Slashdot Mirror
Defining Globalism
Sometimes things are easier to grasp by defining what they're not. The e-mail and posts last week were about equally divided (apart from the usual flaming yahoos) over whether globalism marks corporate evil or global modernization. Most were agreed that globalization isn't about buying computers and TV set. It's about what sociologists like Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics call living in a "runaway world," a period of enormous transformation, affecting almost every aspect of life from technology to how government functions to employment to personal values. Globalization is spreading all over the world, yet nobody is in charge of it, and there isn't even much consensus about what it is, an economic system or an ideology.
Generally speaking, globalization today is a Western idea (although other, earlier cultures took some shots at it), fueled most recently by technology's forging of a global economy. It's a powerful offshoot of capitalism and popular culture, yet it's being debated in almost every country, and it's become almost impossible to hear a major political speech that doesn't mention it.
The subject arouses strong emotions. Directly or not, globalism is at the root of the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the resulting conflict between the United States and Islamic fundamentalists, who are articulate and open about their hatred of the changes sweeping their cultures. Every business is obsessed with it.
It's getting hard to find academics and other members of the intelligentsia who don't mistrust it, equating it, somewhat justifiably, with corporatism and the rise of the multinationals. Surely, there are more reasons to mistrust the multinational corporations who advance globalization than I could possibly list here.
But globalization is an elusive notion. Skeptics argue that it's a highly exploitive western force and profit center that represents business as usual for corporatists exploiting new worker pools and marketing possibilities, and for despoiling the rest of the environment.
Some economists argue that globalization is an old idea, similar to the way world economies operated centures ago, from the Romans to the Venetians. Those civilizations didn't have an e-economy and the Net, of course, and couldn't transfer cash all over the planet in seconds.
And there are clear differences. Globalization seems to erode the longtime primacy of the nation-state, already undercut by networked computing, which changes the potency of boundaries and enables people, businesses and banks to talk directly to one another rather than through surrogates. It also undermines dogmas, both political and religious, some of which greatly fear environments that permit the free flow of ideas. It's hard to preach a monotheistic view of the world if all sorts of ideas are available to your kids online and via TV, music and film. And the new global electronic economy -- involving fund managers, banks, corporations and millions of individual investors -- can transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds, quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies, as has happened recently in Asia.
Electronic information has also fueled globalism and its consequences. The World Trade Center attacks were a global, not a local event. When Nelson Mandela was released from a South African jail, he was watched by the entire world. So is the American bombing campaign against the Taliban. This kind of internationally-transmitted imagery doesn't just provide external information, but affects the internal politics and reality of our lives -- our family and religious values, our perceptions about the world. When hundreds of teenagers stormed the Berlin Wall and began to tear it down, the first thing many of them did was run to music stores and buy the videos they'd been secretly -- and illegally -- watching on MTV. And "Baywatch" remains the most popular show in Iran, to the despair of the religious leaders running the country.
Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan don't accept the inevitability of globalism. Most other governments do, perhaps the primary reason the Arab world isn't actively resisting the much-resented United States in its new war. Countries that don't want to join in may end up like Afghanistan, beset by tribal conflicts, cut off from capital development and economic opportunity. Would investment from multi-nationals help or harm a country like Afghanistan, where one kid after another says in TV interviews that the only available job opportunities involve shooting people?
Whether it's a good witch or not, globalism is much too big and pervasive an idea to go away. For all the media hysteria about bio-terrorism and other dangers, it seems probable that the United States will ultimately destroy the Taliban government, and the first such conflict of the 21st century will be over. What isn't as clear is whether this will mark the beginning of a war or the end. Or whether anybody will ever come up with a widely-accepted definition of what globalization really is.
It's global govenment -- meaning the whole globe. With global government, the world doesn't have to contend with democracy causing problems for commerce.
Duh!
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Third in series??
Last article states (Last of two parts) as the first three words.
And how is this article not the same as the past two? I'm not seeing any new info (nor proof or links for that matter) that I have already read in the past two...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I'm quite German, and I don't call it `Globalisiening', but `Globalisierung' ;-)
lobalizationgay in piglatin
The French call it Mondialisation, the Germans say Globalisiening and throughout much of Latin America, it's called globalizacion.
It has lots of different names, that proves it's biggest idea in the world.
Or it suggests that people in different countries speak different languages.
Or something.
There is something that can be said about Globalism... Dont trust anyones definition on that word, specially when their definition is full of generalizations...
Having said that it can be argued either way if Multinationals have hijacked or not globalism. But you see, this is totally relative to the multinational at hand.
Investors from different countries tend to behave in different ways, frequently reflecting the different kinds of capitalist systems they come from. The most striking differences among foreign direct investors in the U.S. economy are found between West European and Japanese entities. Investments by the former are heavily concentrated in manufacturing and R investments by the latter are more evenly split between manufacturing and R&D facilities on the one hand and distribution networks on the other.
The bottom line is that international organizations today are fundamentally political, not legal or judicial, entities and will remain so into the policy-relevant future. Their staffs, moreover, will long be composed of foreign nationals dedicated to pursuing their own countries' interests. These organizations are certainly capable of fostering significant degrees of international cooperation in the technology field and others, but as is the case with issues involving globalization, interdependence, and cooperation, member states will constantly struggle to secure the best possible terms of cooperation. National representatives will continue to battle over questions such as: Who pays? Who benefits? Who benefits the most? Who is in charge?
You can't except organizations that are created for the purpose of making money (and the goverments sponsored by them) to behave otherwise. What you can hope for is that competition created by "globalization" will give consumers better products and that the free flow of technology and information within the "global village" will give people more an more choices.
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook.
For a single business Globalization is the act of getting the product out all over the world.
For those who think it is evil, it is the replacement of the "mom and pop" type store.
...United States will ultimately destroy the Taliban government.
Already done. Happened this morning.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
At least thats what it means to me when I hear it. We are basically talking about US-centric ideology and economy. It means that things like this invasion of Afghanistan should be accepted by the rest of the world, because sooner or later it may happen to them. Forget that nations have their own sovereign right to determine their own internal affairs. They only have that right insofar as the US does not feel the need to interfere. And this does not apply equally across the board. Would we allow France to bomb our cities because we are harboring a political fugitive they are seeking? Would we allow Russia to arm and finance groups in America that advocate overthrowing the US government? Yet that seems perfectly acceptable for the US to do in other countries. Of course when the US does it, its not called "state sponsored terrorism".
I hate to nitpick but the Germans say "Globalisierung".
So much for the Thumb. I've got to get Marvin to come fix this thing.
Here here!
However... I think the Bill Buckley bit is rather thin as an analogy.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Globalization can be classified as a polarizing issue. Often seen in politics, it is simply an issue that one can use to easily separate people into two groups; those for, and those against.
Somewhere in the middle exists a rational argument, but either sides probably aren't interested in hearing it.
Would investment from multi-nationals help or harm a country like Afghanistan, where one kid after another says in TV interviews that the only available job opportunities involve shooting people? I think that is a moot question when the Taliban is concerned. Multinational investment for them is made up of drug money or terrorist funds. I am not sure that the squabbling northern alliance is going to be any better or worse. The truth lies in the statement about the only job opportunities being those of shooting people. There is not much in Afghanistan except drugs and anger. It is not going to get any better in the foreseeable future either.
I haven't read the message, cause its to damn long and I'm too damn lazy, but the only thing I could say is that I really don't miss Mick and BayWatch, and if globalism means its diffusion all around the world, well I prefer to look for another planet right now...
The major Ottawa bus routes (Transitway) come within 100m of the conference center where the G20/IMF summit is held.
Info: Global Democracy Ottawa
" Neither could say what it was. Can you?"
It is either a floor cleaner or a dessert topping.
Don't worry, it's both!
I'm not saying he's William F. Buckley-like, I'm saying he wants to be considered a great "thinker" of our time, when he's considered (outside of the little world known as Slashdot) about as great a thinker as Pauly Shore.
But the UAW can't organize them. It means the
creation of the "guest worker". Someone who
is not a citizen, but is someone who is sponsored
by a corporation who can not vote, can not join a union, and can be sent home if the company
finds his behavior unmutual. Globalization is
the end of the small business man, and the
dominance of Mcdonaldsmicrosofttoyotanokia.
Globalization is Al Gore and George Bush
and Tony Blair and Zhang Zimen. Same puppet,
just different sponors withing the global elite.
Globalization is one size fits all. And if you
don't like it, you're an "America Firster". What's wrong with "America First"????
My big concern about globalism is that it doesn't define the end-user as a global citizen but as a global consumer.
Also, why doesn't it show a myriad of global companies instead of today's fewer and fewer multinational companies?
The recent dotcom era went in this direction but soon became suffocated by these few majors.
When the concept of globalism will make abstraction of this centralism we might switch to an era of global equity but this will only occur if the press frees itself from the economical interests that endanger its objectivity and favors the actual monolithic global model.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
"Interconnection". That's all globalism/globalization is. Everything else is circumstantial, meaning it depends on the particular implementation or course of history or time-space continuum you happen to live in or whatever. ;-) So no, it is by no means inevitable. Presumably, one could find an island (physical or metaphorical) that allows total isolation from the rest of humanity. It is, however, worthwhile to note that known human history shows a trend vastly in the opposite direction.
I work for a magazine called foreign policy. Late last year we did a very interesting set of rankings that rated how "global" different countries are. We worked with AT Kearney to develop a system to measure and compare things like, # of secure interent hosts, amount of foreign direct investment, # of long distance telephone calls. The results of the study were interesting and suprinsing. This year we'll be publsishing the same report in January.
Well, I made it about 2 lines into this article. It's nice to know that Jon's not even trying to make an article look interesting anymore so I don't feel as bad when I stop reading after 3 minutes.
standardisation and centralisation of policy for reasons of convenience, all at the expense of diversity, freedom of choice and (therefore) long term darwin-style improvement of policy.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Don't trust professors from that "Amherest College." It's no good. Neither is Amherst.
- Williams '01
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The thing that really scares me about globalization is the homogenization that follows. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some extremist or religious nut. But every nation being different is what makes it so interesting. Once there are McDonalds on every corner, and the whole world shops at The Gap, this place will be so boring it will drive me mad. On the other hand, if you go too far protecting your national identity, you end up like the french, with their laws preventing social dilution at the expense of personal freedom, or like the Taliban, so scared that people will see western ways and abandon their twisted interpretation of religion that allows them to keep control. It really is a fine line.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Globalism is, among other things, the only way for local markets to keep expanding. Since there is nothing left beyond the world for now, I guess this is the last phase until the end of the old world and probably the beginning of a new middle age.
Don't get me wrong. Globalism in itself is the negation of any kind of territorialism being used as forms of abuse -- the fall of barriers. But those barriers still want to survive on their own ; if they're going to disappear, they may try not to go down alone and take a part of the world with them.
Therefore, any side-effect of globalism should not be attributed to itself. It is rather an opportunity to get rid of systems that do not have any use anymore, that will crash anyway on their own, and that can blow us with them if we do nothing. If we're going to globalize anyway, let's not do it half-assed.
--Martin
Globalization is one of the finest things that can happen to human race, if it's done the right way. It means a world without barriers, but since human stupidity makes ppl try to push their own ideas down other ppl throats, that's what is going to happen. Furthermore, it's interesting how globalization is always shown connected with world economy, instead of being defined as a massive cultural exchange. Of course... the greedy capitalists out there have a focus on this matter just a 'little diferent' than we do :)
Rio de Janeiro's dwellers are stupid. No, really.
The WTO is meeting in Qatar (Middle East) not Japan (Far East). The amazing thing about Katz's writing style is that he is almost as innacurate as he is sophmoric.
Can anyone attempt to illuminate the differences between 'Globalization' and 'Americanization' ?
Some are finding it hard to separate the two, and that may be why Globalization is getting a bad rap.
>Globalism is the biggest idea in the world right now.
anyone else think that is just funny?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Call me a cynic if you like but to me globalisation means whatever the man with most money and the best lawyers want it to mean at the time.
globalization is what JonKatz (tm) is/was/will be against. What more do we need to know?
Of course, I thought it was one of the following:
a. jocks
b. columbine
c. censorship
d. hollywood
e. republicans
f. religion
g. me
h. democrats
i. microsoft
j. short articles
k. cowboyneal
l. all of the above
m. all of the above and then some
(Score:
+1 True
-50 moderator didn't like it)
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
Actually, we Germans call it "Globalisierung".
Alex
Globalization is, to me, the process whereby third world countries are modernized (using crushing WTO/World Bank debt) until they are suitable for use as cheap labour.
History has shown, however, that eventually the labourors will demand better conditions, either through gradual reform or revolution. So while the short term goal is exploitation, the changes put in place to facilitate that exploitation will lead to improved living conditions.
An example: the suit. You know (and probably hate) the kind of outfit I'm talking about: matching pants and jacket, a stiff shirt, a tie. It's gone through a lot of different variations, but it's recognized the world over as the official uniform of "business". Happily, it's not the way all business must be transacted anymore, but it's still a common symbol of "business". Somehow this distinctly European invention is now worn in China, Africa, South America and occasionally even in Silicon Valley.
Proponents of globalism say that it's a good thing because it spreads good values around the world, e.g. democracy. Opponents say it's a bad thing because it spreads bad things around the world, e.g. powerful, corrupt corporations.
On balance, I think globalism is a positive trend. Democracy is more popular now than it has even been in the history of the world, and this is due in large part to the spread of capitalism and democratic thought. I acknowledge the problems and hope we'll continue to resolve them, but I don't think the solution lies in artificially compartmentalizing the world in the hope that each compartment magically solves its own problems.
Globalism is never a problem for anyone -- it allows competition to level the paying field for even the poorest nations as long as they have the people who want to work for it.
Where globalism, capitalism, and "Big Business" get ugly is when the government (any government) intervenes in any way: whether its a subsidy, a tariff, an embargo, even a bailout (a la airlines). The minute a government steals from the citizens in order to help a business, the system falls apart. Those who worked hard to make their business profitable get hurt for their smarts (Look at the airline industry, there are numerous airlines HIRING right now, and some of which who are still profitable). Instead, our government takes the biggest ones, with the worst track record of profitability, and bail them out, hurting the little guy who was making it work.
Big Business will always fail with no government intervention, eventually. 10 smaller companies in a co-op situation will always do better in the long run if they have the competitive edge and no sanctions to hurt them or subsidies to help the Big Business competition.
It's evident that totally free trade can "save the world." It's more evident that our country will never allow it. Sanctions against Iraq destroyed that country (NOT Saddam Hussein as the media and government portrays as the culprit). Sanctions and subsidies destroyed the wheat crop in Columbia, then destroyed the coffee crop. What was left? Coca. Now our government intervenes to destroy that crop.
In order to have a peaceful society, we need to get government ENTIRELY out of free trade. Let businesses and people deal with whomever they want, bar none. I can understand if government may want to limit arms sales, but other than that, I can see no reason to ever limit or subsidies trade or business of any kind. In a totally free economy, there will always be winners and losers. Unfortunately, government intervention makes losers into smaller losers, and the winners into big losers. Tell them to stay out, and you'll see happy people all over the world, able to buy and sell their wares at prices that they deem proper.
We believe that without the government, prices would skyrocket (they wouldn't, supply and demand and competition prevent that), or we'd have shortages (again, suppy and demand and competition would help), or we'd see our economy fail because other countries do it cheaper (they do, and better, sometimes its even our unions that make our businesses unprofitable, not necessarily our business tactics).
79 signatures just a moment ago. wow. thats nearly 1e-17 % of readers. way to go fuckwits.
Globalization is nothing but Trade, taken to its most extreme. Trade is still good, even though it seems to be out of control. The fact is, that Tiawanese factories are much more efficient at mass-producing electronic products than US factories, where the cost of labor has risen a bit higher. As a result, the US, with a more educated workforce, focuses more on designing and servicing products which are sold worldwide, leaving other nations to persue their particular fortes. It's a good thing, since specialization means greater production, and less scarcity, on a worldwide scale. Joe Midwestern Farmer, who can barely make ends meet and must take a job manning telephones on a support team, well he may not like it. But you can't argue with results. He can go to Best Buy and buy cheap electronics that would have cost a great deal more if they were produced domesticly. The world can achieve more when it works together, and there's nothing wrong with outsourcing whole industries to nations who are in a position to do it better.
- Kengineer
Globalisation has some good points and some bad points. We should take advantage of it while supporting the underdeveloped countries.
And hey, I'm politically left..
See also: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110231/
I don't consider this a troll or an abuse of /. resources. It is me voicing my opinion as a member of the /. community. This is what I believe: Jon Katz is the root cause of globalism: People want to get the fuck out of America to get away from his stupid ass!
the Germans say Globalisiening
Dear John Katz, /. needs not only a spell checker, but a decent translator? Don't tell my your OCR software mistook "ru" for "ni". It's christmas soon, so let's write up something for your wishlist for Santa Claus.
can't you please look up your stuff a little bit better? It's Globalisierung. Not that difficult, is it? I guess
The typical flavor of Liberalism today is Statism: they hate the fact that there are institutions beyond their control. But what kind of body could control the multi-nationals? Only a "one-world" type of governmental agency. I'd rather take my chances with many companies and many governments duking it out with each other.
Multi-national companies aren't swashbuckling rapists; they comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate. Sometimes those laws don't conform to the anti-globalist (AG) agenda. Are the people in those countries too stupid to see they are being exploited? Or are they taking advantage of an opportunity for economic development? The AGs have decided that they know better; this is hubris.
It's not here, here. It's hear, hear.
Furthermore, it takes an enormous amount of time and resources for a corporation to become globalized. All businesses start out as a small mom-and-pop shop, and either expand or fail. Today's globalized corporations are merely the most sucessful of the previous generation's small town shops, and you don't become a huge multinational conglomerate by screwing over your customers. Companies like Wal-Mart, Montsano, and Coca Cola got where they are today by offering superior products and services than their competitors. Years of hard work got them where they are today, not some government Trilateral Commission conspiracy. It's free-market economy at it's finest, nothing more.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Globalism==one country && one people && no culture. I would say this is a very good thing.
As far as I know the correct German term is "Globalisierung" :-) For a native speaker the former expression would sound like Global-easy-ning, which does not seem to be a valid and understandable noun.
A collection of many cultures, beliefs, economic systems and governments under the scope and control of Disney.
.......some disney ride or attraction.
:)
So when the computer industry ask you AGAIN, where do you want to go (hell they really don't know), tell them
Next year they will present you with a program that makes it possible. Buy our product and we'll give you a free ticket to Disney.
Even though you are already there.
.
As a german I usually do not say "Globalisiening" - in fact the only situation I could imagine saying "Globalisiening" is when I am stoned...
The correct word is "Globalisierung". But, on the other hand, wtf...
The first problem (the one with the theory) is an attempt to homogenize culture. Face it, most people like their culture, no matter what it is. Culture is usually not prescribed by the government, but is certainly influenced by it. On the other hand, cultural homogenization may be inevitable--more influenced by cheap transportation and communication than any political actions.
The second problem has to do with the way globalization is being done. I am a US citizen, and consider having a say in my government to be a divine right. Current globalization efforts include, IMHO, the UN, the WTO, and the EU. These agencies, these super-governments (for lack of a better term) don't answer to people, they answer to governments. This removes the person further from the government imposing laws on him or her. I don't swear allegiance to the UN, I am not permitted to help elect its members, why should I answer to it? Why should my country's business laws be prescribed by the WTO, when I have no opportunity to vote the bums out?
This looks like a pure power steal. Global agencies are not directly accountable to people. If they were, if I could protest their policies peacefully at the ballot box rather than violently at protests (the only option we now have), I would have more patience with them.
--The basis of all love is respect
The French call it Mondialisation, the Germans say Globalisiening and throughout much of Latin America, it's called globalizacion.
Can I also have that in Dutch, Hebrew and Outer-Mongolian please?
In order for capitalism to survive there must be monopoly. In order for monopoly to survive there must be globalism. In order for business to grow it has to grow somewhere.
This coming world conflict has to do with masses of laborers having their rights removed by large multi-nationals. It's already happening here. It's the only way that a multi-national can survive and continue to grow.
In short. Globalism will be short lived.
There are different feelings about it because it means different things. There's economic globalization, political globalization, military globalization, information glabalization etc...
Those whose power relies on misinformation or lack of information (hello Talibans, China & North Korea) hate information globalization. People on the left hate economic globalization because corporations use it as a way to escape the law (abuse worker or pollute where it is legal or tolerated). etc etc etc...
In the end globalization can be the greatest or the worst thing depending of how it is made. If it gives big corporations gaining more power, cultures distruction and uniformisation, then it is a horrible thing. If it means education and cultural growth, then it is good. It is all what we do of it. And right now, it just seems to benefit Coca Cola, Microsoft and Sony more than the poor kids in Manila.
All of this supposedly maximizes material well-being, of rich countries and of poor ones. This is, naturally, an extremely naive view. First is the issue of a global political democracy itself. (I am a US citizen, not a citizen of NAFTA.) Simple globalism removes from the compass of democratic deliberation key questions of self-governance.
Naive globalism creates a bias against the mixed economy. If you believe that laissez-faire is really optimal, this is a constructive bias. But the entire history of capitalism is littered with counter-examples. Market economies have unfortunate tendencies to financial panics that spill over into purchasing-power collapses and serious (and avoidable) depressions. Unregulated capitalism yields monopolies, gouges consumers, fails to invest adequately in public goods, and produces socially intolerable distributions of income and wealth.
Simple globalism undermines the project of the mixed economy in many ways. It punishes nations that elect policies of high wages and generous social benefits. It pulls capital into corners of the globe where there is less regulation, which in turn makes it harder for the advanced nations to police their capital markets and social standards.
the real issuesseem to be these: What are the proper terms of engagement between a national, democratic polity and a global economy? As international institutions necessarily replace national ones, to whom are these institutions democratically accountable, and what substantive policies should they pursue?
Answer those questions, and you will have a successful career in international politics ahead of you.
Globalism in its pure form is us realizing what and who we are. It is overcoming the petty squabbles between cultures and nation states. It is realizing that we are one race, and realizing the commonality of that one race. Common problems, common solutions. It is not about business. Business is simply a tag-a-long. When we all realize we are of one race... shouldn't businesses work on a global level? That is just common sense.
Just like everything else that is a good and pure ideal though, globalism has been convoluted. Companies look over the positive aspects and future ramifications of it and use it as a means to get cheap labour in Indonesia for making their Mickey Mouse (TM) wallets, and their Kobe Bryant (TM) shoes.
It is another great idea, and incredible concept that has been derailed by our non-evolved sense of humanity.
People say Globalism is bad. I say people are bad.
Suck it long, and suck it hard.
There are different kinds of globalization:
Economic globalization increases the economic equality of societies (e.g., USA vs. Bangladesh) while increasing economic inequality overall by providing more opportunities to exploit workers and making it easier for a small number of people to become grossly rich. It is difficult to enforce laws against multinational corporations (e.g., Yahoo versus France) because they can hide across internation boundaries or even have other countries actively protect them.
Political globalization stabilizes world politics at the cost of local power, and can, therefore, alienate people even while it is saving them from war. If power centralizes into the wrong hands (e.g., a corporation focused on financial gain and not the welfare of citizens, or an oppressive regime) you get an Orwellian (i.e., "1984") nightmare. Political globalization makes it easier for companies to make money, but harder for them to hide from the law.
Cultural globalization makes people more tolerant of each other and different points of view (thus decreasing global conflict), but threatens local cultures with extinction, which is why religious extremists hate it.
Thomas Freidman, a NYTimes columnist, gives a pretty good explanation of globalization in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
I'm just about to finish reading the book and can attest that he has neatly defined everything I had hunches about regarding where the world is headed and what globalization means. He has a complete world view which neatly explains all the things Jon Katz mentioned and more.
To give you an idea of the credibility of the book, he essentially predicted the 9/11 attacks in the book as a product of globalization.
He might be a tad optimistic for me and I sometimes take issue with his writing style but he seems to be mostly right on and writes very very clearly.
A recommended read!
P.S. I do not have any vested interest in the book, nor am I a relative of Thomas Freidman
should be retitled "Defining Stupidity".
Dubayuh's "war on terrorism" should be
retitled to "war for oil in the Caspian Sea
region" and "gas pipelines in Afghanistan".
I hate it when people use foreign words without verifying or even trying to understand. The word should read "Globalisierung". I don't expect everyone to know German, but those who don't, shouldn't use German words without checking and re-checking; they just come out looking stupid. (Which is how I'll look if any spelling or grammatical mistakes have escaped me in this message.)
I don't think bomb_taliban() in defined in stdio.h maybe this would be better
#include <stblib.h>
#include <gps.h>
#include <arsenal.h>
#include <mil.h>
void main(void){
arsenal bomb(US_ARS);
mil US(MIL_US);
gpos taliban = gpsLoc(LOC_AFGANISTAN,SEC_TALIBAN);
while (1){
bomb.set(rnd()%300);
US.use(&bomb,(double)taliban);
}
}
I think if we want globalization to suceed and make a better world, them we have to apply the same rules to the world that the ones in the industrial countries.
This rules are similar to the ones that applies inside any country. If we really want a global market, then these rules will protect countries and promote a balanced development.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
I think the whole debate about globalisation has suffered, as is implied in the article, from people using the term to describe different things. To me, globalisation is the creation and growth of sytems that allow communication (both physical and digital) around the world in shorter and shorter periods.
What most people seem to talk about when they say globalisation is in fact how capitalism (and in particular large companies) use this new tool. Now, the entire reason for the existance of companies is to make money for their owners, whether it be privately owned, or owned by shareholders. Traditionally, the methods used to make money have been limited by regulation and legislation. The problems have only come about when there is no body that can regulate the companies effectively, or where that body is controlled more by the companies than democratic bodies. This is not to say that companies or capitalism is bad or wrong, simply that they are reacting to a situation that is new in ways that were unexpected by many people.
Is globalisation intrinsically bad? I'd have to say no. Is it intrinsically good? Again, no. Globalisation is as good or as bad as we make it. If we want to try and build a safer, calmer world, I believe we need to start off by allowing a democratic body (i.e. one whose members are made up of elected officials elected specifically for that post) to begin to build a more effective framework of regulation and legislation. Unfortunately, I can't see this happening anytime soon, because it would be a political nightmare to sign a country, and the companies within a country, up to any international framework - European states often have different priorities in this area than the US.
But we musn't forget the oppurtunities that globalisation offers us - not just for trade, but in cultural areas, religious areas, and so on. We should push globalisation forward, but shouldn't be surprised that it produces problems we need to deal with.
Just my two pennorth worth, anyway...
Trev - used to be interesting. Honest.
Globalization is the quasi-religious faith in the wisdom of the market taken to it's next level. We (and the rest of the world) are slowly handing over control of our culture, environment, laws, and markets to a spiderweb of treaties and economic "carrot & stick" threats.
