Slashdot Mirror
Multinationals And Globalism
Many anti-globalization interests, Jay Walljasper writes in the latest Utne Reader, have coalesced in the belief that growing poverty, environmental destruction and social breakdown, with continuing bloodshed seen around the world, are the direct results of an international political and economic system that places most of the world's wealth and power in the hands of unaccountable and powerful corporations. "To these activists," writes Walljasper, "a new era of global peace and justice can be achieved by reinvigorating local communities and creating a new international system that promotes cooperation over competition."
Sounds great. In fact, it sounds like the early Wired Magazine manifestos about the Net, some of which I wrote. But would such a system work? Even if it did, who would pay for it and maintain it? And who will curb those corporations whose economic, lobbying and political power far outstrips any of those groups protesting their existence? Why would citizens in the west pay to "reinvigorate" local communities elsewhere and create a new international system? Globalism thrives on the contributions of corporations who want to profit from it, not from the efforts of governments or civic groups advancing democratic ideals.
The idea that globalism could even bolster those ideals is a view not widely held by fundamentalists or by certain educated elites in Europe and the United States. The institutions that to most minds represent the global economy -- the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization -- have become reviled and distrusted in these circles, their meetings developing into bloody standoffs. Political leaders in economically-advanced countries can no longer meet to talk about trade or economic issues without sparking riots.
The protesters opposing them represent a variety of causes, from the loss of good domestic jobs to the lowering of global wages to denouncing sweatshops to decrying environmental desctruction. They have quieter allies, too; even in prosperous Western economies, support for trade liberalization has declined and governments are accused of caving in to business interests. Liberal politicians from Bill Clinton to Britain's Tony Blair have expressed puzzlement and frustration at this sometimes anarchic, unthinking political fury; they claim such organizations are vital if wealth, technology and economic opportunity ever gets equitably distributed around the world.
Moreover, an editorial in the Economist magazine argues that anti-business protesters have their arguments upside down -- with genuinely dangerous consequences for the sometimes just causes they hope to advance. On the whole, says the Economist, stricter regulation of international business won't reduce profits. "What it may well do, though, by disabling markets in their civilizing role, is to give companies new opportunities to make even bigger profits at the expense of society at large." Companies pressured to increase wages will simply move, close overseas plants or charge more, thus make more profits. Afterwards, "The companies, having shafted their third world competition and protected their domestic markets, count their bigger profits (higher wage costs notwithstanding). And the third world workers displaced from locally-owned factories explain to their children why the West's new deal for the victims of capitalism requires them to starve."
If you follow these violent and confusing protests -- many now organized online -- you get the impression that some of these demonstrators confuse globalism with corporatism, since large companies are among the most vocal advocates of globalism and so far are its primary beneficiaries. The trappings of corporatism -- using technologies to create low wages and new markets, while suppressing individual enterprise and distinctive cultures -- have already encircled the world. McDonald's is much more symbolic of globalism than a small village in India getting wired for the Net, even though the latter may ultimately be more significant. And many political scientists equate Afghanistan's poverty, political extremism and instability to the fact that globalization hasn't yet reached the country.
The world's biggest companies sometimes appear more powerful than the world's biggest governments. (Microsoft's long and successful battle with the U.S. Justice Department is a good case in point). In the United States, they control our media and popular culture and are the primary contributors to the political system. Their lobbyists are the single most influential political force in Washington.
It's not surprising that many people feel instrinsically uncomfortable with globalism. Humanists aren't the spokespeople for globalization -- economic interests are. Corporations appear to be unchecked, and corporations have little inate social responsibility. They exist to generate profits, not advance social agendas or protect the environment, so they inevitably spark enormous resentment in foreign cultures whose citizens want jobs but are then puzzled by their own resulting lack of prosperity. These foreign workers also find that new globalizing technologies undermine their own national identities and religious and political values, all increasingly subsumed by the homogenized Disneyfication and Wal-Marting of the world that has swallowed up U.S. popular culture and countless small business, from pharmacies to family farms. The U.S. comes to seem like a remote, sometimes monstrous, always greedy and insensitive force.
