I appreciate the fact that Katz is willing to addresses globalism which is indeed a delicate subject.
However, I would point out that when he accuses the protesters of confusing globalization with corporatism, or more accurately, corporatization, he falls into the same trap that the major media falls into, sometimes accidentally, sometimes willfully. Are there individuals on the front-lines of the protest that oversimplify global politics? Of course, such is the nature of coalition. However, I would argue that the vast majority are not naive isolationists who wish to withdraw from the world stage.
It is a very different thing to wish that globalization was a more popularly controlled process than to wish it away entirely. It is certainly true that a broad spectrum of interests are marching under the flag of "anti-globalization", a term I find terribly misleading. Of late, I have seem people shifting the terminology to "anti-corporate globalism" which is a very different thing.
I think you will find that the vast majority of dissent is generated by people who do not wish to avoid globalism but who wish to have a say in its development.
I would also point out that the Economist article happily falls into the same trap of oversimplification. The author uses one broadly conceived hypothetical situation to "prove" that NGO and government intervention is doomed to "dire political consequences".
There can be no doubt that sometimes the protestors do not address the complexities of the new global politics and economy. However, the critics have a responsibility to elucidate the complexities of the situation, not simply to provide oversimplified counterpoint. We have the conventional media for that.
In this article, I think Katz uses a very narrow definition of politics. Admittedly politics is about as easy to define as art or beauty, but I have to say that it encompasses more than the flimsy rhetoric of two tired parties.
Katz says that conservatism and liberalism are " too small and narrow to survive the digital age". I agree with this, in a way, but I disagree with his analysis of what that means. First, it is naive to equals conservatism and liberalism with any of the parties. The old ideas of conservatism and liberalism have not been represented for many years in conventional politics. I would argue that in order to compete with the developing issues of our new digital, corporate society, the parties broadened to accommodate, not narrowed, which is why they seem so similar at times. On the other hand, the political spectrum, on the whole as represented by the parties, remains much too narrow.
I have issues with the idealization of the freedom and joyful anarchy we supposedly enjoy on the web. There are some wonderful things happening, no doubt, but it would be wise to remember that there is still only a select demographic represented. And that demographic is primarily members of the privileged classes: the academic and corporate. In addition, all these wonderful bytes are going over the lines of a few companies who decide who gets this bandwidth. Rather than pat ourselves on the back for the online utopia we have created, perhaps we should find ways to bring other groups into our fold as a viable alternative to the degeneration of "off-line" politics.
Finally, I would mention that there are some hopeful signs. The direct action in Seattle, DC, Philadelphia, Prague and other places around the world show that there are people, online and off, who have not given up hope completely, even if they don't feel the ballot box is going to be there salvation.
Everything is political. The nature of politics may change with new technology. But politics is far from dead.
I think the attitudes of the people in this discussion show us exactly why the "ladies" and "girls" often don't start into technical careers. Its a system that feeds on itself.
And the salary ceiling that women hit in technical fields if they don't move into project management or sales isn't much of a positive incentive either.
It's unfortunate because when your whole company is made of 25-35 year old straight white males (like mine), you are naturally going to have a limited number of approaches to a given problem. Divesity is a real benefit. Too bad we don't get more of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the fact that Katz is willing to addresses globalism which is indeed a delicate subject.
However, I would point out that when he accuses the protesters of confusing globalization with corporatism, or more accurately, corporatization, he falls into the same trap that the major media falls into, sometimes accidentally, sometimes willfully. Are there individuals on the front-lines of the protest that oversimplify global politics? Of course, such is the nature of coalition. However, I would argue that the vast majority are not naive isolationists who wish to withdraw from the world stage.
It is a very different thing to wish that globalization was a more popularly controlled process than to wish it away entirely. It is certainly true that a broad spectrum of interests are marching under the flag of "anti-globalization", a term I find terribly misleading. Of late, I have seem people shifting the terminology to "anti-corporate globalism" which is a very different thing.
I think you will find that the vast majority of dissent is generated by people who do not wish to avoid globalism but who wish to have a say in its development.
I would also point out that the Economist article happily falls into the same trap of oversimplification. The author uses one broadly conceived hypothetical situation to "prove" that NGO and government intervention is doomed to "dire political consequences".
There can be no doubt that sometimes the protestors do not address the complexities of the new global politics and economy. However, the critics have a responsibility to elucidate the complexities of the situation, not simply to provide oversimplified counterpoint. We have the conventional media for that.
Katz says that conservatism and liberalism are " too small and narrow to survive the digital age". I agree with this, in a way, but I disagree with his analysis of what that means. First, it is naive to equals conservatism and liberalism with any of the parties. The old ideas of conservatism and liberalism have not been represented for many years in conventional politics. I would argue that in order to compete with the developing issues of our new digital, corporate society, the parties broadened to accommodate, not narrowed, which is why they seem so similar at times. On the other hand, the political spectrum, on the whole as represented by the parties, remains much too narrow.
I have issues with the idealization of the freedom and joyful anarchy we supposedly enjoy on the web. There are some wonderful things happening, no doubt, but it would be wise to remember that there is still only a select demographic represented. And that demographic is primarily members of the privileged classes: the academic and corporate. In addition, all these wonderful bytes are going over the lines of a few companies who decide who gets this bandwidth. Rather than pat ourselves on the back for the online utopia we have created, perhaps we should find ways to bring other groups into our fold as a viable alternative to the degeneration of "off-line" politics.
Finally, I would mention that there are some hopeful signs. The direct action in Seattle, DC, Philadelphia, Prague and other places around the world show that there are people, online and off, who have not given up hope completely, even if they don't feel the ballot box is going to be there salvation.
Everything is political. The nature of politics may change with new technology. But politics is far from dead.
And the salary ceiling that women hit in technical fields if they don't move into project management or sales isn't much of a positive incentive either.
It's unfortunate because when your whole company is made of 25-35 year old straight white males (like mine), you are naturally going to have a limited number of approaches to a given problem. Divesity is a real benefit. Too bad we don't get more of it.