Democratic governments are no more special in such a system than any dictatorship. Don't want to allow certain trade goods into your country? Sorry, can't say no or you risk economic isolation. What if your culture is opposed to blatant displays of sexuality? Tough, the market will choose your culture. Want to vote to change environmental rules in an industry? Nope, we're bound by treaties, so much for the voice of the people.
Granted trade agreements and economic treaties have existed before but we've never bound ourselves so thoroughly to an intricate system as this. It is no wonder that the British voters are reluctant to jump into the European Union. They can vote for their government but they'd have no voice in Brussels.
Economic growth has to have a point, it should not be an end to itself, something people seem to have forgotten. We are a very comfortable (aka spoiled) people already, why are we now allowing ourselves to be plugged into this? Unless you are a corporate boss you ultimately have more to lose from this than to gain.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
This page intentionally left blank
Any leader who's country's most popular show is bayatch should be in despair about his people...
I'm sure its much more complicated than that, but whatever their message is it isn't getting out. Protestors in seattle just looked like hooligans.
Behind all of it is the idea of "connecting". NO, I don't mean plugging your monitor into the video port. It's the idea two living creatures come to an agreement. It can be as simple as a dog licking an owners hand after getting a treat. The owner and dog agree they have affection for each other. On a global scale, connection means a million different things. It's people playing games across the world at the same time, business men teleconferencing, instant messaging, watching a soccer game and everything else. What scares people (myself included) is all the geographical, linguistic and political barrier begin to dissintegrate rapidly. What people are afraid of is loosing the sense of self vs connecting to the world. Before 1960's, Americans chose to down play their foriegn heritage and adopt a common culture. Transpose this scenario on a global scale, and you can see why so many people are terrified. What makes life interesting is differences between people. Not everyone is ready to learn 8 languages, or adopt one global language. Nor is everyone ready for international cuisine. As Lao-Tzsu said, "The only thing certain is change."
After an entire article citing how many believe that Globalism is a danger to the way the world _exists_, you then go on to say that Globalism is "inevitable" and only "primitive nations" would ever think of avoiding it??
Globalism is the eradication of local boundaries. Globalism is the idea that local culture and local influences are irrelevant. For something to become an influence under Globalism, it must pass through the well-established channels of business and boardrooms. Globalism is the idea that your region's customs should be.. no.. will be the same as every other region on the planet after it has taken its full effect. Globalism is the idea that what matters there matters everywhere and vice versa.
Globalism is only inevitable if corporations should be allowed to do whatever they please. It runs directly against the ideas that a tight-nit band of people should be able to determine the flow of their own lives. Instead, they must surrender that notion to a large bureaucracy bent on gaining, you guessed it, more cash.
And then there's the total immorality present in the best ways to get cash. And then we remember how much power corporations already have. And then we start to think, just like Katz, that Globalization is completely inevitable.
We shouldn't give up so easily.
but if a professor from Amherst thinks it's a good thing, then I know is EVIL!
I agree, but not quiet...
/. and that's why traditional mulitnationals don't like open source and anti dmca type stuff.
The thing missing here is that it's now enforced by governments wby using information and technology to control trade.
That's why it's on
It's also why EU appears to be getting policies which reflect US ones, because it's driven by politics which are driven by gobalised corporations.
Actually, if you consider that most /bots have multiple accounts, most trolls have fscking hundreds of accounts, most other /. members don't even visit /. anymore, then the figure is probably closer to 80%
Globalism is:
1. Putting all your eggs in one basket.
2. Trying for harmony when everyone sings the same tune.
3. Letting everyone make the same mistakes, all at once.
4. Making sure the free market never decides anything.
5. Saying "Businesses have been a discriminated minority for too long."
6. Trying to disprove the myth that humanity doesn't scale.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
$ gcc -o bomb_taliban bomb_tailban.c
/tmp/ccPeMzHF.o: In function `main'
/tmp/ccPeMzHF.o(.text+0x8): undefined reference to `bomb_taliban'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
It is the consolidation of global power into fewer and fewer hands.
If there is any one lesson that mankind should have learned from its history, it is that power corrupts.
More power == more corruption.
I wonder why? I suspect because wars on self-defense or different-ways of thinking (drugs) make governments more-powerful. What did the Taliban first do? Take all the guns. What will be the US/UN's first objective? Take away all the guns from individuals. It makes taxation easier, and the constituency is 100% for that in the UN or any group of thugs who want protection-money. I'm sure this comment will induce whines from lefties, but they NEED to whine!
odds@dragoncon.net gets me.
www.jpfo.org gets my viewpoint on gun control.
[IMO] 'Globalization' is an effort to set commerce as the fundament of the planet, the most underlying system of governence and communication. It says that you and I are both capable of communicating through objects & resources which we assign value, and that those values are equivacable via some system. One of the underlying problems is that the system was not designed in an open and level playing feild - it was designed by those already in a position to leverage more value out of their assets.
Non-economic factors, similarly, don't get equated intot he system since they have no equivalence in the matrix. HOw much is on'es health, or quality of life, 'worth'? What is one willing to 'payp' to support and allow the continuation of ones spiritual beliefs? These are things without/above/beyond value, and they are amongst a large group of factors that are left out of an economy-based system of governance.
-shpoffo
The good:
Consumers pay first world prices, and companies pay slightly more than third world wages, while transferring technology and trading skills.
The bad:
Consumers pay first world prices, and companies use slave labour.
The ugly:
The third world countries nationalise the assets of companies using work practices unacceptable in their country of origin. First world countries vigorously assert the rights of companies to use slave labour and impose trade sanctions.
The best:
First world countries buy everything that third world countries produce at first world prices, so long as its made by a third world company.
Throw in military protection and I believe what you are describing is a government. This is the beginings of a world government, and we should be electing a seperate offical to represent us for it. Perhaps even voting in a presidential like election as well. Anything else is a wasted opportunity. We have the opportunity to inspire/republics and democrocies in countries that have never seen them before. It has the opportunity to civilize a variety of governments by having their citizens participate in a new and wonderfull process. Unfortunatly greed seems to be the order of the day with the current system in the US and the WTO meetings are just a easy way for presidents to pay back campain contributions with favors.
Our government is a slave and our press is their masters. Ben Franklin's fears about copyright have been realized. If US officals really cared about democracy they would create one limited over-government for the world and give up their some of their power to the peoples choice. Hopefully enough of the non-US goverments recognise the civilizing power of such an orginization and work around our currently undermined state.
Good luck to them.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Promoters and haters just pick the definition that suits them best.
The political left attacks - not without reason - the economical steps that leave out social and environmental improvements (it's cheaper to manufacture if you don't need to care for your workers or any waste you produce).
The fanatics of foreign cultures feel the power of culture diffusion and try to stop the unstoppable.
The promoters either see it idealistically or purely economic.
But the box is open and the thing is out. If nobody is willing to stop communication, media and travel between countries, there is no way to hold it up. We can only try to establish a minimum of rules to make the process smoother.
====================================== No sig, no ideas, no money
blah blah globalization blah blah
blah monsters inc. blah blah
generation x blah
blah blah blah
mr. smarty pants blah blah blah
Here we go:
globalize (glb-lz)
tr.v. globalized, globalizing, globalizes
To make global or worldwide in scope or application.
In this case it means trade and government.
Now that wasn't so hard, was it Katz? Did it really justify an article this size?
-- iCEBaLM
It's world government, the first step towards the United Federation of Planets.
Wait... which reality is this?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Too often people (governments, coporations, etc) attempt to employ the drive towards globalisation as a means to achieving particular ends, rather that accepting that stable globalisation only comes about as a consequence of other factors.
Whilst the dimmishment of the powers of centralised national governments, in favour of more decentralised power structures, may be a positive factor in the continuing development of advanced liberal democracies, for weaker and less prosperous nations it can be disasterous and is too easily perceived as an attack on their sovereignty. Similarly, the enforced acceleration of the economic development of weaker nations, without regard for the resources and equity of those nations can have terrible consequences on their lon term ability to survive independently of the international community (ie - for poorer nations the journey to a globalised community is one way).
You only have to consider the different manners in which Russia and China have responded to the West-driven globalism to see (relatively) how much better (stable, prosperous) China will be in the near future than Russia; Russia dove headfirst into westernised democracy without the social and economic infrastructure to support such liberalised globalism, China however, though it's record in many areas is wretched, has been focusing more on developing it's social and economic infrastructure, so that as it progresses a culture that can support liberal globalism will arrise naturally.
Though I am not a German, but an Austrian I promised you that the German do not call it Globalisiening but Globalisierung
j.
Shadowrun.
Whoop!
-Cullpepper
It doesn't seem to hard to define
:)
Globalisation - The effect of modern technologies that in effect make the world 'smaller'. This means that things like TV, internet, phones, satelites and a whole host of things, like Japanese cartoons, to Brazilian coffee make subtles changes to our life. Small on their own, but huge when you add it all up. But it goes in reverse too, since I have a phone I can make a difference on the other side of the world by talking to somebody.
Globalisation is mostly used when thinking of evil corperations raping the earth for the almighty dollar. This is just an effect of globalisation not a cause. The fact that they _can_ have an effect on the other side of the world means that they will because they have a driving force to do so (money)
It can be good too though, scientist are able to work together on diseases and other fields using the internet, making progress more quickly.
More and more it will become a thing in our lives, because more and more we are effected and
effect ourselves all over the world.
So to define globalisation I would say "The phenomenon of increase in the interconectedness of an individual with the rest of the world, both material and interpesonal"
In my humble opinion though.
It means US based companies have taken over the world. In case you're wondering, most of our elected officials were that, elected, meaning they can be kicked out of office. However, companies aren't, unless you have voting privaledges(sp?) within the corp, and don't have to give a shit whether you die from a curable disease. And when they take over, that means they'll only hire people who're willing to live as slaves just to afford to live day by day, whilst further maintaining their iron-grip on their wealth and social status. The "upward mobility" so often praised as part of America will go away, because "he who has the gold makes the rules". And American politicians are already playing along by accepting soft money and various gifts (vacations, sports tickets, etc.). They've already passed many Congressional salary increases lately yet continue to behave like they need every penny they can get. And if the public makes a shit about government corruption they'll just put up a scapegoat to divert public anger so they can look like they're doing civil service and get to keep their jobs. Worst would be to start a war a la Wag the Dog.
"I toss salad."
— John Katz
1. A major component of globalization is free trade. That means there are no "duties" or taxes levied by countries importing goods.
2. International law and international courts are another component.
OK, those are facts that are hard to dispute. Here's where my opinion comes in:
Globalization, as defined above is bad because...
1. Advocates for globalization are always saying that free trade is needed to spur economic development. The first major problem with this is that once trade is totally free, it can no longer be used as a tool to spur growth. If the cause for economic problems comes from some other area, they will eventually exhaust this resource and because they devoted so much effort to it, other potential resolutions will be neglected. This is similar to the interest rate problem with the Japanese economy. Another major problem with free trade is that there are hidden costs. For example, sea creatures carried in the holds of ships have had a devestating impact on the ecology of the Great Lakes in North America. Similar ecological problems have arisen with fruit flies, tree fungi, and various other pests. A tarrif is a logical way to protect against these issues because the revenue generated rises in proportion to the problem. The foolish assumption of free trade is to either ignore these losses in the economic equation or to assume that revenue to solve them can be readily obtained from some other source. This is no new problem. Expanded trade is widely credited for carrying the rats that spread black death throughout Europe in the middle ages. A tarriff to fund rat extermination at the port would have been a fantastic and foresighted action.
2. Global law is bad because it erodes the sovereignty of nations and deprives the citizens of a vote (where they have one). This could also lead to a "no where to hide" syndrome where legitimate dissenters cannot take refuge. In the 80s, the Shah of Iran took refuge in France. What if an international court had been required to allow him to be tried according to Iranian revolutionary laws? It doesn't take too much imagination to see such things being used to persecute all kinds of people.
In general, globalization is bad for the same reason that monoculture crops are bad: If The One System gets a disease, then the whole World gets a disease.
With multiple systems, one "diseased" country cannot infect the others too quickly. What if there was a world government, and it got taken over by Taliban?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
from the article:
Globalism is the biggest idea in the world right now.
I see. So globalism, an economic and social derivation of the world, is the biggest in the world. Ah. Just like universality is the biggest idea in the cosmos?
No offense, but which community college told you this was good writing?
There are often complaints about Mr. Katz, but what differs here from a good number of flames is one merely need to read the article to find it almost as bad as, let's say, Anne Rice. But maybe not quite that bad.
Others who disagree should study the scholarship of scholarly studies.
you sir are a complete and total nutcase. more government is needed, not less. face it, socialism is the best form of government. people in the US need to pay MORE tax not less. we need more social programs and more money to fight the war on terrorism and the war on drugs and to ban all guns for citizens. NUTCASE!!!
The way I see it, globalism/globalization is all about potential.
/optimism
/pessimism
On the one hand, it has the potential to drop barriers and unite humanity into a complex, but harmonious web of inter-connected local governments. It has the potential to open the world up to new cultural ideas (Not just American ones. In this global community, everyone speaks). It has the potential to bring freedom, liberty, and higher standards of living to the globe.
On the other hand, it has the potential to bring an American corporate ogliarchy into existence. A homogenized, processed, company-approved world where everyone is a consumer rather than a citizen, the law is based on the "needs of the company", and everybody's rights are defined by EULAs.
Of course, these are two extremes, and it's more likely the true result will be somewhere in the middle. Hopefully leaning toward the first paragraph, but somewhere in the middle.
Damn inflation! It costs a buck and a quarter to get my two cents in . . .
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
I thought his last point was ridiculous. I'm no expert on Afganistan, but people there usually have about 10 other worries per day, usually involving food, religion, and not getting shot, before they can worry about something like globalization.
The most important thing about globalization is that it makes for peace assuming one thing: trade.
If countries are trading with one another, they won'r fight. They may raise tariffs, or something minor, but no wars will break out. The reason people go to new cultures is that they're interesting, or they're getting paid a lot to do it.
That's all you get for $0.02 USD.
At the end you got a little preachy, but other than that, this was perhaps the best JonKatz article I've ever read. In fact, it's probably the best Slashdot article I've ever read. I didn't even realize it was you JonKatz, until reading the comments...
This article provoked a lot of thought and I wanted to share it. That thought seems to conclude that we're not grown up enough to deal with the whole world yet.
A friend of mine once told me about debates he had with friends of his. We are a group of historical reenactors and the Roman Empire comes up frquently. We agreed that if the Romans had their priorities straight, they had the resources and the will to completely take over (kinda like the Roman Earth we saw on some episode of Star Trek:TOS) and if they had, by now we'd have colonized all the Earth's surface, the Moon and quite possibly a neighbouring star system or two. One reason was because the Romans took their tech seriously and built things to last, and their engineers were bound by a contract that didn't pay them until some thirty years after a structure was completed (Sorry, I forget the sources where they got that). But you get the idea. There were other reasons too, which I can't recall at the moment.
Too many people wanted bits of Rome for themselves, especially people who weren't Roman. We got childish. We probably weren't mature enough to sustain Rome and we probably aren't mature enough to sustain a World Nation of any kind either... yet. Too many people have their own agenda and their own goals (M$ wants a PC empire, the likes of Red Hat and Debian want to chip away and eventually crumble it... hm, I wonder if Microsoft can learn from Rome.)
"The Fall of the American Empire" touches on this ever so slightly in the beginning.
There are still far too many factions within Humanity so far polarized (!) against each other. We can't see past the political and religious dogma referred to here to see the other person for who they are - a brother or sister, maybe with a few odd quirks but still a brother or sister who deserves respect. We're too caught up playing our little games to pay any attention to all that. We won't have another Rome simply because no one wants that right now - we're all having too much fun. No one wants a Microsoft to rule the world or a Time-Warner or a USA 'cause that would mean working and no one wants to lose their play time.
What would you do if you were in charge of Microsoft? After having built it up from a few paper tapes with computer code on it all the way up to Windows XP? We all know what to do with it if we suddenly became in charge of it TODAY, but what about if we had to built it up from nothing? Are you mature enough to continue a vision? Will the vision you introduce instead cause the empire to crumble and your vision with it? What would happen?
I'm not a historian or sociologist so I can't come up with sound theories and solutions. I guess I'm not mature enough to see the answers 'cause I'm only human too. I have some growing up to do.
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
*** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
. . . to any meaningful debate on the subject. Those who are in favor of globalization seem to define it in very different terms than those who support it. This is an issue that those who have protested at recent WTO meetings have failed to adequately address. They have successfully conveyed their message that "globalization is bad," but without further clarification, this will strike different audiences as either self-evident or as an absurdity, since "globalization" means entirely different things to different groups of people. If you take it to mean the exploitation of indigenous peoples by large multinational corporations, then of course it's bad. But if you take it to mean greater mutual understanding among people of different nations, it is long overdue. The problem is, globalization can, but does not necessarily, encompass all these things, and a lot more.
Globalization may well be inevitable, as Katz correctly points out, but what form it will take is yet to be determined. Therefore, rather than getting into a shouting match over whether globalization is Good or Bad, it would be much more productive to discuss how to take advantage of the opportunities that globalization presents us while avoiding the the dangers it presents. This is the challenge for our age.
It's the slow erosion of what we now know as national sovreignty. While it's a good idea to be a good global citizen, globalization will mandate that certain factors totally removed from a supposedly sovreign nation, will limit the options in some way, available to its citizens. Sound good?
Namely peace and prosperity. Commerce and communication have essentially brought us these. People who aren't hungry and have jobs tend not to fight each other. Knowing the facts and understanding what's going on around you makes you less able to be manipulated by leaders with their own agenda. It may sound stupid but TV has actually brought around world peace. It's reduced ignorance and brought new points of view to poeple who might not be exposed to them, and along with that understanding.
/bin/laden calling for death to the infidels, but how can you fault the benefits? I shake my head when I see people protesting against globalism. Largely they are healthy, middle class youths. Wearing Nike sneakers, Levi jeans and driving to the protest in Fords, etc. If they are serious, why aren't they living in caves, growing their own vegetables?
Globalism is merely more of the same. More commerce and more communication. It means that countries left behind by the prosperity that has benefited the west are more likely to share in it, even if the west gets fatter in the process.
There is of course the dark side of globalism. MacDonald's and any other given multinational,
Globalism is here. We should stop talking about wether it's good or bad and start asking how we can reduce its bad aspects and increase it's benefits.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Being against certain policies of the WTO, GATT, World Bank and so forth does not equate to being against global trade, or cultural cross-pollinization. For example, the globalization crowd is trying to push something called FastTrack through Congress. FastTrack is a law which says so-called free trade agreements can not be debated in our Congress any more. That's about as disconnected from democracy as you can get. They want FastTrack passed so corporations can hash out the agreements and not have to deal with what the American people think. Congress isn't the ideal place to have trade agreements fixed, but it's a hell of a lot better than just having a bunch of corporations write the whole thing.
Most of what GATT/WTO/World Bank wants is the same thing in other countries. They want to take the desire of the people, through their democratic governments, out of the globalization process.
Most people around the world aren't against global trade or cultural cross-pollinization, just certain aspects of them. For example, the US had GATT force Thailand to allow tobacco into their country. So we're forcing them to sell a deadly drug in Thailand, and they don't even have warning labels on the packs outside the U.S. We'd be better off forcing marijuana on them, at least marijuana isn't deadly. It's the same junk as a century ago when England and the US fought against China in the Opium Wars because the Chinese said opium and heroin were ruining their country.
That is what globalization is. Pushing deadly drugs without warning labels on kids in Thailand against the will of the Thai people. There are many examples like this but this is just one. Sweatshops in third world countries is another one. Yes, corporations can trade globally, but we also have to allow the democratic process in all countries to have a say. When you don't have that, people get upset, and sometimes react violently because of their resentment against the US.
One of the things that causes confusion is when you talk about two things (or more) as though they were one. Besides, it makes sense to talk about something as big as "globalism" in a more analytical way: it's more of a theme than an individual trend.
Personally, I find it helpful to think of "political globalism" separate from "economic globalism." Political globalism is complicated because it hasn't received as much attention or analysis as economic globalism.
And it doesn't necessarily mean advocating a global superstate. It springs from the simple notion that people around the world are like you and me, and they deserve certain things, including individual rights which have been discussed at length before.
I don't think of economic globalism as evil per se, but I do think it needs to be tempered by more of a sense of fellowship with those who are at a disadvantage in the system. Put political globalism before economic globalism.
'In knowledge is power, in wisdom humility.'
yep, do us a fovor, shoot yourself !
u wasted 7Kb of text not saying anything. and u wasted my time spent for reading this.
could someone make an opt in slashcode to filter out cats' articles
I've always thought it abit silly that people from all over the world gather together in one place to protest against globalisation!
Think of it this way: Globalism is an antonym for Nationalism.
All throughout human history, it's been "us" against "them." Different nations clash in competition for resources and idealogical supremacy. Until recently, the sides of this conflict have been peers, and the outcome uncertain. But since about WWII, one faction: the "western world" has gained the upper hand and all other opposition has withered.
The Western way, characterized by individual liberties, lazzes faire capitalism, and government by the consent of the people, is slowly becoming the consensus on how people should live their lives. And as this level of agreement grows, westerners find far more of "us" and far less of "them." Such commonalities promote global trade and global connections. In time, we will all be "us" and there will be no "them." Then there will be a global nation state with no enemy to oppose.
I've just proposed a rather rosy view of this Globalism thing. Why do others view it as a great evil? I suggest that it is a remnant of the competitive "us" versus "them" thinking. It makes sense, then, that anti-globalists lean towards Marx. Their side has crumbled with the fall of the Soviet Union and if the rest of the world unites in following the the Western way then their ideaology will be crushed forever.
In short, globalization is...
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
anarchist socialism? no taxes there i'm afraid
I understand the point Jon Katz is trying to make, and to be perfectly honest, I don't even disagree with it. But he'd make that point a lot better if he didn't try to pretend he knows something about Germany while making it. First of all, it's 'Globalisierung', not 'Globalisiening'. Second, "hundreds of teenagers" did not "storm the Berlin Wall and bring it down" -- if you'd taken a mean age of the folks dancing and drinking on and around the Wall on November 9th, 1989, they'd probably have been somewhere in their mid-to-late twenties. Third, these "teenagers" did not all run first thing to music stores and buy videos on the morning of November 10th when the shops opened in West Berlin -- most people went instead for things like bananas and kiwifruits. And fourth, even those who *did* run to music stores weren't gung-ho about buying "the videos they'd been secretly watching on MTV". MTV is an American channel which even twelve years later is only available on cable television in the now-unified Germany, and certainly was not watched by *East* Germans *before* the fall of the Wall. Mr. Katz, you're a very good writer. You really are. But I'd like to see you use a little more of your brain and research skills behind that rhetoric instead of making things up on the spot just for the sake of being able to embroider detail onto your arguments. -J
After the death of Carlo Giuliani (related to the mayor of New York city?) and the mass demonstration in Genoa the following day I had the same question: "What is globalization and why are so many people against it? Are they against free trade? Sounds strange to me."
These columns gave some insight in what globalization as defined by IMF and World Bank mean in real life. It's not really free trade. In many aspects it is the opposite and I don't think it's very healthy. This year's Nobel prize winner for economics, Joseph Stiglitz, seems to be of the same opinion.
Bas
...with the exception of things like copyright control laws, most of these industry campaign donations that you so despise are going towards implementing the freer trade that you so love.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
We need to look at this as seen from outside of the USA.
In this column in the Indian Online Magazine Tehelka, Swami Agnivesh warns the West that it would be dangerous to attempt a global, unilateral regime of the sort envisaged by the World Trade Organisation without a corresponding willingness to give up its parochial mindset. As he notes 'the Western commitment to equality remains suspect to the rest of us because they have not upheld this, in any real sense, in dealing with our societies. In its transactions with non-Western societies, the West has operated on the privileges and profits of inequality."
He warns the West that it would be dangerous to attempt a global, unilateral regime of the sort envisaged by the World Trade Organisation without a corresponding willingness to give up its parochial mindset.
The whole article is insightful, but rather unsettling to a usian who has never been out of country.
The idea that somehow the USA is better than everyone elsemight even have some truth in it, but too often it breeds a certain contempt and disrect.
In a similar area, look at Microsoft. They argue they have the best in the world, but this does not always promote respect from users of other technologies.
And so it is probably for the better that the US does not become the equivalent of Microsoft in the nations of earth.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"FastTrack is a law which says so-called free trade agreements can not be debated in our Congress any more."
Bullshit.
FastTrack allows the President to negotiate and sign an agreement without consulting Congress before hand, Congress still has the power to vote it yea or nay. The EU, Japan, Russia, Israel, China, Taiwan and all the EU member-states have some sort of FastTrack laws.
FastTrack would give the President of the US the same abilities in the Commercial arena as he has in the Tactical and Stratigic Arms arena.
Its a Floor Wax you cow!!!
(Apologies to Dan Akroyd)
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
The Irish Republican movement perhaps, just to name one group of many that raises money and is feted in the US.
Frankly, 'Globalization' strikes me more as a cause definable only by the effects it generates.
Other than that, as long as we get rid of these pesky borders, country seperations, and we finally figure out that as long as you keep an open mind, you can get along with pretty much anyone (well, to some extent), I honestly don't care what globalization is.
Mike
Hopeless Idealist
Boy, is this the wrong group to have this kind of discussion with.
Most people here think only in terms of their own cushy little world, the fact that most of hte planet's people main worry is food and shelter and not bytes, pr0n and the newest gizmo.
"Look, the internet is changing the way people are doing things around the world."
It would be nice if most people on the plante have access to a phone...but then I guess thats why god inveted wireless....
To better understand the dangers of Globalization you might want to take a good look at the Rockefeller plans for global corporate socialism.....although Dr. David Beter's audio letter series from the 70's is pretty difficult find believable it still presents a lot of cold hard and very disturbing facts about plans for corporate globalization that have been in effect for almost a century. Here's a link http://www.etext.org/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter/
Now then,
/.) have led to a class of empowered spectators to the game of world-affairs. When these empowered spectators act to bring about changes through the spreading reach of democratic government new players are advanced into the realm of world-affairs. These types of players, citizen's groups, international interest organizations and the like provide yet more complexity to the realm of world-affairs.
Globalization is nothing more than the results of the emergence into world-affairs of a set of new actors not previously counted as "players" at that level.
Classic theory holds that nation-states are the players at the level of world-affairs. This is a small, relatively stable set of players. Technological advances have increasingly opened that most exclusive game of international politics to a whole host of new players. And even more importantly, technological advances in combination with a hightening of personal-empowerment and a spread of democratic government, has created a set of active spectators to world-affairs that has never existed in recorded history.
While the recently-begun information revolution has added new players to the game of world-affairs, these players are still a select group. Multinational corporations and the associated bodies (governing organizations, interest groups, etc) mainly comprise this category, and while the ideological makeup of this group is both interesting and largely homogenous, the impact on the game of world-affairs is probably quite predictable.
