I am not a liberal. Left-leaning for sure. This had all the fun of listening to your cool, left-moderate uncle explain the global financial system to you before he starts to speculate on how geothermal tech might work to cool the planet.

This is one disappointing book. First Saul starts defining globalism, he says it's hard to define, and then quits. After that he starts enumerating facts that show how globalism fails, and other facts that show how nationalism, humanism, is the way to go. Only the "facts" most of the time aren't facts. Actually the book is completely devoid of any numbers, strange, considering that the subject is macroeconomy.

So, because we don't know exactly what globalism is, everything that failed is due to globalism, everything that is successful is due to nationalism and localism

The book is also sprinkled with bookish quotations, most of them completely irrelevant. Just to show off I guess.

One thing he touched are airlines, saying that reducing the number of airlines and making them bigger reduces consumer choice and raises prices. What an interesting argument from a nationalist from Canada, where one national company is having the highest prices on internal routes in the world! Would that continue if we would open the market for others?

I could actually start picking on many other things the book covered, but I stop here. I don't think it's worth the effort. Boo!

It really exposed how paltry my knowledge of history is :P

الكاتب هو بروفيسور جون رالستون سول .. استاذ الاقتصاد والعلوم السياسية بلندن ..

من اول صفحة فى الكتاب كان واضح جدا رأيه الشخصى فى العولمة .. شبهها بإبليس اللى اغرى ادم وحواء بالنعيم الدائم وبعدين تسبب فى شقائهم و سابهم يعانوا وخلع ..
.
اتكلم عن ان العولمة ظهرت فجأة فى السبعينات .. وظهرت كشاب ناضج وليس كطفل زاحف .. ودا معناه ان فيه حد كان ورا انتشار العولمة بالشكل الرهيب المتقن خلال اخر 40 سنة ..
.
اتكلم كمان عن الاساليب اللى فرضت بيها العولمة نفسها على كل الدول .. فالداعين اليها كانوا محددين ملامح كل ركن من اركانها قبل ما يطرحوها للناس .. وكانوا بيتجهزوا ليسودوا العالم فى الوقت اللى كان فيه الناس التانية لسة بتتعلم قواعد اللعبة الجديدة .. ودا اللى ادى للفروقات الرهيبة فى فترة التسعينيات تحديدا .. زى مثلا امريكا اللى وسعت اوى الفجوة بينها وبين باقى الدول .. روسيا وليدة الاتحاد السوفييتي اللى انهار .. المكسيك اللى حصلت فيها كوارث اقتصادية فى الوقت دا نقلتها من مقدمة الدول الصناعية الكبرى ذات الاقتصادات الراسخة الى دولة ضايعة .. ومن الاساليب دى حقوق الملكة الفكرية و تدشين منظمة التجارة العالمية سنة 1995 و الاتجاه للسيطرة على اقتصادات الدول من خلال الكيانات الاقتصادية الكبرى الموجودة فى معظم الدول زى شركة ( كوكاكولا - بيبسي - مرسيدس .. إلخ ) .. كذلك خصص لصناعة الدواء جزء منفصل لإنه شافها من اقسى الادوات اللى اتخذتها العولمة للانتشار ..
.
كذلك اتكلم عن تجارب الحكومات اللى رفضت الرضوخ لسياسات العولمة .. زى الهند وماليزيا و البرازيل .. وازاى ان الدول دى نجحت وحققت طفرات اقتصادية هايلة فى العقود الاخيرة .. سواء بقصد معاداة العولمة لأسباب دينية ( زى ماليزيا ) او لأسباب اقتصادية زى ( البرازيل ) ..
.
وفى الاخر اتكلم عن ان الدول كل يوم بتدرك ماهية العولمة اكتر من اليوم اللى قبله .. وان العولمة فى طريقها للزوال .. وقال ان البديل عن العولمة هيكون ( القومية ) .. وقسم القومية لقومية ايجابية عندها استعداد للتعامل مع القوميات التانية وقومية سلبية بتتعامل مع القوميات التانية بنظرة السيد للعبيد .. واستشهد بحادثة انهيار الاتحاد السوفييتي فجأة .. لعبت القوميات دور هام جدا فى انتاج 25 دولة جديدة كلها انشئت بفعل القومية .. كذلك انهيار سور برلين .. رجع دولتين خلاهم دولة واحدة والسبب هو ( القومية ) .. وذكر الاسلام فى مجمل كلامه واعتبر ان القومية الاسلامية تدخل ضمن القوميات الايجابية بالرغم من ارتفاع اصوات الراديكالية ضمن الفئة دى ( المسلمين ) وبيحاولوا يجذبوا المسلمين ليهم وبالفعل بينجحوا فى ضم اعداد لا بأس بها يوميا بسبب الجهل بالدين .. الا ان كل الكلام دا مخلاش الكاتب يشوف ان مكان القومية الاسلامية المفروض يكون ضمن خانة القوميات السلبية ..
.
اخر حاجة قالها الكاتب انه مش قادر يحدد مين بالظبط القومية اللى هتسيطر على العالم فى الفترة الجاية .. لكنه استبعد الولايات المتحدة الامريكية .. والسبب مش لانها دولة لسة معمولة امبارح ومعندهاش قومية وسكانها اصلهم من دول اوروبية وافريقية مختلفة .. بل بالعكس امريكا قدرت تصنع قوميتها الخاصة على مدار القرن العشرين .. قومية ( النسر الامريكي ) ..
.
إلا انه فى التقديم لكتابه فى مؤتمر فى احد الجامعات الامريكية قال ان القومية الاسلامية قد تكون القادمة المسيطرة على العالم الا انها لن تدوم طويلا وستنقسم لقوميتين ..

