Talk:Internationalism (politics)

Citizens of the World?
There has long been a cultural movement which is to apply principles of rights and morality etc without regard to national boundary. Examples are people who consider themselves 'citizens of the world' etc. That's not at all "cooperation between nations" which seems to be the definition of internationalism according to this article. So if I surrender the terminology to the authors of this article, what is the proper term for the movement and advocacy of encouraging people to see themselves as one of the people of all the people of the world, rather than one of the people of particular nation? JimCrayne (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Cobden
Was not the Free Trade movement on the 19th century "internationalist" e.g. Richard Cobden. I think the use of "internationalist" in this article is debatable.

I agree. I've added information about Cobden.--Johnbull 16:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Socialism
The article needs enhancing to make it clear whether internationalism doctrine is essentially non nation-state socialism, or whether the objectives of internationalism are sought by many means, depending on the adherants points of view: i.e. some believe that internationalist aims may be met purely by socialist means, whilst others perhaps believe that those aims may be met by more "right-wing" policies (ignoring the issue that some people may claim that right-wing style policies are by their nature nation state focussed, a point that is no doubt itself of some debate). --jrleighton 09:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Washington?
George Washington may have been opposed to internationalism, but I don't think that this point should be stressed as much as it is in the article. It seems heavily biased toward the American perspective.

I agree- especially considering tha this is about internationalism rather than anti-internationalism. --khello 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason it it is "biased" towards the USA is because this encyclopedia is run by an American company, on American designed servers with most internet users being American. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your own **** country.--MAP


 * Why, how internationalist of you. --Solers (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya I wonder which country MAP is from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.216.62 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request
Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed some sections
I've removed some sections which made some POV claims.

"...as well as to strictly economic globalization movements which deny the value of other nations' culture and differences."

Until this has a source, it should be removed, as it contradicts the section on British internationalism below.

"Contemporary free market globalization is not internationalist. It promotes purely economic integration, while ignoring the political and social aspects. In addition, it promotes a very different economic system than the one advocated by internationalists. The Left speaks more and more of a "globalization of solidarity". The modern anti-globalization movement is internationalist in nature, and often advances the notion of alter-globalization."

Again, blanket statements which are probably incorrect. I am almost certain that you can get capitalist internationalists.--Nydas 06:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

UN section extremely biased.
This goes without saying: the United Nations section of this article is beyond biased. The entire thing is a diatribe against the UN and saying how miserably it has failed at nearly every political mission. Plus, the US funding issue does not belong in this article, especially considering its status as a talking point for many anti-UN people, especially anti-UN conservatives in the US (not that conservatives using that as talking point is wrong, but it doesn't belong in an unbiased encyclopedia).

This section is a disgrace to Wikipedia and to the many UN supporters and internationalists on this website.

Lmao, how much we fund the UN is a matter that is relevant and needs to be discussed. that fact is unbiased. The rest of the section is biased, but true. Add to it if you think its one-sided. Talk about how (expletive) perfect it is, how much of a sucess it has been, or lack thereof. Everything I said about the UN is true and confirmable, just not via the "internet". This is blackspy47, standing by every single word he said.

Post Script--Try the following link---http://www.jbs.org/, There are many sources there, but the URL doesn't change every page, making citations imposssible... And I have no books on the matter yet. Lol, just wait.............

Quality of article
I think we all can safely say this article is crap. There are too many contradicting articles, it has no order, it makes no sense, someone obseses about the British, why? We also need to diversify it, make a controversies & criticisms section & make it a little less biased in all respects. this is blackspy47, still standing his ground, but requesting a reviewing of the article. For now, m8s, LMAO O o Nubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.249.161 (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a pro-internationalist to help write it. It appears to have been written by a bunch of staunch realists or rationalists, who thought that a bit of internationalism-bashing would be in good order. I am not an internationalist however, I agree with the above statement; this article needs a good makeover and I will do what I can to fix it. Help by adding some more references and more balanced information. Flipper24 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a fresh start from the beginning. Calling Internationalism "a political movement" is inaccurate (internationalist aspects can be found in diverse and sometimes contradicting political ideas). It is partly confused with cosmopolitanism. Parts of it are biased. A good article would need to focus on the very problem of defining internationalism accurately, trying to give a structure to the problem. IMho its better to delete whatever is there atm. Rgds. Reisender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.141.7 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

China Tarifs -WTF?
"What assists in this argument, however, is the fact that China subsidizes their industries 17%, keep their currency artificially low and tariff American goods.[2]" America extensively subsidises it's industries as well, and countries with "free trade" agreements with the U.S. are not compensated for those susidies (I'm thinking of agricultural subsidies here especially). As such this China bashing (under the mask of weasel words) seems disingenuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.158 (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is quite bizarre nonsense. Getting rid of it. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Internationalism ?
The article starts with "Internationalism is not necessarily anti-nationalism, as in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China" but it doesn't discuss the topic, Proletarian internationalism being mentioned at the end. Strange. Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Chinese Internationalism"
I deleted the paragraph under Other Uses for the following reasons:
 * The provided reference in no way supports the assertions made, which would be editoralizing at best
 * A cursory Google search combining the terms China and Internationalism don't bring up any supporting articles within the first few pages either, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the person who added it was Just Making Shit Up. 111.240.176.3 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
This article is lacking a 'Criticism' section (except for a bizarre subsection discussing Derrida and Shakespeare entitled 'Literature and criticism'. I can only assume the 'criticism' referred to here is literary criticism, not criticism of the ideology), a glaring immission for an ideology/ideologies as significant as this/these (cf. the article on 'Nationalism' which has extensive criticism of the concept). There's certainly abundant criticism of internationalism (as a theoretical concept, as distinct from criticism of the operations and practical consequences of Globalism, for instance) out there. Therefore, a section outlining some of the common should be added. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There was no internationalism as a formulated concept before Karl Marx
Internationalism was not born in Britain, and especially not in the kitchen of the classic 19th century liberalism, where nationalism and racism was not only popular, but formed the mainstream liberalism. Many racist politicians fully supported free trade, especially in the USA, and in the colonial Empires, where the colonalism based on racist conceptions.--Creator Edition (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is correct. Britain has born colonialism and its in direct conflict with internationalism. For example, the racial laws have been abolished in British African colonies only in 199x.85.197.11.179 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Richard Cobden had racist views
He believed in superior and inferior races. See PAGE 200:

Bibliographic information

Title	Reminiscences of Richard Cobden Authors	Julie Salis-Schwabe, Richard Cobden Editors	Julie Salis-Schwabe, Salis Schwabe Compiled by	Julie Salis-Schwabe, Salis Schwabe Publisher	T. F. Unwin, 1895

LINK: --Creator Edition (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The article try to narrowing the beginning of internationalism in the Western civilization to the "Free tade"
It is completly FALSE interpretation. In the Western World the internationalism had ancient roots in the medieval and early modern era Catholic Church.--Creator Edition (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)