Talk:Localism (politics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

Contents 1 Article 2 Articles for Deletion debate 3 Left Wing? 4 Different definition 5 Overhaul 6 Merge Localism (activism) 7 Christian Democracy? 8 Peer review request 9 Localism in Thailand 10 Sufficiency Economy is not Self-Sufficiency Economy 11 Localism in Thailand is extremely biased. 12 Localism is not a Self-Sufficiency Economy

[edit] Article

This article sounds like someone trying to explain their own POV. I believe the topic itself could be expanded, but atm all the article contains is a rather poorly written list of beliefs of localists. I myself have no knowledge on this subject, but maybe others can help shape this article better. Infinity0 ^talk 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. It seems to border on Regionalism, but with more Marxist thought in there. I wonder whether it actually is anything mroe than a made-up term. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it either, and localism is a term used in such a wide variety of situations it's hard to locate it through an online search (this may be a possible source). It desperately needs some references to demonstrate that it isn't just one person's political philosophy, and failing that could be a potential afd. Ziggurat 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of this ideology before, but I am unsure of a specific name; Localism perhaps. Or it could also be a term coined in order to present the ideology on Wiki in a formal manner. The fact is, there are many factions across the political landscape and it is difficult to describe all of them in a straight forward fashion. Also, it can be difficult to find formal or academic information regarding such ideologies. You might note that this ideology coincides I image with that of the Amish. I know that the Amish are quite strict on the idea of migration and local obligation, for example. I haven’t seen this issue discussed under socialism before - migration rather than immigration that is. I know liberals preach free movement and that communists have a history of limiting free movement, but the ideology presented herewith is not centrally organised like any flavours of communism I am aware of. Indeed, this ideology is the exact opposite of centralisation. Anyway, I have no problem doing some research on this in order to find sources that coincide with this philosophy. I certainly don't think it belong under any other sections on Wiki, but I might be wrong as communism is composed of many frations many of which I am unsure about. I also don't think the link to New New Localism belongs here. This is a satirical piece with respect to the machinations of Tony Blairs's New Labour.Polzsa 04:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this article is just one person's view. Or maybe the author isn't American, and I'm seeing this from another country's perspective. To me, localism is the political viewpoint that the primary control of government should be at the local (or a more local level). For example, an American localist may prefer the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution, because the States had, in effect, more power than the federal government, allowing the most powerful unit of government to be the one closest (or closer) to the people. Such a position is hardly left-wing, in my opinion, as this article states. 1 February 2006

Seems very biased, POV and sloppy - oddly mixed in with a really quite interesting article... I have never heard of Localism before - and wouldn't expect it to mean what the article claims. Googling dosn't bring anything of relevance which can inlighten the subject. My guess is this is someone with too much time on his hands - pondering while people are leaving small town America.
Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good seed to build from. I know of this idea-- It's talked about often in the US. I think there could be more balence-- ie. some critical views-- however this is not "just one person's idea" --it's just a rather new idea that is only gaining traction recently. futurebird 03:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The article has been overhauled since the above comments (see bellow). If you have any referances to discusions and critisms of "Localism" please feel free to add to the article.--JK the unwise 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to definition it. You must read his speech at this website. http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1997/1204.en.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.26.33.108 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left Wing?

in the article on left wing politics there is a list of varietys of left wing politics, the article claims this is a left wing ideology but I'm not to sure, does anyone have any concrete reasons why it is.

I think it's Right Wing, it's very similar to National Socialism which is obviously Right Wing. --RabbidRabbis 04:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Left wing ideologies are concerned with the general well being of an entire society, while right wing ideologies are individualistic. This ideology is clearly left-wing and makes reference to eliminating global poverty. For example, it calls for self sufficiency. It also calls for bartering between different regions as a means of eliminating the corruption associated with cash transactions.

National Socialism is very authoritarian in nature, while this system is more democratic than the type of western democracy that most of us are familiar with, as it gives people real power over their own affairs. The people themselves form the government rather than elected politicians.

