So is it always nationalist to resist US globalization? The US thinks it is, and wants you to agree; and, moreover, to consider US interests as being universal ones.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Globalization is not a monolithic force but an evolving set of consequences - some good, some bad and some unintended. It is the new reality.
On the contrary. Internationalism also recognizes, by its very name, that nations do exist. It simply limits their scope more than one-sided nationalism does.
Globalization means we have to re-examine some of our ideas, and look at ideas from other countries, from other cultures, and open ourselves to them. And that's not comfortable for the average person.
The benefits and consequences of globalization have a great deal to do with whether we're intelligent and thoughtful about how we approach globalization, or whether we're blindly accepting... or blindly resistant.
The 'anti-globalisation movement' is the most significant proponent of globalisation - but in the interests of people, not concentrations of state-private power.
It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity.
I really believe in a globalist agenda, but globalization isn't just allowing companies to trade freely all over the world. It's about what types of rights and responsibilities come with that.
Globalization doesn't have to be a bad thing as long as government provides us all with the tools to cope in a changing world.
People now realize that globalization is not only for the multi-nationals and the circulation of money.
Ironically, xenophobic nationalists are utilizing the benefits of globalization.