Okay. Let's start from the premise that the phenomenon of globalization cannot be avoided. But globalism (-ism) as an ideology promotes that all exports and imports (necessary or not) are good because the free market is good for material development in general (the economic specialization thesis). The question I ask myself is: Does Orbán differentiate between necessary and unnecessary exports/imports? (Using unnecessary as any import and foreign capitalization that can be reproduced locally. For example, if a plantation or some type of commodity can be produced in Hungary, then its import is not necessary, nor is foreign capitalization because whatever it is, it can be produced by a local organization—public or private enterprise).
That is what defines whether Orbán is a globalist or not in post-liberal terms. Because that's what progressives and liberals do, and they are criticized for it (both of whom accept globalism in its ideological sense, that is, they don't recognize globalization as an economic phenomenon, but rather actively promote it for deliberate economic development).
In the case of accelerationists, it's a little harder to define because there's a conflict between commodities and technological development. On the one hand, they admit the need for the exploitation of raw materials at a global level, but they seek technical development in terms of techno-nationalism (digital sovereignty = national sovereignty).
>There's a small section of it for the local oligarchs to fight over it.
Okay. That's inevitable; businessmen and politicians capitalize on it. In Uruguay, the former president's family owns properties in the eucalyptus plantation, which is where the pulp for the Finnish company UPM is extracted. UPM opened two factories in Uruguay, the first with the approval of leftist governments and the second under the former president. There are similar examples all over the world, and it's part of the favoritism we've been discussing.
Unrelated pic, but it made me laugh.