But Giddens argues that democracy -- and the globalism inextricably linked with it -- is the most powerful emerging idea of the 21st century. Few states in the world don't call themselves democratic now, even when they aren't, like China and North Korea. In fact, the only countries are explicitly refer to themselves as non-democratic are the remaining semi-feudal monarchies or fundamentalist entities -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria.
Democracy's spread has now in fact created a bloody confrontation with fundamentalism, a holy war. Both sides refer to one another in evil blasphemers. Lost in this confrontation is the idea that Democracy isn't only about multi-national markets, cheap labor and business opportunities. It's about the liberation of information, freedom of religious and cultural choice, and a brorader value system with a complex civic structure. Yet another good reason why multinationals ought not to appear more powerful than governments (they aren't) and become the sole face and voice of globalization.
Either learn to play the game according to the rules which are quite fair, or fuck off and retreat into isolationism. Grow your own goddamned corn and feed yourselves, and build your own industrial infrastructure, and your own educational institutions, and call us in 200 years.
Of course the reason these meetings are held in secret is that the G7 leaders (and others) are discussing and agreeing things that their voters would not agree with. So much for democracy.
Actually, the problem is that much of what they are discussing is things that their corporations would not agree with. When the American representative says to the Japanese representative, "Okay, we'll lower our tariffs on steel if you lower your tarrifs on computer chips" they hear screams of bloody murder from their steel and computer chip manufacturers. The beneficiaries of these policies are ordinary people, Joe Blow. But we can't be bothered to lobby on our own behalf. "Lower steel prices NOW!"
But I can't put all the blame for attitudes towards these protestors on media coverage. I know these people. Some of them are my friends. Even the intelligent ones believe a lot of things that are completely opposed to Libertarianism. They really do believe deep down that when a government intervenes in the economy, it does so most of the time on behalf of the poor, and that such intervention is the only way to ensure social justice. And that's a way of thinking I have trouble relating to.
So in fact, there is a lot to dislike about this protest movement without being "fooled".
grep -ri 'should work'
I, for one, get tired of hearing all this hub-bub about how large corporations are "supressing" local culture or somehow magically putting mom-and-pops out of business (with the implication that they're superior). The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, where these corporations prevail, the corporations are prevailing with the will and consent of each and every one of their customers. The local culture or shop may do one or two things better, but overall, the failing institutions are failing for a reason: the disruptive corporation/culture is providing something the individual prefers, on the aggregate. People don't go and do business with corporations that they think are worse; they shop the shops that do the best by them on the aggregate. These choices are made on a wide variety of grounds: speed, price, selection, quality of service, novelty, consistency, and so on. No matter what poor judgement you feel these choices are made with, they are just that, choices, many of them. Rather than allowing the individual to exercise free will, a vocal minority wants to regulate and legislate this choice out of existence.
It's the highest form of snobbery and arrogance. If you don't like the choices made, then try to enlighten the individuals; bring hard evidence to the table. If you feel the companies are succeeding because of unethical practices, then fight those unethical practices and/or push for greater transparency.....But do NOT try to assert your value system on other people by force and the rule of law. It's unfair and inefficient.
So their options are either (a) work 20 hour shifts, or (b) die. I'm glad to hear they have a choice in the matter.
Ask yourself: If you were in the above situation, would you feel that you were being treated fairly? Be honest.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Ah, sophmoric libertarian philosophy.
If I have the medicine you need to live, I can coerce you quite well without force or threat of force, can I not?
If I and my partners control all the available food and you are hungry, we can coerce you quite well. If we own the land and you want a roof over your head, we can coerce you.
And if we own the capital, and you want a job, we can coerce you. That's capitalism in a nutshell.
Control of resources is highly effective coercion. That's why we often use blockades and sanctions to get other nations to do what we want.
Choice does not imply lack of coercion. If I point a gun at you to try to enforce my will, you can always choose to die.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If by globalization you mean the spread of information and knowledge between nations, companies, individuals, etc. then that is a good thing. The sharing of knowledge from western industrialized countries with our less fortunate neighbors is obviously a good thing to do. But when you're talking about corporations and governments working to extend their control then that is a very bad thing.