First book in ages to get me to write a summary to try to remember it:
Globalism is presented as a religion. It is inevitable. Once something is presented without thinking through it, like it must happen, it becomes like a religion. Economists become like acolytes as they have an assumption built-in that free-trade will help capitalism which will make the world a better place. No critical thinking of whether it will lift everyone up equally.

Free trade isn't a pure idea. It started with the corn laws in early 19th century. Corn was expensive, farmers wanted to get the margin, but people were starving. Cheap corn was allowed, so a form of free trade was started. In return though, the british empire went to war to be able to sell opium to China. The chinese didn't want it as it was a harmful drug. The British wanted the profits so fought the opium wars to get it.

British didn't switch to free-trade straight away. Waited until they were strong and had an advantage and then imposed it. Of ex-soviet states, the ones that went straight to capitalism suffered corruption and privatised enterprises for peanuts due to lack of law. Ones that went slowly had more success.

Lots of people live on $2 a day have been raised up, true. But many of those people didn't deal with currency, eg. bartering, people living in villages. Introducing capitalism and forcing people to sell crops to make money has actually made things worse, as they're

This has led to the current lack of belief in experts. If an expert keeps telling you the world is a better place, and its not as you can see with your own advice, then why not believe what a Pauline Hanson says?

Now that political parties take it for granted that globalism is a pure good, it has taken away choice from voters and weakened democracy. Democracy is about citizens making a choice. We're not making a choice, we're choosing who to manage our country. Not lead it. The difference is leading can mean taking an action that doesn't stand up to deep analysis, but is done because it is right. Management especially means managing risk. This is done through quantifying options and understanding what can happen. This reduces everything down to numbers. Eg. poverty isn't a disgrace, it becomes a managed risk.

As globalisation is discredited, countries realise they do have choices and start to make them even if they go against the religion (globalism). Eg. Brexit. Hanson is an example of this, but mixed up with the bad nationalism of fear of the other.


What then do we do as people?
- First thing is to join a society or group that allows us to be part of a community or society. Reconnect with our local people. Positive nationalism?
- Understand that people feel insecure. For the last 30-40 years we've been told globalism is the answer. It clearly isn't which means we need to readjust. Readjustment is difficult. People prey on the insecurities by raising the fear of the other. Talking past people doesn't help. Use the socratic method, understand why people are following the idea. Use stats, but make an emotional connection as well. eg. terrorism is scary. But its scarier when you think that a majority of homicides in Australia (75% between 2010 and 2014) were caused by someone that the victim knew.
- Don't belittle others regardless of their views
- Concede that there is no easy answer. Its not the government controlling everything, nor the market doing everything. Different scenarios require different solutions. Markets that naturally tend to monopolies, eg. energy, banking, require so many regulations and warping of the marker that it can be easier for the government to administer, especially if it is a public good. Yes there will be waste. There's waste in private companies too!
- Have compassion for people left behind. People are dropping through the safety net. Globalism says that it shouldn't happen and would only happen through laziness or lack of trying. Reality is not everyone can find a job.

A functional and lucid exploration of the shortcomings of Globalism and Neolib/Neocon theory!~

Saul gives an absolutely fantastic overview of economics from the Leftist position about what led to Globalism. However, if Saul’s intended and clearly set out thesis for The Collapse of Globalism was about “pro–active choice,” then he nearly completely failed to deliver what he had said he would.

