Aren’t a lot of these protesters anarchists? That lets you be against pretty much anything and everything, depending on the flavor of anarchist you are.
Like debates over “free trade,” I’m sure they’d say they’re all for more interconnectedness between countries, but not so it benefits rich people and stifles labor.
You’re also acting as if the only two stances are neo-liberal globalism and nationalism. Would you also be confused if someone were against fascism and communism, or against authoritarianism and anarchism?
Not taking a position one way or another on the G-20 or protests, but objections to globalism are economic/environmental in nature, while objections to nationalism have little to no connection to economic policies; an ‘anti-nationalist’ person probably has no problem with ‘made in America’ products/industries.
I think that we should focus our economies more locally, and I also think that immigration should be easier. Boom, I’m anti-globalism and anti-nationalism. No inherent contradiction.
It’s not like nationalism and globalism are antonyms. You can be against both, for example if you prefer “localism”, or just less government in general. One might be an anarchist, or prefer city-states, or states rights, or tribal rule, or any number of non-nationalist and non-globalist political agendas.