Just as a monopoly is a bad thing, so is a single conglomerate, or a club of corporations, with their fingers in too many pies. Power should always be decentralized and spread as thinly as possible. When this is the case freedom is possible. When too much power is held in the hands of too few, tyrrany and abuse of that power is the result. This is why what is commonly called globalization is such a threat. The consolidation of power into the hands of a small group of corporations and governments whose goals and agenda's are too much aligned leaves anyone whose goals aren't the same very much out in the cold and possibly in great danger.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
First of all, it's not about the US alone
>If people don't want to work so hard, why do they do it? Because its an opportunity...
It's not a opportunity...
Imagine, some people don't have the problem to choose between a Playstation 2 and a X-Box.
Either they work, or they and their family would starve.
It's either you work or one of the 100 other people waiting for the job would do it.
>The way to not support sweat shops if you don't like them is to NOT buy their products
Now, don't say that a bad treatement of their employees would have an negative impact on their sales.
You and most other people (myself included) have no idea, under which conditions my clothing or shoes. Did you know how Nike produce(d?) some shoes?
Or do you ask about it? Will someone tell you about it? (Excuse me sir, are those shoes produced with child labor? How are the working conditions?)
>It's terrible labor laws and government intervention that has made America impossible to produce in
In what ways did the US (and other industrial nations) suffer from the increased cost, due to protection laws?
IRC, the total amount of wealth increased. The difference between the poorer countries and the richer countries increased, same with the rich and the poor in the US.
> End it the capitalist consumer way, don't get government involved.
It seems to me that most person have forgotten where those govermental regulations and unions did stem from and how working conditions in the industrial nations (today one should say information nations) where before(e.g. US) those regulations.
Did you read Dickens "Oliver Twist" by any chance?
Nowadays, in most industrial nations most legislations seem to be unnecessary and maybe even are.
But most nations in the world have not reached this level of wealth, where it's up to choose between more or less comfort in exchange for more or less money, but between something to eat and nothing.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
That is so spot on. I spent several years in the late 80s in Peru, and that was definitely the case there. They have plenty of natural resources, a very hard working population, but their system was so corrupt that it was impossible to run a business. Foreign companies especially had to be continuously on their guard for fear of being nationalized.
Why would any sane person invest there?
Especially when they could move a little further South and invest in Chile. I lived in Chile for several years in the early 90s and was surprised at the stark difference. Levels of corruption were much lower, and the people were far more educated (on average). Because of that business was booming.
Unfortunately, the people in power in Peru aren't interested in cleaning things up. After all, they have made millions extorting money from the Peruvian people. It's a sad fact that until the corruption of the Peruvian political system is cleaned up that no amount of money is likely to do the economy there any good.
Klein's NoLogo theories ... are nice, but forget the fact that Globalisation works on all levels: education included.
Which is why the term "anti-corporate globalization" is being adopted by certain segments. Katz brings up "corporatism" as a better word for what is taking place than "globalization," which shouldn't refer only to economic globalization.
Whether that understanding is developed in the first instance as a tool to exploit is somewhat irrelevent, because the same globalisation process is used by those who want to help.
Be careful; this treads close to an "ends justify the means" argument. Good actions do not necessarily cancel out bad ones automatically; hence, even if activists and reporters swoop in to expose shoe production sweatshops in Indonesia, and possibly lead to greater awareness of the problem in the U.S., possibly leading to pressure on Indonesia's government to force changes... it still doesn't change the fact that shoe companies, among others, are performing exploitation that wouldn't be accepted here. "Do unto others..." covers almost all aspects of life rather well.
Taco's hobby is obscure Japanese animation, my wife loves African guitar music. THAT is just as much globalisation as the spectre of nasty corporations.
In fact, this kind of cultural exchange is a large part of what anti-corporatist activists would like to see. I think what a lot of anti-corporatists, myself included, are afraid of is replacing one dictator - government, even that which is supposedly "of the people, by the people, for the people" - and replacing it with another - large corporations that take advantage of weak environmental and labour laws.