Side note: As the most visible, and most active group to affect world-affairs during the information revolution, the group arising from multinational corporations is viewed as most threatening by non-wester societies. The predominantly western and first-world ideologies of these multinationals will eventually shift the ideological basis of the game of world-affairs. This shift is something threatening to proponents of non-western ideologies as it would decrease the effectivness of entities holding those ideologies in the game of world-affairs. Additionally, as these multinational corporations enter the game of world-affairs, the backing ideology will act to shift the playing-field (in terms of law and treaty-agreements between actors) of world-affairs to one most suitable for the western ideologies they represent. Specific instances of this are observable in various trade-treaties and resulting laws that exist today.
While the multinationals are by far the most visible of the new actors at the level of world-affairs, they are not perhaps the most numerous of new actors, and they are quite probably not responsible for the general acceptance that a process called "Globalization" is occurring.
Technological and resulting informational advances have begun to allow individual citizens of many nation-states to observe the game of world-affairs in a capacity they were not previously affoarded. Much as radio and television brought spectators into the realm of sports (and thereby increased the spectators role in shaping the world of sports) television and the internet are bringing individual citizens of participating nation-states into the realm of world-affairs.
Polls, audience-participation, and the ubiquitous internet forums (*grins* go
In addition (see the side note above), the concentration of these empowered spectators is much higher among groups with predominantly western ideologies.
In sum, globalization is causing an increase in the number of players in world politics who advance a western ideology. This increase is fueled by technological changes and market cost-pressures. Eventually it does point to an increase in the acceptance of a western ideology.
This probably does piss off pretty much anyone who proposes a different ideology.
So what.
The process by which a planet of primitive tribal cultures becomes a type 1 civilization. The cultural and economic differences between nations erode forming a single unified global culture and economy. Of course there will always be those that resist change and they will fight vigorously to maintain there individual identity rather than let themselves be assimilated by the rest of the world. (think the end of evangalion people, the destruction of AT fields produced by nations and cultures as opposed to people) Technology, or more specificaly comunicatin is what makes this possible. Historically empires and cultures have always been limited by the difficulity of comunication over long distances. Any part of the empire or nation not within close enough contact with the rest of the nation looses its cultural ties to said nation or empire. Thus far flug colonies eventually desire independence and become seperate nations, this has been demonstrated throughout history. By the same token different cultures and nations within close proximity eventually merge. American culture is an excelent example of this, although the very existance of the EU and the Euro dollar also prove this concept. We already have a global economy and now that technology has seemlessly connected the entire world it is only a matter of time before this process replaces all of todays cultures with a global culture. And once the economy and culture are globalized the politcal systems will follow, the strength of the UN and the way it has handled recent events proves that this part of the process has already begun. Globalization: There are those that fear it, those that hate it and those that ignore it, but they shall all be swept away by what is now a trickle and will soon become a flood. Globalization is neither better nor worse than the old cultural and polital systems, its just different. The good and bad aspects of human nature will always exist in equal amounts the world, regardless of the previlant social, economic, and political systems, its human nature and no amount of tech can change that. History tells us that globalization is going to happen wether we want it to or not. The real question is are we ready for it, I know I am.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
It's rule BY Disney-AOL-Microsoft-Bertelsman-Daimler, FOR Disney-AOL-Microsoft-Bertelsman-Daimler, and OF Disney-AOL-Microsoft-Bertelsman-Daimler.
(feel free to add your own favorite conglomerate to that list)
Sorry to bring this up (and I know I'm going to start a flame war) but Monotheistic may not be the word you are looking for. Monolithic & unchanging != Monotheistic. Monothesitic religions change perhaps slower than society, but the only religions that don't (that I've seen) are the ones that are (and I intend no offense, really) "made up" and/or modified during the modern age to be an empty replacement of a true thing that has moral value.
My religion is Monotheistic, and yet it accepts new ideas better than some - takes a while, sometimes, but things do change. Or at least unimportant things change. Some things never do, and never should because they are evil. (Murder, etc) Still, people are allowed to change the minor things - for example, IMHO it doesn't matter if a person is drinking water or wine during communion - and bring their own interpretations. One thing is, Monotheistic it might be but Monolithic it is not. I personally believe most of the Bible is open to interpretation - there are just a few sections that are not; the key tenets, as they might be called. Any who follow those (or try their hardest) is a Christian. (That's my opinion, at least; I don't make judgements regarding individual people)
Anyway, my point was that Monotheism is not by definition Monolithic. Sorry to rant so long; I just wanted to clear a few things up at first and then started going off.
Shevaresh
tuall@REMOVE-yahoo.com
P.S. Kudos to those who catch the reference in my name
You said marijuana was completely harmless and tobacco was a deadly drug. Tobacco is a deadly drug, as is marijuana. Get it right
~ now you know
To me it's the idea of creating a global concensus for buisness, government, and humanist values in order to progress humanity. America, Europe, and Japan are quickly leaving the rest of the world behind in technology/education/etc. The more primitive countries get educated, or they're doomed to petty tribal and religious conflicts. Along with this is the idea of Future Shock. I was camping this weekend miles away from any city with a population over 8,000 and a friend sat and talked to his wife on the cell phone. 10 years ago we really didn't think about stuff like that, I wonder what my grandma (born 1914) must think. Chuck Yeager (sp?) once said that government technology is 50 years ahead of Public/Civilian technology. What do they have that we haven't even thought of? If _we_ are starting to be amazed at the speed of technology, what about people in other countries that are only used to a radio? The world needs to catch up, to me that's what globalization is all about.
All of which are good things.
Control being the issue the leftists are up in arms about. It's pretty hard to maintain control over people and groups of people (ie, businesses) when they have the option to walk away from power-hungry governments. You can't just throw up a Berlin Wall or Iron Curtain anymore. If governments don't play nice with their people, their best and brightest will walk.
Globalisation is a natural counterweight to tribalism. Playing "us" vs. "them" games becomes increasingly difficult when everyone works with people from all over the world. And darn, there goes that control again. bin Laden is cranky about that.
Same goes with the abuses of nationalism. We're seeing a partial remission of nationalism after the 9/11 attacks, with the move towards unification of the civilized world against barbaric tribalists. The positive side of nationalism, the unification of a people against a common enemy (red white and blue everywhere!), has surged nicely, and that's good.
What remains to be seen is whether the people living in nation-states that have resisted joining the civilized world (say, your average dictatorship that uses anti-American propaganda to unite their citizens against an external "enemy" to deflect criticism from their own incompetence and illegitimacy) will be able to change the course of their nations, or even learn that that would be a Very Good Idea. And does the civilized world have the confidence to help them?
Bilderbergs. The Trilateral Commision. Ring any bells? Conspiracy theories quote them, but you should do the research yourself. Look for David Rothchild quotes.
We are controlled by money. An oligarchy of the rich is approaching, and we're kissing their hands for doing it because of our own greed. I believe in true capitalism; bribery of the government doesn't fit into that.
Here is a set of articles(http://www.swaminomics.org/articlesdate.h tml) written by One Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, editor of economictimes. He is pro-globalisation, but his writings are very very objective & sensible & just go through all his writings to get a sense of what he is trying to say. Also check out the editorials at economic times, which he writes daily & the above google link(http://www.google.com/search?q=SWAMINATHAN+S. +ANKLESARIA+AIYAR+&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en) for some interesting articles I found.
Um... the WTO is meeting in Doha, Qatar. A gulf state. Not Japan.
CRAP
This world trade is baloney. It just gives multi-national corporations the rights of actual human beings (the purpose of the WTO is to change law in favor of the rich).
Grow up.
You are employee number 14yu39423813y4... shut up, and take it like a pile of dung.
...everyone's fears about the future, among other things.
I don't believe that it will "make everyone homogeneous." The next town over from me is already so different, I doubt that cultural ideals will magically homogenize worldwide.
I don't believe that it will "make the rich profit off the poor," any more than it already happens. Foreign investment in a local economy always helps it, even if the investors profit more proportionally. Hello, capitalism...
But essentially, what I DO believe is that political, social, religious, and intellectual ideologies and institutions that have depended for so long on the restricted flow of information and/or goods, will not survive whatever "globalization" is. And that that transition will be painful, and will result in the short term with much wailing, gnashing of teeth, and planes flying into buildings until people get used to the idea and stop fearing the future.
And this world government does not have to be an oppressive coporate run megaconglomerate. It can be a government composed of by the people and for the people. Call me a silly sentimental US Citizen, but doesn't having a say in who runs your life feel good to you? Wouldn't that be great?
And being a Catholic Minister all we would have to do to come to this world government is to respect other peoples religions, points of view, to listen and not pass judgement on why people are the way they are. We could really all get aloung, from Fundamentailists, to Liberals, from Buddhists, to Athesists.
P.S. Please no flames on Catholicism.
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
If it irks the anarchists and leftist hippies (take a bath!), and frightens the conservative religious wackos (take a pill!)... then I'm all for it!!!
Globalization (whatever that is) now!!!
Have a day.
Mk.
In recent centuries nealy every region of the world has made some progress. It hasn't all been equal but at least there has been some. (I am reminded of the guy in Nepal that is trying to setup an ISP for his town). However, one region has fallen into even deeper chaos and despair, Africa. Will the "enlightened" citizens of a new global community let the dark continent stay that way? Or will we have the heart to finally bring millions of people out of decades of misery (ie - cheap/free medical care, education, civil improvement projects)?
sig
It's a gravy train that Katz has jumped upon, just like Columbine and the Open Source movement! Do I win a prize?
It seems like a good way to see someones emotional baggage. Say "GLOBALISM!" and people start freaking out. I agree with a lot of level headed people in here that its just a word that carries no defined content. Its the implementation of any particular thing that we have to analyze, judge, and act upon. The internet is a thing that has global implications and could be lumped under that category. Mass sales of landmines could be another. Manufacturing exportation could be another. The funny thing is not one of those things are "good" or "evil" its how people handle it.
Its both how you play the game AND if you win that counts.
My own view of Globalisation can be put quite simply.
It is the tendancy for people in all parts of the world to aspire to the same things, to buy, wear, eat and produce the same things. No longer do the dutch wear clogs, the german wear laderhosen and the scots wear kilts - we all wear Nikes and Levis. How long until the Afghans, the Eskimos, and those funny looking people in Wales will follow suit?
It is the tendancy for a single dominant brand of shoe, bread, chocolate, baby food to be available, and market leading in every corner of the world. It is nowhere near as much fun to visit a French hypermarche now as it was 10 years ago - so many of the brands are the same.
This is neither a good or a bad thing - it is just a thing. If everyone ends up eating McDonalds then its a bad thing, because I don't like McDonalds. If everyone ends up eating good pizza from a wood burning oven its a good thing, because thats what I like.
woot woot
Here's my take on the definition, in a rather roundabout form.
For most of human history, if you didn't like things (government, economics, society) where you were, you could (at least in theory) walk a few hundred miles and find something completely different. A wanderer could, during his lifetime, sample dozens of entirely novel and separate ways of living. Renegades and outcasts could hope for a new home and a new start away from the powers that oppressed them.
Globalism is the end of that possibility. A uniform global economy and society erodes cultural differences and leaves no alternatives open to those who dislike the single society that remains.
The positive side of globalism is that it offers opportunities to those previously trapped under sadistic or merely uncaring domains. Globalism is slowly wiping out e.g. female genital mutilation, which is certainly a very good result.
The negative side, beyond the abstract harm of having no alternatives for the misfits, is that we become a monoculture in the biological sense, losing our memetic diversity and thus being more prone to societal "disease". A varied pool of cultures has more chance of weathering unexpected stresses than a single culture.
Anyway, that's my take on the issue. The other positions posted on this thread have also been intriguing.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Surely, there are more reasons to mistrust the multinational corporations who advance globalization than I could possibly list here.
Give me one reason! If you trust a corporation when it is "national", why not trust it when it gets "multinational"? Sureley you can find a lot of reason to mistrust companies, but it is bullshit to mistrust a company just beacause it is located in serveral countries.
And the new global electronic economy -- can transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds, quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies, as has happened recently in Asia.
You can not blaim Globalisierung when a country has to deal with the reality. It was rotten politics that led to the Asian-krisis.
Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan...
This is an example of an Anti-Globalisation-thought. A very positiv element of Globalisation is that you no longer can look at other culture as primitive.
globalism (glb-lzm)
n.
A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
I am inclined to think that the media is at least partly responsible for creating the term "globalisation" in its attempt to simplify reality for mass consumption. In time the term has come to be adopted as a sort of catch-all or umbrella concept for a wide variety of groups and organisations, each pursuing their own agenda. So-called anti-globalisation protesters in actuality tend to be activists seeking change in a specific area of world affairs. The issue of "globalisation" merely provides a focal point of solidarity around which different groups can and do unite.
Too often, the labels "anti-trade" and "anti-globalisation" are used to paint a significant cross section of people the colour of irrelevancy. This is a gross over-generalisation. Having been personally involved in activism and protest in this area, I can speak honestly that few, if any, activists are opposed to globalisation in some blind or ignorant stupour.
The issues are simply too complex to paint with one brush. Most people recognise certain aspects of open trade and relationships have wide ranging benefits the world over. The message that most "anti-globalisation" activists are trying to get across is that the globalisation of environmental responsibility, human rights, labour standards, access to health care, indigenous rights, gender equality, and other issues can not take a back seat to the economic priorities of multinational corporations and western economic superpowers. It is a tragic oversimplification to say that the globalisation of the western free market economic system will address these pressing issues as a de facto consequence of the aggressive pursuit of corporate agendas.
The groups that most actively rally around focal points of global trade, such as economic summits, do so in response to the disproportionate mindshare that the pro corporate agenda has in the mass consciousness of western society. When mainstream media fails to adequately address the counter points to unrestricted liberalisation of trade and economics, the dissenting voice is forced on to the street to get their message across.
The dissenting voice has been reduced by the media to sound bytes that say "globalisation is bad, free trade is bad". This has allowed the likes of George W. Bush to condemn the dissenting voice without at all addressing the issues raised by it. As Bush said before the G8 summit in Genoa earlier this year, "For those who kind of use this opportunity to say that the world should become isolationists, they're condemning those who are poor to poverty, and we don't accept it." Reducing the debate in this manner will do nothing to address the root causes of suffering and disparity in this world. It is high time we listened to more voices than those championing the corporate agenda.
Idiot. Don't vote for corporations by not spending your dollar or shekel or rubel or whatever.
No, it's not.
"Here, here" comes from a Latin expression meaning "Thus you have arrived". This passed into common usage during the 4th century by Gaelic tribes who inscribed the saying "Heghredh, Hodhch". Interestingly, the actual meaning of this Gaelic phrase (inscribed here in its P-Celtic form) has been lost, but the phrase did then pass into common English usage as "Here, here".
The corruption "Hear, hear" did not pass into common English usage until about 1532, about the time that Sir Garrett of the Marshes -- a somewhat obscure late Middle Ages figure -- began seeking alchemical remedies for his progressing hearing loss. Sir Garrett was a prolific lecturer in noble English society and was often met with the response "Listen, listen!" when he was unable to make out the questions posed by his audience. To this, he was known to respond "Yes, yes -- hear, hear."
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Could IT be the 'net? Could IT be the GNU age of open/honest communications/commerce? I DOWt IT. More like some gang of FraUDulent megasloths (see also: billy gates, va larry, etc...) trying to manipulate/control markets to keep j. public in his/her place, which is consuming excessively, on credit.
We're here, or here, or a bunch of other .places, for you j., should you ever get your head out of your .asp.
gaud help us.
For your consideration here is a link to an article called "The Struggle Towards a World Consciousness" http://www.bahai.org/article-1-9-1-5.html
The "left" isn't one cohesive group. On the contrary, the political left is extremely incoherent, because so many of the groups on the left consists of people that are extremely antiautoritarian and extreme individualists - it's hard for people to build cohesive movements from people like that. And you'll find that a lot of these groups will have dramatically divergent views on what globalization is and why you should be for or against it - just like in the rest of society.
To me, globalism IS socialism.
As much as I'd like to believe that someday we'll all be free in a worldwide nation, I don't believe that human nature can ever overcome the basis instincts like
the drive to succeed,
the drive to procreate,
the opinion,
anger,
love,
etc... All of these ideas and emotions create friction in society, the urge to better one's position creates revolution,
one difference in opinion can create a new nation... and so on.
Human nature prevents globalism.
Sure we can force our opinions to silence, we can punish angry people, we can simply not succeed, but then we are not free.
I want to be free to think, say, and do what I want to, within reason.
Socialism is a society where the commoners give up some (or all) freedom so that all of the commoners can be "equal", meanwhile the rulers still rule, someone has to.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
...it probably is. Use a different word to describe what you mean.
<ANALOGY>
When we use the word "government" we can mean any number of things. We can mean our government (democratic), we can mean their government (communist, fascist, socialist, monarchist), or we can mean "how we're governed." Without a contextual framework the term itself becomes a catchall for whatever meaning the reader or writer believes it means.
</ANALOGY>
So when we use a term like this out of context any definition of the word one can think of merely becomes a literary Rorschach test ("tell me... what do you see in this?"). In fact, one might say that it's irresponsible to use a word like this without a contextual framework since it can be used to confuse rather than illuminate.
Perhaps globalisation/globalization/globalizacion is a similar term and we should be careful of our use of it.
--
There's no telling what we'll do when we're free -L. Barlow
Well, what about Union Carbide? About 2000 killed and 50000 disabled (Bhopal,1984). Yet I don't think India would bomb the US for harbouring this organization. You might argue that that was fraud (no maintenance, while they knew the situation was dangerous) instead of terrorism, but somehow I think the victims might fail to see the relevance of this subtle difference.
Globalization could be a good: Depends on which side of the pan you are: Big powerful countries (pan handle) third world countries (at the stove). NONE of the profits at big transnational enterprises leave money for the less developed countries.
I like being me.
I like being an individual in my thoughts, in the way I look/act/think/feel/etc.
I'm not Hindu/Indian/Taliban/Japanese/African, I'm me.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Several historians have argued that what distinguishes the "Western" world view is the greater acceptance of the notion, promulgated by Aristotle and embodied in Thucidides view of history, that there is some kind of objective truth out there that is independent of our beliefs and desires. A corollary is that we can come closer to knowing this truth through mental effort, experiment, and by discarding prejudices.
These historians argue that this unique idea came into the world once in classic Greece and has been diffusing ever since. If we accept this framework then globalization is simply the final stage in the diffusion of the meme.
A few observations:
The Grand Inquisitor was right. The notions of "objective reality" and faith are incompatible at their root. He may have been right that the sum of human happiness would be greater if we tortured the trouble makers who challenge our deeply held beliefs into recanting.
Aristotle was wrong to some extent. There is clear objective evidence that beliefs and expectations matter in fields from medicine to economics to psychology and particularly intelligence testing. Whatever "objective reality" is, it's not just something that waits passively to be discovered.
The Aristotelian view seems easier for political conservatives, maybe because they believe in an innate and discoverable "human nature." All my Marxist friends are Lysencoists.
Even in the west there are a lot of folks who instinctively reject the Aristotelian view. This includes all the Navajos, all the New Agers all the "Born Again" Christians and many of the liberals that I know.
"...the Germans say Globalisiening..."
The Germans say "Globalisierung" okay?
You did't even spend the two minutes to look up the german translation, and yet you're talking about Globalism. Ha!
But I disagree anyways. Globalism isn't the biggest idea in the world right now. The biggest idea is to bomb some innocent islamic state to promote... err... fight terrorism.
There is a fantastic book by Ursula Franklin called "The Real World of Technology" that has a great model of globalization. She uses slicing a cake as the model. We usually slice the cake vertically by making regional policies and decisions. Each slice can operate independently and control does traverse the vertical slices. Globalization slices the cake sideways and creates layers that span the entire cake. Policies are then defined for the entire cake and you loose the ability for vertical slices or local/regional policies.
So, things may be more efficient for corporations and large governments to operate on the level of global policies but those policies may be in direct opposition to local interests. Gradually, individuals, and small groups loose the ability to influence policies that effect them.
Globalization is the expansion of the division of labor and trade through which countries around the world become increasingly interconnected economically and culturally. As such, globalization is perhaps the most progressive force on earth, as the expansion of free trade has historically led to great mutual material gains and peace. Insofar as globalization is forced through instutitions (IMF, World Bank) of dubious legitimacy, rather than being developed spontaneously by the natural and healthy urge toward maximizing positive sum relations, globalization will be perceived and opposed as imperialistic intrusion rather than the benificial expansion of mutual interest within the global human community.
could someone make an opt in slashcode to filter out cats' articles
They could, and they have.
I dislike Catz' waffle as much as the next man (I think I only read them and participate in the inane discussions as a form of self loathing) but fair's fair, you can just switch them off in your prefs.
I thought you said that Globalism series shit was supposed to end in two articles. God I wish I had an account..time to get this nonsense filtered out.
... it means whatever you want it to mean for your purposes at the time.
When a protester says "globalization", they mean, "we hate the US and all it stands for - particularly capitalism, which lets some people profit more than others".
When a non-protester uses it, it typically means, "all of the wonderful things that capitalism brings, such as more choice, more competition and more wealth".
In other words, each side defines it in ways that further their argument.
For my two cents, I'd say that the last century or so has been dominated by capitalism and democracy and, coincidentally, human wellbeing (lifespan, wealth, available calories, etc) have skyrocketed, even in the developing world, during the same period.
Only an idiot (such as a college professor) wouldn't be able to see the connection.
My $0.02:
Globalization is the homogenization of culture. It is an invitable counterpart to a world where communication is becoming more global, quicker, easier, and cheaper.
As far as I understand it, the main protests against Globalization are twofold. First and most offensive to the old hard-core leftists is that Globalization is being driven largely by commercial entities - multinational corporations, media companies, etc. These folks (either for locally protectionist sentiments, or an anti-corporate, anti-profit Weltanschauung) mainly see multinationals as exploitative, anti-environmentalist, and rapacious.
Secondly, local cultures are overwhelmed by the pervasiveness of wealthier (usually Western) cultural mores. This side of Globalization is obvious when you see a Watusi tribesman in traditional garb but with Nike tennis shoes, or a documentary on isolated New Guinea villages shows a faded Coca-Cola sign in the background. The implication is that the pervasiveness of western culture will lead to the weakening and eventual erasure of indigenous cultural variety, which is seen as intrinsically valuable.
Personally (flame all you want) Globalization is nothing more than advertising-aware aggressive provincialism on the part of white-guilted middle/upper class westerners, college-enlightened young adults of indigenous origin, or it's simply a disingenuous flag waved by people with an axe to grind or political points to score at home.
If one values local cultures for their music, their culture, their language - that may be a valid point. But to suggest that some sort of "cultural insulation" is possible (or desireable) is just naive. If an artist in Irin Jaya hears a Britney Spears song, and then in his next work uses some faint phrase or leitmotif therefrom - is that Globalization? I'd say technically yes. What, are you going to tell everyone in the 3rd world that they are not allowed to listen to Western Music?
Alternately, if you are a Nigerian living in the hinterlands, and your choice is a crappy pair of hand-woven scratchy sandals woven in your village, or a pair of Nikes that are comfortable and keep your feet far more dry - are we supposed to tell her that she cannot buy the Nikes because they are culturally inappropriate? Or maybe she should be kept in ignorance so she doesn't know they are even available?
Frankly, the "we're doing this for your own good" mentality that seems to drive anti-globalism smacks strongly of the missionary ethos of the 19th century. At least missionaries were geniuinely trying to improve the lives of the peoples they were prosetelyzing - antiglobalism purports to 'protect' indigenes by denying them what they clearly want?
The main point is, people will vote with their dollars. If Wal-mart can plop a big box store in the middle of Uruguay and make enough money to make it worth while, aren't those local people smart enough to choose for themselves? Or are the anti-globalists simply shouldering a new "white man's burden" and thinking on the poor-ignorant brown folk's behalf, since they don't know any better?
-Styopa
To me globalization is the 21st century version of imperialism. Millitary control is replaced by economic control (but back it up with millitary) but the key here is exploitation. The transfer of techonology and economic loans would not be to target the main cause of why a country (region) is backward in technology and economy. It would be set up an infrastructure to mass-produce items using cheap local resources (labor included) that would never actually benefit local techonology or economic status.
E.g. The british creating large network of railroad tracks in India and starting large cotton farms which would be shipped back to England to create the end-products.
E.g.2 Maybe in the future starting a big silicon-chip making plant in Country A. But it doesn't help the country if the chips are all designed and sold somewhere else. Sure a few people get employed and there is a big factory that makes money but the benefit to the Country A is very low. On top of that, there is no way Country A could actually in the future start it's own silion-chip making plant since it doesn't have the key technology to make one stage of the process.
The History of Humanity
1. Family -->
2. Unity of Families (Tribes)
3. Unity of Cities (Nations)
4. Unity of the World (Globalization).
Globalization is the inevitable, irresistable process propelling us to realize that humanity is one human family living together on a small planet. Previously this was not possible due to:
1. lack of communications (telegraph invented 1844)
2. lack of transportation (steam engine invented in 1800s)
3. lack of awareness of other peoples (newspapers only emerged in the last 200 years).
But now it is being propelled by:
1. Intergrations of economies
2. The cheap, and availability of world communications.
3. Problems that can only be solved through international co-operation (including economic, political, money laundering, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, disease, etc).
4. an emergence of conciousness unifying peoples from different parts of the world.
Case in point for (4), why would people in Canada, USA, etc want to get involved in Kosovo? Unless there is something that unites them with the people in Kosovo. This may be expressed by the simple idea that we are all members of one human family, living together in a planet on a very small planet.
A byproduct of this idea is that the nation state is becoming obsolete.
Globalization is also humanity coming of age. Children are often aggressive and cruel to one another, but after the difficult period of adolescence, they learn to live in society. Humanity is now moving from adolescence to maturity. Hence we are not denying the evils that have happened in the past, but only presenting a framework to understand it.
In the words of the prophetic figure, Baha'u'llah, more than 130 years ago:
"the earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."
Pretty much all of the ideas expressed here are from a document called "Who's writing the future?" which you should be able to find using Google.
Globalism is the biggest idea in the world right now. The French call it Mondialisation, the Germans say Globalisiening and throughout much of Latin America, it's called globalizacion.
Guys, stop ragging on poor old Jon Katz. He had the initiative to look up 'globalization' in THREE LANGUAGES! Bless his journalistic soul.
of all the days to have a topic i can't moderate...
go get it
Globalism is allowing an independent entity to control or influence governments. They're usually corporations, but always an entity with vast buying power. Influencing or controlling governments gives these entities two very important capabilities.
Many cite globalism as a flaw in capitalism. I disagree. Destructive people exist in all walks of life, in both corporations and in government. You could blame capitalism for this, but you could also blame the government that sacrifices its principles after some key officials have been bribed. Do you blame Chiquita banana for its slave labor camps, or do you blame the governments that direct its soldiers to force people to work for Chiquita banana in exchange for bribes?
Capitalism abhors globalism as it disrupts market forces and rewards undeserving businesses, not to mention infringes on the essential rights of individuals. Globalism boils down to petty bribery, but it is committed on a level far above what law enforcement can address.
How did I do?
