Globalization 874
In fact, as British political scientist Anthony Giddens writes in his eerily prescient book Runaway World: How Globalism is Reshaping Our Lives, the conflict now underway between the United States and some extremist fundamentalists was inevitable. Cosmopolitans welcome technology and cultural diversity, while fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous.
In a globalizing world -- one of its cornerstones being the Net -- technology, information, culture, money, business and imagery are routinely transmitted across the world. Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence.
So despite the fact that there's no consensus on exactly what globalism is (my dictionary defines it as the process by which social institutions become adopted on a worldwide scale), the questions torment us: is globalism a force to ease poverty and inequality, by bringing higher standards of living and new technologies to poor and distant regions? Or merely an unprecedented vehicle for promoting the greed, conformity, environmental destruction and profit-at-all-cost ethos of multinational corporations? Perhaps it's both.
Giddens' predictions are coming true before our eyes. The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there. We see our popular and technological culture despised in much of the world. Fundamentalist extremists have declared a holy war against it, one that may continue for years with bloody and uncertain consequences.
It's not an oversimplification to say that technology is the prime battleground. Technologies from movie cameras to TV sets to the Net are the means by which culture and wealth travel from one part of the world to the other. Fundamentalists have declared war on technology as much as on anything. And from anthrax to passenger jets as missiles, they've shown a sophisticated grasp of how technology can be used to devastating effect against its creators, who revel in making it but not thinking much about it.
In this conflict what Giddens calls "the cosmopolitan approach" is the choice of the people who are reading this column and working in the tech universe. We value free speech, religious freedom, scientific exploration, open communications, cultural choice and diversity. Such tolerance is closely conected to democracy.
Yet democracy and fundamentalism are both spreading world-wide, two seemingly irreconcilable ideologies colliding head-on. As Giddens points out, globalism creates a paradox: democratic cultures are its most enthusiastic proponents, yet globalism doesn't seem to promote democracy so much as corporate profits and practices. In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?
In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aliens (Score:1, Insightful)
I would guarantee that if Aliens landed in the morning it would mean instant globalization , becuase there would be an outsider.
anthrax--careful, John (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrast: The Economist (Score:5, Insightful)
JonKatz has an axe to grind; The Economist doesn't. JonKatz will certainly feed your paranoia that the big bad multinationals are out to get you, The Economist will provide a fairer, ballanced set of information.
Globalisation for Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq - supported against Iran during the Iran v Iraq war, seen as an ally of the west and an aid in getting cheaper oil and controlled oil prices... invade Kuwait (dictatorial regime) and the west turn against Iraq (with "democratically" elected president) because of the risks to oil revenues.
Afghanistan, supported Taliban and Mujahadin against the Soviet Union when they invaded, pushed as "freedom fighters" and "liberators". Soviets leave, so does all of the assistance from the west. Saudi Arabian national accused of leading a group on terrorists in which several (all non-Afghans) commit dreadful attrocities. West decide to invade Afghanistan and attack not the terrorist leader but the previously supported Taliban movement. This of course is unrelated to the desire to have access to the Caspian Sea oil without having to pay Russian pipeline charges.
It might sound a harsh judgement but these are still the facts. Both of these now supposedly "evil" regimes were previously funded and supported by the very people now set against them... the opinions and views of the Taliban and Sadam Hussien have not changed. It is just now politically and economically sensible to take these views.
Having a recession..... start a war, increased employment, increased public spending (defence), flag-waving support to gloss over your lack of leadership.
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S. We have the longest running democracy of any nation, and it works. Thus, I think its dangerous for countries like Britain, with long-established laws, to turn over power to multi-national institutions like the EU. Let each country govern itself and come to agreements with other countries, but never turn over power or the right to have final say to these organizations. Doing so is a recipe for disaster; it places more power into the hands of fewer people, it makes it more likely for a despot to control more lands, and it takes away from people the ability to govern themselves. The right to self-govern is supreme in the U.S. and hopefully will remain so.
By doing so, we ensure our government responds to us as a people and has control of the military. As long as we have an elected government that controls the military, we don't have to worry too much about the power of other countries, and other multi-national organizations. But if we give up any power to multi-national organizations, we lose ability to govern ourselves, and we lose the freedoms we have worked for over 225 years to create and preserve.
Anti-Globalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite.
Many anti-globalists are in fact in protest against the prospect of the Disney Planet, McEarth, and the Microsoft World. They are in protest of the potential economic, political, and social rape of the economies and resources of people around the world for the mere financial profit of a few corporations. They are against the corporate democracy where only they voices of the corporations count, and yours do not.
If you are fighting against Microsoft, you are to a certain degree fighting against globalization. This is a much bigger and more complex picture than so quickly sketched above.
