Globalization

(First of two parts). Globalism is one of those notions much kicked around and little understood, shrouded in hysteria and knee-jerk cant. People with a host of grievances against technology, multinational corporations and capitalist democracies have made globalism a dirty word, at the same time that many social scientists and economists argue that the equitable spread of technology and a free-market economy is the planet's best hope. Either way, September 11 makes it clear that globalization - pitting fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance - is one of the most important issues in our lifetimes.

In fact, as British political scientist Anthony Giddens writes in his eerily prescient book Runaway World: How Globalism is Reshaping Our Lives, the conflict now underway between the United States and some extremist fundamentalists was inevitable. Cosmopolitans welcome technology and cultural diversity, while fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous.

In a globalizing world -- one of its cornerstones being the Net -- technology, information, culture, money, business and imagery are routinely transmitted across the world. Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence.

So despite the fact that there's no consensus on exactly what globalism is (my dictionary defines it as the process by which social institutions become adopted on a worldwide scale), the questions torment us: is globalism a force to ease poverty and inequality, by bringing higher standards of living and new technologies to poor and distant regions? Or merely an unprecedented vehicle for promoting the greed, conformity, environmental destruction and profit-at-all-cost ethos of multinational corporations? Perhaps it's both.

Giddens' predictions are coming true before our eyes. The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there. We see our popular and technological culture despised in much of the world. Fundamentalist extremists have declared a holy war against it, one that may continue for years with bloody and uncertain consequences.

It's not an oversimplification to say that technology is the prime battleground. Technologies from movie cameras to TV sets to the Net are the means by which culture and wealth travel from one part of the world to the other. Fundamentalists have declared war on technology as much as on anything. And from anthrax to passenger jets as missiles, they've shown a sophisticated grasp of how technology can be used to devastating effect against its creators, who revel in making it but not thinking much about it.

In this conflict what Giddens calls "the cosmopolitan approach" is the choice of the people who are reading this column and working in the tech universe. We value free speech, religious freedom, scientific exploration, open communications, cultural choice and diversity. Such tolerance is closely conected to democracy.

Yet democracy and fundamentalism are both spreading world-wide, two seemingly irreconcilable ideologies colliding head-on. As Giddens points out, globalism creates a paradox: democratic cultures are its most enthusiastic proponents, yet globalism doesn't seem to promote democracy so much as corporate profits and practices. In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?

In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)

Comments

social threefolding

[johnrpenner]

globalism can be a boon or bane. social threefolding provides a framework for sustaining rights within a global economy: http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/St einer-Social.html

The Lexus and the Olive Tree

[Paradox !-)]

This thesis has also been bandied about by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.

I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]

Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.

IMHO. HAND.

Re:The Lexus and the Olive Tree

[hibachi]

I think it is far too quickly assumed that the centres of cultures are drawing together in the crusade for a one world economy. In developing countries, the people signing binding trade deals with western economic powers are hardly the centre of their culture. I would argue that the peasant and indigenous population in many countries comprise the centre of their cultures, while the well financed and well armed politicians, who sign away their labour and natural resources, are the fringe.

Not every culture holds as its highest ideal the individual pursuit of wealth. The western global free market economy is not the only economic system. Radicalisation comes not only from the fringes, but often right square from the centre, from having an economic system imposed upon you by outside forces. It is important for a people to be able to define their own terms of participation in the global economy. When the terms are dictated by outside forces, and by and large for the sake of corporate profits, there WILL be a radicalised response.
Cheers,
Rev. Hibachi

Re:Actually...

[imrdkl]

Everyone makes mistakes. And everyone has their own interests, which leads to different definitions of what actually was a mistake.

But make no mistake.. it's our love and support of Israel and the Jews which is the cornerstone of the hatred against us in the Muslim world (and other places). Not technology, not globalism, not some past aggression which we were percieved to be a part of.

Hell, Bin Laden said it himself.

Drop Israel, and everything will be fine. Or will it?

GLOBALIZATION IS ABOUT HAVE EXPLOITING HAVE-NOTS

[cryofan2]

The western democracies carved out a place where there could exist such a thing as a middle class. Where a working man could make a living for himself and his family. The western democracies are a haven for capital: they are stable and work by the rule of law.

So that is why there is work here.

We compete on the gloabl stage for work. We offer a business advantage over third world competitors in that we are stable and are run by the rule of law. And because we have this advantage over 3rd world, that is the only reason why we have work here at all. Otherwise we would have no work here because we CHARGE HIGH WAGES.
People, that is a GOOD THING! WE WANT HIGH WAGES!

WE DON'T WANT LOW WAGES!

But big corporations want both stability/the rule of law AND low wages. So therefore "open borders immigration" and globalization is what corporations want because it LOWERS WAGES!

Our politicians want to give them that because the corporations PAY THEM.