"Winners and Losers in a Changing World: Global Changes May Promote Invasions and Alter the Fate of Invasive Species"**
by Yvonne Baskin*
BioScience v48, n10 (Oct 1998)
"Although biologists have worked for several decades to figure out what makes some plants and animals good 'weeds,' and what makes some habitats more vulnerable to weedy invasions than others, there are no consistent answers. But the need for answers is becoming more urgent as scientists are being called on to project how native species and ecosystems will respond to a bevy of predicted human-driven disruptions now lumped together under the phrase 'global change.' These disruptions include continuing changes in the composition of the atmosphere; shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns that are expected to result from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; changes in land use that replace, fragment, or degrade natural ecosystems; changes in the frequency or intensity of natural disturbances, such as fire; rapid growth in world trade and travel; and the accelerating loss of native biodiversity."
"In addition, the increasing pace of species invasions is itself considered a key aspect of global change - one more visible in most regions than the extinction crisis. 'Exotic invasions are the number-two threat to native biodiversity [behind habitat destruction], but that just doesn't say it all,' Stanford University ecologist Harold Mooney told his colleagues at a meeting near Stanford, California, last spring. 'Invasions are the number-one component of biotic change in the world today. The number of extinctions pales beside the number and impact of biological additions, at least for the present.'"
"Spurred by the Convention on Biological Diversity and growing international concern, a number of agencies and groups around the world are developing strategies to curb new invasions and prevent further damage by established invaders in wild as well as managed landscapes (BioScience 46: 732-736). That task is complicated, however, by continuing shifts in climate, land use, avenues for invasion, and other factors that affect the fate of potential invaders. Furthermore, invasions that alter the biological landscape feed back to drive new changes in the atmosphere, climate, and natural disturbance patterns."
"At the Stanford meeting, two dozen scientists led by Mooney gathered to take a preliminary look at the direction in which various global changes are likely to drive the fate of would-be invaders, including exotic species, such as the sea lamprey and spiny water flea, that already lurk like time bombs at the edges of many systems."
The general consensus of the workshop participants was evident from the start: 'Without question, global change is going to exacerbate the invasive problem,' Mooney said. But not all types of change have equally strong or unambiguous impacts. Workshop participants found that two global trends consistently and strongly encourage invasions: land-use change and the proliferation of vectors that promote species movement, especially those created by the growth in world trade. A number of other global changes, they concluded, have less consistent impacts but still play a role in influencing invasions."
Seastead this.
Germans, or Austrians like I am, say "Globalisierung", Globalisiening means.. hmm... nothing ;)
Just my 0.02
It's a bird! It's a plane! It's sarcasm flying right over your head!
Just think about this: is you goverment ruling for you, the people of your country? Then, how is that, for instance, the americans don't know what the maternal leave is? How is that in the US, theriches power in the history of human kind, there are people leaving under the line of poverty? There are several ways to apporach a globalized world, but the one we are heading is going to be ruled by corporations, instead of democracies. Many factories have moved from Argentina to Brazil in the last 3 years, in part because of the strong argentinean unions and laws, deepening the recesion the country is suffering. You can move to Brazil and pay half of the salaries, and half of the taxes, without worrying about paid vacations, benefits like health care, or strong unions. Then who is benefitted? The brazilian workers? What is the solution for Argentina, to abolish the laboral laws that took years of fight for the workers' rights? On the other hand, the 20% of the GTP is use to pay the interests (only the interests) of the debt to the IMF. Meanwhile, unemployment and crime rises to historical levels. The IMPF is a tool of somination, and it's not meant to help small economies and developing countries.Is this your model of globalism? This is just an example of how this model is affecting small developing economies, and it also applies to Eastern Europe, and other regions of the world. This is not the utopic globalization the humanist advocate for, but this is the model the corporations are imposing, and we are heading to.
They say that a butterfly flapping its wings in Australia can affect the weather in the U.S. about a week later. This notion is used to describe the scientific meaning of "chaos", where the current state of a dynamic system always affects the next state, and then the state after that, and the state after that, and so on. How finely must we measure that initial state? Weather is chaotic partly because it is impossible to measure its state finely enough to make perfect predictions. The unmeasured portions of the overall state have effects that accumulate, and eventually the meteorologist says, "Where did that event come from?"
Ok, we humans form a global dynamic interacting system. The current state affects all future states, just like the weather. While many human actions tend to cancel out and disappear in terms of global effect, some proceed to have global effects.
I submit that anyone who is a globalist and promotes globalism is at the very least really someone who is trying to think about the global consequences of his or her actions -- and the global consequences of others' actions. It is the opposite of parochialism, and yet it encompasses all parochialism.
Naturally, those who think globally are also those who are more likely to try to act in such a way as to have global consequences. Depending on what they think, they may be worthy of fearing, or worthy of supporting. But that's always been true, anyway.
Absolutely. I'm glad to see your post, reading the average ill-socialized Slashdot nerds concept of globalization is truly sad. You give me some hope for that sludge of ignorance about anything that doesn't require a keyboard that is the programmers and other engineers who read Slashdot.
Maybe as this IT recession continues to wash over programmers will start to wake up. I'm sure aerospace engineers were dominated by the unsocial and anal retentive before the late 60's where their industry was hit hard and they finally started forming organizations like CESO.
The problem with the West-driven globalization of today is that while the developing nations are supposed to open up their markets to cheap goods from foreign countries, the opposite is not neccesarily true. With the clout that the US and other developed countries weild, there results a gradual disintegration of indegenous industries.
Globalism would seem to imply the efforts of many countries in the world getting it together and collaborating (rather than fighting against each other or being invaded by european empires.)
Really though its the multinational corporations working through things like the WTO to make less developed countries relax trade laws and 'welcome' foreign investment.
Read: exploit that countries economy, sell their western brand products abroad and set up huge 'guarenteed' investment projects that western companies control and own
This creates a system where the poorest countries are indefinately stuck in poverty. Nike employs people in the poorest countries to make its trainers for peanuts, but once this country is making trainers for the whole world how does it escape into a better economy? It can't and the world economy is set up to mantain this.
The rich grow richer and cream all the profits while the poor continue to suffer by working 12 hour days in sweat shops.
The free market is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of globalisation. It is a 'for the lowest possible cost' approach which is a false economy.
Something that is grown and then transported 1000's of miles is not cheaper than something produced locally. Supermarkets and the like are starting to realise that people actually want their supermarket to sell the food that is grown locally around them.
I don't believe anti-capitalism is the answer though - it is an idealogy. To replace any currently implemented system would cause huge problems (state of russia after the fall of the USSR...).
I believe better regulation is the way forwards. For example what if western countries turned around tomorrow and said that by 2005 all products imported must be from fair-trade sources? Steps like this need to be taken before we can even think about a global democracy
A global coummunity is a good thing(tm), while corporate racism on a global scale is the most frightening aspect of a new world order which can do what it wants, and oneday it might choose to enslave us all. (epic worst-case scenario closing line)
This UID is 7651 digits too high to subjectively infer IQ from.
Globalization is the realization that development requires the whole world and no country by itself can produce enough goods at a cheap enough cost to maintain its current status. The problem with globalization in my estimation is not so much the globalization part of it but the roles that countries enter into when they start trading world wide and this can even be carried over to class debates within the US. Many "developing" or "3rd world" nations have been playing the role of supplying a raw material to the world market. So they start with a commodity, receive money for it and then buy another commodity or reinvest the money. For the most part the money goes to buy another commodity or pay off loans so third world nations enter into a subsistence form of existence. Whereas developed nations start with money, buy a commodity or raw material, manufacture it and then resell it to other countries at a higher price.
so 3rd world nations do this, c->m->c, where c=commodity and m=money.
developing nations do this, m->c->m1, where m1 is (hopefully) more money.
this is a very elementary way to describe the functions of global economies but I think it plays out very well.
My basic point is that globalization is necesarry and many leftists are not against it. In fact, communism is all for it. The more people you can get to come together to benefit each other the better. The bad thing that is happening now is countries cannot choose their own destinies. If they take out loans from the IMF/World Bank they sign on to a specific government and they give up control of how to spend that money. If there is a majority of people in a country that doesn't want it but the loan is already given out to a "legitimate government" then the people who loaned the money come in and fight for control back. Another key thing to understand is that there is always one layer of society actually benefitting in countries while the majority usually only subsist.
There are good things about Globalism as well as bad. I welcome the free exchange of ideas and the ability to make the world a smaller place. I am concerned about the strong over powering the weak, and the greed that is involved. But as with everything human, there is a bad self-centered side to human nature that wants to dominate. We need checks and balances to keep that in check so that the good things about Globalism will shine.
I'm reading through these posts thinking one thing: this author hit the nail on the head. Everybody's got his/her own opinion on what globalisation is, and depending on the viewpoint one is coming from, it can be either great, awful, or just another historical process.
- plot-to-rule-the-world anti-globalisation persons who seem to be trapped in thinking that globalisation is exactly what those same "evil" MNCs are touting globalisation to be. The other's are those who don't really have a strong view of what is it or isn't, or what it's going to do, but just seem to accept it as fact.
However, there do seem to be two dominant perspectives. First, and perhaps most ironically, are the globalisation-as-the-multi-national-corporations'
While not promoting ignorance as bliss, I take comfort in so many of those who've chosen the latter route. If you ask me, globalisation (at least as we're experiencing it now) is the process by which the influence and reach of the individual is being extended, globally. Yes, corporations, governments, religions, and other institutions' reach are being extended as well, but they've enjoyed a global reach for centuries. This time around, it's the individual who's getting the biggest boost. And it's the individual who's going to have the opportunity for the greatest benefit (IMHO, at least). Like anything else, though, globalisation has it's cons. As newly empowered individuals, we can do more to correct any problems that arise (rather than leaving those big institutions to figure it out).
One last thing: why do we always talk about MNCs, big governments, religions, and other large institutions as something completely different from the individual? Aren't those just large groups of individuals? If a MNC benefits, don't those who make it up benefit as well? I guess what I'm getting at it this: we seem to argue than in our world it's the institution vs. the individual in a zero-sum game. But I don't see how that can be when ultimately both populations are made of the same stuff -- people.
Actually, it's fairly simple (in theory). The idea is that countries will a.) eliminate or at least equalize all tariffs, so that only the "natural" (climate, cost and availability of materials, etc.)differences in production cost will differentiate a widget made in Detroit from one made in Morocco; and b.) eliminate or equalize immigration law so that people (labor) can move freely to where their services are in demand.
The end result should be a kind of global United States, NOT that the US will take over the world (down anarchist-boy, down) but that -like in the US- the laws governing labor, industry and consumption will be substantially the same everywhere you go, even while the local culture may vary widely (ex: Appalachia v. Manhattan). In the globalized world of the future, moving from the eastern seaboard to Kandahar will be more like moving from upstate NY to Piedmont NC than well, moving from the US to Afghanistan.
*** ***
One set of rules, given out by an organization deciding who gets what and how they get it.
That's Globalization.
That's also Communism.
I thought we figured out that Communism doesn't work because of greed.
Globalization is just the realization of an ancient trend of integration. This is a trend that starts before mankind even exists. The timeline goes something like this: single cells -> single organisms organisms -> schools/family groups/swarms/packs (man starts here) "family" groups -> clans/gens/tribes clans/gens/tribes -> city states city states -> nation state nation state -> global state (we are here) Does it end there? Heck no! As we move outward and colonize other stars, those worlds will initally be fully independent. So the progression continues (ad infinitum? maybe.) For the conservative radicals the rub is that the global integration entails civilizational/cultural changes (note to the author of the article: the west is a civilization, not a culture), and conservatives, by definition, dislike change (no insult to people who call themselves "conservatives" since I am using the word in the sense of "those who wish to conserve the status quo/tradition"). The rub for the liberals comes from the fact that the oportunistic multi-nationals are quick enough to take advantage of the civilizational/cultural differences that are changing to make a profit before they can be ironed out. Eventually (I hope), the conservatives will lose, the incompatabilities will be fixed, and the liberals will shut up because the multinationals won't be able to capitalize on the differences that no longer exist (i.e. a culture permissive to child labor, an economy so bad 5 cents a day is enough for a worker to live on, etc.). Will all cultural/civilizational differences dissapear? I sure as hell hope not. I'm confident that the variety will remain, however, because at every step in the historical pattern the integrating constituents have maintained individuality, even if not autonomy. BlackGriffen
I am in favor of globalization....with that said let me go on to say that it is one of the most dangerous developments to finally be possible for mankind....every king, dynasty, conspiracy and almost every powerful nation in history has made an attempt to make globalization come about and all for the worst reasons ever conceived....globalization will be a fact before long and it will be a tragedy for mankind....communication and mind control will meld into a monster that will try mans mind and soul in the greatest struggle for personal freedom every to be confronted....the darkest conspiracies that have ever haunted the mind will be a part of life unseen within the subconscious of almost every person that walks the earth....
WRONG. The attacks on 9/11 are rooted in US foreign policy, whether you want to believe it or not. Osama Bin Laden said so himself, and to ignore his true motive is to guarantee the deaths of MORE innocent Americans.
Globalization is the process by which the new computer-literate rulers, having pulled ourselves up from the struggling upper middle class by reading 'Wired', ascend to our rightful positions as Nietzschian supermen!
I don't know if rampant free trade is really a cure all, at least to the extent certain economists would say it is. Markets are notoriously fickle, and underneath all of the ebbs and flows of capital are real people who need to earn a living to survive. Free trade makes that income undependable at best. If the "big corporations" being "propped up" by the government were left to die, many thousands would be unemployed and we would lose whatever strategic benefit having a large national airline structure gives us. Sure, in a perfect world, new airlines would pop up to meet demand, but buying airplanes isn't cheap and is only possible by established companies. A government, especially in a democracy, would be irresponsible to not try to alter the outcome of trade to the benefit of their citizens. Coordinating action, albiet in a very course way, is one of the few tools a government has to affect change abroad. Lets face it: money talks. By lifting sanctions, and trade embargos (and making new ones), our government can make friends really easily. Most of the world would probably hate our guts if it wasn't for the fact that staying on our good side provides them with a good standard of living and ready market for whatever it is they want to sell. As importers, we are almost in a greater position of power than we would be as exporters. The reason we don't make stuff inside our borders is because we don't have to, not cause we can't. If push came to shove, we could make our own TVs and microwaves. Tempered globalism gives us the ability to leverage our political and economic relationships to specialize in whichever industries best suit us. The same applies to other countries, although they don't have the same purchasing power by and large, and therefore don't have quite the same power. While free trade is an admirable goal, its not realistic in a world which exists in any other sphere beyond the economic. Barriers to trade should be lowered, but still have the threat of going up if need be.
There are few things more sinister than a named but undefined "evil." What happens is that everyone makes up there own definition of what that "evil" is. By default it gets defined in popular culture by the nay-sayers and pessimists, becuase the people who understand the idea or movement, are in favor of it don't include educating others on their agenda. They are too busy making their dream a reality!
As a result it, what ever it is, (Globilization in this case) has it's properties defined to include everything from, it will destroy individual cultures and life as we know it, to, it causes cancer and kicked my dog.
Never trust an undefined "evil." Ask anyone who is against it, how it will hurt them. If they have an answer (which they likely won't) ask them do defend their position. It they can. more power to them.
Wow, an educated discussion on slashdot. The end of the world must be near.
>WTO talks and demos are underway in Japan this week.
The WTO talks are in Doha, Quatar. (That's in the Middle East - just south-east of Kuwait)
If this is indicative of the depth of research and thought that has gone into this piece... then it's not really worth the pixels it's printed on.
Let me start by saying that it is, in this country, essentially the popular leftist ideal to be anti-globalism. At the risk of looking rightist (which I think I am not), I will defend globalism.
First, I'll try to answer the question as to why globalism is good by dealing with the arguments against it. It seems that one major argument against globalism is simply that it allows our American corporations to go into (say) a third-world country, and take advantage of the people there. Or something along those lines. In general, the anti-globalism arguments are anti-corporate-domination arguments.
Now, believe me, I have no love lost for big corporations, but I think anti-globalism would actually make the problem worse. There are two bad things corporations can do by entering another country. The first is economically exploit the country, and the second is culturally homogenize the country.
I think the first point, the one about economic exploitation, can be dealt with in the following way. The argument against globalization is that we will show up, exploit the workers, and bring the profits back here. This is not an optimal solution to anything, I agree. If the alternative to American corporations showing up were some sort of local, culturally accurate, agrarian paradise, then I would say that American presense is bad. But I think this utopian alternative along exists only in the mind of disillusioned Westerners. The alternative to American (or in general foreign) corporations in a third-world country is similar to what one can see in Afghanistan, Sudan, or Burma... local dudes who do the same thing, but are even worse. As bad as Shell Oil might be in what it does, can you compare it to Idi Amin? This is what happens in a power vacuum.
Now, I don't want to sound like the argument is "the elightened West" brining freedom and democracy to the poor, downtrodden people of the world. Because that's a fantasy, too. We're not very idealistic about things as we would like to believe. But the one thing that Western democracies have, which is rare in other parts of the world (but certainly not nonexistent, Japan and India being two good examples), is that we have a long-standing tradition of civil disobedience and (if need be) revolution if our leaders (or corporations) get out of line. I mean, sure, the oil companies in the US do some crazy stuff. But, they
Now, the question is, how on earth does the working class in the US, England, or wherever, have so much power compared to other countries? The answer to the question is, I think, economic. First of all, because my personal middle-class economics are so good, I have time to think these things through, and question what is told to me. If I'm spending sunup to sundown farming, I don't have energy to question anything or educate myself on the issues. Second, I actually have economic power over these companies. If we as a people decide a company is going to go out of business, we tell them to go to hell. They can't use the local police or armed forces to strongarm us into doing their will. They must listen to the middle-class, because we are middle-class.
On a similar note, people deride globalization as allowing American (say) companies to move into other countries. What I think this argument doesn't appreciate is that there is nothing stopping American companies from moving into an area now, no matter what the policy of the US government is. You will never stop the oil companies of the US from moving into places where there is oil. It is completely inconceivable that you could do so. The question in the balance is, how do we force American companies to act abroad the same way they do at home? Some reflection on this question points to the fact that these things must be controlled by the local people, that we can do only so much. And in these countries, the people will have the power to control these things only when they have generated the economic power to do so. This requires that we allow American companies to go to these other countries. There will be some growing pains at first. But we can hold American companies accountable for what they do overseas just as easily. If you want to refuse to buy Nike products because of what they do in SE Asia, vote with your dollars. But you cannot, in any sense, make the company come home. You can only require it to act the way it does here. This is an important point, so let me restress it: we cannot make American companies not do business overseas, but we can only require that thy act there the same way they do here. That's how you help the overseas people, because any notion of stopping globalism is a radical pipe-dream, which, in the end, only hurts the people you're putatively trying to help.
One note about cultural homogenization: Anyone who has left the country and gone pretty much anywhere should have been struck by how heterogeneous the US is, and about how mulitcultural we allow ourselves to be. I've never been to most parts of Asia (or any of Africa) myself, but I can talk about Europe, Central and South America, and East Asia. And although we have some ways to go to destroy racism, and to economically invest our minorities, we are light-years ahead of just about anywhere else. I don't deny that it is hard to be a minority in this country, but it is
- a hell of a lot better than being a Turk in Germany or a North African in Paris, and
- being anyone in, say, Central Africa.
And I think any serious discussion of these issues must recognize the fact that since everyone is so economically empowered in the US (as compared to the rest of the world), that even the groups that are worst off here are doing pretty damn good.Now, that's dealing with all the arguments against globalism. What is an argument for it? Simply the following claim: that making the rest of the world economically more like the United States is
I think we can all agree that it is better to be in the US than it is in most third-world countries. Of course, I think the knee-jerk response to this (which gives rise to the anti-globalist ideology) is that you can't know that it's better. Well, we can tangle ourselves in circles all day about definitions of better or worse and economic stuff, but my evidence is simple: people are falling all over each other to get into the US, whereas the number of US emigrants to Chad is a bit small. In the court of world public opinion, people love this kind of thing. And why wouldn't they? Instead of starving working your ass off somewhere, here there is ample work to be done, and wonderful pay and benefits. (And this is another argument for the power of the populace: unions and health benefits do not exist becuase corporations, out of the goodness of their heart, have seen fit to bestow these things on us. We have taken them, through strikes and public opinion.)
It is also good for the world as a whole, because globalization, by diffusion of capital, will lead to a equalization of economic strength the world over. This is clear, and is obviously implied by the principles of economics. Now, most people who are anti-globalist are suspicious of this argument, because it sounds like I'm claiming that we will freely give away our advantages in the world. But it is not a zero-sum game. By equalization of economies around the world, we all gain.
Lastly, it will make things more peaceful. If all there was in this world was middle-class, there would be no need for conflict. Conflict almost always is started by a economically disenfranchised group which wants to get by force what it can't get otherwise. You don't want to go to war if you have a minivan and a DVD player
Ok, maybe I waxed a little there, but, hey... I think this is an important issue, and I think the anti-globalism crowd does have their hearts in the right place, they just don't have their heads in the right place on this one.
Come on, give it up, that's
There is a very good book called NO LOGO (by Naomi Klein) which is essential reading for anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on this.
Essentially, the idea of globalism is that technology and wealth will gradually trickle down from the first world nations that generate (and dominate) them to the third world nations which need them so badly. But the problem is that large multinational corporations have hijacked globalization for their own agenda.
They sequester themselves in Export Processing Zones where they pay no taxes to local government and no overtime to workers who put in 16 hour days at least 6 days a week. They bribe local governments to lift restrictions on destruction of the nation's natural resources with no promise to compensate.
For the last 5 to 7 years (coining of the phrase globalization) third world nations have been getting POORER at a steady and alarming pace. This is WHY they hate us. They don't hate American citizens who go about their daily lives with no involvement. They hate the multinational corporations who root themselves in the US or other first world nations and then drain developing nations of their resources while violating their labour laws without fear of reprisal.
These are just a few of the shocking truths you will find in NO LOGO. You will also discover how the same multinationals have been dupping you for years. You will learn that the shirt you paid $40 for was made in Honduras by people getting paid less than a 20 cents for 16 hours of labour.
The facts in this book is an eye-openning experience for anyone who thinks they understand this issue. There is so much going on in the world that we are not told about. Isn't it we started paying attention?
Did you ever think that maybe people LIKE what they see in western culture and want to adopt parts of it for themselves?
I mean really, what's more likely, some mysterious "elites" meeting to plot the future culture of backwaters like Rwanda or do people in general just like Levi's and Star Wars?
First off, globalisation seems more of an offshoot of imperialism than capitalisation, if you look at it from the point of view of an under-developed nation.
"For all the media hysteria about bio-terrorism and other dangers, it seems probable that the United States will ultimately destroy the Taliban government, and the first such conflict of the 21st century will be over. What isn't as clear is whether this will mark the beginning of a war or the end."
Wait, media hysteria? Haven't people died of anthrax?
Yes, the US will destroy the Taliban government. But the war is just beginning. How can it not be clear? There are Millions of young fundamentalists out there looking at what the US is doing in Afghanistan. They know what the US did in the 1980s, and they see this as backstabbing selfishness. Do you think they will go home after the Taliban is finished? Hell no, they're going to become even more violent and innovative. This is merely the beginning of a war that started much earlier than Sept. 11th.
-Shaunak.
Globalisation means the eventual triumph of individuals over the demiurges and governments who survive by raping individuals of their freedoms.
The rise of globalism coincides with the decline of religion in developed societies and the growing irrelevance of government.
Remember kids, deicide is always justifiable and usually praiseworthy as well, so KILL YOUR IDOLS!
Could someone please give Katz a job where he doesn't have to write.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
i think no one gets the point, that globalisation and with it our whole economic model is still based on the ancient model of colionalism.
it's not so long since most countries which were in the past refered to as colonialised countries got "independent" from the western world, which strangely ended up in becoming 3rd world countries.
in fact there is no difference between the model of a colony, and a third world country. the colony produces cheap resources because it is occupied by some state. the third world country produces cheap resources and labor, because they ow debts to the western countries.
how they pay back their debts is not decided by them, but by executives from the world bank. they even can't decide what the money is used for, resulting in obscure projects from the worldbank like building one of the largest cellulose factories in the midst of the amazonas, with western technology, lead by a western corporation and without a view of ever earning black figures for the 3rd world country.
thats what sucks about globalism
...should be the realization that our entire race is on a ball of dirt rotating around a ball of fire that is rotating around a nucleus of black holes at the center of our galaxy which is hurtling away from the center of the universe. Globalization should lead to improving our ball of dirt and trying to get some people permanently off our ball of dirt. Unfortunately, nobody is selling that, governments or corporations. We have government sponsored idiots trying to terraform Mars (a dry ball of dirt with no atmosphere) and the closest we come to terraforming our own planet is Palm Springs. We have the Clipper Graham which could launch multiple times in a week and a government that picks a design so unworkable that the contractor actually gave up before the contract ran out. Unfortunately, globalization only means the ability to sell things like pokemon, windoze and American Pie, even if some other region doesn't want to buy them.
No one has pointed this out yet that I have seen (at +3): Globalism and Globalization are two completely different things!!! They are not interchangable words! Globalization is the economic and legal process of reducing barriers between nations so that corporations can more easily market goods and services internationally. (Actually, generically, this just means to make global in scope.) Globalism is a political or social philosophy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence. That said, they are both important aspects of life in these times, but no more important than the notions of "world government", "unity in diversity", and "environmentalism".
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
As a citizen of the Eu I can elect my representative to the European Parliment (EU:MEP == US:CongressPerson == IE:TD == UK:MP). This happens once every X years, where X is a number I can't remember.
My representative(MEP) for my constituancy (constituancy ~= US:electoral college) using the idea of Proportional Representation (at least in Ireland). My MEP is a member of a European political party, which in my case is the ubergroup of her national political party. Other MEP's belong to National Political parties and join other (larger) Political parties (effectively voting blocks) in the European Parliment.
There are a number of other European institutions which all in one way or another answer to the EU citizens, either directly or by proxy (through National Governments port:2463 :). A notable exception is the European Centeral Bank (ECB). The ECB is independant and probably has to be to compete with the other large financial institutions ie: the US Reserve. Anyway I know nothing of finance. :)
- Cultural globalization occurs because large corporations keep expanding their target market, eventually seeing the entire world as one homogenous audience. We all see the same TV shows and commercials, and eventually start developing the same ideas about the world.
- Governmental globalization occurs because the more powerful governments know they can do better on the "world market" when foreign governments have similar political views to their own. So, countries like the US and Britain manipulate the politics of the world to their financial ends.
Past globalization attempts have been based in religion (crusades, jihad, inquisition, etc.) These have been for the most part ineffective.Good or bad, the current globalization that is changing the world now is all about money.
It could be a good thing if it means increasing levels of tolerance for, and exposure to, other peoples' points of view.
It could be a good thing to the extent that nobody anywhere starves, or goes homeless, that real justice prevails, that no one nation dominates the earth, that everyone everywhere realizes the necessity of maintaining the environment that we are all intimately immersed in, that people recognize that the spirits of all are inextricably linked, that compassion returns to meaning more than enlightened self-interest.
