There was a time, not many years ago, when globalization was something that everybody loved to hate. A fact of life since the age of global empires, the concept entered the language only some twenty or so years ago, and at first when it was brought up, it was almost exclusively in negative terms.

Now, only a few years on, the debate around globalization or globalism seems to have stopped entirely. Most recently, the Leave victory in the Brexit referendum and the emergence of Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate could have done something to reignite the debate around the pluses and minuses of a globalist world, the one envisioned by the most progressive elements of our human civilization, but this has hardly been the case: everything that we have seen in the most respected Western media outlets seems to be the endless display of a worried regret over the reemergence of “nationalism” as a political force as opposed to the only truly progressive idea of globalism. This wholehearted endorsement of the globalist credo seems to be naive at best.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a truly global world civilization, guided by the principles of humanity and mutual enrichment of different cultures, a world of shared prosperity, where everybody contributes according to its talents and receives according to its merits, where every country and cultures contributes to the welfare of the world with the best it has to offer, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a truly multicultural world civilization instead of world wars? Of course it would. This dream of a bright future seems to be very far from the realities of a global world order however. It seems difficult enough to organize and govern societies in small, “civilized” and relatively prosperous countries: the task of ruling a world population of 7 billion people appears frightening. Or better said: “ruling” 7 billion people would not be such a big problem; guaranteeing that the every single individual feels part of the political process or at least creating the illusion thereof would be far more difficult.

The globalist project could learn from its criticism. Instead everything that remotely might indicate a not unconditional approval of the global world order is relegated into the “extreme right” category and is equated to “nationalism” and “populism” by a group alpha journalists and leading opinion makers who stand high above the common people and see themselves in charge for the direction of our future and as defenders of our precious democratic values of our open societies. A globalist world does not seem to a truly multicultural world but rather the extension of the Western world and of its values: in this respect globalism is just another word for modern day colonialism.