It probably sounds a bit hypocritical to refer to government as a dictator, and then complain about corporations gravitating, when possible, toward places with lax protection laws, but this leads into another point brought up by certain segments of the anti-corporatist movement - that changes in the way we perceive the world around us will have to accompany any kind of economic changes, possibly to the point of eliminating large, monolithic government structures that try to boil down complicated social interactions into even less comprehensible limits, and decentralizing power even more than ever before. This would hinge upon more people figuring out how to properly treat other humans (ie; "Do unto others..."), and becoming aware of how we fit in with the larger world around us (ie; we are a part of it, not above it, still subject to the basic laws that govern life and survival).
In short, concepts of being nice to our fellow humans, here and abroad, and seeing this planet as more than a resource to be exploited for man's benefit, but a home and a system we rely on to exist, shouldn't need to be regulated - they should be common survival sense.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Here's a quick history lesson. England's empire was built with the idea that raw materials (cotton, sugar, spices, ores) would be cheaply exported from its colonies back to the homeland by a group of powerful corporations (such as the hated "East India Company" whose tea was dumped over board in Boston harbor). To this end it forbid/discouraged the manufacture of these resources domestically. So no cotton was weaved in the states but raw cotton was sent to England, and if you wanted to buy a shirt you'd have to import it from there. Moreover, farmers in America (and later colonies) had to sell their crops to chartered conglomerates who controlled prices, and when they placed orders for manufactured goods, they had little control about the price or quality of what was shipped to them. Washington once ordered a carriage, and by the time it arrived, he opened a door and the whole door came off in his hand. Many people were very pissed and had a revolution.
Immediately afterwards, large tarrifs and sometimes embargoes were passed so that the states could develop their own industries. That is how the US developed. In the industrial revolution, especially. There was lots of cronyism, but it was aimed towards the native conglomerates as opposed to the foreign ones. Carnegie went to Europe where the Bessemer process for smelting steel had just been invented and when he returned to the states, congress passed high tariffs against european steel. Carnegie then began to build native steel plants, married the daughter of the secretary of the Navy, and another "self-made" billionaire was born. We got a steel navy and lots of factory jobs out of the deal. So, a lot of cronyism, but directed at national interests, helped to develop our economy. Another example: England banned Indian textiles because it couldn't compete on price, then they conquered the country, burned down all the cotton "gins", cut the thumbs of the home-weavers, and reimported massive amounts of cotton back home. Then, and _only_ then, did they proclaim the need for "open" markets. Wars were similarly fought to "open" china. You do your own research.
So the story is the same. All countries which have _ever_ developed _any_ industry have done it with large govt. subsidy as well as a protective wall of tarrifs. I challenge you to cite just _one_ example of this not happening (wheras I have cited several examples when this did happen). The examples of the Asian tigers, as well as china, shows this playing out in the 20th century. Those nations which followed a "neoliberal" process have all ended up in shambles. Before nafta, 25% of mexico lived below the poverty line. That figure is now 50%. You can look at Indonesia, central america, brazil, the congo for more examples.
Now, we (the US) are doing the same thing to much of the third world that England has done to us:
We forbid or overthrow their govts. if they try to control their own resources (i.e. Iran nationalizing the foreign imposed oil "company" which has a monopoly on extracting oil, or Zaire taking the diamond monopoly from DeBeers, etc.)
We try to prevent them from raising tarrifs to protect their own industries (like the US forced on Japanese automakers, or the steel example citied above, or the ban on mexican tomatoes we had just a few years ago, or the current tarrifs against lamb from new zealand).
We punish those (foreigners) who subsidize their domestic companies. Note that the US still gives many billions to _our_ farmers, accounting for about half of median farm-owners' incomes. US corps pay only 10% of govt. expenditures. Recall the bailouts of chrysler or the many subsidies that we pour into high-tech sectors and aerospace. The 70 billion we're giving US comapanies now because of 9/11 is another example of this double standard.
The above are the policies. We don't have colonies such as Britain, but we enforce these policies on the rest of the world through our military (we put "our guys" in power) in some cases and purely institutional pressures in other cases:
IP laws allow us to monopolize key technologies.