But if 'globalization' is just a code word for the oldest story in the world -- and it appears that it is -- a NWO featuring the exploitation of the many by the few, the tyranny of an unenlightened elite, the plunder of the earth, great chasms between the miserable powerless poor and the fantastically empowered rich, robotic multitudes that look cherry on the surface and are terrified underneath -- on a much wider scale than ever before -- then it is nothing more than plunder, murder, rape, and pillage by the Ancient Order of murders, thieves, tyrants and pirates.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Is homogenity as in a 'world-economy' a good thing, in that there is no redundancy if it fails?
I think that Afghanis generally don't think about concepts like globalism. All they really know is that they have had 2 super powers fight a bloody war on their land and using their people. Madmen were given weapons to fight against EVIL communists. Know the holy-warrior-defenders-of-freedom madmen are labeled the EVIL-DOERS and Afghanistan is bombed again. Afghanis don't associate globalism with baywatch or mcdonalds but with war, bombings, and death.
I live in a third world country where there is a great deal of violence. This country accepts globalism and does whatever the US wants. Yet the violence has increased. You think Capitilism come Globilism is a stabilising force? You need to leave your bubble of your first world existence. People round here love cell-phones, cable tv, mcdonalds, baywatch, mercedes benzes, and will do whatever it takes to get them. There just isn't that many opportunities out there. So they sell drugs, sell their bodies, steal, or get a gun and kill to get what they want. People who are surrounded by violence lose perspective and do not value human life like those in the first world.
Please don't look at globalism as the saviour of the World. There will always be violence as long as people don't place a high value on human life. This means everyone. Those in the first world just can't sit back in luxury while millions starve and say "it's not our problem." It is just this attitude which makes America hated.
Baywatch and McDonalds aren't going to save the world, respect for human life will.
"Globalisierung"
Globalization is the term used for the actualization of a global economy. As Mirko pointed out, it does not define the people of the world as global citizens, but global consumers, and this is key in understanding the true driving force behind this movement we've seen charging forward over our world. It is the desire to provide goods and services to all sectors of the globe, opening markets to eager businesses, and while this in itself is not the most virtuos of ideals, the end result will mean the possibility of clean water, sanitary living conditions, and widespread healthcare that is currently not available to many of the people on this planet. Sure, Baywatch and other evils will follow, but what a small price to pay! This is of course going to cause some problems for those governments and religious leaders who would like to remove choice from the hands of their citizens, in effect deeming these citizens unworthy to make their own decisions, but in my opinion, any government or culture that imposes its will on its people, denying them choice, does not deserve to be in power (of course every govt. in the world is guilty of just this, but there are varying degrees). Globalization may be detrimental to cultures that subscribe to the above, but this is just a facet of evolution. EVERY culture throughout history has evolved over time. If the will of a people choose to reject a culture where there are jobs that allow them to purchase and sell products in the international arena, providing salaries which can be taxed to fuel schools, hospitals, libraries, etc., then said cultures will eventually be left to tend their barren plots of dirt in isolation, devoid of contact with the outside world. This separation of culture will not mean mere isolation, but a denial of the benefits that go along with a global community as well.
There are concerns about the power of corporations in the new world economy, but there has never been a business in the history of the world that has existed without a consumer base (not for very long anyways). If the consumers grow discontent with a company, then there is a course of action for these individuals - either a) don't buy said company's products, or b) start one's own company (i.e. Microsoft vs. Linux developers)! Should we sacrifice the fruits of honest business and beneficial services for fear of abusive corporate power, or do we take action against those companies that take advantage of their markets while continuing to reap the benefits that a technological and market driven society offer?
We're all humans, and we are all striving for an easier life. Why shouldn't we join forces? No government, and certainly no company could stand against the will of the world, and only when we become truly integrated will we be able to harness this power. Now inciting people to flex those muscles... that may be a different story.
As the multinationals talk nations out of ever more of their sovereignty, they will define globalism for you, and define it as corporate feudalism, because these multinantionals are already more powerful than many nations, and merely covet more power as the organisms they are.
Globalization is a euphemism for streamlining trade at the expense of national sovereignty. There is no cultural aspect, except the culture of consumerism.
Democracy died in this country when the supreme court ruled that a corporation had the same rights as a person. Never mind that these people already had & retained their rights.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
It seems to me that most folks are missing a few key points when it comes to defining globalisation. It is not just economic or cultural or religious of any other single facet. It is in fact a blend of all these things.
I've so far seen many shots at the problems of globalisation without any real solutions. Now, I will admit that I have a biased viewpoint, I'm Canadian. (Flames cheerfully ignored.) It studying the differences between Canada and the United States, one point came to mind. Generally we call the USA the melting pot. And it is, of ideologies, beliefs, religions and cultures. Canada is refered to as a mosaic, suggesting that we attempt to built a patchwork of the best of peoples own beliefs, morals, etc... It's not perfect!! But it's a start. Globalisation needs to apply to all parts of life, but the suggestion that everyone change to your standard, whatever that be, British, American, Canadian, Russian, German, etc... will be met with resistance. Let's meet 'em all halfway!!
Every culture, people or religion has something worth keeping. Let's find all the good stuff and use it.
And herein is where globalisation is failing us so far. Why the great rush to sell the Afgani's Coke(TM) but not help them restore the temples damaged during the Soviet invasion? We must do all these things. It's a basic principle of sociology that the basic needs must be taken care of before we move on to advanced ones. Too many of the world are starving, diseased, or basically overwhelmed by the simple living conditions they are in to worry about being good world citizens.
No, I'm not a Bleeding Heart Liberal(TM), just a humanist.
I think the question to raise is; Who is going to take care of these things? I can't really see the corporate world being interested, it's not really a money-making proposition and they exist to be profitable. How about the various good works groups? You know; church, clubs, assorted groups of people who want to help? They seem a little disorganized and probably can't take on the big stuff. (World hunger comes to mind.) That leaves us with government.
Now, a general mistrust of government seems to be all the rage these days, but it shouldn't blind us to the things it is capable of. The governments organized and ran their respective responses to the big wars this century, and they did it for humanity, not business interests. I think we need to get the message to all governments that collective action can help the whole planet.
But not action for the corporate world alone!!! We must enbrace the wonders of everybodys culture, from my kilt to your kimono to her tribal tattoos. And we must respect their beliefs and lifestyles, whether temple, or mosque, or church, or standing stones...
Tolerance, support, mutual guidance and trade. In that order...
I hope that as the Western World, we can lead the way to a better place to live. For everybody.
-- END RANT --
Thanks.
Wanna know who the leader in the globalization effort is?
It is not the US, not Great Britain, not Germany, Japan, Israel, Saudia Arabia, Mexico or any other nation for that matter.
It is not the FBI, CIA, NSA, KGB, OSS, ISI, Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati and their old hoax of a document The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or any other sinister organization that conspiracy theorists can dream up for that matter.
The biggest leaders in globalization is the various institutions that set up global standards for science and technology, such as ISO. The Metric system is the prime example of the globalization of standards. It is universally recognized and accepted by all nations of the world, even those who insist upon adhering to older standards, such as pounds, feet, Farenheit, etc. Another prime example: Ever wonder why the Internet works the same in every other country as it does in the US? An internationally agreed upon set of standards and protocols.
This comes straight from the ISO website, on why international standards are needed:
_____________________________________________
The existence of non-harmonized standards for similar technologies in different countries or regions can contribute to so-called "technical barriers to trade". Export-minded industries have long sensed the need to agree on world standards to help rationalize the international trading process. This was the origin of the establishment of ISO.
International standardization is well-established for many technologies in such diverse fields as information processing and communications, textiles, packaging, distribution of goods, energy production and utilization, shipbuilding, banking and financial services. It will continue to grow in importance for all sectors of industrial activity for the foreseeable future.
The main reasons are:
Worldwide progress in trade liberalization
Today's free-market economies increasingly encourage diverse sources of supply and provide opportunities for expanding markets. On the technology side, fair competition needs to be based on identifiable, clearly defined common references that are recognized from one country to the next, and from one region to the other. An industry-wide standard, internationally recognized, developed by consensus among trading partners, serves as the language of trade.
Interpenetration of sectors
No industry in today's world can truly claim to be completely independent of components, products, rules of application, etc., that have been developed in other sectors. Bolts are used in aviation and for agricultural machinery; welding plays a role in mechanical and nuclear engineering, and electronic data processing has penetrated all industries. Environmentally friendly products and processes, and recyclable or biodegradable packaging are pervasive concerns.
Worldwide communications systems
The computer industry offers a good example of technology that needs quickly and progressively to be standardized at a global level. Full compatibility among open systems fosters healthy competition among producers, and offers real options to users since it is a powerful catalyst for innovation, improved productivity and cost-cutting.
Global standards for emerging technologies
Standardization programmes in completely new fields are now being developed. Such fields include advanced materials, the environment, life sciences, urbanization and construction. In the very early stages of new technology development, applications can be imagined but functional prototypes do not exist. Here, the need for standardization is in defining terminology and accumulating databases of quantitative information.
Developing countries
Development agencies are increasingly recognizing that a standardization infrastructure is a basic condition for the success of economic policies aimed at achieving sustainable development. Creating such an infrastructure in developing countries is essential for improving productivity, market competitiveness, and export capability.
___________________________________________
So there you have it in a nutsack, folks. And guess what? ISO certification is totally voluntary, no one forces it on anyone, instead industries seek it out in order to gain an edge in a global marketplace.
I know very little about the politics of he "globalization" issue, and I hope I find a chance to learn more about it. Definition of concepts is always difficult and usually you just have to accept it. Context-sensitivity of words is very common.
One interesting point of view might be mathematics, or more exactly, studies of complex nonlinear systems (you know, the freaky chaos people).
There are numerous studies concerning the behaviour of complex nonlinear systems interconnected in different ways. The research of Stuart Kauffman (a theoretical biologist) is perhaps the most well known, as well as other research from the Santa Fe Institute.
One aspect is simply evolutionary - globally interconnected systems tend to converge fast, while sparsely interconnected systems (such as 2d-lattices) tend to converge slower, but they have higher diversity, which often results in better overall solutions.
Also, highly interconnected systems are rigid because each connection is also a constraint. I don't really know how to apply this to economical globalization. The problem is that the human culture is interconnected in so many ways and on so many levels. Globalization might force a radical self-organizational change in the connectivity structure of humanity, by reducing connectivity in many aspects, or in other words, reducing diversity.
One significant problem in many complex systems is that simple changes at a lower level of a system (in parameters or laws) can result in emergence of totally unpredictable and often undesirable effects in large scale.
Some call this "the invisible hand". It's a pretty well-known concept in many scientific fields, especially the science of finance and economy.
For example, globalization of economy forces countries to compete with their laws to get foreign investments and workers. The result is that companies control laws very effectively. Sometimes this may be good, such as for preventing wars, but quite often not. For example, countries that have stonger social balancing system may suffer in short-term economical competition, as their taxes can be forced to too low level.
Unfortunately, just like the watchmaker of biological evolution, the invisible hand of market economy is blind. Just like other nature, it doesn't have ethics nor does it care anything about humans, and is thus sometimes undesirable.
I mean, corporate life, it will find a way, and then comes the running and the screaming.
I'm not sure if this helps the terminology issue much, but hopefully it gives some directions.
It's hard to preach a monotheistic view of the world if all sorts of ideas are available to your kids online and via TV, music and film.
The problem with globalization is that a few multinational corporations exercise de facto control the aforementioned media except for the Internet. I don't think that Disney, Fox, and Viacom necessarily present "all sorts of ideas."
My understanding is many non-Westerners fear globalization because it means American popular culture becomes the world standard and erodes indigenous values. A valid concern.
And the new global electronic economy -- involving fund managers, banks, corporations and millions of individual investors -- can transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds, quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies[...]
...which is a frightening, powerful mechanism for political coercion.
Globalization isn't inherently evil nor good, but it does require new paradigms in government and economics.
My biggest concern in the melding/meddling of corporate interests in government. This is the core of "government reform", "soft money financing", etc... This is also the reason that there is less government action at the wasteful and destructive practices of (some) big businesses. You can also see the conflict of interest in the reluctance, or simple lag, at (our) government's pursuit of concepts contrary to mega-establishments (ie. oil and gas companies). As JanKatz remarks, there is more than one definition of the term "globalization", but I believe that some of my examples describe the two-sidedness of the concept.
Of course, globalization permeates everything in our American culture, and corporations are very interested in spreading "our culture" to the rest of the world. You can "spin" the issue as simply a matter of making more money, and in turn, improving the happiness of those that make the money. I choose to see our rampant desire to "grow" or "spread" as too often irresponsible to the environment, and to the common good.
Don't get me wrong. I have mixed feelings about these issues. I do desire "things" and "prosperity", but, as I get older, I see more of the effects and repurcusions of the choices that are being made. I also feel less and less capable of making change, or slowing down the trend towards globalization.
On my most critical days, I see American culture as repressed child who's just left home, eager to pursue all the liberties that were bound by parental guidance. If you look at our culture in that regard, you will undoubtedly have you own opinions based on your age and experience.
On my most accepting days, I see our world situation(s) as a major test to the soul and spirit of our human race. You can't deny the detrimental effects on our environment. You also can't deny that those effects have been brought about by industry>growth>prosperity -- call it what you will.
My ultimate hope is for my 2 year old (and 13 year old) to have a beautiful world to live in. I have my doubts at this time.
Great article on the topic of Globalization and the effects it has on fundamentalist societies which reject the movement was just written today by the CEO of Wall Street Investment Bank, Goldman Sachs. Take a look at it here:
. html?id=011113001449&query=paulson
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article
"I wish I had a Kryptonite cross, because then you could keep both Dracula AND Superman away." --Jack Handy
that the anti-globalism activists/groups use the World Wide Web to organize, pass information, order airline tickets, communicate etc. One protester I spoke with a while back, that was in Genoa, was bitching about how the ATM was out of cash...Without globalism, they wouldn't have been able to protest and the turnout probably would have been minuscule compared to what it was.
Now Playing: Alanis Morrisette "Isn't it Ironic"
On the other hand: It is a Good Thing, because if everyone does the same, wears the same, speaks the same and acts the same (exaggeration, but bear with me) then people will have little or nothing to fight about anymore. Could bring harmony to the world.
On the third hand: It is a Bad Thing, because people always fight, whether they have reason to or not. And is it worth trading individual cultures, tradition and exoticism (is that a word) in exchange for potential peace and harmony?
Hmm. And hmm some more.
Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
And the new global electronic economy -- involving fund managers, banks, corporations and millions of individual investors -- can transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds, quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies, as has happened recently in Asia.
Let's see: "evil investors hurt the country without any cause to do so". That sure sells well amongst the Barbie "math is hard" anti-WTO/anti-globalization idiot protestors.
This statement about investors being responsible for destabilizing economies is false. The governments involved (was it Malaysia?) were extremely poor at managing their economic affairs. Let's see:
1. spend more than you take in in taxes
2. borrow money to excess
3. government takes up too much of the GNP
4. try to inflate away your old loans (inflation is larger than the interest/coupon rate on the loans)
All of these lead investors/lenders to lose faith in the ability of the government to repay its loans. This causes investors/lenders to avoid having any asset in the country's currency.
This results in:
1. lower currency value
2. higher interest rate needed to borrow money
At some point, the country cannot borrow any more money and an economic crisis ensues.
So does this mean that Jon is in favor of lending money to governments which have no intention of paying it back? Amazing how many people feel that the world bank (industrialized nation's taxpayers) should bail out any country which mismanages its economy. Hi, Russia, we're the world bank, here's some $$$, please continue stealing it.
The simple truth is that we should not pay via loans which will never be paid back countries to mismanage their economy. Once a country defaults on its loans, we should refuse to loan money to them for many many years.
Whoops, we borrowed too much money.
Hey, lets have a revolution and look more democratic.
Hey, we can borrow a lot of money by doing that.
Hey, lets steal the money and eventually default on the loans.
Hey, we can do it all over again.
Globalism, IMHO, at its core, is the process of replacing geographical barriers with philosophical ones. All other related issues flow from this process.
There is one true thing that will never change as long as the human species exist. There will be the rich and there will be the poor. Maybe we WILL institute a global government (which is, in my mind, the ultimate goal of globalization). If we do, you can be sure we'll dump our spent uranium and pipe our smog to the less developed countries like all those old science fiction stories foretell. Capitalism just falls apart if the poor don't stay poor. This scenario is what the 3rd world is truly afraid of...being trapped in a poverty prison.
It seems that there is confusion here between the two:
Globalism: a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence (this from Merriam Webster, my emphasis).
Globalization: a set of business practices that allow corporations to move cash, production facilities, and products around the globe unfettered by financial penalties from the nations that they don't move them to (this is my personal definition).
For a good leftist article on the distinction of the two, I found this link.
It should be noted that I am partial more to the political right than left, and I refer you to the above article in an effort of impartiality. If competition alone could foster the proper treatment of employees on a global scale, I'd be all for globalization. I don't think it will, though, so I think that corporations should be allowed to set up shop wherever they want as long as there are provisions in place to make sure that the workers in Indonesia or wherever aren't exploited. I'll let that be the extent of my rant.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
GAT -> WTO -> FTAA
us, canada, latin america
(We shat on both, canada's economy going down, we enslave latin americans under gunpoint)
us, canada, latin america, ++
(Same deal)
us, everyone
(We shit on them all, and make 600 bil. a year)
I've been protesting this shite for a while now, don't let sept. 11th stop you, if we had fair and equal trade this kinda shit wouldnt happen. Instead we have a biased "trade" system run by corporations.
*EXTRA MOD-DOWN POINTS*
I would really like to donkey punch jon katz, grits, natalie portman.
We should limit the sale of guns. No one wants child pr0n distributed either so limit that. No civilized person would want drugs on the street, so limit that. We are far to advanced a race to allow the free distribution of alcohol, so that of course must me limited. And come on, we all know the damage those pesky internal combustion engines are so we must limit the sale of gasoline. Without gasoline then there can't possibly be any use for cars so why let people sell those. Tobacco is a horrible problem so we must limit that. Do you have any idea how many people each year are killed by falling out of windows, so we must restrict the sale of windows, only good solid brick.......
Once you open the door to one groups idea of what is evil (in this case the sale of guns) and must be banned, you start down a path that can lead to the restriction of something you consider to be crucial to the existance of a truly free society.
I would be very leary of a society that had no restrictions, but I would be even more scared of one that only restricted what one group determines to be "evil".
This "globalization" thing, that noone can define but everyone has a stance on, is coming. The biggest complaint that I hear is the fear that Big Business will be the ultimate ruler and none of us will be free. This is equally scary if some Big Group gets to be the ultimate ruler and none of us are free.
Free people don't get into groups to define what everyone else can't do, they get into groups to figure out what they shouldn't do.
It's different things to different people.
One problem is that media hacks (like Jon et al) want to describe it as one thing. But it isn't.
The Bush admin and FOBs would describe it as a method for reducing their ability to move capital without boundaries, but keep labor and environment separate, so that capital owners can maximize returns by playing countries and regions against each other.
Bill G and other large corporate owners would describe it as lowering the regulatory constraints and allowing them to sell one product to the whole world, with differential pricing to maximize the return based on the consumer base in each country. And the removal of pesky laws that reduce their capture of IP rights at the expense of other nations.
Pharmaceutical companies would describe it as the extension of the optimal patenting and trademarking systems to their advantage, and the removal of "fair use clone" drugs that compete against them.
al-Queda would describe it as the use of the media and marketing to impose one set of values (Western ones) upon the entire world and using it to trample their values (which are a myth, but they think they are real).
I would describe true globalization as being the ability for capital, labor, environmental constraints, and IP/fair use rights to be increased to the highest level worldwide, instead of lowered.
And we are all right.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Simply put, Globalization is the dissolving of national boundaries. You take away national boundaries and you get a global community. I think a lot of people confuse the effects of globalization with globalization itself. Like most things in the world of human intrigue there are good and bad aspects of the "effects" of globalization. The internet is a result of globalization. As is cultural exchange. At the same time so are sweatshops and economic exploitation. It is my opinion that what people see as bad in what they individually define as globalization is the same as the source of much grief in the world. It is the enforcement of new "global" policies on unwilling subjects. And I hate to say it boys and girls, but that's a property of human nature. It happened during the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts of Salem, the Nazi Regime, Native Americans, African tribes, and the list goes on and on. There will forever be people that believe might makes right and their ideas are the best and right way and they will enforce it to the best they can. Globalization isn't our enemy, human nature is. But, like most things in the world, human nature has it's good sides too. But it is up to those who believe might doesn't make right, and all voices deserve to be heard, and economically and militarily challenged communities shouldn't have to suffer so as to increase profit margins and regional stability, and that all life is precious. It is up to us to say no more. And for those that think that all the "effects" of globalization are a good thing. Those who think that it will bring wealth to impoverished countries and increase human rights. I say to you to look at NAFTA as an example. When applied to economics, the dissolving of boundaries allows a given company to reduce the amount it pays for labor. And do you think the little corporations are gonna be altruistic and return that to us in decreased sale price. Oh of course they will... They'll just throw the laws of supply and demand out the window and say hell with it, we got enough money. (READ: sarcasm) And when applied to human rights and individual freedoms, well... all I have to say is that you had the divine rights of kings and now you have legally sanctioned rights of the corporation. Both backed by a big fucking military. But fear not Americans, we still have the most freedoms and most money. So who really cares about the rest of the world.
with love
-kevin
There has been increasing globalization since the stone age. And btw it's "Globalisierung" in german.
Globalism is when I make the rest of the world become like my society, which "everyone knows" is the best society.
Oppression is when someone else makes me and the rest of the world become like their society, which , we all "know" is evil and deserves to be wiped out.
War is good when I do it to you for my just and righteous cause.
But War is violence and depraved, even terrorism, when you do it to me for your just and righteous cause.
Open mindedness is you seeing my point of view.
Your point of view, being "dogmatic" and "fundamentalist" is intolerable, and must be stamped out. Don't worry though, once we have wiped out your point of view, everyone will be "openminded".
Tolerance is when you learn to tolerate me, no matter how much my idiocy offends you.
Your idiocy on the other hand, can not be tolerated and as such must be wiped out. It's the only way to achieve tolerance you know.
Respect is when you respect me because if you don't, I will rain bombs down from the heavens on your people, and impose sanctions that result in the deaths of a million of your countrymen.
It's terror, on the otherhand, when you make me feel scared that you will make planes fall from the sky and poison 20 people with anthrax.
A democratic nation is not one, contrary to popular misconception, where the people choose their leader. If that were the case, then we would have violated the rights of a free and democratic nation when we removed Milosevich from his term which he was democratcily elected to.
No, democracy is any government which has elections, AND does that which pleases our government.
I hope these new definitions will help some of you out there who are still confused as to the apparent hipocricy. It seems, our leaders found the laws they see fit for us as too restraining for themselves, so they were forced to change definitions to allow them to do that which they please. You and I on the otherhand, will be expected, like good little Nazi's, I mean patriots, to live up to the ideal that they themselves don't even bother trying to achieve anymore. But God damned those pot smokers, throw those sick criminal mastermind bastards in the pen, and let those poor misunderstood rapists and child molesters go to make room for the evil dope smokers.
"But there's worse places on earth to live."
Yeah, but that doesn't make any of these things right. If I stood before a judge for growing marijuana, and pointed to a rapist and as my only defence of my crimes said "well, I'm not as bad as him.", do you expect the judge to let me off? But this is the argument unthinking and emotionally driven "patriots" use to justify the crimes of their country. I love my country, just as I love myself, but just as I am not a blind fool when it comes to my own imperfections, neither am I one when it comes to my nations. Open your eyes, the light hurts only for a brief moment, and then you grow accustomed to it.
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
Globalization is a synonym for Unavoidable. In an age where communication is rapidly approaching purely global, and commerce has few closed markets, the economy of the world will undoubtably assimillate. The concern is how. Will the powers and corporations that start the game make fair rules? I think that it only takes Gap, Nike, Home Depot, and Shell to see that they will not unless forced to. But that required a globalized governing body, perhaps.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
I think the largest advantage of globlization is that it spreads a common communication methods. One of the reasons that we dont know about how others feel about the US is that because their media is not targeted at us, and therefore in annother language, because of this we have no simple way of learning about what they oppose in us. I dont mean that we should eliminate all languages but our own, but in some countries there is a different language every 50 miles. If there was a way for cultures to understand each others media, (literature, news channels, web sites etc), everyone would benefit by gaining the outlook of a different culture. The only way for diverse cultures to find common ground is to share understanding of eachothers outlooks. Having common economic interests is probably the only way to encourage a common communication medium.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan don't accept the inevitability of globalism Jon Katz, you ignorant slut! Primitive cultures don't know anything about how to fly airplanes into buildings, evade Interpol/FBI and advanced money laundering techniques. This particular part of the world has been civilized for far longer than most of the rest of the world (y'know Iraq, craddle of civilization, that stuff?). While they may or may not agree with the inevitibility of Globalization, they are certainly not primitive. If anything it's dumb old American who don't know shit about global politics or their own xenophobia who might be thought of as primitive.
I hate to break it to you but we already get taxed and having lots of sad little men clutching guns hasn't changed that.
Comparing a democracy to the Taliban makes no sense. You can't compare a democracy to a theocracy confiscating AK-47s and RPGs. If the people of this country want more control over guns then you'll just have to be a man and accept it.
Loads of guns hasn't stopped the US gov one iota. It has made our nation a shooting gallery though.
Oh, nice touch with the "lefties" comment. Lots of righties don't trust you gun-nuts either.
By the way, you should've been modded as being totally off topic.
"The victors write the history books."
It is all well and good for Jon Katz to challenge us to find a definition of globalization that isn't primarily about economics. Greater minds than ours have given it their best shot. Anthony Gidden in the 1999 Reich lectures produced a well-nuanced description of globalization. It took him five lectures to do so. A summary definition of Gidden's globalization might read: The process of global modernization, risk assessment particularly in response to human created problems including nuclear weapons and global warming, and global democratization emerging in an anarchic, haphazard, fashion, carried along by a mixture of economic, technological and cultural imperatives.
But the process is larger than any of us. We are not even major players. Only in retrospect will we be able to write a good definition and we all know that victors write the history books.
If my friends and I were able to write the definition, I'd be all for globalization. With the G8, WTO, Worldbank, USA, EU, et al in charge, the best we can do is provide the occasional dissenting voice.
The problem isn't globalization. What's wrong with people from different countries trading, communicating, and working together? Nah. The problem is that "globalization" is being carried out by unelected bodies of government appointees and corporations.
It's like saying leftists are against the idea of cities just because we think mayors should be elected by the people that live in them instead of appointed by General Electric and Microsoft.
And then, of course, there are the results of corporations determining the course of globalization -- "free trade" means corporations are free to go whereever they want and do nearly whatever they want, but the people who work for them get stopped at borders and are forced to endure corrupt, despotic governments that limit their actions. Corporations can shop around for the country with the lowest wages and oppressive anti-worker laws, but the workers in those countries are forced at gunpoint to remain.