Opponents of migration are not always motivated by racism. For example, many people argue that migration of young people from rural America to urban areas has resulted in a liberal drain, and this results in a social split which is distructive to society. --Polzsa 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Localism isn't even nationalist nevermind NS... --Localist 02:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different definition

According to an article in the Socialist Workers Party's Journal, "International Socialism" Localism is defined thus:

"an idea widespread inside large parts of the environmental movement. The thrust of [which] is to seek an answer to the problems created by globalisation in the existence of an internationalised economy as such rather than in capitalism as a specific mode of production. The remedy is sought in calls to minimise international trade and to seek to establish economies based on ‘local’ self-sufficiency only."
Feedback: Transport and climate change—a reply to James Woodcock

According to George Monbiot writing in The Gaurdian:

"localisation", (which he implies is the policy advocated by Localism) is "the proposal that everything which can be produced locally should be produced locally"
The myth of localism

According to Alan Milburn Labour Party MP localism is

"making services more locally accountable, devolving more power to local communities and, in the process, forging a modern relationship between the state, citizens and services"
The need for a new settlement

--JK the unwise 12:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

I have given this article a bit of a beating. I have tryed to make it reflect the fact that there is no homoginous political philosophy called "Localism" rather that there are varrious differnt types of "Localism". I have provided some more ref's to give a flavour of the differnt views of Localism and I have ripped out most of the POV oringal reasarch. I have removed the reference to the Telegrath article on African corroption as it is not diffectly about Localism. Hope you pple think that I have improved the article. --JK the unwise 13:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am about to do some more work on this. I think I can help with history. Certainly there are many "Localists," and the term "Re-localization" gets thrown around as well, although that already has a fairly long disambiguation page. Ethan Mitchell 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this can become a good article. In my overhaul I didn't whant to be too harsh so i left in a few unsourced claims. However, re-reading the article some of these appear to me to be quite contencious, notably "Some Localists are also against the idea of offering refugee status" and "Some Localists are against political intervention and peace keeping measures". Feel free to remove these sections if desire so takes you (or alt' find sources for them).--JK the unwise 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Localism (activism)

Localism (activism) is about Localism as a political practice and as such should be merged with this article. Neither article are particulary big. Also it would give help this article show the divergent politics of localism.--JK the unwise 09:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, makes sense. I support the merge. -- infinity0 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• support the merge, and great work on overhauling the POV aspects of the article JK! Ziggurat 18:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Democracy?

I see no evidence that "localism" has anything in particular to do with Christian Democracy, why should the template go here?--JK the unwise 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 11:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear readers, both thai and not thai,

I am 100% thai people who know that, our beloved king Bhumipol Adulyadej, is doing the right thing for his thai people.

The Sufficient Economy is the philosophy which is proper for our society. All of his Majesty the king's life, he works hard, he works for his thai people to live better and live happier.

Thaksin Shinnawatra and whoever, who hire some bad writer to blame our beloved king. Please know that you are doing wrong.

What you did will be destroy all your life. I wish to see in this near future. No more light that can enlighten your heart to find the way out. Your life is darkened by the bad side of capitalism. You do everything for what you want, you don't know what you can do and what you "Can't"do.

TAXSIN - You are not farang who don't know who to respect. You are thai, but, you are the lotus under the deepest ground of the well!!!

All readers, all writers, I beg you to STOP!!! Don't talk if you don't know about it clearly. I think you don't like for sure if people who don't know you well, but critic your idea in the bad way.

For thai people who blame my beloved his majesty the king's sufficient economy. May karma will bring you to hell as soon as possible. You don't know what you're doing. You're critic the best people who do everything to help thai people, including you!, live better. If you are so stupid that you don't know what is the good thing you should do, please change your nationality!! You are not good enough to be thai!!!

