Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey people,

I have this project in my social class about internationalism,

Anyone have any ideas or examples of it?

I am doing a lot of searches but some help will be really nice

Thanks os much!

Can you define your term a little more?

what do you mean?

Define internationalism.

Umm...Its like EU,when countries come together in a bigger group to form an alliance
But I need more informations on it

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=internationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III


...no ?

We really are going to need a slightly smaller/more defined set of criteria to go off of here I'm afraid.

Any advocacy of greater connections between states is internationalism. There have been more specific meanings throughout history, but that's the general meaning of the term. In the contemporary period it is tied very closely to the concepts of globalization, and free trade.

I could really do with a "Dakka is not here to do your homework" picture.

Hitler...?

brilliant observation.

lol is he?

Yes, that is Hitler. And yes, that was a jest.

But dogma has it most correct. Globalization would be as close a definition as you can get.

I would argue from a business perspective that globalisation is to do with reducing trade barriers while internationalism is to do with reducing barriers between nations.

I thought Tony meant Multiculturalism...

Kilkrazy wrote:I would argue from a business perspective that globalisation is to do with reducing trade barriers while internationalism is to do with reducing barriers between nations.

True, globalisation is the biggest part of modern internationalism, but it is only part of it. I wouldn't describe it as a drive to reduce barriers, but a drive to have nations working in co-operation for mutual benefit. International Courts and the drive to solve global warming and the like through mutual commitments are internationalist efforts.

Tony, I'd just start something about internationalism coming out of British liberalism of the 19th century, as a belief that if mutual trade increased to such an extent that national economies became completely intertwined with other nations theb everyone would get rich and stop fighting. It's come into the modern age more or less unchanged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

Of course, Hitler and fascists rise to power came out of fear of concern of the internationalism of communist Russia...

Internationalization would probably involve one of several things (and this may rehash was others have said, but this is my perspective gosh darn it!) but I believe it to be a more political integration of the world:

The integration of the world's nations and ethnicities into a more closely knit community, where barriers of nation-states, race, religion, class and economy are dissolved. This would have to be an impractical dream, as to get to that point, you would have to overcome the human reaction to people different from them. If anything, history teaches one that if you are different from other people, something bad often follows.

Globalization is akin to Internationalism. Globalization can be defined in several different ways and could mean different things to different people. For instance, third wave feminists see globalization as a way in which women from the non-Western world become more prominent in terms of their participation in the debate and integration of their side of the story into what has been a generally Western led discourse (i.e. Mary Wollstonecraft, the early 20th century push of women in America to get the vote, ect.).

Globalization could also mean the destruction of the region in favor of the international. For example, Vandana Shiva is an advocate of local food production and consumption for the reason that large multi-national corporations threaten the viability of food in terms of diversity and local flavor. Advocating a decentralization of the process by which food is grown shipped and consumed globally, she hopes to spare local people the ravages of a globalization effort that displace local people who used to grow food and force them to live in slums, effectively making them dependent on people who took their ability away to grow their own food.

In short, globalization seeks to reduce barriers as well. Internationalization sounds more like a political aspect of globalization.

WarOne wrote:Internationalization would probably involve one of several things (and this may rehash was others have said, but this is my perspective gosh darn it!) but I believe it to be a more political integration of the world:

Internationalisation and internationalism aren't the same thing. Internationalisation is an economics term, referring to more or less the same thing as globalisation (the distinction basically being internationalisation is used in economics debate, whereas globalisation is used by everyone and so is used to refer to all the impacts of globalisation). Internationalisation is the result of individual companies expanding their companies across the world seeking profit.

Internationalism is a political movement, based around the idea that countries benefit from political and economic co-operation. It looks beyond economics and into political, legal and other bodies. Interpol or the UN would be in this mould.

The integration of the world's nations and ethnicities into a more closely knit community, where barriers of nation-states, race, religion, class and economy are dissolved. This would have to be an impractical dream, as to get to that point, you would have to overcome the human reaction to people different from them. If anything, history teaches one that if you are different from other people, something bad often follows.

That really, really depends on the context of the interaction, and is really, really not the only lesson one can take from history, unless you limited your studies entirely to war and never to the vast trade networks man has always built and maintained.

sebster wrote:Internationalisation and internationalism aren't the same thing. Internationalisation is an economics term, referring to more or less the same thing as globalisation (the distinction basically being internationalisation is used in economics debate, whereas globalisation is used by everyone and so is used to refer to all the impacts of globalisation). Internationalisation is the result of individual companies expanding their companies across the world seeking profit.

Internationalism is a political movement, based around the idea that countries benefit from political and economic co-operation. It looks beyond economics and into political, legal and other bodies. Interpol or the UN would be in this mould.