And anyone that knows anything about how a "free market" works can see that this is anything but a free market. Given that corporations have the right to move into any country regardless of human rights, and given that all other countries are forced to accept the products, you have a situation where corporations are always seeking more and more oppressive and corrupt governments, and have a financial incentive to make them worse. Government leaders, on the other hand, have a financial incentive to cooperate. And when a worker in one of those countries tries to improve their situation, by moving to a better country, by organizing a union, by trying to change their government, etc. they are met with soldiers with guns keeping them back.
Final result -- lower wages, longer hours, and less rights for everyone around the world, higher profits for corporations.
Now what would happen if globalization was controlled democratically by the people whose lives it will affect? Short of revolution, we won't know.
"Globalization" means that capital can move where it wants, but labour (ie, you and me) are constrained in where we can emigrate to in order to follow the money flow. Borders restrain and impede people searching for better standards of living while being deliberately porous for capitalists.
What exactly is "globalization" all about? The IMF/World Bank/WTO knowingly bribe local officials to sell off national assets cheaply, deliberately push people into the poverty trap to inflame "social unrest" so that Western companies can buy assets cheaply during the ensuing panic, and "condemns people to death".
But it's not just me saying that. Or those rather smelly anarcho-crusties swinging their dreads forlornly. It's all in the words of Joseph Stiglitz, current Economics Nobel winner and former chief economist boffin at the World Bank. He seems to have done a Vadar and come back from the Dark Side.
Just how badly has globalized moneterism failed to achieve universal prosperity for all?
In the United States, the median real wage is about the same today as it was 28 years ago.This means that the majority of the labor force has failed to share in the gains from economic growth over the last 28 years. That is drastically different from the previous 27 years, during which the typical wage increased by about 80% in real terms. Trade has doubled as a percentage of our economy since the early 1970s, and there is no doubt that globalization has played a significant role in the worsening distribution of income here.
Now, international trade per se is obviously not the issue here, it's international trade under the deliberately poverty-inducing stategies of the IMF-led cartel. International trade could be defined and regulated in such a way as to promote prosperity of ordinary people within economic areas:
Globalization is no more natural or inevitable than the construction of skyscrapers. The globalization we have seen in recent decades has been driven by a laborious process of rule making. It is the establishment and enforcement of these rules that allows Timberland shoes, for example, to make their product in China at wages of 22 cents an hour, and then sell it at the local suburban mall. Advances in transportation and communications did not determine this result. Our leaders have rewritten the rules of the game in a way that has driven down wages for the vast majority of American employees. One may agree or disagree with this policy, but it should be understood as a conscious political choice.
...
The same thing could have been done to the salaries of doctors, for example. With much less effort and expense than it has taken to negotiate investment and trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO, we could license and regulate the training of doctors in foreign medical schools. By allowing these doctors to practice medicine in the United States, we could lower the salaries of doctors and greatly reduce health care costs, without any loss of quality. Interestingly, the savings to consumers from reducing American doctors' salaries to even those of Europe would be enormous: about $70 billion a year.
This is about a hundred times more than the gains from tariff reduction in our most comprehensive trade liberalization agreements, such as the one that established the WTO five years ago. Huge savings could also be achieved by introducing international competition to the practice of accountants, lawyers, economists, and other professionals. But it is unlikely to happen, because these professionals -- unlike the majority of the US labor force -- have enough political clout to protect themselves from international competition.
This Economist article is well-reasoned. But it ignores the underlying fact that globalization means the increasing freedom of movement of capital without complementing freedom of movement of labour, has led to a massive democratic imbalance in the world.
This is because Corporations have lobbyists and expense accounts whereas poor people can only throw rocks.
Corporations prosper while working people are denied freedome of migration and emigration and suffer and end up rotting in huge unemployed pockets of poverty. This is not right and leads to the kind of tensions that I see expressed as fundamentalism in Muslim countries and riots by rich Western kids in Genoa.
Apparently, "unbridled laissez-faire" has got us into this predicament. Maybe it's time to restructure international trade to prevent plunging so many countries into IMF misery?
This is not unprecedented. Before World War One the global economy was very tightly knited together. Unfortunately, this imperial, colonialist and racist system massively benefitted certain countries at the expense of others. What we call today's "laissez-faire" is in fact nothing of the kind but a complex regulatory system designed to perpetuate Western Hegemony.
I benefit greatly from this, getting to eat candies when I want and buy cheap shoes at Payless. But if I had to settle for less candies and knew this was in some way reducing the risk of a suicidal airliner dropping on my head then I'm all for it.
Maybe it's time for a Tobin Tax? Make all those currency speculators produce something worthwhile from their mindless machinations. Donate the proceeds to developing world educational programs....
Da Blog
Globalization=Legislate once, sue everywhere
in a citizen of the world
than the pride that divides
when a colorful rag is unfurled."
-- Rush, from the song "Territories" on the "Power Windows" album ---1985
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
> We believe that without the government, prices would skyrocket (they wouldn't, supply and demand and competition prevent that)
h tm)
Do you have any evidence for this, historical or otherwise ? Monopolies or cartels are the natural order of things. Companies maximise their profits, but they are not entirely short-sited and stupid about this. If it costs $10 to make a widget, then simplistic economic reasoning tell you that the price of widgets will level off at $10 + delta. Most companies would prefer to sell the widget at $20 or more. Competition is supposed to keep them honest, but companies can make more money through cooperation. What actually happens is that the market diversifies into confusopolies (see The Dilbert Future) where each company in the market makes a healthy profit. Cooperation is a very natural state of affairs (nicely demonstrated by computer simulations http://www.howardri.org/dilemmas_1_robert-axerod.
If a new company enters the market and tries to sell at a more "competitive" price then the existing entrenched companies will sell at below cost until the newcomer becomes bankrupt. Cooperation and coercment happen all the time on a vastly greater scale than commonly acknowledged. The government makes an effort to real in the worst offenders, especially monopolists, but co-operating cartels do not need to meet and talk in order for comfortable price levels to emerge.
Anyway, it's all irrelevent until one fixes the issue of where money comes from. In the current system, money is invented by private banks in the form of loans. This is not an ideal system, but I can't be bothered to go into that just now.
Hard-core capitalism superficially maximimses freedom, but things are not as simple as that. If 10% of the population own 95% of the property, those born with little spend their lives in service to the 10%. Governments can (and do)alleviate this.
The pharoes of the 21st century have the slaves begging for work.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Maybe I'm all confused but what happened to just good old respect?
I'm human, your human, were all human? Lets get over the idea that any one of us is any better than any other of us. Maybe people didn't notice, but nobody gets away. Were all on the same spaceship flying through space. Boundries are just lines drawn in the dirt, nothing more.
I think globalization is about knocking down the walls in our hearts and minds and realizing that if we don't start working together as a world nation, there won't be any nations left. We are just a tiny planet in a small solar system in a really big universe. We were given the opportunity to make something of ourselves. So far its only been war and hate. I want my grandkids to be exploring the stars, not digging at the dead earth.
Oh well, nobody seems to care about common sense anymore anyway.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Get a real compiler. gcc sucks rotten cocks.
Globalization is the process of increasing the flow of goods, services, ideas, and/or culture across national boundaries.
Everything else here is arguing about the causes or the effects. The definition is simple.
Bullworth said it best:
"Let's just keep fucking eachother until we're all the same color!"
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
But globalization is an elusive notion.
"Globalization" must constitute an elusive notion: Katz utterly fails to provide even one definition in his article, ironically entitled Defining Globalism.
Come on, Jon. Give it a shot. Try to provide a three sentence or less, dictionary-style definition of one or more meanings of the word "globalization".
Gee whiz, at least try to distinguish between "globalISM" and "globalIZATION"
In the debate about whether globalization is good or evil I would have to agree with both sides. On the good side Globalization obviously has the potential to provide enormous benefit to the world. Looking at Europe today it is hard to imagine that two world wars took place there this century. Globalization strengthens relationships between countries which is a good thing.
Unfortunately the current proponents of globalization are blind to any criticisms of the current implementation. These can be summarized as follows.
Until these criticisms of globalization are addressed. The poor of the world will resort to the only effective means of communication available to them. Terrorism.
Here is a link to The Promise of World Peace
The summary:
A message on the subject of peace from the Universal House of Justice to the peoples of the world. Addresses humanity's coming of age, the spiritual roots of peace, the path to world order, the construction of a peaceful global civilization, and the basis of human happiness.
EXACTLY!!!
YOu know that something has gone wrong at slashdot when John Katz feels free to post on a troll tuesday.
Come on trolls, we need to get to work and make slashdot a decent place again.
There can be only one!
j/k
This excellent Guardian article exposes leaked documents that demonstrate how a secretive "inner circle" of rich countries in the WTO draft key resolutions well in advance that safeguard their industries while planning to further impoverish the developing nations. Then they present these "decisions" at WTO conferences as fait accompli.
They also secretly forward on sensitive research and policy documents to Western corporations, giving them decisive competitive advantages.
Da Blog
You are correct that corporations are made of people, us. But most of the power in these organizations lies in the hands of a very small group. This is obvious every time a CEO gets a million dollar bonus the same year they layoff thousands of workers or take a huge loss.
The problem with "cash out your 401(k)" is that we are in a system that doesn't allow for immediate escape except by self-martyrdom. Look at the old coal towns of West Virginia. The workers lived in company towns, bought from company stores, etc. Costs of products were carefully set so the employees were just barely getting by. They weren't starving and had a roof over their heads so they weren't driven to desperation but they had a sense that they were being squeezed like fruit. Didn't like the prices at the store? Well there was no place else to go. Thought you deserved better pay? Were else could you work? All the coalmine owners were in collusion. And if you tried to assert yourself via unionization then the reply was with hired thugs and troops. Even the government turned it's back on you and called you an anarchist while the politicians dined with the mine owners.
So go ahead and try to escape the petroleum industry, but since most companies have moved to the suburbs you'd better have strong legs. The food you buy probably isn't locally grown anymore so you'll be keeping trucks on the roads just eating. Try avoiding credit card companies and their debt boosting policies when many sellers require credit cards. Wish company X was more responsible to the public? They can just pack up and move to a country that doesn't care. Want to try pulling your 401(k)? Good luck getting help from the government in your old age or affording wallet busting healthcare.
So what can we do? Well, we can start by simplifying our lives. Don't buy the house that is bigger than you need with the huge mortgage. Don't buy the $30K SUV when all you need is a commuter-mobile. If the economy doesn't endlessly grow like gangbusters accept it and live with less. Save some money instead of endlessly buying junk you don't need. Try making more of the goals in your life nonmaterial ones. There is a huge difference between what we want and what we need and what we need isn't much.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Globalism in German is Globalismus. Globalisierung, the German word for Globalization which was mispelled in the original article, refers to the process, while globalism describes a state. So much for the fish.. ;-)
Why the heck is the icon for this story a motherboard? What does this topic have to do with electronics? Shouldn't it at least be that little pic of several computers hooked together around the world?
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
The only way this will ever work is if an independant united government is formed that can lay down particular rules an laws to govern international corporations.
It's change in an unknown form. That very fact engenders a paralyzing fear in some. Both fear of change and fear of the unknown.
So, if globalization (and its impact) is so undefined then worrying about it is mindless hysteria at this point. Which would explain why it plays so well where fear mongering is a way of life.
Yeah, just like it's hard to preach anything to your kids when they have open access to all sorts of ideas. Why does Katz single out monotheistic religions? He's basically saying that belief in a monotheistic religion requires one to be ignorant. Tell that to any number of intelligent monotheists. Donald Knuth, for example.
It does seem that there's been a drop in tradional monotheistic faith in the west correlating to the increasingly free flow of information over the last 50 years. Places like India have probably witnessed the same change. Katz's statement is nothing but a cheap shot at monotheism.
The enabling force of globalization is not a matter of economics or culture - these are just factors which come into play when globalization occurs. No, globalization is all about mobility. Of ideas, goods, and people. Improvements in transportation enable us to go anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, and to send products and raw materials anywhere at low cost. Improvements in communication culminating in satellite television and the internet have brought the ideas and culture of the world to our doorstep, and vice versa.
Is it any surprise that this can cause great change and upheaval? It shouldn't be. Is this inherently a bad thing? No, it's just the way things are. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and endlessly bitching about the state of the third world without offering solutions beyond isolation (which is laughably implausable and irritatingly patronizing) is pointless.
Let's face it - our world is approaching the point where a single person can acquire the capability of affecting (or even taking) the lives of everyone on the planet. It's high time we learned to deal with it, give up the idea that everything should be forcefully driven back to some non-existent state of blissful ignorance, and try to create a common set of values for the world.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Jon Katz's writing style is too flowery for me to even get past the 3rd sentence. It reminds me of high school when you had to stretch a 1-page paper to 2-3 pages....
Yes. Stop eating and walk around naked.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Globalization IS McDonalds on every corner.
But it's not purely Western.
Large cultural gravity wells like China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, etc., will inject their own contributions into globalization and remain centers of gravity for their larger regions of homogenization.
Everyone will speak Spanish, Russian, English, or Mandarin in addition to their own language. And then their children will speak their parent's native language no more.
This is not to bemoan the loss of cultural diversity.
I mean, look at the cultural influence the tiny nation of Jamaica has on the cultures of it's much larger English speaking neighbors and cousins.
People should not bemoan the fact that we will all be living in one giant shopping mall.
It is the obvious and natural result of instantaneous global communications.
It is so inevitable and unstoppable that any anxiety over the process by fringe groups is almost funny.
So don't fight it if you don't like it, there is just nothing you can do about it, it is beyond anyone's control, unless you want people to stop communicating with each other.
And it is not entirely bad.
Hutus killing Tutsis and visa versa for ridiculous reasons are the kind of cultural fault lines that will fade away in the process of globalization and disappear in the sands of time- ridiculous racial and tribal and ethnic animosities fading away, think about that goodness. They are simply untenable in a world where more children are exposed to more cultural diversity.
One could argue that classism on a scale never seen before replaces these ancient animosities. As if classism is anything new? As if that is a sure thing? Explain why growing world classism is bad to a lower caste member in India who would lose their traditional stigmatism during a process of globalization.
I would say to those on the left who fear corporate power that the growth of the middle class will be unprecedented if corporations are given freer reign then the left would like. Remember the growing pains England went through during the dawn of the Industrial Age? As if that process of urbanization and subjugation can be shortcircuited. This is a Communistic idea that some of these growing pains can be shortcircuited or mitigated. These processes are organic, self-emergent processes of basic human nature.
No ivory tower of good will and sheer willpower will stop the excesses and abuses of Capitalism during these processes. It is simply unavoidable. But Capitalism is not the whole sum of human nature. Go read "A Christmas Carol" if you insist on being gloom and doom about the whole thing. It is the difference in believing that human nature is basically good, and things will sort themselves out for the better, and human nature is basically bad, and things will eventually fall apart. You can't be naive about it, but you have to have a 51% vs. 49% view of good and evil or what is life worth living for anyways? Is the glass half full or is the glass half empty?
Cultural diversity contracts by putting lots of different cultures under one umbrella. They all bleed into one another.
But don't fear the reaper. Cultures have been created and destroyed over and over again.
We are all human beings, and we all own each other's cultures anyways.
In the larger span of history, cultures have always been bleeding into each other. Nothing is really lost, merely reallocated and mixed and shaken up on a scale never seen before.
Eventually, looking far enough behind us or far enough ahead of us all cultural legacies on every continent are every man, woman, and child's birthrights irregardless.
Look at the larger picture folks, nothing bad is really happening.
Do you really think the cosmopolitan, global citizen of the year 3000 CE will have anything but laughter for the kinds of anxieties that are being expressed right now over globalization?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The concept of globalism does not have anything inherently wrong with it. I think it is a tragedy that local cultures tend to die under the weight of the incoming american culture, which has very little to recommend it. I lived in London, England during the decade that American culture really began to dominate youths under 25, and it is quite sad how different the place is today, 10 years after I left. Strip malls and fast food everywhere you look, just like here.
However, when politicians speak of globalism, they are usually referring to efforts to create a unified global economy. Once again, this idea does not have anything inherently wrong with it, except that the efforts are dominated by western economic interests, most specifically trans national corporations. Also, the WTO mandates that WTO interests supercede local laws. This has the potential to limit democracy in member nations, since a democratically elected government body might enact environmental legislation that 'violates' a WTO trade rule, and any company negatively affected by the legislation would have the ability to sue the member nation for damages to their 'free trade.' Clearly, this gives much greater power to corporate interests than to voters. Additionally, globalization allows corps to transfer assets between subsidiaries in multiple countries, eliminating the impression of profitability and thereby eliminating any taxation that they may be responsible for. This transfers more and more of the tax burden to ordinary taxpayers at the same time that more and more of the world's money supply is actually controlled by corporations.
I believe that 'globalization' could be a positive force for the global community, but its current implementation serves noone without a massive stake in a transnational corporation, kind of like most politicians in the US and elsewhere.
Click here to participate.
Slightly OT: Does anybody know if this is considered a DOS attack? If enough people participated (essentially a malicious Slashdot effect), could the creators of the page on geocities be held responsible? Could I, for posting this message?
Globalization has lots of meanings for lots of people. Here's what it means to one particular Canadian (myself).
Globalization means that we have free trade across the border, without tariffs, unless we can sell our products (read: softwood lumber) for cheaper than American mills can, in which case we're 'dumping' our lumber, and get nailed with 18% tariffs which is going to put tens of thousands of people out of work so that the American mills can afford to gouge instead of becoming efficient. Globalization also means that low-cost housing in the US is going to become less low-cost because corporations are the rule.
Globalization means that the WTO is the final ruling body on international economic trade, unless they rule against the US (in the softwood lumber dispute, they ruled against the US twice before the tariffs were imposed), in which case they are ignored.
Globalization means that, under NAFTA, Ontario cannot ban certain highly toxic pesticides, becuase the American companies can pick any court on the continent to file a dispute, and can pick the friendliest court of the lot.
Globalization means that once Canada's government sells a crown corporation, they cannot buy it back, which goes directly parallel to what many people in Canada believe in - government intervention.
Globalization means that Canada selling cheap tomatoes in the US is 'dumping', but the US selling cheap tomatoes in Canada is 'fair economy'.
Globalization means that the US can sell their fresh fruit, which grows earlier because of the climate in Florida vs. Ontario, to the people in the US, and then sell whatever the Americans don't want across the border at 'must clear out' prices right when our growing season starts, but that's fair, because they're the US.
I'm a big fan of free trade. I'm a big fan of European Unions and Commonwealths and so on, but the US has to start playing by the rules they set down, or the problems ARE going to be problems. I don't think most Americans realize how unfriendly towards other countries their government is. America first, and to hell with the rest.
Ironic, isn't it? The US won't play fair with Kyoto. They won't play fair with the WTO. They won't play fair with ANYTHING, for that matter.. but when something terrible happens to them because of it (and I'm not trying to diminish the horror of the WTC), who do they come crying to, but the rest of the world - and THEN, they have the gall to say 'if you're not helping us, then you're our enemy'.
Globalization means the US wins all the time, and the rest of the world loses if necessary. That's not something I can sign on to.
--Dan
Note: i is global.
So.. you're saying that globalism serves no purpose?
its called a commune. Join One if you dont want to vote for corporations with your buck. Or at least pay premium for friendly-corporation goods.
I'm actually rather fond of Mr. Katz and his writing. This article has a vagueness that I feel needs my personal comment (lucky you), which is perhaps the point.
IMHO...
> So do religious fundamentalists and extremists like the Taliban, who equate it
> with godlessness and blasphemy.
The Taliban would equate sand to blasphemy. Why silly extremists are taken seriously is somewhat of a mystery to those of us who can read . Billy Graham is not a wise man. Really. Neither are the Taliban. Jerry Falwell's words are as foolish and harmful as Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric.
Yet Ronald Reagan is elected... then George... Then Bill... then George clone...*sigh*. This isn't government, this is continued policy. Stagnation. This is an important part of Globalization, I'm sure, as the continued policy of Reagan was a Cold War Economic plan... Reaganomics.
> I still couldn't tell you exactly what it is.
Well, get off the fence John! Personally, I see it as a continuation of the aggressive American Cold War Economic plan. If anyone believes America would do this to create an even playing field for trade is a fool. America will always be on top, or it won't play.
> Sometimes things are easier to grasp by defining what they're not.
It's no help to people, or their rights as humans. Global Trade is all about getting around laws of humanitarian and tariff restriction and regulation. Nothing more. It's Multi-national corps getting law changed through government on an international scale. Scary, IMHO.
> Generally speaking, globalization today is a Western idea (although other,
> earlier cultures took some shots at it), fueled most recently by technology's
> forging of a global economy. It's a powerful offshoot of capitalism and popular
> culture, yet it's being debated in almost every country, and it's become almost
> impossible to hear a major political speech that doesn't mention it.
Yet no one seems to be saying "we have allowed Multi-national Corps to pretty much kill Asian children to make sneakers for rich Westerners". This isn't some mysterious, mystical thing. It's a matter of law. Does a multi-national have the legal means to ignore human rights? Ask the people from Bhopal, India. Ask the folks in Alaska as their pipeline rusts and their ground melts. Ask the people in any Nike factory.
>
> The subject arouses strong emotions. Directly or not, globalism is at the root
> of the terrorist attacks on September 11, and the resulting conflict between the
> United States and Islamic fundamentalists, who are articulate and open about
> their hatred of the changes sweeping their cultures. Every business is obsessed
> with it.
The roots of the terrorists attacks on New York and the Pentagon are, I suspect, more polemic and have more to do with Bin Laden's tiny dick than anything approaching an economic difference of opinion with American policy in the Middle East. Sure. it's what Osama might say, but it's just rhetoric to make him look like he reads the newspaper once in a while. My people have lots of problems with American trade policy... funny, we still like Americans. Maybe I'd agree if I was a crazy rich oil baby with a God complex. Yo Osama, eat my meat!
> It's getting hard to find academics and other members of the intelligentsia who
> don't mistrust it, equating it, somewhat justifiably, with corporatism and the
> rise of the multinationals. Surely, there are more reasons to mistrust the
> multinational corporations who advance globalization than I could possibly list
> here.
Most multi-national corporations have a terrible record. I'm always disappointed that people aren't aware of the many crimes against humanity that most corporations are guilty of. Unfortunately, with the growing rights these bodies have, it is almost impossible to even convince a court to take a humanistic case. Ask Erin Brockovitch (which was settled out of court btw).
> And there are clear differences. Globalization seems to erode the longtime
> primacy of the nation-state, already undercut by networked computing, which
> changes the potency of boundaries and enables people, businesses and banks to
> talk directly to one another rather than through surrogates. It also undermines
> dogmas, both political and religious, some of which greatly fear environments
> that permit the free flow of ideas. It's hard to preach a monotheistic view of
> the world if all sorts of ideas are available to your kids online and via TV,
> music and film. And the new global electronic economy -- involving fund
> managers, banks, corporations and millions of individual investors -- can
> transfer vast sums of capital from one part of the world to another in seconds,
> quickly stabilizing or de-stabilizing economies, as has happened recently in
> Asia.
The only clear affect is the rich getting richer and the poor getting killed. Do the research. Stabilization? Suuuure, we talked about that one in economic class all the time *snork*.
> Electronic information has also fueled globalism and its consequences.
Sure has wha!?!
> Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan don't accept the
> inevitability of globalism. Most other governments do, perhaps the primary
> reason the Arab world isn't actively resisting the much-resented United States
> in its new war. Countries that don't want to join in may end up like
> Afghanistan, beset by tribal conflicts, cut off from capital development and
> economic opportunity. Would investment from multi-nationals help or harm a
> country like Afghanistan, where one kid after another says in TV interviews that
> the only available job opportunities involve shooting people?
This is the dumbest paragraph I ever read from John Katz. Do you believe this crapola? It's all assumption based on
America has made it clear it doesn't give a rats ass. It just wants it's oil.
> Whether it's a good witch or not, globalism is much too big and pervasive an
> idea to go away.
Again, it's a hidden agenda that changes international trade law in favor of any multi-national corporation. The big ones are, of course, American. Why aren't WTO laws put through debate? Ask yourself why these meetings are private? Why would economic policy that will, even as this article purports, change the lives of most people on the planet, not be discussed in depth? Why maim and kill students who protest these meetings?
> For all the media hysteria about bio-terrorism and other
> dangers, it seems probable that the United States will ultimately destroy the
> Taliban government, and the first such conflict of the 21st century will be
> over. What isn't as clear is whether this will mark the beginning of a war or
> the end. Or whether anybody will ever come up with a widely-accepted definition
> of what globalization really is.
Naive beyond all expectations John. The U.S.A. will not get the Taliban any more than the USSR got anyone in Afghanistan. I doubt the US even intends too! Worse, the US really could care less. To keep oil flowing the US has left Saddam Hussein in power, as had always been policy. The Saudi Royals will not be replaced with an American style Republic... or even a Turkey style one. It's better for the US to have these evil people in power, and the US will leave them there. If they get outta line, the US will bomb them. It's policy people !!!
This has been going on for decades. Today is no different than September 10th when it comes to American policy. This speculation by John Katz is understandable since the Sept11th attack on the US. Things are scary for Americans now. Fear grips the land. And as Osama, George, and every other political jackal since Crassus became the first Emperor of Rome knows... fear is the most powerful weapon in politics.
Globalism is some guy in China or Russia being able to vote in laws for the USA. It's a global government. I don't know what kind of morons Jon got replying to him, but globalization is pretty simple to define, and similarly easy to despise. It's the antithesis of local community control. It's saying that a guy in France should have as much say as me in what happens in my local community.
How this doesn't sound absurd to some people escapes me.
It's not much really other than a vague, ill-defined term that can be used variously as a catch-all for accepting your hopes or your hates.
Want everyone to get along? Then, say that a "global" perspective and common global agreement are essential.
Have your individual rights been trampled? Someone not accepted your desire to be different? Then, blame everyone else that advocates a one-size-fits-all global straightjacket on you and your behavior.
I think the term is so wide and nebulous that it encompasses the full millenia old debate about how much the individuals contribute and conform to some collective behavior.
Last time I checked, there was considerable controversy and disagreement about this.
P.S. Katz always seems to have this penchant for wandering around in thunderstorms holding lightning rods. What's the deal? To get excited? I don't see much chance for any progress toward resolution of what really comes down to personal psychological issues.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I hate to be a smartass, but the German word for globalization is "Globalisierung"...
It is precisely on this front that the United
States is one of the most powerful enemies of
globalization.
The United States government continues to hamper
and frustrate efforts to construct international
criminal courts, among other legal developments,
while preaching the virtues of globalized CAPITAL
and free movement of GOODS.
Why can't justice be global too? What are they so
frightened of? Is this a simple case of "have your
cake (markets and transnationals) and eat it too
(international dominance, protection from external
forces, strong national boundaries)? Or are there
other motivations?