100% Thai who respect His Majesty the king Bhumipol Adulyadej.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.24.150.191 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Localism in Thailand

The whole section on localism in Thailand is so POV that I think it should be deleted. Any objections?Makerowner 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section is a point of view. I believe that the source is an article in the Economist dated 11 Jan 2007 (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8521976). The Economist's point on lèse-majesté in Thailand is wide off the mark. The test of lèse-majesté under the Thai Criminal Code is the same as that of libel case against private citizens. The penalty for lèse-majesté is however much harsher, i.e. 3 to 15 years against a maximum of 1 year for libel cases. The viewpoint expressed in the section also does not reflect King Bhumibol's own words. "อันนี้ ก็เคยบอกว่า ความพอเพียงนี้ ไม่ได้ หมายความว่า ทุกครอบครัว จะต้องผลิตอาหารของตัว จะต้องทอผ้าใส่เอง. อย่างนั้น มันเกินไป แต่ว่าในหมู่บ้าน หรือในอำเภอ จะต้องมีความพอเพียง พอสมควร. บางสิ่งบางอย่าง ที่ผลิตได้ มากกว่าความต้องการ ก็ขายได้"

(I said before "sufficiency" did not mean that each and every family must have produced its own food and spinned its own cloth. That would be too much. Nevertheless there must be a reasonable level of sufficiency in a community or a district. Some items that can be produced more than required can be sold.) This comes from the king's birthday speech in 1997. Anybody familiar with Michael Porter's recipe for local competitiveness will likely see some similarity. "Demand conditions at home have much to do with whether firms can and will move from imitative, low-quality products and services to competiting differentiation." (Porter, Michael E. Cluster and Competition:New Agendas for Companies, Governments, and Institutions. In Michael E. Porter (ed.), On Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Books. 1998) Both the king and Porter are against "race to the bottom" competitiveness strategy. 58.10.167.149 12:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Visoot Phongsathorn (visoot@phongsathorn.net)

From an Australian currently living in Thailand, I agree a little. The section could maybe stay, but be rephrased to be far less negative. Like the word "propaganda" has many negative conotations - perhaps "agenda". Also, the reference to the law for speaking against the monarchy is bit far-fetched! It's one of those laws that hasn't been enacted for many years. The principle behind this "self-sufficiency" is not a bad one for Thailands current state - they need to look after their people first. That's part of the whole push - us first (people, local communities), rest of the world after. It's being portrayed here as very one-sided (e.g. localisation is a silly political idea that the Thais are against, but can't speak out - this is far from the truth).

It's a reasonable idea for Thailand or any country. Australia had and has a policy of buy Australian made - isn't this a semi-localisation policy? Just a bit more country-wide but is relatively anti-globalisation (as this article sees it). As an interesting side-note - this also ties in with idea of sustainability. The ideal of having enough to meet the needs of today without compromising future needs meeting. One of the approaches is to have things locally made and provided. - Belinda (in Thailand) 58.64.17.2 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I am Thai who cannot speak freely in my own country, cannot talk freely in my office with colleges, cannot express my opinion freely because of the "lèse-majesté", so are a lot of Thais. If this law is lifted, Thailand will be in a chaos for sure. We have been waiting for the right time. Things change. No good old days anymore. The monarchy has reached its highest since June last year. People love the king but feel so upset with the military government backed up by him. What foreigners heard from Thai media is a delusion, a propaganda. The truth is not speaked out, especially words from the grassroot.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.64.54.154 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

---* The truth is not speak out is the time during TAXSIN and his group are government.*---- All grassroot is cheated by TAXSIN's advertising way!!! Everyone knows that!!! TAXSIN bought the TV's business, he fired every reporters who blame his management. Luckily Khun Sonti Limthongkul is speak out via his website and his cable. Right now, thai people is smarter! We don't want TAXSIN to be back. What he always do is to blame and discredit our beloved his majesty the king. TAXSIN knows that if thai people is uneducated, his business will be growed up. But, our beloved king is trying to educate his thai people, so, the bad TAXSIN can't bare about this.

I am speaking with people all over the world!!! TAXSIN is not a good people. He is lunatic and he's trying to compete with our beloved king, which, he can't win. Thai people who can catch him up, never want him to come back to Thailand. So, please not support him. Let this bad millionnaire face his faith. Don't pay attention to him. Let him know that doing bad things will face the tough life like this. You can help thai people by ignoring him.

