The globalist and the populist

‘You’re breaking society apart with your conformation to the big powers’ said the populist to the globalist.
‘It’s you who’s causing the problems.’ answered the globalist. ‘by turning your back to the emerging global organs of power, you not only weaken yourself, but also others. The market is growing beyond your control and we need to confront it as a single, global unity.’
‘You’re the one who’s opening the market up’ said the populist. ‘You’re giving it space thrive and by that, increase its catastrophic impacts on the environment and society. Do you call that confronting? You’re only making it worse!’
‘For one thing, we need international collaboration to protect the environment. The problems have grown to a global scale.’
‘But that collaboration fails! Have you seen how oil companies act, now that all international trade agreements have basically given them carte blanche to drill and frack wherever they can point their pin on the map? Just the local resistance groups have been effective against that at times. International trade lets it happen.
‘Local groups can stop things temporarily, but they cannot make a judgement call on what is important and what is not. After all, it’s the people who want the oil, it’s the people who buy it. Do not be hypocrite here, you’re the ones who beg for it. The markets cannot drive on solar energy yet, it simply isn’t effective enough. Besides, there are more dilemmas we have to face together. Together we can combat climate change, together we should stabilize the war zones and together we can feed the world’
‘The arrogance… Can you not see it? You’re flying far too high. To think that you can solve these problems with a global order while you’re truly just kissing the feet of the same people who are wielding the scepter and making it worse. It’s the power you’re after! Not saving the people or the animals and the plants. Once you have your position, there is no change’
‘You see, that’s where you’re wrong. I mean, yes, indeed, there has been little change in the sense of the reform we need. But neither has there been a truly global power to establish that reform. We’re divided by people such as yourself. We are trying to build something bigger, something better, yet you undermine out plans time and time again.’
‘Us? Isn’t it clear how much you are messing up? You’re destroying countries with Machiavellian power games’
‘Not true. We’re building an alliance that is capable of dealing with the problems of the future. Sure, there have been victims, but they are few if you look at what we are trying to attain. You, on the other hand, would be ready to see society crumble, leaving us all incapacitated. You’re fuelling a false sense of autonomy, a false feeling of power and democracy. You’re thriving on a rush of popularity, a sense of individuality and the adventure of short-term success. What you want reminds me of films such as Fight Club and V for Vendetta, or Mr. Robot. But those films always end when the power falls. What comes afterwards? They are false flags of freedom. Freedom is what you receive if you’re safe and nourished. That’s what the big authorities are for.’
‘Those films are popular because the global powers have become our main threat. You’re not the protector, but the aggressor. We’d be perfectly fine if it wasn’t for your threatening policies. Do you think it’s the people who created nuclear weaponry? Do you think it’s us who are bringing down the banks? Do you think we are causing the ecological crises? We are pawns in your game, and we no longer want that.’
‘Well, if we failed to have properly regulated the markets so far, then that’s one thing. But as I said, you are the market! No one would pump the oil from anywhere if you didn’t buy it. The banks would not have fallen if it wasn’t for the people’s desire to earn money on houses. Nuclear arms wouldn’t exist if there was no nationalism to fuel it. It’s the small people with their tiny ideologies, not globalization and cooperation’
‘Globalization is not cooperation’
‘It can be’
‘But it isn’t! It’s dominion of a small group of people over a large one.’
‘Well, it’s not possible to create a single global organization for 7 billion people at once, right? Globalization is young.’
‘There we have that arrogance again! No, of course it is not possible to create such an organization, and it’s not desirable either! What happened to diversity? You are making us into a mass of people who are all the same, all slaves, numbed by the satisfaction of their desires. Let the locals sort things out! Sure, we can work together when necessary, but our collaboration should be the result of negotiations, not on orders of some global power.’
‘And what if those orders would be based on justice and security? How are the small states going to negotiate with the big ones if they don’t have protection from above? Will they not be swallowed by their bigger neighbours?’
‘Again, it’s the markets that swallow us, the greed that society propagates, not our neighbouring countries.’
‘A globalized society gives the chance to protect the weak from that greed. We can protect regions from catastrophes, fight undernourishment of children, give healthcare to those who need it, but only if the thriving regions support that type of justice. On the long run this will not be possible purely with nation states. They would increase their battles for the resources, people would keep suffering worldwide. Survival of the fittest nation, every one for itself. Be honest, just reign by the people does not exist. They would come up for their own individual benefit. Look at how they go as customers.’
‘Indigenous peoples are a perfect example of how such a world would be possible. They have lived for eternity without damaging the environment. Indeed, it thrived with them in it.’
‘Their numbers were far lower, they died at young age. They suffered when nature was unkind to them. Modern times have made us independent from these issues. We can now intensify agriculture to a degree that we can truly nurture a growing population.’
‘While incapacitating them. You take away their land, make them work with machines they can’t afford, using complex organizational knowledge they don’t have. You’re keeping things centralized and by that ignore all those who live outside of your reach. Those who do not adhere to your demands.’
‘Yes, but is that wrong? The centralized approach is by far the most effective way of producing anything. People living in cities use less energy, footprints are far lower if agriculture is concentrated and far less land is needed that way.’
‘But it doesn’t have to be that way if rural people are self-sufficient. If they get organized locally. We can go a long way with permaculture.’
‘They’d still want computers and internet. They’d still need schools and hospitals. They’d still want the newest Iphone and the best cosmetics. They simply have become dependent by their own choice. They’ve traded autonomy for luxury, and they do not want to trade it back. Your ideals sound great, but they require sacrifices people don’t want to make’.
‘No, they’re not. They’re based on genuine disagreement with the globalist road towards more inequality. Rejecting that doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting all trade, or merchandise from neighbouring countries. It does mean stepping back from certain all luxury. Some, maybe, but there are plenty of people who do that. Just look at the movement of vegetarians and vegans.’
‘And yet a lot more people don’t step back. To cover that, a more solid and efficient trade structure over the globe could highly decrease their impacts.’
‘The rich will get richer and the powerful more powerful’
‘We create benefit for everyone. It is in your own interest to join such trade. It supports the wealth of everyone.’
‘On the short term, maybe, but not on the long one’
‘We’ll generate more money!’
‘And take a bigger proportion of it, while it loses value.’
‘And yet your comfort has been rising. Remember how it used to be? People lived in the mud. No hot water, no electricity, no hospitals. People would kill each other! If you wanted protection, you’d have to give a proportion of your food away. No-one checked on the lords. International cooperation has improved all of that. Living standards are higher than ever, and governments check on each other. There’s peace now.’
‘That’s true, but it doesn’t mean we should keep going this way. Further protection does not add to our freedom; it undermines it. Just look at the national security agencies who are taking more and more of our privacy away. The global which-hunt on whistleblowers. The feudal powers have just moved up some levels and are gathering momentum to control us in a whole new way. ‘
‘Using justice for everyone, what is wrong with that? Isn’t it more sensible to create a global democracy, instead of many little local ones? The way it is now, the people in the powerful countries vote about the destiny of the people in the weaker countries. Powerful leaders look after the benefits of their own countries, not those of the global people as a whole. Wouldn’t it make far more sense to elect a single global leader?’
‘No. Power corrupts, and you know it. The more you centralize it, the bigger the risk that it goes in the wrong direction.’
‘Not under proper regulation that avoids abuse.  On the contrary, in that case. Then the different groups balance out each others power. That’s how we can create a stable, just global society.’
‘No it’s not’ said the populist
‘Yes it is’ said the globalist
‘No it’s not’ said the populist
‘Yes it is’ said the globalist
‘No it’s not’


3 thoughts on “The globalist and the populist”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.