Can you please see that this is a process of negotiation! That there are CONFLICTS OF INTEREST between corporations and the citizens of western democracies?

When you go to buy a car and the salesman says he wants 100K, you don't just pay him, do you? YOU NEGOTIATE!

The problem is that corporations have poured so much money into propaganda through so many means that people like Katz beleive the pro-globalization propaganda. Or maybe, Katz is being paid by business lobbies to write pro-globalization propaganda.

Jon Katz, do you take money from corporate lobbies?

Great on Paper

[BurkeChowdah]

The real thing to examine is this: Is globalism really good, or is it similar to Socialism and various other ideas in that is looks excellent on paper, but in practice, never seems to work out just right. There are many ideas like this that appear to be the solution to everything, but when put into practice, become a big mess. My thought is that many of these things deserve a closer look before being put into practice so that we can avoid slogging through a mess.

Ed

Katz misses the point again.

[rberton]

Religion has historically been used as a motivator for war. From the Inquisition to the Holy wars in Turkey it has been used to get men to fight, but it has never been the reason to fight.

In this case as well you are seeing a reaction to rampant captialism (globalization) wrapped in the wonderfully motivating skin of religious fundamentalism.

Middle Easterners do not hate the working man in America. They hate the huge multi-nationals and their US military police force that secures them further profit at the expense of lives and sometimes countries.

This country has been living off of the fat of the rest of the world for 2 generations or longer. Wouldn't you resent a country that swoops in bombs and kills many of your population and then sets up your government for you, all in the name of oil profit?

How come there is no Italian or Japanese military base on US soil? How come there is NO other countries military base on US soil, yet we have 60+ major military installation in other countries in the world?

Globalization is the problem not the solution.

The other problem of globalization.

[Dram]

The problem of globalization is this; our culture gets to countries before our money does. There is nobody in the world that wouldn't want to make the income of the average middle-class American. What people don't want is to be inundated with western culture and ideas.

Not only do people not want our way of life, they are not in a position to accept our way of life. It is well known, within political science, that a republic must have a strong middle-class and third world countries do not have one, it is part of the antiquated definition of being third world.

However globalization is doing something that the world's poor like and the American middle-class hates, it is equalizing the wealth. Poor countries, like Singapore, are getting western blue collar jobs dumping sizable amounts of wealth into those countries. While on the other side of that it is making all blue collar professions in the west all but disappear and as this happens the only thing for blue collar workers to do is get better educated and find a white collar job. While they do this they flood the market driving the wages down for what use to be a staple for middle class life. Now both the middle and lower classes are both in white collar jobs making the destination all but nonexistent.

The disappearance of the middle class in America and the west is a frightening but all too real consequence of our global economy. No longer will we have an American upper, middle, and lower class; we will not have an Egyptian upper, middle, and lower class, or distinct classes for Europe or China or anywhere else. We will have a World upper, middle, and lower class. This means that the much of the world's poor will be brought above the poverty line at the expense of the West's affluent middle class. And this is a threat to the stability of our Republic that nobody relizes.

You miss the point

[BeBoxer]

You miss the point that even if we 'kill all the terrorists', more of them are created every day. You say they hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent etc. If that is the case, then there are only a few future paths for the U.S. 1) Continue business as usual, and be prepared to deal with the fact that we will always be hated, and will always be the target of violence. 2) Give up our power, wealth, education, etc and turn ourselves into a third world country. 3) Try to spread our wealth and success to the rest of the world.

Most of the brainwashed American masses think that option (1) is the patriotic option, despite the fact that it puts us in the losing situation of trying to fight the whole world and will probably end up in option (2) in the long run. A true patriot would realize that the only long-term path with any semblance of national security is (3). Note that (3) is not what most corporations think about when they are going overseas. They are most certainly not interested in exporting any of the things which make America a very livable place, such as environmental protections, labor laws, etc. Rather they are looking to avoid all of the pesky government 'intrusions' that try to make them act the least bit responsible or decent. They want the 'right' to pollute as much as they want, pay the lowest possible wages, and run like hell taking all of their capitol as soon as the next country looks like it will accept more pollution and even lower wages. Or as soon as they have extracted all the natural resources. Then people like you wonder why the masses in these countries aren't grateful that we gave them our pollution and paid them slave labor wages and strip mined their country.

That's why 'globalization' is such a hot topic. Corporations talk about a level playing field, but what they are really looking for is a way out of the basic regulations that keep America from being a 3rd world country. The Blame America First Club, as you like to call it, wants globalization to mean exporting our labor and environmental laws, our democratic government, as well as capital investment. Corporations are interested in maximizing profits by avoiding labor and environmental regulations. Usually this means avoiding any true democracy as well, since most people actually like things like being paid a decent wage and having clean water to drink and vote accordingly.