There is no indication that justice or the force
of law will be global. There is no evidence that
this "vacuum" will be filled. There is evidence to
date that such efforts will actually be fought.
The definition of Globalisation is inadequate if it is only defined in terms of money, business and goods. Many of the objections would vanish and new ones arise if included the other elemements of the equation: people and resources. I'm not sure how or if resources should be included but it would be entirely reasonable in matters of trade for a country to say "you refuse our economic migrants, we refuse your business migrants".
If big business from one country destroys businesses of another country then the population employed and dependants are currently expected to find another job locally, or starve. The people affected should be able to seek work in the country with the big business.
It might make the more rapacious think again.
Please read a book about how business competition was going a century ago in the US. If you like the Borg on StarTrek you will like it. Big companies used every trick they could think of to subdue the small companies and usually to buy them. Think of bribing their suppliers no longer to supply them, selling to their customers at a loss and filing phony lawsuits.
If this is the kind of civilization you want to live in please go to the Antarctic. Most people in the rest of the world don't want it.
Please. Guns are a means to defend yourself against fellow citizens, not against the federal government. You're just indulging in a cowboy fantasy there, friend.
Look at David Koresh. He had his own compound and armory and a large force of fanatics at his call, yet he still got smoked the instant he raised arms against the government. The same fate has happened to every would-be minuteman like yourself that tried the same.
Keep your guns if you can handle them responsibly, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But don't spout crap about how you're the line of defense against the government. I wouldn't want to see you actually believe that and get yourself and your family killed if a three letter agency every did come knocking on your door.
I strongly recommend that anyone with a serious
interest in Globalization theory and reality read
Justin Rosenberg's "The Follies of Globalization
Theory".
Ignore the title; the book is not written as an
opinion-first page-turner and it does not contain
any simplistic diatribes against (or for) what we
call "Globalization" or "Globalism".
Instead, he thoroughly explores why there seems to
be an inherent difficulty in defining the terms
of this debate. He also examines the analogies we
associate with "Globalization" and looks at when
they help and hinder serious discussion about the
world and economics.
Check it out if you're finding this Katzian level
of analysis just isn't doing it for you.
I don't like the WTO. That being said, I'm FOR globalization. Alot of the people I know feel the same way.
How can you be for one and against the other? Well, do you want a healthy economy that helps prevent war? Yes. Do you want world wide control being centered in the hands of appointed leaders that are largely the finger puppets of the most rich and powerful corporations in the world? No.
The problem with the WTO is its about as democratic as a fundementalist regime. The US did away with the state legislature appointed sentators in the last century, do we wish to have another?
That being said, I'm for a democratically elected WTO whose election standards restrict lobbying and campaign contributions.
-Andy
At least in the USA, this rhetorical/political tradition goes back quite a ways. In the post-Civil-War era, all social ills were typically attributed to "industrialism." Then came WWI and WWII, and the things to hate and fear became "fascism" and "totalitarianism." Then the Cold War, and "communism" was demonized. Remember (if you are old enough) in the 60s, when the epithet of "communism" was applied to everything from smoking marijuana to rock music to war protesting, by those who considered themselves the protectors of American values? Of course, the counterculture came up with its own epithet -- "imperialism" -- which its proponents freely and profusely applied to everything from the Vietnam action (rightfully, I'd say, given the French empire roots of the government we chose to support) to the Iran and Somalia actions (questionable), and also to the multinational operations of corporations, primarily US corporations (nope).
The "globalism" epithet began to gain primacy after Russia capitulated as a global power, and the EU and Pacific Rim came more into their own as power centers. It didn't make sense any more to decry US multinational business efforts as US "imperialism" -- that is, an effort to build a world "empire" dominated solely by the US -- when the US government actually was trending toward withdrawal from global affairs, or at least indifference. Conversely, opponents of the EU, and of Japanese economic domination of the Pacific Rim, needed a buzz word that would apply to their situation, and presto! "Globalism" and "anti-globalism" were born.
OK, I know the thread is supposed to be about what "globalism" means, and I'm not suggesting it has no meaning at all when people say it. Personally, I determine what someone means by "globalism" by looking at what they propose instead. The Taliban/bin Laden? Instead of "globalism," they advocate rigid theocracy dictated by autocrats who order the slaughter of all infidels in holy war. So to them, "globalism" must mean "freedom of religion" and "democracy." Likewise, we have extreme right wing groups in the USA who are just as opposed to "globalism," but to combat it, these people want to foment their own holy war and supplant the US government with white-supremacist and male-supremacist Christian theocracy. So to these people, "globalism" must mean "a racially diverse society with equal rights for women."
Now, I have to wonder - would the far more typical left-wing "anti-globalists" in the movement be able to answer this question? I fear not. Although they typically attribute the same loose amalgamation of ills (environmental damage, poverty, child labor, loss of native culture, excessive influence of large corporations) to what they describe as "globalism," they cannot articulate a game plan or even a vision of how a "non-globalised" world would function; e.g., what business method would replace the corporation they decry? what system other than world trade would they advocate to developing countries, and how would it help their poor? how do they propose to monitor environmental abuses and child labor without "globalised" international cooperation?
I think this is a key failing and hazard of the current anti-globalism movement. Because its moderate and leftist components have no clear, united vision of their proposed non-globalised utopia, any success they may achieve in thwarting "globalisation" advances the goals of the pernicious elements of the movement, rather than their own. Developing countries with their population's voiceless necks in the grip of autocrats (the Fahd family pointedly not excluded) need more globalism, not less.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Globalization is making war illegal.
-pyrrho
First of all, the original monotheistic religion was Judaism. Israel, a Jewish country, is basicly a terrorist state. They have forced Palestinians from their homes in what is, in all honesty, a holy war.
Secondly, Christianity is a monotheistic religion, and it caused the dark ages, terrorism in Ireland, several crusades, and general, widespread oppression.
Last but certainly not least, Islam is the other major monotheistic religion. As we all know, Islam is a religion of hate, and the evil teachings of the 'quee'ran' directly caused the deaths of thousands of people on September 11.
Please think before you equate all the other relatively innocent types of religion/nonreligion to the evil of monotheism.
What are you saying? That our legally elected representitives would have to get together and decide, issue by issue, on the course of action that best strengthens our entire nation?
That they wouldn't be able to just subscribe to a single dogma like "the free market is always correct" and thereby abdicate their ability and responsibility to govern?
I'm with you. That would inded be a nightmarish world. That's why I've joined the Libertarian party.
You most certainly are american. How arrogant you are to think that you as an individual should get a direct say in how trade regulations that affect soo many countries are implemented.
Even though you may think that you're fighting for the good of developing countries, you come off as the exact image of paternalism to which you are probably adamantly opposed.
It's Americans like you that make globalisation soo unpaletable to soo many non-Americans.
Allan
When governments bail out doomed corporations, most if not all of the time, it ends up being cheaper. The costs are high when 5000 people lose their jobs, especially when the workers have worked all their lives in one field and find it hard to get other work. The way I see it, it's cheaper to pay for people to remain in their jobs than to have them on welfare for the rest of their lives. As for smaller businesses, the statistics are much smaller and welfare/unemployment becomes more "viable".
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
That's just it - the vast majority of people on
the streets are NOT opposed to global trends or
Globalism. Where do you think the slogans like
"Globalize Justice" came from? It's precisely
because so many of the protesters are involved
in international forums that things work so well
to organize in the world's cities.
There's a huge difference between that and being
opposed to a corporate-controlled economic trend
that is referred to as "Globalization" or working
against specific parts of specific trade pacts.
Ever consider that you just may be mistaken about
people like myself who are out in the streets?
Stop reaching for pat, stupid false dichotomies;
they make you look like a very simple person.
You're being pat and simplistic. Why the binary
thinking? How can you possibly confuse a global
citizen's movement with the economic trends that
Katz outlines in his piece (assuming you're not
being wilfully simplistic because you think your
statements look cool)?
How does cultural exchange relate to globalism? Is it good or bad?
DVD regions prevent cultural exchange. It gives power of information to the producers and steals it from the consumers.
I see no benefit to DVD regions. It does not profit the producers because it limits their customer base. It does not benefit consumers because it limits their selection of movies. I can see some benefit to DVD encryption, but none to DVD regions. It's things like DVD regions that encourage consumers to pirate movies to get them more conveniently.
Without regions, moviemakers would have to either sell a single language version to the entire planet, or make their movies with multiple languaes. I think both options are good. With the former, consumers will get a taste of foreign culture, and with the latter, moviemakers who really want to sell worldwide will make the effort to appeal to everybody. A region free planet suits everybody. Down with regions!
I suggest finding yourself a pair of nuts and logging in the next time you want to flame someone.
I'd also suggest that you explain your curious notion that ideas in science fiction books should automatically be discounted in conversations about future trends in society. What do you think science fiction is all about?
I wonder if you ever read Snow Crash. If you had, you'd know it's exactly on target. The book is entirely about the consequences of globalization and it presents an interesting alternative vision.
In Snow Crash, there were a common set of low level protocols for all states to do business with each other, but it differed from our current reality in two major ways.
The world in Stephenson's vision, as silly as it was in many ways, thereby gained the benefits of globalization but it did not result in the bland, homogenous, corporate-ruled McWorld that so many fear. I think that's a worthy goal, myself.
I'm an immigrant to the US, and because of that I can tell you the joy one can feel from a fresh start. I'd welcome a world where there are many viable states with many viable philosophies, but all with fairly strong economies. We don't need one central world government, and we sure as hell don't need to have our own government overruled by unknown and unaccountable bureaucrats appointed in another country. Let's all go into business together, but preserve our own sovereignty.
That's what I think Stephenson was saying, and for you to just dismiss his entire book as being as relevant to the conversation as "The Matrix" only shows your own ignorance and lack of comprehension.
The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Pulitzer-winner Tom Friedman. A bit long-winded, especially in the middle third, but it's a good start to understanding globalization.
Read my keyboard review.
One could say that what is now called "globalization" has been in the works since the age of exploration. What's different about the contemporary era is the pace of change, and the ease with which certain cultural and economic models can be transported to other cultures and economies.
The problem is that really positive global change involves using the available technology so that everyone can be heard. The corporations that control much (but not all) of this technology are only interested in propagating their brands, their products, and their ideologies. The U.S. Government - and sadly this includes both the GOP and the New Donkeys - want to propagate a social and economic model in which the poor in the developing world should just shaddup about their human rights and the environment and just appreciate their dollar-a-day jobs, dammit.
Yeah, all of this is "globalization." Jon, the big question is what KIND of globalization. One- way globalization is synonymous with what the GOP loves to call "free trade." Two-way globalization is synonymous with what the WTO- and FTAA-opponents call "fair trade."
Jon, this isn't really hard, is it? I mean, for you to understand. You love to bash the anti-FTAA people as simpletons, but I think you've been projecting.
Dave
When was the last time the US lacked for greedy lawyers to sue the deep pockets corporations for anything at all?
Yes, YOU bringing a suit paying a lawyer could hardly afford it.
A greedy LAWYER, though, would have no problem, especially if you could sue for their fee + punitive damages (which should not be limited.)
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
One day the clouds parted on the globalism issue: The U.S. is Microsoft. That is -- the U.S. holds the same place in the international community that Microsoft holds in the software industry. Or at least, that is how it is perceived by the rest of the world. The analogy can even be extended so that all of the industrialized countries are cast as Microsoft, but for now the U.S. seems to be epitomize what the anti-globalization protesters are against.
The "U.S." refers primarily to the U.S. economic interests, and then to the U.S. government and military and culture, etc. All non-U.S. economic alternatives fill the role of software companies competing with Microsoft, and the consumers of the world fill the role of end-users. Perhaps this analogy works is because both entities are entering into the realm of absolute, unbridled power. Look at the parallels:
Both argue that they are only championing a free market, and is it their fault that they are so much better than their competitors? Both are very safe making this argument, knowing ahead of time what the outcome will be.
Both vie for total dominance to the point of totally eliminating the alternatives. And all the while maintain they are acting with the best of principles (see previous) (Note - in fairness to the U.S., they do not lie or totally disregard laws as much as Microsoft does).
Both like end-users they can closely observe if not control, and that are dependant on them.
Because of their actions, both have been bitterly vilified. Both are sincerely seen by many, many people as downright Satanic.
Both have passionate defenders. There are many people that feel the world will be a better place when Microsoft is more dominant (call Ripley).
The similiarities are amazing. At once I can understand why the rest of the world can respect and loathe the U.S. at the same time. It's very useful to be able to see the U.S. as others do -- I just have to think of Microsoft. Also interesting, but less useful, is to understand how those who work for Microsoft can carry on without realizing how evil their actions are seen by most others. And as U.S.er, I feel dirty and shameful.
I've been thinking about all the conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere lately and I've come to the conclusion that things wouldn't be /as/ bad if we all just had some more room. Think about it, you live in Palestine, and you're upset with the Isrealis and don't want them trespassing or causing trouble on what you consider your land (and lets not get into details or sides or any particulars of their conflict, this is an EXAMPLE). What if you could snap your fingers and all of a sudden you had limitless land, limitless resources, and no neighbors to fight over it with you. Would you keep on fighting? No, there's no one left to fight. Presumably everyone on "your side" agrees with you and ants to work with you. If there is a disagreement and it turns violent, the process repeats itself and you each split yourself away and receive limitless land, and limitless resources to start over. Now we won't get into the morals of just walking away and not dealing with your problems here but you can see how this would reduce conflict. On top of being able to completely isolate yourself from everyone/every group you disagree with (to the point of conflict anyways, minor disagreements are part of life) imagine if it were virtually impossible for those people you were fighting with to harm you, and for you to harm them because you couldn't -reach- one another independantly. Alliances could still be forged, commerce could still flow, people could still immigrate, just in a very controlled way that all parties participating agreed upon. It all comes down to having the room and the resources to pull it off. How do you defend yourself from would be invaders/attackers? Normally it'd be impossible for a country to protect every inch of its borders. But not if you had an entire PLANET.
:)
And there's the kicker. Space colonization on a broad scale. Launch vehicles/transports and terraforming techniques are coming quickly. I think when were technically able we should find as many planets as possible that fit certain criteria for colonization. These planets wouldn't necessarily have oxygen and a breathable atmosphere right off, but they would contain sufficient resources, sunlight, heat, water, elements, etc. to make them livable. Then when we compile the list of planets/systems, a global panel is formed to manage it. If you are an individual or a group you can compose a written proposal for settlement detailing your plans for colonization and why you want to leave Earth (sort of like a business plan for colonization). If your plan is approved, you are given the necessary transports, equiptment, food, tools, defense satellites, fuel, and whatever else has been approved for you and you and your followers are sped on your way to your new home. Once you arrive you set up shop, and begin executing your plan for colonization/terraformation and you don't have to talk to anyone you don't want to talk to. Anyone on your planet may leave anytime by way of a Panel provided taxi shuttle or other transportation device yet to be developed that will come to you. The new colony is responsible for re-imbersing the Panel for the equiptment they took by sending back whatever material/product they agreed on. If the colony never repays the panel, the colony is never alowed to participate in the larger UP (United Planets ala UN style). Repayment of your loan is the entry fee. Once accepted each planet receives 1 vote regardless of size or population. I know I've gotten off track a lot and many of these ideas aren't thought out but hopefully my main theory comes accross. Colonize space, let people go, they control their own destiny, leave them alone unless they opt to cooperate with another colony or a larger organization. Of course, by the time that comes about we'll all have forgotten Globalism and have moved on to Solarism
Every empire, from the Egyptian to the Chinese to the Roman, Spanish, British, French, and American empires have all believed that they were global systems which were an essential aspect of existence (they framed human existence and gave it meaning). The Egyptian, Chinese, and Roman empires believed that their emporers were literally gods; later empires have claimed their superiority over previous ones in part by limiting the divine claims of their rulers and hence the arbitrariness of their rule. More recent empires, the British, French, and American empires, have extensively used the corporate form to administer their colonial possessions. The East India Company was a corporation chartered by the British Crown to seek profits for the Empire, as was the Virginia Company. All this is not to say that things haven't changed; World Wars I and II essentially wrecked European imperialism and allowed the American empire to pursue global ambitions. Hence the sight of a British Prime Minister acting as an advance man for an American President. Instead of the East India Company, we have General Electric and other such behemoths. Instead of industrial production centralized in the home country, it is dispersed widely and interconnected with sea, road, rail, and air transport. But the end result is the same: the colonies (now designated as "free trade zones" and "developing countries" and "emirates" and "commonwealths" and "districts") supply raw resources (oil, diamonds, gold, timber) and tribute (foreign debt, denominated in home country currency/dollars) to the metropole. We have difficulty seeing what globalization is ("Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is... you have to see it for yourself") because we take the empire for granted. Most Americans, including many who will read this post, do not believe that there is such a thing as an American empire, despite the presence of permanent garrisons on every continent save Antarctica, warships on every ocean, and a "defense" budget larger than our potential rivals combined. Take the red pill. The forms may have changed, become more efficient; Harvard and Wharton MBA's replace hereditary Lords, the Chinese innovation of Civil Service Examinations being reborn as SAT's, baccalaureate degrees, technical certifications and other such tests, networked relational databases handling human resources, financial transactions, and accounting, and an emporer whose rule is checked by the favor of corporate heads, legislators, judges, a constitution, and treaties. It's a long way from divinity, but it is still an empire.
Oh, yes -- someone mentioned Japan's experiences with globalization. We went to war with Japan in World War II to prevent them from consolidating their gains in the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (i.e., the Japanese Empire) and rebuilt Japan specifically so that they could run their area for our benefit.
-- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
Katz, you ignorant fuck, why don't you go back to high school and try to pass your remedial creative writing course?
"Germans say Globalisiening"
not at all, being a german (living in the US for the past 8 years) i know that in german its "Globaliserung" not sure about the spelling since i left germany when i was six and never learned to write.
Carpe meam simiam!
Thus why I said "leftist" and not "liberal". Leftist is fairly narrow.
What if other companies want an economy like ours? Well if we globalize, then all the money goes to us.
Makes me think of people working in sweat shops for a penny so we can get some pair of shoes.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The USA of course.
This is the problem, anyone who accepts this has to work for us. I dont think people want to do that.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'm glad that I am a technological determinist
Hey, who can remember the impact that those internet distributed digi-cam images of Green Peace protesters being attacked by French commandos in the South Pacific nuclear range had?
Better than defining Globalisation try this concept Glocalisation... just a little food for thought.
-Take care, Geoffrey D.
I view globalization as the trend towards an amalgamated societal, industrial, and economic whole. As the barriers to communcation and trade break down this trend will most likely increase. At some point in the distant future we may end up with a homogenous culture, with regional variations, but all basically drawing from a world culture, participating in a world economy, and so on and so forth.
Now, at some point in time, maybe before a total globalization occurs, maybe after, we (hopefully) will start colonizing the rest of the solar system. Once again, chunks of humanity will be relatively isolated for long periods of time, develop unique cultures, maybe evolve new dialects and entire languages, and have new and unique perspectives. Around the time that everything finally gets settled, I imagine that there will occur another round of societal and economic unification. If we manage to discover a way to cheat Einstein and get a way to travel faster than light, it may happen again, and again.
Just a few thoughts.
--doug
Both are very likely. The future of backwaters like Rwanda must be planned, because, in tomorrow's centrally controlled global corporate empire, the future of everything will be planned.
And, people do tend to like Levi's and Star Wars, but do they like being exterminated?
I live in Ottawa and what Stavr0 says is a genuine concern held by many, many Ottawans. We're hosting the G20, if you hadn't so guessed, and we're expecting protests en masse. It may not come to rubber bullets, but pepper spray is a good bet. Major slow-downs, too. Friday is indeed going to be hellish (and the next week, and the week after that, for cleaning up).
Judging from the demonstrations and the media coverage thereof, globalization seems to be kinda like a Phish concert, but with tear gas.
There are two types of globalization: (1) the globalization of ideas; (2) The globalization of governing authorities. One is a positive force for freedom of thought, while the other is a new and dangerous way in which the sovereignty of a nation's people may be usurped from them and translocated to a place half-way around the world from them.
The globalization of ideas, quite simply put, a good thing: both morally and technically. Because of hte globalization of ideas, no morality or ideal will go unchallenged, hence morals will be -- indeed are being -- thoroughly examined and argued over. This is best from a libertarianist or pragmatic point of view; moralities which have little relevance on to society will be deemed as optional, trivial, or unnecessary(i.e., laws against sodomy).
As for the globalization of governing authorities, this is a negative force which will serve to hinder progress and enforce the laws of one nation on another: to usurp the natural and rightful soveregnty that citizens have over their own government -- thus how their governed -- and translocate it to some central locus of power, which may formally or informally be known as "the capital of the world". This central locus of power may not have to be a physical place -- it could be an organization, such as NATO or the WTO.
The globalization of governing authorities is the government's answer to the globalization of ideas. Narrowing the issue down the the US, the government naturally fears intellectual globalization, as it means they have less ability to control people's actions. Namely, it means that government -- nor businesses -- can no longer control information, be it trade secrets, copyrights, patents, classified documents, trademarkers, or whatnot.
Naturally, the govenment wants to be able to control information: that's how you control how peoplle think. So the US government has been pushing particularly hard for globalization, particularly regarding intellectual property issues, in which the US has very strong protective laws, as opposed to the more libertarian laws in place in Russia.
Of course, globalization is not only a way upon which the US exerts power over the people's of other nations -- and over its own citizens actions in other nations, be those actions on-line or in physical place. Globalization is also a way in which the laws of other nations and court decisions of other nations may be forced upon US citizens. In a world of globalized governing authority, the decision ruling in France banning Yahoo! from selling nazi memorabilia would hold in the US.
In short, a world of globalized governing authority means that a citizen of one nation will be governed by the laws of every nation of the world, at least when they are appilcable(i.e., when online, when writing mail, when talking on the phone, etc etc). Such is clearly a crippling environment which would prevent people from acting in any way at all.
The globization of ideas, however, is a much more natural phenomena than the globalization of governing authorities. Indeed, it is the sole weapon with which to fight the globilization of governing authorities.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In the 80's globalisation was the ability for diverse markets to be consolidated under a few corporate entities providing end-to-end seamless products and services over the entire planet.
Banks buying waste water plants, electric utilities, food processing manufacturers, advertising agencies, etc, etc.
From the pre-80's boom market strategies of diversification, differentiation, financial brinkmanship and plain old "money talks" bribery, came the idea that the future would comprise a small number of global enterprises offering end-to-end service to the consuming world.
These enterprises would manage consumption, desire for consumption, the waste from consumption and debt to finance consumption.
The emergence of lightning speed communications between financial systems promised this future and facilitated the self-fulfilling conditions for the emergence of global enterprise.
There was always a fundamental mistake in the proposition of a globalised market:
Globalisation of markets assumes global control over systems and patterns of human behaviour. Global control over systems and patterns of human behaviour necessarily excludes individual freedom of will.
Consume - waste - incur debt - repeat
This process requires patterns and templates for automation.
It costs too much to sell Coca-Cola to an African tribesmen dispersed over wide areas, especially when they are mostly concerned with failing crops and clean water. Bad template.
So change the mould, change their culture.
Global culture, global consumption.
Coke is the Real Thing.
Not in this reality - childhood tooth decay and waste products from aluminium processing is the Real Thing.
With the backing of the industro-military-politico complex, we see conflict after conflict occurring worldwide.
Take a moment to understand the war-accountant's balance sheet of every conflict:
Total munitions consumed - increased
Total closed markets opened - increased
Debt reliance - increased
Indiginous population - decreased
Displaced population - increased
Absolute power corrupts absolutley, absolute money buys absolute power.
Globalisation is the evolution of the mass production process, beyond production, beyond creating the demand for production.
Globalisation is the natural heir to the Nazi death factories.
Globalisation is the crushing of the human spirit in the cogs of the machine.
Globalisation is a boot stamping on a face - forever.
Globalisation is the anti-thought to "every man, every woman is divine".
Globalisation is the Man of The World sat upon a throne with the world in chains.
AIO
The reduction of tariffs to allow "free trade", and the "leveling of the playing field", prove on close analysis, to be frauds. Those areas that are close to the rules settled on, and already have the power and culture to move, dominate.
What ultimately happens is that great amounts of power are concentrated into a few hands, for whom there is little or no account.
The fact that all of the major political parties are on the same issue does not, in a democracy, prevent population discontent. Parties like the neo-nazies in Germany, and One-Nation in Australia, listen and play on this discontent.
If the discontent is loud, eg where traditional industries have been "globalised" out, then this translates to rather agressive behaviour, including the rise of radical parties.
Because, with globalisation, we concentrate on the economic issues, and not the strategic or social issues. Strategic issues include what happens when supplies fail to arrive, for example, because of war, a cartel [eg 1973 oil prices], or other tensions.
When all is said and done, we seek to lead rewarding and meaningful lives. Globalisation, and standardisation, to a great extent demeans that. And since economy serves our whole of being, and is not an end to itself, Globalisation must be seen as an evil.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
I suspect that McD's in India does NOT sell beef products, or at least has a lot more variety than just burgers.
I know that McD's in Indonesia are at least in some cases locally owned. There was a story recently in either the Economist or NYT (no reference, sorry) about how some Indonesian folks started an almost-riot outside a local McDonald's to protest the U.S. bombing of Aghanistan -- causing the Indonesian owner to come running out and beg them to stop ruining his business.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
You desperately need to fact check your claim that
multinationals "comply with the laws" while doing
business abroad. Many can barely seem to do so as
they operate domestically, nevermind elsewhere in
the world where they have a bit more free reign.
I seem to recall Saipan taking Hilfiger, Walmart,
and a few others to court for stuff like failure
to pay wages, failure to provide proper living
conditions for workers, and assorted things like
"racketeering". Compliance indeed!
Gutting our environmental and labour enforcement
branches via massive budget cuts and neo-liberal
economic policies, such that transgressions aren't
punished, isn't the same thing as compliance!
Primitive cultures like the one running Afghanistan don't accept the inevitability of globalism.
By this definition, I am a member of a primitive culture. Globalization is nothing more than a new name on the oldest concept of government. World Domination. If that makes me primitive, so be it, but I like having at least an illusion of some control in my own life.
When the Roman Empire spanned the known world, wouldn't that be considered globalization? The idea that one body can rule a multitude of people is at best absurd, and at worst the biggest lie to come down the shute. Take a look at the problems in the US today. There are far too many people who fall through the cracks of government as it is.
Of course, it is being sold to business from a profit stand point. In order for globalization to work, you have to have the support of the business sector, otherwise, it fails. I don't know when or where the idea re-emerged, or even who or what the driving force behind it is.
Please don't get the idea that I am a member of the KOOKS or Conspiracy Theorists, but sometimes even the paranoid are right, someone is out to get them.
I have noticed over the last 15 or 20 years a trend with the ruling generation to do things that "make us feel good about ourselves" and maybe that is where the idea for globalization got re-started. Whatever the case, it is not a good thing.
