As a younger man, I would have thrown a brick through the television screen. I'm tired of The Media splitting the debate about globalization into pro and anti factions. Are all people protesting against the World Economic Forum really against "globalization"? Let's take myself as an example. I believe that the following have negative long term effects: Taking advantage of more lax foreign labor laws Taking advantage of more lax foreign environmental regulations Allowing corporations to avoid taxation by freely moving funds across borders Aha! So clearly I'm against globalization. I clearly, belong to the anti-globalization movement! I would beg to differ. I'm all for globalization. That is, if you can be for something that can’t be stopped, that can't be avoided except by reversing every technological achievement of the last 500 years. Being against globalization is a little like being against pushing wheat in a cart at the time the wheel was invented - or, for that matter, against rainfall in spring. It is a natural consequence of the human desire to perfect its society through communication and exchange of resources. What I am against is an ideology that lifts trade to the supreme level and guiding force of society and subordinates other conceptions of the public good. My opinion is that corporate interests that lack a value system acknowledging their societal obligations are taking advantage of global deregulations to increase their shareholder value. These interests don't have a social agenda. Irresponsible corporations are profiting short-term from an economic globalization that isn't accompanied by global legislative measures. The WTO and member states are driving the discussion in a fashion that is very corporate and finance oriented while as the human issues such as environment, human rights, freedom of movement etc. etc. are hardly getting enough attention. Somehow, I fear that the whole issue is so huge and so far away from us, the general public, that we will loose out on some of the best potential benefits that globalization could bring about, such as increased freedom, a narrower divide in the standard of living and a safer world in which to live. It not about anti-globalization. It's about extending civil society across borders. Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
A simple definition of globalization is the interweaving of markets, technology, information systems and telecommunications systems in a way that is shrinking the world from a size medium to a size small, and enabling each of us to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before. In the last 15 years we've gone from a world of division and walls to a world of integration and webs. Today globalization is not about trade anymore, it's not about things we choose to do. Globalization is driven by technology and what the technology can empower us to do. The technology already exists to blow away walls and to tie us all together, and at the same time getting access to the best technology and the cheapest wages of Taiwan, Mexico, or Mississippi. It's these capabilities which create all kinds of intentions, not the intentions that are creating the capabilities.
goofyfish, am I to understand your position as follows: globalization should be accompanied by universalization? If so, then is the universalization currently feasible?
Can you be more specific in the question? I don't like the idea of traveling to Indonesia and finding a McDonald's on every corner. I want to see them living in their charming indigenous lifestyles. However, I also don't believe that you, I, or anyone else should be able to tell an Indonesian that he can't have a McDonald's burger if he wants one. I have never heard anyone make arguments against globalization, except for maybe some protectionist Buchanan followers. Most "globaphobes" are actually globalists - they are fighting for universal standards when it comes to things like human rights. The "globaphiles" have set up a straw man, because it is easier to argue that globalization is inevitable, it's already here, etc. than to argue against the very legitimate position that the rules of the game are inherently unfair and need to be changed. This rhetorical strategy has given them the advantage in the debate. At the moment, rich countries keep out poorer countries' agricultural and textile products to protect their local producers. They could alleviate 3rd world poverty and help their consumers and taxpayers if they cared less about their farmers and clothing factories. The United States and the European Union are major offenders (and hypocrites) in this respect. Maybe it comes back to a relatively old question... if corporations have the rights of persons, should they have the responsibilities as well? Should they have additional restrictions? Which is necessary for a just and prosperous society, and if prosperity and justice conflict, which comes first? "Pro-globalization" types argue for prosperity: "lifting all barriers". "Anti-globalization" types argue for justice: "no one left behind". These are pretty fundamental questions, and it's sort of sad that the debate appears so damn superficial much of the time. Peace. ...and I'll catch your answer on Monday. i'm off to the boat! _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
How 'bout we work on the first part which is you clarifying and narrowing the scope of your original question. Quite possible the answer to your next two questions will be found in my response. Peace. __________________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
goolyfish, I am speaking about the ideological framework in which a discussion of the globalization makes sense. I. About what ideology are you speaking? II. Who is to undertake the "global legislative measures"? Is it an universal government (for example, the United States of Earth)? III. Are You a humanist? (I am an anti-humanist.)