Large syndicates such as cargill engage in price-fixing for many raw materials.
the "loans" US taxpayers send to third world dictators (many of whom we've put in power) make the third world reliant on us and institutions such as the IMF. In order to get more loans to cover the interest, we force them to engage in the economically suicidal practices cited above, thereby insuring that they will remain dependant on future loans, and so not develop independent economic policies.
free flow of foreign capital ensures that investments flee at the first sign of economic nationalism.
One significant difference is that while England assembled the raw materials at home which provided more higher paying jobs and gave birth to their middle class, modern conglomerates use the sweatshops in the third world. These are far from "heavy handed" laws such as minimum wage and environmental protection. So that we in the US don't even get the benefits that the British got 150 years ago.
This is why many oppose "globalization" as it's practiced today. It has nothing to do with trade and comparative advantage. It's just the modern version of the East India Company wrecking havoc on both our own country and on the third world.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
No one put a gun to their heads. They have no energy, are too lazy to revolt and usurp their government.
Are you kidding me? How an American can sit here on slashdot and call Indonesian sweat-shop workers lazy is beyond me. Furthermore, how such capital-L Libertarianism gets mod'd up amazes me.
Lets take this apart piece by piece.
1)"No one put a gun to their heads." Are we talking about China? Tianamen square ring a bell? These people, in many cases, quite literally have a gun to their heads.
2)"They have no energy." Well, working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week will probably do that to you.
3)"..are too lazy to revolt." Obviously a troll, I'll have to ignore it. Again, Tianamen Square ring any bells?
4)"Everyone who works in a sweat shop (EVERYONE)..." How on EARTH do you presume to speak for them? Since there's no way you can, the rest of the sentence becomes irrelevant.
5)"They are not slaves, they are free to up and walk out if they want to. Then who would feed their family?" Do you see the contradiction here? If you can leave, but that means your children starve, is that *really* a choice? And if it isn't *really* a choice, is it *really* that different from slavery?
Sickman's spinfusor catches Anonymous Coward by surprise.
The Economist piece is worth reading, the economist usually is worth reading, Kats is usually not worth reading. So lets pretend that we just had a link to the articles in the Economist, BBC, etc. etc.
I have very little sympathy with either side of the slashdot 'debate'. The liberweenie 'corporations are the absolute good' view is infantile. Equally infantile is the 'corporations are absolute evil view'. These are not two poles of the argument, they are actually the same argument which really has more to do with the ego of the person making the statement. There really is no difference between most of the Libertarians, Trotskyites or 'anti-globalists', any more than there is a difference between different varieties of religious bigott. All beliefs in absolute revealled truth are bogus and as Karl Popper pointed out are the enemies of the open society.
The policies of the third world countries are no different at the topmost level of abstraction than those of the West, their priority is to do the best for their country. To that end various ideological dogmas may be used as rhetoric, the reality is for the most part more pragmatic.
Immediately after the second world war the whole of the West was a command economy. There was simply no other alternative, if the war was to be won 40% of the GNP had to be redirected towards military spending. The US was no different to Europe in this, the only rhetorical difference was that the word 'socialism' was never used.
It took the West something like 20 years to dismantle most of the command economy. A command economy is only efficient in the short term and then for only very narrow short term goals.
The leaders of the third world are not the morons that many posters appear to believe. Empirically it takes a lot more brains to become the leader of the average Third world or post-communist european country than President of the US.
There is no real disagreement that the ideal for the third world would be to establish a free market system supported by a modern idustrial base. The problem is that you can't get there by simply declaring your country to be a free market. You have to achieve a certain level of prosperity before the surplus capital is available to make the free market work.
Last month the US government gave its airline industry a $15 billion government handout. The 'stimulus' (i.e. pork) bill that just passed the house gives $25 billion in backdated tax cuts to large corporations, in particular Texan oil companies. It is therefore somewhat rich for the US to go preaching the wonders of the free market.
The third world has been complaining about the vast cost of AIDs drugs for five years. The US has been insisting that the rights of the patent holders come before the lives of Aids victims in the third world. But when the US and Canada decide that they need to build a stockpile of Cipro the threat of voiding Bayer's patent rights is made within days.
