Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international.

It is used by
political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections
of the modern world—and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."[1] While primarily
associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends. The term is also used
by detractors of globalization such as populist movements.

Paul James defines globalism, "at least in its more specific use [...] as the dominant ideology
and subjectivity associated with different historically-dominant formations of global extension. The
definition thus implies that there were pre-modern or traditional forms of globalism and globalization
long before the driving force of capitalism sought to colonize every corner of the globe, for example,
going back to the Roman Empire in the second century AD, and perhaps to the Greeks of the fifth-
century BC."[2]
Manfred Steger distinguishes between different globalism such as justice globalism, jihad globalism,
and market globalism.[3] Market globalism includes the ideology of neoliberalism. In some hands, the
reduction of globalism to the single ideology of market globalism and neoliberalism has led to
confusion. For example, in his 2005 book The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the
World, Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul treated globalism as coterminous with neoliberalism
and neoliberal globalization. He argued that, far from being an inevitable force, globalization is
already breaking up into contradictory pieces and that citizens are reasserting their national
interests in both positive and destructive ways.
Alternatively, American political scientist Joseph Nye, co-founder of the international relations
theory of neoliberalism, generalized the term to argue that globalism refers to any description and
explanation of a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental
distances; while globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism.[1] This use
of the term originated in, and continues to be used, in academic debates about the economic, social,
and cultural developments that is described as globalization. [4] The term is used in a specific and
narrow way to describe a position in the debate about the historical character of globalization (i.e.,
whether globalization is unprecedented or not).
It has been used to describe international endeavours begun after World War II, such as the United
Nations, the Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, and
sometimes the later neoliberal and neoconservative policies of "nation building" and military
interventionism between the end of the Cold War in 1991 and the beginning of the War on Terror in
2001.

Arguments in favour [edit]

Proponents of globalism believe in global citizenship; that is, the problems of humanity can be
resolved with democratic globalism. Democratic globalism is the idea that all people matter, no
matter where they live, and that universal freedom and human rights can be fostered for all mankind.
[5]
 World citizens believe in civic globalism and that by thinking globally and acting locally they can
effect positive change across all barriers.

Arguments against
Arguments against globalism are similar to those moved against globalisation, among which loss of
cultural identity, deletion of community history, conflict of civilization, loss of political representation
and collapse of the democratic process in favour of a globally managed open society. [7] However, the
term "globalist" has also been used as a pejorative for political enemies, on the left within the context
of the 1990s anti-globalization movement and protests, and on the right as a pejorative of
"cosmopolitans" or those who favor internationalist projects over national ones. For example, during
the election and presidency of United States president Donald Trump, he and members of his
administration used the term globalist on multiple occasions. The administration was accused of
using the term as an anti-Semitic "dog whistle", to associate their critics with a Jewish conspiracy