This book is about our ability to choose. It is also about where those choices might lead us. To believe in the possibility of change is something is something very precise. It means we believe in the reality of choice. That there are choices. That we have the power to choose in hope of altering society for the greater good.

Yet, Saul does superbly deliver the process of the development of Globalism and outlines how our individual power of choice has been undermined by larger entities.

“Soon these servants of the public good were calling citizens; clients, stakeholders or taxpayers.”

Saul’s solutions to globalism are very limited and to that extent so are the relevant indicators on how to re-balance our sense of choice as both came in quite weakly at the conclusion of the book under the heading of, “Positive Nationalism;”

Answers for globalism provided by, "Positive Nationalism:"

1.tAssumptions of nation states ensuring that they are citizen based, focused on national common good and on developing binding treaties in a range of areas at the international level.

2.tTransience of many populations needs to addressed

To which he adds a concluding proviso; “However, the vacuum of next 25 years will be dominated by the most powerful,” which nearly completely nullifies any possibility of directing any change driven by the power of individual choice.

Answers from Positive Nationalism for inculcating greater social responsibility:

1.tNow the message is sustainability and equality.

2.tChange awaits as human potential for self-confidence (grows)

3.tIf people who know each other well serve the welfare of their fellow citizens they may learn that there are two advantages 1. That they discover how different they are 2. How similar their values are.

This is simple pandering to the counter-argument of, ‘sustainability.’ This is simple kowtowing to pop-psychology. This is an easy out of, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

At least at the end of his other book, The Unconscious Civilization, he gave a more specific set of objectives. Despite the fact, that many have been co-opted.

Perhaps by burying the issues of choice, by making them as blasé as he could get away with, Saul hoped to avoid being co-opted by the powers that be. And/or maybe he hoped his readers, would simply be so enlightened by the historical machinations of the elite that propelled Globalism revealed in this book, that it would generate the type of change that he envisioned.

More so, I think that Saul’s, Collapse of Globalism was written to document the effects it has had to date on societies for the sake of prosperity, to have a record of how societies came to be ruled by the most powerful and by the end of debate.

He does say after all that, “When you look carefully at society you find debate has always been about seeking equilibrium between social obligations and individual right.”

Saul hints at what thing we can do, but does not expand on it, instead he hides it away in the description of Globalism; ACTION AS REFUSAL.

Yes, Saul does describe six concrete points that arise out of the ideology of progress or read the "continuation of ruler-ship by the most powerful," which can be used by those who already possess some power to reckoned with to try and counteract the relentless impetus of progress.

The six points are:

1. Power as consolidation - mergers and acquisitions.

2. Normalized dumping is an economic tool to bring prices down artificially.

3. Inverse dumping is an economic tool to artificially raise prices on things like technology.

4. Internal shipping - where companies secretly outsource their purchases by seeking the cheapest parts possible. For example - the hidden market of recycled goods sold as being new.

5. The fact that there does exist other alternative and successful economic models.

6. Unfair taxation as the result of economic blackmail by corporations - if you don't keep taxes low we will simply up and leave your country.

Perhaps, I am just a pessimist. But then again Saul doesn’t write anything to really back up his initial claim that he was writing a book about choice. As a matter of fact, Saul writes about the loss of individual choice, and I think he shifts the onus of choice onto those who are already in positions of power.

Okay, I’m done being a Debbie Downer. Phhheeww, do I ever need to take a break from reading political manifestos. It just makes my head spin and have an increased feeling of dizziness [no not ditziness (lol)]

I give this intensive read a 3.9, as it dances around the fact of who the intended audience should be and fails to deliver what it promised at the very onset - giving the reader a false expectation.

However, it should be a recommended read to all those in positions of power. I will recommend it to my MP.

للأسف أسلوب الترجمة أو الكاتب نفسه سىء جداً، بتجاهد عشان تربط الأفكار ببعضها. سهل جدا يتشتت تفكيرك فى منتصف القراءة.

dibaca karena kewajiban untuk book assessment. agak sulit untuk dimengerti, sebuah buku yang mengulas politik dan ekonomi dengan cara bercerita seorang pujangga.

Such a good read. I read this twenty years ago and found it enlightening. I’ve picked it up again and makes even more sense 20 years later. Goes a long way in explaining where we are today and the impetus behind the rise of populists and right wing parties, the anger towards progressives. The scary thing is that despite the warnings and some high profile protests over the past 20 -25 years the larger corporate bodies have only become more powerful and dare I say it, care even less about the “common good” or the disappearing middle.

A frustrating book. The author requires extensive background information on his own works as well as others in this genre. Not for the novice.

الكتاب ده بكل بساطه عظيم