As has been pointed out here by several others, the workers suffer in the situation. What the companies who support this idea fail to realize is that they are cutting their own throats when they cut costs by reducing the labor force. Our economy is based on consumption. If you reduce the number of employees in enough companies, then you reduce your possible market. It is a circle, and the workers are only the first to feel the pinch.
There's nothing "natural" or inevitable about
this process. Stop talking about trade pacts
and commerce bodies like they're a physical
phenomenon beyond our human grasp or control.
"Globalization" is a suspicious word to get in Scrabble ... but seriously ...
Globalization is the playing field of the market growing to be larger than jursidications, which means the regulators can't create a level playing field.
This time is a bit different, 'coz there's nothing penultimate about the size of this playing field! (Apologies to Douglas Adams.)
People see Globalism in terms of what they already understand: corporations see it as a merging of markets and economies, politicians/terrorists see it as a merging/domination of cultures, and most other people see it as a growing interconnection to people they otherwise wouldn't care to meet.
It appears that Globalism is just a tag, a useful but obscuring shorthand for what is happening to our world. But there are too many things happening at once for it to be accurate: the word "Globalism" seems to say that it is one force, or movement, when I would argue that it is definitely NOT an organized, self-identifying, and discrete "thing".
We are reaching beyond history in the real world, but trying to describe what is going on in terms of an all-encompassing historical view. In that, Globalism is an oxymoron: a word that means we don't yet 'get it'.
Free movement of "goods" and "services".
Free movement of "capital".
Now, where's the push for free movement of PEOPLE?
You don't hear the neo-liberal pro-corporate guys
talk about that a whole lot. It's all about money
and their products - fuck the movement of people
and workers. Mexican factories are good, but shoot
the damn wetbacks if they try crossing our border;
that's what I usually hear from their ilk.
Globalism: The process of changing peoples perceptions of thier identity from being a member of a unique group which is not "Earthling" to that of being an "Earthling".
As geeky as it sounds this definition is not far from the truth; though Im certain someone could enhance the definition to be less geeky.
Currently people see themselves as Americans, Canadians, Muslims, Christians, or any number of groups.
Globalism is the process of changing those perceptions of one's identity. Currently someone working in Brandon, Manitoba Canada who owns a business might see themselves as a community business person ("Brandonite"), or maybe if they are a bigger company they are "Manitoban", or even larger they are "Canadian".
When the Internet came along alot of these perceptions began to change; many of the people who saw themselves as one of these groups began to be able to do business with people around the world. They began to be global businesses, not just Canadian businesses, or Manitoban, or even Brandon Businesses. This is an example of Economic Globalism.
Globalism, isn't however limited to economic concerns, it is spreads into all areas of life. When people no longer seperate themselves based on criteria other than being a member of this planet; when the entire world see's everybody else as neighbors; then we will have achieved globalism.
There is no man-made creation produced by representatives of as many cultures, languages, and countries as is Linux.
Linux is what happens when free people exchange information, ideas, and products globally. Let us not forget where our favorite operating system came from. A student at non-profit educational institution in Finland wrote it in a language(C) developed in the research division (Bell Labs) of large American corporate telephone monopoly (AT&T). Linux began on a machine architecuture designed by the dominant mainframe computer manufacturer of the day (IBM) to squash a rival upstart (Apple) started by two guys (Jobs and Wozniak) in a garage in California. The machine architecture was based on a microprocessor (Intel i386), a direct decendent of the original microprocessor, a device created by Intel engineers under contract from Japanese manufacturer designing a desktop calculator. Microprossors themsleves are instances of computuing machines, the origins of which involve a 19th Century French loom maker (Jacquard) a Victorian Mathemetician (Babbage)and the daughter (Ada Byron) of an English Poet (Lord Byron). Theoretical work in computing had been greatly advanced by a homosexual British mathemetician (Alan Turing) and John von Neuman, a Hungarian emigree. To name just a few of the many involved.
The history which lead us to Linux is a global history. Just as the culturally and economically isolated play no role in development of Linux today, they took no part in the history which led to its creation. The economic and socially isolationist factions of the anti-globalist movement oppose the only proven route to progress: international commerce in goods and ideas.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
A distenction must be made: I don't know who defined it, but the views of a lot of people opposed to elite capitalist domination of the world (i.e. wto/imf/usa style) have been called "anti-globalization". This is, in my experiance, an incorrect labeling. These people are "counter-globalization". It's not about being against people from other countries (read: nationalism), it's about internationalism, working with, communicating with, and living with all peoples of all lands.
Counter globalization is about creating a world economy, and a world wide political structure to insure that everybody is treated with equality, justice, and respect. The only question is who is going to create and control this world? Corporate fat cats and their puppets in office- or the other 90 percent of the world's population? The answer to that last question is our generations' inheritence. These are very exciting times, ladies and gentlemen.
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
Who decides who gets to rule? And "who shall watch the guardians?" Great difficulties arise economically as the system becomes larger as well. Who will deny that money exhibits an effect similar to gravity? It tends to clump and the clumps to grow larger. It is very very difficult to counteract this effect without catastrophies. The evolution of America and Europe hold as evidence to this. It would be far far better in my opinion, for the major governments of the world to collapse, and instead smaller states exist. This would, at least, help facilitate revolution, and "churn" in terms of the ruling classes. Which would present greater opportunity for those with real talent and capability to rise, as opposed to foolish descendents of those who gained power.
More than any other country in the world, the US has a history of bringing together peoples from all different cultures and figuring out a way to get them to live (relatively) peacefully together.
There's no way that communications mechanisms are going to get less efficient in the future without some serious work by the Luddites, and so it is inevitable that people from different cultures will have increasing interactions with each other.
The result of that can only possibly be one of 2 things:
1) The world descends into horrible chaos, violance, and destruction.
2) People around the whole world learn many of the same lessons that we've learned here in the US over the course of our history about how differing peoples can get along (relatively) peacefully.
I would be very suprised to discover that there are rules that work to prevent #1 that don't ultimately cause the world to end up looking much like the US in some, or perhaps many, ways.
Basically, in order for it to work, you have to preach and practice tolerance for differing viewpoints. You have to allow free speech, freedom of religion, and in general structure your legal system to favor not a particular cultural norm of behavior, but to favor reduction in conflict and encourage political solutions rather than violent ones. You basically have to give people the maximum amount of freedom consistent with the rights of others.
Most people have to feel as though they have a chance to rise to the top from within the system through hard work, or they'll never work to make things better for themselves, and will turn to theft and destruction in frustration (it's irrelevant whether they actually could make it big, the illusion of this possibility serves the same purpose, and in some sense makes for more cultural and economic stability). Sorry if that sounds callous, it's only intended to be accurate.
At the same time, you have to allow people the ability to defend themselves if they feel that they need to, or they cannot develop the sense of security that is necessary for them to be tolerant of others. While this increases the chance of small violence, it ironically decreases the chance of violence on a grand scale.
Obviously, like every other country, the US isn't perfect (or even halfway there, really) in this regard. But we have managed to succeed at this task better than anyone else, by and large. If we hadn't, we wouldn't be where we are today. Any country that doesn't develop the kind of culture that allows peaceful coexistance of disparate peoples couldn't have survived bringing them together, as will inevitably happen with more and more people around the world.
It's not cultural imperialism. It's evolution.
Does anyone really think this will work?
My eyes! My EYES! Why am I seeing a Katz article. Oh, the burning pain. The agony.
Oops, not logged in on this machine, no wonder.
I can't believe that there are people who don't filter out Katz. Amazing.
Quiet you! The 20000+ U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia don't exist! Hush!
Good points.
For most of history, corporations had no rights, and in fact had charters which required good behaviour.
Nowhere in the EU or US constitution, or the UN, does it say that corporations should have a vote, or be able to lobby.
Originally, the motive for a corporation was not to maximize profits, but to do well and be a good corporate citizen assisting in the public welfare. Failing to meet that standard meant you could be dechartered, dissolved, fined, or executives or board members forcibly removed.
Also, for most of history, the historic split between profit and labor was 50/50 (sometimes it would vary, but that's the average). Only recently has it become socially acceptable to have a 75/25 split or an 80/20 split for profit/labor. Before, this would mean bad things would happen to such corporations.
And CEO/exec pay used to be in the 10 to 20 times low wage scale ratio, not the current 563:1 ratio. This is not including contracts, as many multinationals pay the real employees in sweat shops even less.
All of this is subject to change.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Reading Friedman to get a balanced perspective on something like economic Globalization is roughly akin to consulting the Pope for an honest critique of the Catholic religion. Good for people who have
already made up their mind.
Yeah, it'd be nice if the agencies that preach
"global democracy" every two seconds had a more
democratic internal mechanism, eh?
Do the last part. Buy food at local food shops, if any exist in your area. Buy clothes at a tailors or local small clothing concern, if any remain in your area. Buy shoes at the local shoe store stocking locally made shoes, if any exist in your area. Buy your energy from a local energy producer, if any exist in your area. Buy your house from a local non corpoarate linked builder, if any exist in your area.
You may have got my point. There are large areas of the planet where the ability to stay with local or regional producers doesn't exist. In Aus for example 3 companies control 92% of retail food and clothing sales. In agriculture certain cartels control 90+% of the business at different layers of the growth and distribution network for certain crops and are rapidly trying to absorb the remainder. About 95% of western Energy needs is supplied by a select group of heavily linked corporations and they don't like people even discussing using less energy.
There are alternatives to buying large corporation products and I do try where it is possible and it is not going to cost me more than 50% more. I though have a income that allows that, If I was poorer I would effectively be limited to the large corp products until they have complete dominance and then the prices start to climb.
I beleive that the trend toward globalism is a positive development. Globalism as I see it is the move toward thinking globally The move toward a more connected world is positive in its effects on social development and huamn understanding. This is because it promotes global standards of human rights and accountability.
The problem with the development of a global forum is that it has been saturated with Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) thinking. People, but corporations especially, operate on a global scale, but still continue to benefit their own backyard. Corporate outsourcing to sweatshops in developing countries is an example of this. This leads to a great inequality in global development and hinders the progressiveness that globalism is.
This in turn hinders the most important, yet sorely lacking aspect of globalism, global civil society. In order to ensure that corporations and governments are accountable to the world the voice of people must hold them in check. One is already seeing the rise of this movement through Non-Government Organizations, (MOBGLOB, Amnesty International) and in these forums, where people are able to debate issues of global scale on a global scale.
In conclusion, I see the rise of global thinking (globalism) as a positive development that has been hijacked by attitude that tend to ensure privatized gain at the great expense of the majority of people. The only way I see to counter this is through civil society, which we are all working towards by debating in these forums.
Fenwick McKelvey
There is no meaning of 'Globalism'. It's just a word, after all. What's the differance.
There is a problem with contemporary liberal democracies: they guarentee human rights to citizens but do not extend these rights to denziens of other countries.
As the exchanging of idea[l]s becomes easier so then too do cultures merge. Perhaps some of the old is lost. Perhaps some of the new is stupid. Most likely there is a mix.
History of the Roman empire: after Christianity became the official religion and the (western) empire fell, what was the state of philosophy? Dark ages? The highest ethical teachings of Plato were simply, elegantly transformed from dialectic to parable.
So now we have McDonalds all over the world. Fine. Eventually people will realize that shit for $0.59 is still shit. And if people like shit, is that so suprising? How many people today read Plato?
But the GAP: the problem is that they abuse human rights. The abuse their workers. The fact that they sell conformity is of little importance: such is the price of freedom. If only we could legislate originality.
Globalism? Missing the point. A catch phrase. A cluster of potential meanings. Slashdot posters think they're leet because they reconize unwanted analicities. What a horrible place to discuss social issues. Anime (read: Asian schoolgirl) fetish made corporeal. An epiphany in the sweatshop. Glorify them in pr0n but enslave them to multinationals.
No accountability.
No way to really punish.
The board of directors continues.
Stockholders, voting with money:
more money than me, you, us, them:
politics.
Jon Katz you suck
A nice round hole in your forehead. If you don't come up with the "right" answers.
Globalization is spreading all over the world.
Wow. Is it really??
Globalism made this competition possible by allowing companies and people to freely choose their place of incorporation/employment. Many politicians are loosing sleep over this one because they can't figure out how to get their monopoly on productive environments back.
The German government has not reacted properly to the new order of things, so companies are still leaving/not returning. Unemployment is rampant (12% and up even before 2001) and taxes are still insane.
Ironically, Ireland - one of the poorest contries in the EU - got an early clue and dramatically lowered taxes a while back. The result: new manufacturing facilities are popping up like mushrooms.
Oh, BTW, it is "Globalisierung" in German.
From the shores of sunny California,
Jan
my nomination for typo of the year! ummm... unless... maybe it WASN'T a typo!
massive global companies, having driven other, smaller, more local companies out of business, have no incentive to pay their employees a living wage - just the absolute minimum necessary to get someone to show up. why should they pay more? corporations BY DESIGN function to generate profit. no more no less. it is their whole reason for being, and successful businesses are better than others at putting profit FIRST.
it is a good way to generate wealth, but probably not such a good way to improve the living standards of everyone. which is the higher goal? which is most likely to lead to fewer wars, revolutions, planes plowing into skyscrapers, etc?
yes, it's a stretch to blame the profit motive for 9/11. but "free trade can save the world?" give me a fscking break.
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it. --Chinese Proverb
G is the continued growth and development of a single complex organism that cannot account for individuals, only averages.
A buzzword, nothing more. Ask a dozen different people and you get a dozen different answers. Pundits (and a great many other pseudo-intellectuals) are enamored of vague buzzwords which mean, well, anything they damn well want them to mean at the time they use them.
Words like "globalism" help sell books. They make for great articles, especially those on the ranting side, which ultimately say nothing at all worth reading. They make otherwise average people feel that they're smarter than they actually are because they have a handle on the NewSpeak of the day. Best of all, by adopting the use of these words you get to pretend you're part of the group which 'really understands' how things work.
"Globalism" is one of those overused words that quickly becomes tiresome, eventually is derided by the same people who once gleefully used it in every other sentence, and then is replaced by the newest catch-phrase in the next version of i'm-so-hip-and-smart-look-at-me terminology. Like designer clothes, it's one of the 'chic' terms: sounds nice, but has no practical value other than how it looks to others.
*That* is globalism.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
jurisdictionality: the quality of belonging to a particular jurisdiction
globalisation: the gradual decoupling of transaction costs fom both distance and jurisdictionality.
Yep, I just invented this up. For you to judge if if it makes any sense
-- look, cheese ahoy!
False at face value, but an overwhelming preponderance of the material you're describing (much less so for the 'net than the other media, but it's still there) comes from a nominally Atheistic Humanist viewpoint.
I wish to specifically labour the point with that word ``nominally,'' since the vast majority of ``Atheistic'' Humanists are actually Gnostics but don't realise it.
[Terms: Agnostic == doesn't have any particular belief, including belief in the absence of a deity; Atheist == believes that there definitely is no deity; Gnostic == believes that there is a deity but that same is a form of ``good'' spirit and won't sully itself with ``evil'' matter; Theist == beieves that there definitely is a deity]
Many professed Atheists make an argument for materialism by pointing to a feature of nature and saying, ``that's ridiculous, no {sane,sensible,rational} deity would do such a thing.''
Well, how do they know? I mean, where do they get off defining the behaviour of a postulated all-powerful supernatural being in their own finite terms?
While we're visiting that argument, vestigial organs in the human body - objects of such an argument - once numbered hundreds, now we're down to at most 6 and the future for the remaining candidates is becoming steadily less clear as our understanding of biology expands.
Returning to the point: in order to say what a deity would not do, you have to define (however sketchily) a hypothetical deity, and the deity defined seems inevitably to be Gnostic, a sugar-daddy Strawgod who would never be involved in anything messy or nasty.
In order to rationally defend such a Strawgod in the face of threats such as people murdering and raping each other and generally being nasty, you have to distance it further and further from messing around in (becoming tainted with responsibility for) mundane matters until Strawgod is of no particular relevance.
Being a Theist, I look at statements that the world has been cursed, and destroyed by a flood, and - hey presto - it all suddenly starts to look reasonable again.
Globalism is basically a gradualist attempt to force Atheistic Humanism on everyone. Everyone the same. Pity that people are all different, isn't it?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I currently doing an assignment on globalization for english subject.
/. now :)
And i'm happy the topic discussed at
huray.....
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Most people immediately think of McDonalds when you mention Globalization. Or, any major chain or franchise that have propagated themselves worldwide. Someone else mentioned Homogenization. These are the main points. For many cultures and populations, these do create jobs. And, it often satiates cultural cravings; cultural cravings instilled by the globalization of culture, and media. Culture and media which have evolved for no other purpuse than to further the force of globalization itself; in the name of profits. So, globalization is a downward spiral; fueled, and empowered by itself!
Many cultures and populations have tried to fight the globalization of their communities on a a higher level. But, this is fruitless, and usually means depriving these companies and forces of their rights to compete fairly in the modern world. (despite the fact that they usually don't fight fair, I don't believe this is a positive way to affect the outcome of this struggle..)
The only way to battle the forces greatly responsible for the globalization of the world is on a grassroots; very individual level. These companies wouldn't have gotten this big if people didn't buy their products! Its impossible! And especially considering the fragility of our contemporary economic world (I don't mean just now, but the fragility of the entire system).
If we are to change the status quo, and create better alternatives to the mass produced products and culture and technology, then we must choose as individuals to not partake, and to use our influence to empower other individuals to do the same.
As Katz says, even a lot of the contemporary Muslim countries aren't fighting globalization tooth and nail, because the majority of people IN THE WORLD don't mind the status quo, and are the ones to make it so...
If anyone wants to learn about globalization, Fred McMahon (Director of the Center for Globalization Studies) Would probalbly be happy to teach you a bit. I would say globalization when talked about in mass media and by polititions, is about Free trade among the world, not sharing governments or culture, those are just posible outcomes of co-operation.
My Karma ran over your Dogma....
there is an interesting difference in attitude between Japan and China in the last century and a half. In 1867 on Japan reversed it's attitude towards the west. It started developing as fast as possible,
absorbed all it could from the western world, and meanwhile retained a strong identity.
China rejected any form of western influence, afraid to be contaminated . Afraid that their own culture would be replaced. Railroads were something of the west and to be discouraged.
The fear of being sucked into one big bland anonymous monoculture is an old theme, apparently.
First off the general premise that globalism is so hard to define isn't exactly true. The problem with a definition is that it is a very complex issue, and not served by a short definition.
As to why do so many people hate globalization? and Why are are they from such diverse groups?
The reason goes to what it is about globalization that they hate.
You cited the dilution of the individual power of nation states, and that's partially true, but it comes down to the same issues in the American Civil War. One of the central issues was slavery, but the larger issue was states rights vs federal control. The danger of globalism is to create a world government that makes global laws that apply to everyone everywhere equally no mater the circumstances in a given area.
Let's take gun control for example in the United States. This is an emotional issue for a lot of people. Unfortunatly when people spend emotional energy making up their mind, they are quite reluctant to change it. I will concede that in large cities there is a valid argument for gun control (neglecting the issues of enforcement and implementation for now), but where I'm from a sizable fraction of the population either grow or kill most of their food. Fish and game will even often look the other way toward poaching when the poacher is known to be having financial trouble, and will need the meat.
Globalism creates the danger of not letting people in areas govern themselves according to their own needs.
The sovereignty of countries is something that wars have been fought over. On slashdot we generally hear about the first, and fourth amendments (there are a bunch of others, but that isn't the issue), but that isn't the issue. Remember that the U.S. revolutionary war was not fought for freedom of speech, or right to assemble, or freedom or religeon, or any or those reasons. Those came later, and were only added to the constiution after a good deal of argument. It was fought because the Americans thought they could do a better job of governing themselves than someone across an ocean. This is why the Articles of Confederation were so weak. The constitution was stronger, but comparatviely weak in relation to other governments of the day.
Even within the U.S. there is argument over how much authority the states have vs the federal government.
What would happen if some global government came in and were more restrictive than the constitution.
Another danger is in corpratism. We've dicussed this before on slashdot. In the United States right now jobs are going to Mexico, China, and whereever else that dirt cheap labor is available.
This isn't totally bad. It is good to provide relatively decent jobs to people in underdeveloped areas. When I was in the Dominican republic, people working for American companies earned much more than the national average, but by our standards, the wages were by U.S. standards criminal.
On the other hand, this exports our jobs elsewhere. This is one of the arguments many in labor have with it. It's exporting jobs we have our own with no jobs, providing jobs in Korea should be down on the list.
Others worry that the exportation of jobs from the U.S. weakens our position should there ever be a war. If for whatever reason we had an all out war with China, we would have problems. We would have to move all of that manufacturing back within the United States. Unfortunatly, we no longer have the manufacturing facilities to meet with our needs.
Others still have a problem with multination companies becoming the world government. Having large companies have several members of Congress and the President in ther pockets is bad enough, what would happen if countries were required by law to follow certain policies even if such policies were against the law of the land.
I found the argument that religeous groups hating it because they just want to control ideas tired and old, and the standard argument that comes from people who hate religeon. Funny that when someone attacks what someone says people scream first amendment, but the same people attack religeon at every opportunity, somehow forgetting that the same amendment protects religeon.
Some religeous groups (or political groups that use religeon as a control tool) want to control ideas, but many just want the right to decide how they live their lives, and fear that globalism will stop this. They fear one of the two possible outcomes. Since there are such differences among cultures, many of which couldn't easlily be reconciled, a global government must either allow nearly everything, or outlaw nearly everything. Both should scare nearly everyone, but for the religeous, it means that either there would be no way to avoid things they find immoral (contrary to what has been written in slashdot, most don't care if you participate, they just don't want to be forced to participate too), or the religeon itself would have to be banned to satisfy people in other countries.
Most of these fears and arguments are full of holes, but just real enough to make globalism something to be careful with. It seems to me that a global government could either be the best or worst possible thing we could do. If we do things just right it would be the single greatest thing ever to happen. If not, we will be lucky if humanity survives. Everything depends upon whether or not humanity is mature enough to handle it, and whether or not our leaders are smart enough to make it happen. Looking at the state of the world though, I tend to doubt it.
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
i just copied a high rated comment from a previous article id did not disagree on and got some karma points.....
And nobody noticed....nobody read the previous articles or comments.
Leftists go on endlessly about corporations, and reality takes a back seat to political theory.
As for your theory that corporations just shop around for low-wage, oppressive countries: well I guess that's why North Koreans get all the jobs instead of the South Koreans. It's the reason that back when Germany was still divided, all the jobs tended to gravitate to the East German side of the line. East Germany was just so much more attractive to "corporations" than West Germany.
All we need in America to save us from our massive endemic unemployment, caused by greedy corporations smuggling our jobs away to those tight labor markets of Central America, is for a strong Leftist regime to crush the power of those nasty private corporations that have made life in America such hell, and restore to us the standard of living enjoyed by countries relatively free of big corporations: say the People's Republic of Congo, or Vietnam, or Kampuchea in its left-most glory. Now those folks could teach us a thing or two about stamping out corporate greed.
"Final result -- lower wages, longer hours, and less rights for everyone around the world, higher profits for corporations."
Yeah, that's what I see. The last 50 years, with more corporations than ever in history, have witnessed the steady descent of America and Europe into grinding poverty, Asia has lost that spark it had back in rickshaw days, and dictatorship has relentlessly followed. Democracy is on its last legs, thanks to the rise of corporations.
Yep. That's the view from the Left.
"Short of revolution, we won't know." Uh-huh. With reasoning like this, you must be one of those "intelligentsia" fellas I keep hearin' about.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Unless I can decide where I want to live and work and there are no barriers whatsoever to my decision, globalization will be a nice myth promoted by the few that can do precisely that.
If the only ones that have freedoms are corporations and not individuals, then Globalization seems to me suspicisouly as a means of controlling people and not as a means to empower them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The WTO topics being negotiated include items such as:
Patent waivers during medical crisis in poor countries for medicine to those who can't afford it otherwise - at the expense of the drug companies and their shareholders who would probably not notice much of a difference, since the poor couldn't afford to buy the medicine anyway (and their countries can't afford to pay for it either).
Work to those who don't have it, at the expense of those who do, keeping in mind that those who live in rich countries have more options than those who live in poor countries - like going back to school, for example.
Dropping trade barriers (such as approximately 380 billion USD/year in agricultural subsidies per year) that lobbies for industry in the west have put up (steel, textiles, tuna and bananas for starters) to protect themselves from competition from poor countries that cannot afford to subsidize.
Holding multinational companies liable for economic and other impacts of negligence (witness the chemical disaster in Bhopal, India caused by Union Carbide in 1987, for example).
Compare that 380 billion a year in subsidies to only 50 billion a year that the west gives in aid, and you'll think twice about where your tax money is going.
Funny thing: I don't think I have ever heard that song, and I am canadian (Québécois to be precise). At least, it doesn't remind me of anything.
There is a lot of literature out there on the subject of globalization. One interesting book is The Case Against the Global Economy (and For a Local Economy), pub. 1996, available at http://www.100Fires.com , along with many other books on the subject. This books is a collection of largely leftist essays on the issue, and many of them are well-written and quite compelling.
Someone mentioned their fear of homogenization of culture, referring to the possibility that multinational corporations will have their stores in each and every country, city, and village on the planet. For example, we will shop the Gap and eat in McDonald's when we visit the Andes. This comment overlooks the obvious. These businesses rely on getting cheap labor and resources from somewhere. (e.g., Indonesian sweatshops making Nike apparel http://web.mit.edu/dorourke/www/activism.html).
Globalization is the approximation of the process that currently involves the modernization of our world and the assimilation of the "third-world" into the wage slavery of modern capitalism. Of course looking at it from that perspective is truly a negative one, but we need to fucking focus more on putting our own spin on things rather than trying to stop the globe from spinning. Too much energy is put towards trying to stop things like meetings and globalization, which have a huge fucking amount of time and energy put into them, rather than instead either subverting them by liberating people from the wage slavery and working with each other to do things we want to see, or else doing it anarchistically. Setting up our own fucking transglobal anti-corporations that instead of plundering the resources of the globe and the precapitalist "third world", share the resources that we have here, work on creating international solidarity, and instead of fucking setting up industrial slavery as existed in america fucking 100 years ago in some country that is getting robbed of it's subsistence existence, setup mutual aid based economy's that eliminate the cokeheaded profit motive and just help everyone all around rather than pumping up ego headed crackmunching CEOs. If this doesn't make sense think of it in these terms, the problem is hiearchy, removing responsibilty and interaction from individuals, representing them and making decisions for them, considering them merely a # rather than someone who can contribute to the whole. This is done both by government and by mega-corporations. All uber-materialist conceptions that ignore methods of interaction besides material transactions are very distasteful to the whole process, they trivialize mutual growth processes and focus merely on a particularly destructive aspect of our evolution. We need to evolve beyond scarcity driven capitalist economics to post-scarcity anarchism. Atleast that is one answer.
I always thought that we here in Australia were pretty backwards, but it seems that I was wrong... we're not backwards, we're only... like... ...okay, we are backwards
--
"I feel so cold, on hookers and gin... this mess we're in"