Well, that would me grossly using the wrong term. Internationalisation should be internationalism. Was trying to be slick by modifying the word without context to the economic terminology and rammifications of what a change in the word would mean.

sebster wrote:That really, really depends on the context of the interaction, and is really, really not the only lesson one can take from history, unless you limited your studies entirely to war and never to the vast trade networks man has always built and maintained.

A sweeping general comment I made about history. Both good and bad things happen. I believe I would fail to characterize all the things inherent in encountering people different than you, for whatever reason. Economic ties only placate relationships for so long. In your example of trade relations, vast trade networks amount to a redistribution of wealth, which while indicative of the flow of money and the ability to handle negotiations with civility, does not account for the aftermath, which could be resentment for that said redistribution of wealth, perception of cultural differences, ect..

The point I make is that interaction always comes with consequences. Example: European involvement with overland trade routes to locally unobtainable goodds is compounded by heretical Islamics during the Middle Ages. Consequently, we have "bad things" that happen which I agree depends on the context. Europeans go exploring for a way to circumvent the Muslim world, and by accident and intent millions suffer from catastrophic invasion, disease, famine, war, ect. ect. ect..

Good trade benefits both partners and does not lead to a one-way redistribution of wealth.

What's happening at the moment is that the first world is defining a lot of the terms of international trade for its own benefit.

Kilkrazy wrote:Good trade benefits both partners and does not lead to a one-way redistribution of wealth.

Agreed. Benefits for both. However, what has happened historically to trade?

Complex commercial investments ranging from individuals to groups of people all the way up to nations and transnational trading blocs attempt to gain an advantage for themselves. A trade scenario where one side benefits and the other does not is not so much trade as it is exploitation. Trade in them sense is nothing more than robbery and shouldn't be considered trade at all. A good deal of the time, it is an exploitative economic relationship that is the result.

That does not mean it is always that way. Within a nation, many citizens usually trade a good, serivce, or form of currency in order to get a good, service, or currency in return. The system is not complicated by as many boundaries. For the most part, this is a normal relationship that does not become exploitative. However, if it does, we have a system in place where people can organize and pool their power into unions and agreements under the rule of law which are intended to make everything fair (it is almost never always equal, but if one thing America does for instance is attempt to make things equal for all and level the playing field- that is what American has tried to do well in).

In international relationships, things get more complicated. Societies and ideologies change the way people percieve benefits and risks of a decision. China for instance sees freedom in a different context than America does. So does our relationship in terms of trade and money. The disparity that may be because of the gap in goods and services flowing across the ocean leads to a complicated matter where who is to say who is the one really being exploited.

Kilkrazy wrote:What's happening at the moment is that the first world is defining a lot of the terms of international trade for its own benefit.

It has to be the job of the third world to fight back against this imbalance. Countries that are at a disadvantage must find solutions. While a powerful country may talk of changing the status quo, how willing are its citizens going to be to not have the same luxuries as it once had following any changes the government may implement?

Id say ask one of those crazy bible fanatics to help. You know the ones that swear the sign of the end of days is when one side of the world joins into a super duper power, against the other side of the worlds super duper power. Im not sure on the specifics, as I always zone out when people start rattling on with that crap, but that sounds similar to what your looking for

Kilkrazy wrote:I would argue from a business perspective that globalisation is to do with reducing trade barriers while internationalism is to do with reducing barriers between nations.

If you reduce trade barriers you necessarily reduce barriers between nations, at least in a liberal system.

Internationalism is about the reduction of barriers between states, not nations. There is a subtle, but critical difference.

To present an example from another thread:

If the US were to open its southern border, and make checks against citizenship more stringent, we would move from an ideal of national sovereignty to one of state sovereignty.

Associations: the EU, NAFTA, CAFTA
Military versions: NATO, SEATO, Warsaw Pact
Extrapolitical: UN, "coaltion of the willing", Axis and Allies Powers.

WarOne wrote:A sweeping general comment I made about history. Both good and bad things happen. I believe I would fail to characterize all the things inherent in encountering people different than you, for whatever reason. Economic ties only placate relationships for so long. In your example of trade relations, vast trade networks amount to a redistribution of wealth, which while indicative of the flow of money and the ability to handle negotiations with civility, does not account for the aftermath, which could be resentment for that said redistribution of wealth, perception of cultural differences, ect..

Cool, but I'm not sure I hold to your idea that a meeting of cultures necessarily needs to have conflict. It can, sure, but it can also involve a sharing of ideas and values that makes both societies better.

The point I make is that interaction always comes with consequences. Example: European involvement with overland trade routes to locally unobtainable goodds is compounded by heretical Islamics during the Middle Ages. Consequently, we have "bad things" that happen which I agree depends on the context. Europeans go exploring for a way to circumvent the Muslim world, and by accident and intent millions suffer from catastrophic invasion, disease, famine, war, ect. ect. ect..

