hey, could I ask you to try to condense your thoughts a little? I don't mean to be disrespectful but I don't think I could respond to everything if the paragraphs get long.
> I feel that it lays the ground work for something that could be much more controlling
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying, because the UN cannot dissolve nations for the exact reason that it's a UNION of NATIONS. What I mean here is that every decision which the UN makes is ultimately predicated on the consent of involve nations, whose first imperative would be to preserve their status as such. So the UN has little reasonable ability to enact "truly" globalist policies, at least to a meaningful, end-nationalism-and-capitalism extent.
That said, I would agree that the UN can become more controlling - however, If the UN does become more controlling, it would be on the terms of economically / militarily dominant nations such as the United States, who already exert a high degree of influence within the UN. This would preserve or even extend the nationalism of those nations, and demonstrates what a particular kind of globalism really is: imperialism, with a humanitarian mask.
>Most multinationals though, who are at the center of international trade, don’t give a damn about the state.
but they do, as you said earlier: they rely on governments to function. multinationals don't give a damn about PEOPLE, who often get conflated with the state or the nation but realistically wouldn't give a damn about it if they had the option not to. The result is multinationals promoting policies that takes a particularly influential people, usually the close circles of their own CEOs, and puts them as the heads of state in powerful countries. Typically, this is as easy as befriending the heads of those countries, if they aren't already among their ranks, because that social structure existed before multinationals or capitalism. "loyalty" to concepts such as nations has always something of a farce, you can tell because the leaders of a country rarely die when they go to war. Capitalism is especially compatible with nationalism, however, because nationalism is something capitalists pretend to have to market to a particular demographic. For all talk of a national identity, that will not change.
>Extrapolate that a few decades down the road, and you basically get to a situation where nations exist on paper, but the decisions, or at least the decisions that matter, are basically called by multinationals for the sake of their own bottom line as opposed to anything else
sounds exactly like what we have now, tbqh. Except the multinationals are also beholden to shareholders, who control so much wealth (required to get a meaningful amount of good and services) they can get everyone else to do their bidding. So the multinationals are really just as contrived as the state is.
>Not in the communist sense of seizing the company and running every minute detail
Not what communists believe in, you may want to do a little more research. Communists would dissolve the company completely, in some cases creating a new state in the process but also (and in my opinion interestingly) by opposing the power of the state to legitimize the company or creating alternative institutions to "phase out" capitalism. Classically, communists would seize the means of production through a general strike to completely destroy the company.
There are some democratic socialists who think capitalism can be done away with without removing the state, but they're considered the most moderate form of socialism and not really reflective of the body at large.
>Globalism, on the other hand, tends to take a less restrictive approach, which focuses more on maintaining free trade and open, unrestricted markets
Again, we need to come to an agreed-upon term with regards to globalism. You're talking about modern capitalism, which pretends to be globalist but is really imperialistic for reasons that I stated prior. There are many forms of globalism.
To sum things up, corporations must absolutely support states, and not just in name only because the actual structure of a state - with a monopoly on violence, and a legal system that codifies property, which they can assert a lot of control over - supports them.
Under capitalism, states must support corporations, because the hierarchy endemic to capitalism - rich and poor - is the only thing validating the leadership of the state, which is often a reflection of who has the most capital.
Keep in mind that by "corporations" and "states" I mean "the capitalists who run them," because if the actual members of a corporation or state had a fair say then it would look a lot different.
My question for you now is, what implications do globalizing technologies such as the internet have for nationalism? It seems to me that any semblance of an identity people have is contextually derived, if that context can be extended to anywhere in the world then what does that say for regional ties? Do you like the idea of cyber-nations or are you just going to do away with the internet in your nationalist utopia?
> they tend to turn on nationalism once it actually gets put into practice and they realize it can be brutal and exclusionary, so its hard to say they really support the ideology in the end, at least from where I’m sitting.
Probably because they aren't ideologues who dismiss genocide and war for unstated reasons. I would say you're conflating the ideology with the consequences of said ideology, I would say rather than turning on nationalism the concept of a "good nation" underlies liberalism, which goes together with liberal forms of nationalism. Surprisingly, this kind of nation and nationalism is exactly their own. If you don't believe me, look up "civic nationalism" and "cultural nationalism". There are even leftist forms of nationalism.
I think you may be conflating a certain brand of nationalism with all nationalism, and you find this to be incompatible with global capitalism, because you've been confusing it for globalism. However I think you may also find on careful analysis that nationalist sentiment is an important part of liberalism, which is why terms like "patriotism" are often seen positively.
I think the analysis in your final paragraph is likely correct, but that being said I also find trouble sympathizing with nationalists of your ilk because of the support for war, genocide and so on.