When

Re:You miss the point

[Stonehand]

According to my 2000 NYT Almanac, a full 40% of the Saudi labor force is on government payroll. That's more than on oil, even (25% industry, construction and oil combined). 40%?!

Hint: they've got a reputation for corruption, and it's not completely unearned.

Movie, "Life and Debt"

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Life and Debt, an interesting documentary (haven't seen it yet) about the globalization process effects on Jamaica, with special emphasis on the IMF. Turning it essentially into nothiung more than a tourist trap, with all local industry disappearing and a huge debt load. An example - IMF policies require you to end farm subsidies, while the US can (and does) subsidize farm products. Local farmers can't compete go out of business.

Re:Globalisation for Greed

[kaladorn]

Here we are talking about various nutters with guns who we happen to like. Lets not kid ourselves that the currently popular "Northern Alliance" are not a bunch of murdering thugs as well.

Has it occurred to you that the US has been remarkably slow to engage front line Taliban units to open up a path to Kabul for the Alliance? This they could have done weeks ago. They do not. Why, do you think?

Because they probably realize the problem of having the Alliance take-over. But there really are not 1000 good choices and having Abdul Haq hung wasn't a real good thing either.

I'm not sure the doddery old king is the answer, I'm not sure the Northern Alliance or a Pakistan puppet government is the answer. I'm not sure weeding out even moderate Taliban supporters is wise. I think the answer is very complex.

I suspect it involves some moderate Taliban members, some of the Northern Alliance, maybe the King, the UN (UNMOs and Nato troops too), and a lot of outside attention. Media, Education, funds to rebuild but with strings attached on the human-rights/democracy front.

The Afghans (tribes anyway) are a rowdy lot. They have a militant tradition, like their guns and a good fight. But they also love their families and no one really wants to be killed and most people would like a chance at security, stability and a future for their children. If a rebuilt Afghanistan can offer these opportunities, even if it takes 10 years to get rolling, then its worth it. For us in the West and for the Afghanis themselves. It won't be easy, and it can't be exactly another "America in the East" (not that you'd necessarily want that anyway), it will have to be something that combines the interest groups and binds them into a framework that gaurantees a few social changes and some basic human rights. But if we can at least get that, or a start towards that, some peace and stability, then we can probably rob the bin Laden's of the world of a fertile recruiting ground.

Knowledge, wisdom, education - these are the weapons which can be used to change the world. Guns, planes, and bombs are only a (sadly necessary) first stage. The real trick lies in the rebuilding. And that requires architects, builders, and leaders of the community - not soldiers and airmen.

Re:anthrax--careful, John

[Elvis Maximus]

I actually strongly suspect the anthrax attacks are not originating with al-Qaeda.

For one thing, the letters strike me as funny:

The date at the top is in the format "9/11/01". Only Americans write dates this way (everyone else writes "11/9/01"). Someone who lived here for a while would know we do that, but wouldn't they be more inclined to write "September 11, 2001" or some variation to avoid confusion? Why would they bother to do it our way?
The letters clearly imply they are from Islamic fundamentalists, but do not begin "bismillah al-rahman al-rahim (in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful)". Pious Muslims, fundamentalists and otherwise, begin every document, from class notes to business correspondence, this way.
How come the writer can keep his lines nice and straight on the letter but not on the envelopes?
The language seems kind of stilted, like what an American would suppose a foreign terrorist would say. "We have this anthrax. You die now." An Arabic-speaker would be likely to say, "we have the anthrax" as that is how you would say it in Arabic. "You will die now" is a construction that exists in Arabic, so it is an error an Arabic speaker is less likely to make.
"Allah is great" is kind of an awkward construct. A Muslim might write "Allahu akbar" without translation, or "Allah is greatest," which is a better translation. The point of the phrase "Allahu akbar" is that God is greater than anything else, and this is not a distinction that would be lost on a dedicated Muslim whose English is good enough to write these letters.
al-Qaeda never warned anyone about the embassies, the Cole, the WTC, or any of the failed attacks on other targets. So why do the letters announce they have anthrax in them and advise the recipients to "take penacilin now?"
Not only does the author know what a 4th grade is (i.e., that we call it 4th grade and not 4th form, 4th year, etc.), but he/she realizes that it is a usual practice for a 4th grade class to write a Senator's office. A recent immigrant from an Arab country might come to know these things, but they would not come naturally to him/her. I would think the author would pick something he/she could feel more sure of.

Also, some of the targets seem strange to me. A tabloid newspaper? That appeared to be, if not the first target, an early target, and is not exactly a symbol of America to people around the world. If I were an investigator, this is the one I would be looking at most closely. If I were a terrorist wanted to sow fear and confusion, I would send anthrax to random people's homes, or I would steal a load of Publishers' Clearinghouse sweepstakes applications and load them with the bacteria before returning them to the mails.

