That is a really excellent question! I'm not sure I can say if it's a "valid" line of thinking or not because it stands on some really big concepts about which history does not offer clear judgements. My aim will be to give you my perspective, in hopes that you can keep thinking it over for yourself with some new ideas to consider. And, in the interests of clarity, I'll first note that globalism and globalization are different, though sometimes related, things. "Globalism" usually refers to an ideology that underpins imperial or expansionist policy, often by a group that sees controlling some or all of something in most or all of the world as its right or duty - so you're right on there. Globalization (very roughly speaking, the process of integration over time through economic, cultural, and political interactions), which I spend more time on as a concept than globalism in my courses, is much more complex but can absolutely be used as a tool or excuse for imperialist or globalist aims, despite being less centralized.

Here's my (somewhat subjective) take as an historian, which unfortunately is likely the sort of thing you mean by the "academic perspectives" you've come across: Systems are not created equal, least of all those of human origins, so comparing both human and non-human systems over time is impossible. One thing we do know about about human systems is they are rarely, if ever, illuminated by comparison with a particular ecosystem, or quantum mechanics, or whatever. That's apples and oranges - really, more like apples and the color orange - but great fun for cocktail party conversation. So, when we try to make it a fair comparison by looking at similar human governmental or economic systems at similar times/places in the past, history says that both highly centralized and decentralized-but-interdependent systems, which is how I'm interpreting your two hypotheticals, can work - and that both can fail. Neither is, historically speaking, significantly more stable or unstable, which doesn't help anybody, least of all an historian trying to be helpful. This is why most historians don't do much comparative work at the scale of large systems. Part of the problem is that comparing, say, the Ottoman Empire with the Mughal Empire, purely along the lines of their systems of government or economies, ignores the innumerable other aspects of culture, society, gender, religion, ethnicity, geography, chance, etc. that made them so different or alike in the first place. Add in the fact that for several centuries they shaped and influenced each other, drawing inspiration from their interconnected histories (globalization!), and things get murky quickly. And what about smaller-scale centralized systems within larger decentralized systems, or vice versa? What about informal/illegal modes of economic activity or territorial control that benefit the larger system despite flaunting its formal centralized/decentralized system? What I'm getting at is that human systems are messy, often dysfunctional, and almost always interconnected in mundane and surprising ways that make comparisons and pointing to a set of reasons for their success or failure damn near impossible to do in a categorical way. In general, the closest thing to an inherent reality that can be witnessed in past government or economic systems is this: both centralization and interdependence usually introduce certain broad categories of fairly predictable problems that can be ameliora...

That is a really excellent question! I'm not sure I can say if it's a "valid" line of thinking or not because it stands on some really big concepts about which history does not offer clear judgements. My aim will be to give you my perspective, in hopes that you can keep thinking it over for yourself with some new ideas to consider. And, in the interests of clarity, I'll first note that globalism and globalization are different, though sometimes related, things. "Globalism" usually refers to an ideology that underpins imperial or expansionist policy, often by a group that sees controlling some or all of something in most or all of the world as its right or duty - so you're right on there. Globalization (very roughly speaking, the process of integration over time through economic, cultural, and political interactions), which I spend more time on as a concept than globalism in my courses, is much more complex but can absolutely be used as a tool or excuse for imperialist or globalist aims, despite being less centralized.

Here's my (somewhat subjective) take as an historian, which unfortunately is likely the sort of thing you mean by the "academic perspectives" you've come across: Systems are not created equal, least of all those of human origins, so comparing both human and non-human systems over time is impossible. One thing we do know about about human systems is they are rarely, if ever, illuminated by comparison with a particular ecosystem, or quantum mechanics, or whatever. That's apples and oranges - really, more like apples and the color orange - but great fun for cocktail party conversation. So, when we try to make it a fair comparison by looking at similar human governmental or economic systems at similar times/places in the past, history says that both highly centralized and decentralized-but-interdependent systems, which is how I'm interpreting your two hypotheticals, can work - and that both can fail. Neither is, historically speaking, significantly more stable or unstable, which doesn't help anybody, least of all an historian trying to be helpful. This is why most historians don't do much comparative work at the scale of large systems. Part of the problem is that comparing, say, the Ottoman Empire with the Mughal Empire, purely along the lines of their systems of government or economies, ignores the innumerable other aspects of culture, society, gender, religion, ethnicity, geography, chance, etc. that made them so different or alike in the first place. Add in the fact that for several centuries they shaped and influenced each other, drawing inspiration from their interconnected histories (globalization!), and things get murky quickly. And what about smaller-scale centralized systems within larger decentralized systems, or vice versa? What about informal/illegal modes of economic activity or territorial control that benefit the larger system despite flaunting its formal centralized/decentralized system? What I'm getting at is that human systems are messy, often dysfunctional, and almost always interconnected in mundane and surprising ways that make comparisons and pointing to a set of reasons for their success or failure damn near impossible to do in a categorical way. In general, the closest thing to an inherent reality that can be witnessed in past government or economic systems is this: both centralization and interdependence usually introduce certain broad categories of fairly predictable problems that can be ameliorated or even solved, but eventually aren't because of the many, many other unique factors involved. This is also why historians sometimes cringe at the old saw about people being "doomed to repeat" history - they couldn't if they tried, though many certainly continue to try. I sometimes think not knowing history dooms you to thinking you can repeat it. Time's arrow points one way; IMO all we can do is try to make things better in the future by keeping in mind what didn't make things better in the past, and knowing it won't look the same next time.

So when you hear imperialism lurking in talk of globalization or globalism, you may be right. If so, it won't succeed/fail for the same reasons that previous imperial impulses/systems have succeeded/failed. If you are worried about centralization of global political power, the good news is that global systemic flows of capital, power, and cultural influence have a way of staying a step ahead of politics. The centralization of capital and power in the global north is a more concerning issue right now, I think. When/if Africa, South Asia, and South America come looking for what's theirs with the power to demand it, that will be a painful adjustment for those in European and North American societies who have benefitted from easy access to the southern hemisphere's resources for centuries. Personally, I think present-day globalization is headed toward decentralization in the long term, or at least a redistribution of power away from its current centers north of the equator. But I'm an historian, not a futurist.

Sorry for the huge train of thought post! I really do hope it helped, though I know it didn't answer the question you posed. I also apologize if I addressed you like an undergrad - that's my default mode, not a judgement of your intelligence. Broad questions about history are like this though - they usually turn into hundreds of separate questions, all with different answers depending on the smaller divisions of people, time, and place being considered. But as we accumulate information, through our own research or by reading others' work, we can really start to see the depth and variety of the human experience. I think that's why some of us love it so much and write rambling, borderline nonsensical posts about it late at night!