Please come to thailand and get to know us. You will know why we really adore and respect our beloved king, and why, we really hate TAXSIN!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.24.150.191 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Please read the speech of our king before you have any critics.

http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1997/1204.en.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.26.33.108 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Please read the difinition below. The word sufficiency has another meaning, a wider meaning. It does not only mean self-sufficiency but also means to have enough for the individual to live on. This sufficiency was mentioned to those who were present here, in this hall-when was it? 20 or 24 years ago, in 1974. From 1974 to 1998, it is 24 years, isn’t it? On that day, I said that we should strive to have enough to live on. To have enough to live on, of course, means sufficiency economy. If everyone has enough to live on, everything will be all right. Furthermore, if the whole country can subsist, the better it would be, and Thailand at that time was on the verge of insufficiency. Some individuals had plenty, but some had practically nothing. In the past, there was enough to live on, but today, impoverishment is creeping in. We must, therefore, implement a policy of sufficiency economy so that everyone will have enough to live on. This sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual. This is another interpretation of the sufficiency economy or system. Last year, when I mentioned the word sufficiency, I mentally translated it and actually spelled it out as self-sufficiency; that is why I said sufficiency for the individual. In fact, this sufficiency economy has a wider meaning than just self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency means that the individual produces the things to fulfill his own needs without having to purchase them from others; the individual can live entirely on his own.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.26.33.108 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February, 2007.

Please stop blanking the section Localism in Thailand as it has useful information for many Wikipedia users. This topic should only be discussed on the Localism as Political Philosophy alone, not talking about the former Thai prime minister, Thaksin. Anyone are free to discuss the usefulness of the self-sufficient economy. However the downsides are also discussed here, and it must be retained. I would comment that this is not the place where you, the vandals, should exert your ideology over it and ruin every hard efforts people make. If you want to criticize any political figures, please go to their pages on Wikipedia. This page is for the discussion of the merits and weaknesses of the philosophy, not for criticism of irrelevant persons. Again, do not vandalise nor delete the section, and any irrelevant information should not be put here.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jane12345 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Localism in Thialand has been vandalized by many abusers. I found a deleted section that is interesting. This section has been deleted by an abuser. I want to ask all of you that this section should be remained or not. This section is interesting because it states the contradiction between the King and his philosophy. I quote it below for you to comment. This contradiction would strengthen the belief that his philosophy is only political philosophy (not economical philosophy at all) that is proposed for political gain for him.

"Localism in Thailand is the concept that is proposed by the Thai King. Even he advocates for the refusal of excessive consumption of consumer products, but he is one of the richest man in Thailand. He have several palaces spreding around the countries, mansions in others countries, land, stock, private jet, private train, even private train station, etc. Members of the royal family also have their own palaces and are very rich. Royal family life-style sharply contradicts to the philosophy that the King try to educate Thais, which they spend much money to fulfil their wants and live extravagant life."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaksin (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

The above section should have been deleted and I think it's not the abuser deleting it. Because those quote is not true or maybe it has only a partial truth. I am a 45-year-old Thai national and I think I have seen enough to comment. Although the King and the Royal families own many things in Thailand but they didn't live extravagant life at all. Most Thais know how the King has been living his life. He has been giving to Thai people since the first day and still. You could prove it by seeing all the King ceremonies happened in Thailand or just searching Thai King. You will sense how much Thai people loving him. I wish there would be no more abusers to set up bad things for our King. He is too good to face that.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.9.1.88 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

My first impression towards the article of Localism in Thailand is that it is strongly biased. It must be written either out of the writer's total lack of understanding or his intention to discredit the king. Many parts are even not true. We, Thai people, never feel that the sufficiency economy is a god-given philosophy and never just follow it because of that reason. Thai people do not belong to the ancient period. On the contrary I think only those who are really far-sighted and highly spiritual, (and thus can be called 'truly modern') can understand the real advantages of such a philosophy. I strongly recommend that Wikipedia should delete the article or at least do something that make it look unbiased. There have been many people trying to explain this to you but you just ignored their comments. What is the use for this discussion page then? I don't want to see this Free Encyclopedia serving a specific group of people with or without its consciousness. Don't keep discreting yourselves this way.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.120.207.59 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that people are right or they are wrong which is based solely on your peception. There is no true or fault theories but creditability and convincing theories. I would not discuss further on the issues relate to writers' intention or writer's political ideologies, since it is not relevant. Every wikipedia users have the right to express their own views even their views contradict to your first perceptions of the theory. I may warn you; DO NOT try to blank nor to vandalise the page just because some contributors have different ideas. Come again if you have convincing arguments.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaksin (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I am in total agreement with Thaksin (the previous poster, not the real Thaksin!). Nearly all this article is written in an unprofessional POV style. This needs to be eliminated. To the people here making threats and insults because others have dared to discuss the King of Thailand, please remember that other countries practise freedom of speech and thought. We respect your nation and its laws, please do not try and push your own thought control onto internet articles. Fact, logic and reason will not go away just because you want them to.