Yeah, but that's only if you focus on the violence of one specific point. I think that's an unfortunate result of history that typically studies the most exciting bits like the battles - we tend to get a skewed idea of how bloody our history was.

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would argue from a business perspective that globalisation is to do with reducing trade barriers while internationalism is to do with reducing barriers between nations.

If you reduce trade barriers you necessarily reduce barriers between nations, at least in a liberal system.

Internationalism is about the reduction of barriers between states, not nations. There is a subtle, but critical difference.

To present an example from another thread:

If the US were to open its southern border, and make checks against citizenship more stringent, we would move from an ideal of national sovereignty to one of state sovereignty.

Well, it is quite clear that the focus of the international economic system in general -- dominated by the major western nations -- is on allowing western companies to take advantages over the developing world.

There is an insistence on free movement of capital, allowing the wealthy west to invest in (and thereby own) profitable businesses in developing countries. Meanwhile, local products such as sugar and coffee, are prevented from free entry into the western world by a variety of tariffs and domestic subsidies.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, it is quite clear that the focus of the international economic system in general -- dominated by the major western nations -- is on allowing western companies to take advantages over the developing world.

There is an insistence on free movement of capital, allowing the wealthy west to invest in (and thereby own) profitable businesses in developing countries. Meanwhile, local products such as sugar and coffee, are prevented from free entry into the western world by a variety of tariffs and domestic subsidies.

I would argue that the current system is imperialistic, at least in a transitional sense, rather than internationalist.

There are many internationalist voices, but not many internationalist policies. At least not ones that don't fall under other classification umbrellas; eg. Wilsonianism.

Yes, that's my point. Globalisation as currently practiced is actually an economic imperialism, though in a better world it might be a component of benign internationalism.

I hope we've given Tony The Guardsman enough material to start his essay.

sebster wrote:

Cool, but I'm not sure I hold to your idea that a meeting of cultures necessarily needs to have conflict. It can, sure, but it can also involve a sharing of ideas and values that makes both societies better.

Conflict can be by definition not a terribly violent and bloody murderous encounter. Competition such as bidding for futures oil contracts occurs on a daily basis, but you don't see people shooting nukes at each other because one person from the United States outbidded a barrel of oil from a Chinese guy because they believe the oil will be more expensive in the future.

Indirect contact can also be nonviolent. Look at the ancient empires of China and Rome during the late BC, early AD timespan. The Silk Road is one major thoroughfare in which both empires received indirect economic access to one another and in turn being largely ignorant to the political entities of their respective spheres of influence, never came into direct conflict.

A more modern example is the relationship between the United States and France. Before the US existed, France was engaged in a direct war with the territory that would become the United States. Thirty years later, they sent ships and men to America to fight the British. America and France had a relatively peaceful relationship to one another up until the post-Cold War era when as a part of the EU, France came more frequently into political conflict with America over international politics.

Another example of conflict: Mongolia and America. When Mongolia was under Soviet influence during the Cold War, don't think that most Americans lumped Mongolia in with the rest of the Iron Curtain countries as those allied with the Soviets and ergo considered apart of the Cold War conflict, despite what little contact or knowledge we had of Mongolia and the relatively isolated position it was in between Soviet Russia and Maoist China.

sebster wrote:Yeah, but that's only if you focus on the violence of one specific point. I think that's an unfortunate result of history that typically studies the most exciting bits like the battles - we tend to get a skewed idea of how bloody our history was.

History is ripe with destruction and war and death and famine and disease. While the point I made there was that there is consequences for every action, oftentimes it is negative; especially in today's world where the negative is highlighted, underscored, increased to size 108 font and turned into best sellers and the news at ten o clock.

We talk about the Victorian Era for instance as the great, shining period of England's ascendant star as the premier power of the world, where the sun never set on its empire. After we wax the poetics, then we delve into the darker aspects of this time period, such as the rampant resentment of foreigners in London as the nation became a cosmopolitan nightmare, where eugenic arguments started to form where respectable middle class people and intellectuals began fermenting the rubbish of race and physiological differences. We see the rampant slaughter of natives by advanced technology, the exploitation of resources, the horrors the empired endured with the disgrace of the Boer war, and the end of this era when WWI began.

While I am sure that most people went about their lives without too much conflict, historians love to read into how these people were ignorant jerks who ignored the plight of slaves before slavery was abolished, the Great 'tater Famine in Ireland, the resentment they had to sexual exploits, the hypocracy of some of these people from the previous issue, and all the flaws and traits these people exhibited magnified to exponential size that one must marvel at how evil these people were rather than how wonderous and industrious they became.