"if people mobilize against the inevitable, they can at least hope to shape it." Now there's a quotable quote.
could you mentions some more specific problems globilitation has caused. Isnt it so that pure on an economical base when globalization (globalitation .. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , lol , living in jar) deals with powerfull positions within this proces for just a few , its effects are just as similar as Imperialism , I dont even think you would be able to distinguish the 2 properly anymore in such a situation , as one the world is in today . I believe its not necesarry to bring specific problems in for Imperialism is it ?
Allahs/Jihad (whoever you are today) Isnt it so that pure on an economical base when globalization deals with powerfull positions within this proces for just a few , its effects are just as similar as Imperialism Nonsense – any nations in the world can take advantage of globalization, it has nothing to do with aggressively extending rule over foreign countries.
Think hes saying something like corporations would rule the world, propagandizing the people, bribing the government and putting more billions in the pockets for the rich CEOs. (Q), he’s Green_World in medicated form.
Q 1)How exactly do you consider "rule" . Extending indeed is implied (although you can pause and remain Imperialist ofcourse) , aggression however isnt . Perhaps you confuse it with specific kinds of Imperialism as you obviously didnt hold value of me saying : pure on an economical base 2)Obviously you didnt care much for the word : When either , that implies possibility of when not , witch should have made you clear that I didnt exclude OTHER nations , witch indeed confirms ANY nation .
Allahs/Jihad (whoever you are today) Perhaps you confuse it with specific kinds of Imperialism as you obviously didnt hold value of me saying : pure on an economical base You’re the one confused. Imperialism is not economical – it is aggressively extending rule over other countries, in other words, its political. Globalization is economical. You’re talking apples and oranges.
You’re the one confused. Imperialism is not economical – it is aggressively extending rule over other countries, in other words, its political. Globalization is economical. First of all strange you didnt notice to make this remark earlier as this is the second time you quote pure on an economical base Anyways , it seems a semantical question , no Im not confused at all i am just aware you dont hold economical defintitions on the concept of Imperialsim , thats fine with me , if thats what the dictio tells you great . Just so you know , I based my defintion of Imperialsm after Vladi Lenin . Imperialism=Highest stage of Capitalism , u should read that book , quite nice . Anyways for your "extending" and "rule" and "aggresively" please re-read my post and reply to that instead of simply repeating yourself . You’re talking apples and oranges. Not really , if Imperialism knows an economical aspect (so not just take over country and kill everybody) , then we end up with globalization . So its more Imperialism=fruit while Globalization=potential apple . Oh well
Allahs/Jihad (whoever you are today) Just so you know , I based my defintion of Imperialsm after Vladi Lenin . Imperialism=Highest stage of Capitalism , u should read that book , quite nice . Don’t make me laugh. IF you read that, and I don’t believe you did, you would have realized that Lenin theorized that Imperialism comes about as a result of Capitalism. In other words, a country that has reached a high stage of capitalism ie, monopolies, the next step they would take would be to aggressively rule other foreign countries. Those policies, although political in nature, can be fueled by economics. Not really , if Imperialism knows an economical aspect (so not just take over country and kill everybody) , then we end up with globalization . So its more Imperialism=fruit while Globalization=potential apple . Your argument is fallacious. Imperialism does not necessarily lead to globalization. I don’t think you even know what globalization means – it is simply growth on a worldwide scale, an economic process.
and I don’t believe you did you believe what you wish Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you would have realized that Lenin theorized that Imperialism comes about as a result of Capitalism. In other words, a country that has reached a high stage of capitalism ie, monopolies, the next step they would take would be to aggressively rule other foreign countries. Those policies, although political in nature, can be fueled by economics. And how exactly did I object to such with what I was saying / proving once again u dont read what Im write you just look for words you think are refutable and go for it .... Your argument is fallacious. Imperialism does not necessarily lead to globalization. what exactly about the word POTENTIAL dont you understand ? On your logics I would because I simply check the dictio , or do you have monopoly on that ? Maybe u have monopoly on Vladi as well ?
Well, Q, firstly, globalisation can be entered into by any nation, but take advantage of it? Thats a moot point. You notice how turning your country into an export machine means your knackered when the countries taht buy your exports cant afford to buy any more? Meanwhile, you happen to be hideously in debt and your society has been altered, usually without anyone wanting it that way. Secondly, the IMF being able to effectively control your policy with regards to the strings with loans, means that it is a form of imperialism by political control.
Guthrie globalisation can be entered into by any nation, but take advantage of it? Thats a moot point. If globalization is an economic process, then a country, nation, corporation or individual may take advantage of it, and by that, they can use of it. I can manufacture my product in China and take advantage of lower labor costs. Do you get it now? it is a form of imperialism by political control. That’s what I said – Imperialism is by political control and economics may fuel the political policy.
Allahs/Jihad And how exactly did I object to such with what I was saying / proving once again u dont read what Im write you just look for words you think are refutable and go for it .... You don’t understand the difference between globalization and imperialism – your objections were wrong by default. what exactly about the word POTENTIAL dont you understand ? You said ‘potential apple.’ You also said if Imperialism knows an economical aspect (so not just take over country and kill everybody) , then we end up with globalization . This line of reasoning does not follow. It is fallacious.
Old thinkers... All of you are looking at it the wrong way, imperialism is fading. The new era has come it's the era of the corporation. The nations of the world are now only as useful as the queen. They have loosing influence. Even the bastions of "communism" are now looking to corporations to shape their economic fortunes, and desires. The benefactor will be the corporations and no one else. The once loyal corp. to the nation in which they once belonged to has begun to disappear and a linkage to internationalism has grown since the 80's. Neo-liberalism has changed the way the world works. The notion of states making other weaker ones subordinates is a old thought, if Globalization grows into frutition we will all be subordinates.
Q :Great You're totally right ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey you living in a jar , " he’s Green_World in medicated form. " Whats Green World ? And how would it be in medicated form ? Sounds nice though , if it was green because of :m: thats great . And if that was medicated ..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But im guessing you have totally different points with it ........
aaah sure you don't know who Green_World is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! well here is a refresher: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16743 Basically he’s been banned from 3 forums for being a perching @$$ claiming Jews, Americans, and Satan are all one; also demanding that we all convert now or else we will suffer eternal damnation. Personally if he was back it would most likely be as Proud_Syrian.
Q, "If globalization is an economic process, then a country, nation, corporation or individual may take advantage of it, and by that, they can use of it. I can manufacture my product in China and take advantage of lower labor costs. Do you get it now? " What I'm trying to say is that there is a loss side to going for the economic proceses of globalisaiton, in which you dont necessarliy end up in advantage. Its more like the abyss staring back at you. Nico, the corporations are the ones helping make the new imperialism. Or rather they are joined with the political leaders in a mutual backscratching exercise. Oh aye, as for imperialism/ corporations, we've sort of been here before. Remember the East India company? It sort of ended up ruling half india by default, and britain came in to help it and took control of the rest of the country.