Many parts of the article contain strongly-biased POVs rather than facts. For example, the statement explaining that the king's philosophy is to legitimize his and the royal family's extravagant life has no proven evidence of the relationship between such two things and bluntly jump to the conclusion. Whether it is an abusing act on a neutral free encyclopedia for political or personal purpose, I think any intellectual person reading it will be able to figure out. However, what I can say myself is that a judgement without trial deos not deserve to be anywhere in civilized world.

[edit] Sufficiency Economy is not Self-Sufficiency Economy

King Bhumipol's Sufficiency Economy ideology is not a self-sufficiency one. It did not totally reject globalization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.136.73.107 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

By what basis, do you conclude that the King's philosophy is not Localism? You should have the clear understanding of Localism, especially its aspect as an political philosophy. Thus you will figure out that the King's philosphy is exactly Localism.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaksin (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I do not believe that the person writing this has any concept of what a Sufficiency Economy is or the history of it's development. I need to get to a printer so I can hash through all of this ranting. Then I will sit down with the UNDP report, a text on Buddhist Economics and the papers presented at the Buddhist Economics conference in Ubon Ratchathani in January. Maybe I can get it worked out before the end of the week. I have to spend Tuesday touring 2 long standing Sufficiency Economy Communities (but wait....this "theory" is untested...)LindaNowakowski 10:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Localism in Thailand is extremely biased.

The whole section was edited by Thaksin (talk · contribs), who is obviously a Thaksin supporter. He also has an axe to grind with King Bhumibol. All of his edits praise Thaksin's policy while comdemning the King and his theory in every aspect. I've never seen such biased POV edits before in Wikipedia. It should be critically reviewed, otherwise it will become Thaksin's propaganda page.

Sadly, people who understand self-sufficiency philosophy well enough is Thai people. Worse yet, perhaps no Thai people truly understand the real meaning of the King's idea. People have their own interpretation while the government uses it to promote their own agenda. I've found the UNDP report on sufficiency economy written by Chris Baker here. We should use it as the primary source to correct all those slanderous claims. - DTRY 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient, since it is a philosophy and has not been proved yet we should wait and see what will happen after the philosophy has fully been thrust. For me, I open my mind for new arguments from both sides whether or not it is applicable. I just delete the disputed notice for now, since there have been two section dedicated to the proponents and the opponents already. For those who want to support the philosophy please put it in the correct section, and it applies for the opposite as well.

It's not a matter of whether the philosophy has been proven or not, but whether we are telling the facts, and being NPOV. I think I'm going to RfD this. 203.155.58.254 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the localism in Thailand section should at a minimum be removed to its own section. This topic is fairly broad and having such specific information in at such length is distracting. I'd prefer to move the section and reference it in the article. - ryandwayne (Oct 28, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryandwayne (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Localism is not a Self-Sufficiency Economy

Whatever a self-sufficiency economy is, it is not clearly defined in the text here and yet is being redirected from an article title to that effect. The whole section on Thailand is distracting to the concept of localism and is not clearly written. I think the Thai section and the redirect from Self-Sufficient economies should be removed. I'm not clear what a SS economy is, but I am clear on what what the idea of localism is. Maybe localism is a part of that economic theory, but they are not one and the same. --Ryandwayne 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after input from the helpboard I decided to move the section in question to "Thailand Sufficiency Economy" where it can be debated at length if it is NPOV or not. Now, we can focus on cleaning up the localism (politics) page...I have a few sources I'm going to bring soon, just want to figure out how to best approach it. --Ryandwayne 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)