Phew, I need to sort this out for myself... I’m not entirely sure whether your criticism or concerns are directed at globalism or globalisation. Perhaps the two are getting mixed up?

I regard nations and borders as arbitrary, artificial constructs, mostly arising from armed conflicts. Nevertheless, people within nations feel a need for a certain degree of homogeneity – those famous shared cultural values.

Now, migration and the ‘mixing’ of populations are taking place…

Apart from the fact that I’m a great advocate of freedom of movement, open borders, free trade, freedom of establishment, etc., and actually welcome the trend, I see a weakness in its implementation in that there is ONLY this opening up and no fundamental change. In other words: of course an entrepreneur will minimise his costs by choosing a low-wage country for his production (to hell with health and safety, social justice, environmental issues, etc.). Yes, in some cases he simply has no other option – either he remains competitive or he closes his business.

Okay, that’s a gross oversimplification; in the age of multinational corporations and international consortia, there are entirely different mechanisms at play.

All of this reduces so-called globalisation to absurdity. For it does not serve to improve living standards or safeguard human rights across the globe; it is a market tool. One of many. Just like war, for that matter...

Nevertheless, the principle behind it remains something to strive for: an end to nationalism, an end to border disputes and restrictions. One can always dream... ;-))