Before the war on terror Unilateralism was the policy of the day. The Bush administration did not think it needed foreign support. The US army could crush any other and the ABM shield would shortly eliminate any threat of nuclear blackmail. To the extent the US had a foreign policy it was determined by campaign contribution bribes.
Now the world is very different. The US suddenly needs friends in places it did not care existed. The national interest is suddenly more important than the narrow corporate interest.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
One thing many people fail to asses is that the anti-globalist organisation is in fact violence free in it's essence. Much like Marxism you could say, it stands for a general awakening, a reveille the french say, of just common sense. It wants to bring back the power to the consumer, and restore the balance of power, in favour to the people instead of to the companies. One could remark that there is probably nothing more beautifull to the movement than a new-born fight to regain the rights and 'values' of the people. In fact, the anti-globalist's movement is a global movement around the world. There is nothing anti-global to it. It's like greanpeace and the WWF.
Of course, what happened in Milan and Helsinki is not what the movement is about. Those events were programmed by trouble-makers that seized the opportunity to pick a fight and express their general malcontentcy, while remaining virtually incognito under the unfamiliar umbrella of so many other unknown organisations that meant no harm, except to the present system.
You could say that, in many regards, Bin Laden has used the political and econmical structures of financial power to his advantage, and the globalists were (and are) warning against exactly that kind of a system, where sense of the word 'control' is taboo'd, except when it's about people's consumer behaviours. If you hold meetings between steel barred fences about economical issues and there's a crowd yelling outside, I get can't help but think about a book written a long time ago, which was perceived as groundbreaking and very important at it's time, called 'Brave New World'. Have we simply forgotten our arts and sciences, our good common sense? Have we morphed into brainless consumers that are addicted to TV's and MacDonnalds more than anything else? Does everybody just care about anything but our family and our job and hollidays? If we care about tomorrow's world, the world our children have to deal with, then in my opinion it would simply be totally irresponsible to the 'just stick with your own life is good enough for me' attitude. Granted, there's not much you can do, but a positive attitude is worth much more than you can possibly imagine. And that positive attitude, that anger about what's wrong with the world, that calling for change, is what the globalists are truely about.
Democracy's spread has now in fact created a bloody confrontation with fundamentalism, a holy war. Both sides refer to one another in evil blasphemers. Lost in this confrontation is the idea that Democracy isn't only about multi-national markets, cheap labor and business opportunities...[..]
This probably the most horendous statement in this provocative and therefor worthless assessment of Mr. John Katz, who I normally do not disrespect at all. In case Katz had fallen asleep, the war is firstly not against fundamentalism, but against terrorism. If the war is against fundamentalism, why don't we start arresting Amish people, Christian Tv networks and more of this kind of shit first.. I mean, if the war is against fundamentalism, then the war is against a kind of patriotism that does happen to be in line with the kind of patriotism US citizens stand for. And who are we to draw a line for the good and bad, who are we to proclaim a culture better or worse than the other. Katz rethori is intentionally provocative, and he wants discussion on topics that are indeed important, but by relentlessly draggin attention to these issues, people get even more black/white and you end up with the very fundamentalism we are supposed to be at war with. Sorry John no hard feelings. Next time, do one better for me.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
AMEN!!
I think what a lot of people are conveniently forgetting is that the horrible famines in Africa and currently Afghanistan are mostly NOT caused by humans damaging the environment or nautral drought cycles.
They are caused by deliberate actions of the the local ruling governments. Think about it: the horrible famines of Ethiopia in the 1980's and the Sudan for the last 15 years are caused by civil wars that have seriously interrupted the growing of local crops and transportation of food, especially with the ruling government deliberately interfering with crop growing and commandeering all the supply trucks.
Indeed, one of the most horrible examples of a deliberately-caused famine was the forced collectivization of farms in the Ukraine by Josef Stalin from 1928 to 1934--the result was fourteen million dead from mass shootings, labor camps and outright starvation due to confiscation of food--this is more than the Nazis did with their concentration camp system.