Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Globalism! That is an interesting word which I have seen defined or explained in many ways.
It appears your definition rests in the area of control, external control by the vested financial people the world over.
Woodrow Wilson was not really a Marxist. But at the time, the theories of Marx were not yet discredited. Wilson adopted many of the ideals of Marx - overtly, though not embracing the establishment of the Communist state. Wilson held with the Fabians that a central ruling body with authority over the entire globe was desirous.
Another definition, the one I would tend to agree with, would be the advancement of all economies such that the people the world over would all have the same basic opportunities of safe working conditions, good wages and an elevated standard of living.
Nothing in history has provided the advance in economies that free markets have. Look to South Korea, Taiwan, India and dozens of other traditionally impoverished nations for examples.
As a humanist I believe in an equal opportunity for wealth and economic freedom for all individuals without regard to borders; devoid of external control.
When there is exploitation and predation, to whom do you turn?
I believe the people of the third world deserve an opportunity to have their own economic revolutions such that the standards of living the world over are relatively similar.
Who makes that decision for them? You?
I don't believe one country, or group of countries have a greater right to wealth than any other.
That is because you have the illusion of a giant pot of wealth that exists in the ether to be shared by all.
The truth though is much different; wealth must be created before it can be looted for those you feel more worthy. The countries with greater wealth have it simply because they created that wealth. Yes, they have a greater right, and in fact the ONLY right, to that which they created.