It's all circumstantial, of course, but the al-Qaeda angle doesn't seem right to me. I'm betting it's some American guy or guys with a B.Sc. in microbiology.

Globalism is not a political movement

[Zeinfeld]

As usual we have a buzz word laden piece by Katz that shows zero insight (and another part to come, God help us).

Globalism is not and has never been a political movement. It is no more than a social and political trend that began with the Industrial Revolution. Geography is less of a constraint than it was in past. Airline travel, the telephone, satelite TV and the Internet mean that you can live in one country and have the same communications access as if you lived in another country on a different continent.

Anti-globalism is a political movement of sorts. There is no real cohesion between the aims of the various factions however. In many cases the aims are completely opposed.

Bin Laden is not an anti-globalist in any meaningful sense, he is anti-US but his political aims are global. He wants to return the world to the middle ages one country at a time, starting with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Palestein but continuing on to Andaloucia (Spain), Africa etc.

Some of the anti-globalists are anti-democratic tin pot nationalists who want to declare independence for their little fragment of a nation state so that they have a better chance of getting power themselves.

Other 'anti-globalists' are tin-pot union leaders looking for some form of protectionism that will discriminate against goods produced by foreign workers.

Most of the 'anti-globalists' are not protesting about the process of globalisation however but the limited form in which it is taking place. As they see it the West is busy exporting the working practices and political structures of the nineteenth century while trying to deter democratization that might threaten Western interests.

As a political critique it was far more accurate in the 1970s than today. The list of dictators supported by the West and in particular the US is very long. The US subverted democratic governments in Chile and the Congo and replaced them with mass murderers.

US administration policy since the cold war, and in particular since the Clinton administration has been to end support for most of the worst regimes. Marcos, Pinochet, Suharto and the rest have been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is therefore somewhat strange to start an unfocused 'the US can do no right' movement at this time. There are several areas where the US is standing on the wrong side of history, proping up the gulf dictatorships for example, however US foreign policy is much reformed.

The biggest problem of globalism is ex-patriate meddling in their former home countries, particularly in the second and third generations. Sean Connery's calls for an independent Scotland made from a Spanish golf course are ridiculous and harmless enough. The funding of the IRA by Irish Americans or the Sikh separatists in India by Bradford shopkeepers was not. The problem with ex-patriates is that they can believe all the propaganda they like, they can fund all the murder they like and live in perfect safety far from the consequences of their meddling.

The funding of Israeli settlements by US Jews and the funding of extreemist Madrasah schools in Pakistan by Saudis are just another example of a type of meddling from a long distance that is hated by the majority in the countries that are subjected to it.

Re:What should we do.

[smcv]

"Currently our country and way of life cannot continue if we were to be cut off from that oil. We are currently working to eliminate our demendency on it, but untill that happens, if we want to keep our way of life, we have to maintain a presence in the Middle East. It cant simply be argued out by philosophies, it simply is a fact that we need that oil."

Americans and oil... Someone posted elsewhere on this thread about SUVs and Starbucks and MacDonalds, and one reply said "yeah, SUVs haven't taken off in Europe, but that's because gasoline's expensive there".

You ever wonder why our fuel's expensive, when we're so much closer to the main source? Possibly deliberate taxation policies, to make the alternatives comparatively cheap and encourage research into them? European governments tax oil for a reason. It's not going to last forever, you know. (Estimates of the number of years' worth we have (at current usage) vary, but rarely have 3 digits in them; and by "we" here I don't mean Europeans, I mean the world.)

Observe huge strikes and blockades of refineries by UK truck drivers last summer, in protest at fuel tax rises. These basically stopped the UK for several days, but had precisely no effect on tax levels. If the government here just wanted the money, they could have dropped fuel taxes a bit and taxed something less conspicuous (or lots of less conspicuous things) instead; but they didn't. Does it sound like they want to hold on to that particular tax, for reasons other than just getting the money?

Yes, cars are part of The American Way Of Life. Yes, in a country that big, I suppose they have to be. But that's no reason to be excessive about them... it is possible to live in a fairly American-ish way while not using as much oil (see: UK, France, Germany, I can't be bothered to list the rest of western Europe but you probably get the idea).

Re:Actually...

[seer]

But this is a *war* and there are bound to be civilian casualties. I'm sure not all Germans were Nazis, but we had to attack that country for the better of the rest of the world (and for the security of our own nation). Civilians die during war--it's not a good thing, but a fact of war. What percentage of our casualties have been civilian so far, 99.9%?

Duh! 5000+ civilians already died in America, right? If this is "just war" and "civilians die during war", then we have nothing to complain about, right? We were just attacked in a war that we didn't notice was taking place because we'd rather watch baseball.

Re:Actually...

[snowlight-0]

Well, the moderators are certainly being dumb today. Anyways...

I am an american and I despise the US. I'm an anarchist, if you couldn't tell.