Re:anthrax--careful, John (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
The real reason that the states is somewhat not liked in many countries is for its "DUAL POLICY". Liberty and so on is promoted within but the states policies outside the borders have been in several ocations barbaric. My country for instance, has been in a civil war for decades that has been directly or indirectly promoted by the USA.
In any case... Sept 11 is not justified in any way. Most of the world was as in shock as the USA was.
Re:Globalisation for Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to take your argument seriously when it contains such glaring historical mistakes. The US did not support the Taliban against the USSR because the Taliban did not even exist at the time. Certainly some of the Afghani rebels eventually joined the Taliban, but to say we supported the Taliban is like saying that because we supported Poland during the Second World War we supported the Warsaw Pact.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, no amount of understanding of *why* on our part will ever convince the people who destroyed the WTC to stop doing it. They don't care if we understand--they want us destroyed.
Bin Laden actually doesn't care about the Palestinians or Iraq or any of that. He wants the world remade in his view--he points to the Taliban as the ultimate form of society. In an interview a few years ago, he said his ultimate goals were not to get the US out of the mideast, but to have a jihad in Egypt, a jihad in Israel, a jihad in Bosnia--basically a Jihad everywhere that will replace all governments with a fundamentalist Muslim one such as the Taliban. It's a different kind of globalization, really.
Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore. It's a sad commentary on humans, but its the truth--do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of a nation thinking about innovative ways of dealing with foreign policy, we're getting everyone riled up for a fight.
As the Onion said, "Privileged Sons of Millionaires Square Off On World Stage."
We're not learning any lessons, and it's been 3 decades of buildup to this disaster. People wonder why it didn't happen sooner -- because the "intelligence" agencies had caught up with earlier attempts. This one snuck past them.
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the majority didn't want it, it wouldn't happen.
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Please speak for yourself? For some reason religiousnous is a lot stronger in the USA than it is in many European countries and you better be glad it is because that way lies fundamentalism. I assume that since you read the text that you know what fundamentalism begets...
Don't forget that a mere few hundred years ago Europe had it's inquisition and a few other religously founded nasties. What we are seeing now is the rest of the world catching up in a hurry and not very willingly.
Globalisation in my book means that more people get to talk to more people. Everything else follows from that: trade, wealth, crime, etc. The thing is that above a certain amount of links to other people per person a society changes. That change is irreversible bar some global catastrofy.
I can only hope we'll shake off religion as another bond to our primitive ancestory and move on. The only thing that wars have been ever fought over were economics and religion. We found out the hard way that it doesn't make economical sense for a democracy to wage war. We found out that it doesn't make sense to wage war over religion as well but for some reason the religion gets in the way with that argument. So Globalisation will work out but as said it will have its ups and downs. In the end I trust it will bring what it promisses: 'wealth' to go round for _everyone_.
I'm not so much afraid of fundamentalism in its current form, in my view the _real_ threat to such a brilliant future is _corporatism_. That fight has it's own problems, mainly in visibility of the problem. But I digress.
Karma? What's that again?
Timothy McVeigh was a fundamentalist... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to be a religious nut harbored by a goverment abroad to be a fundamentalist. In all this hype against Islamic terrorists there appears to have been a careful glossing over of the 2nd worst act of terrorism on US soil.
Why wasn't a war declared on the sort of organisations that McVeigh belonged to, and the sort of anti-goverment far right views that are regularly expressed on right wing talk shows ?
Right now I'd say the smart money is on the anthrax being produced in the US, not in another country. And on the US most wanted terrorists one of them was born in Indiana. If this is truly a war on terrorism then we can look forward to seeing the CIA, MI5, French Secret Service and several others all being labelled as such.
After all what would you call someone who bombed a Red Cross depot ?
Globalization is a tool, like deCSS (Score:4, Insightful)
But two things have happened. First, transportation has gotten cheaper, so it isn't the province of merely the Rich. Second, the Internet has given us Virtual Travel. These changes ease globalization for all, including bringing it into the price range of more people/groups.
So one can argue that globalized corporations are Evil, though others would contend against that.
Most would argue that globalized institutions like the Red Cross are Good.
Then how about other globalized groups like the Mafia and El Quaeda?
Globalization isn't just for corporatization, any more.
Come see the violence inherent in the System! (Score:3, Insightful)
The real fight is the ongoing friction between ever-larger units of society - the individual, the tribe, the nation, and now global society. Individuals chafe against the constraints of their own culture. Then as representatives of their own culture, they struggle against the crush of nationalism. Beyond that, the nations are fighting the coming globalism. This is not a fight that will ever be clearly resolved.
I think by nature humans are individualist and tribalist. However, the lines of those tribes are becoming more and more fluid. I belong to several tribes - SF fandom, Open Source programming, Unitarian Universalism, etc - that overlap some, but are really separate groups, each with their own struggle. As an Open Source advocate, i'm fighting against globalist corporatism on one level. As a Unitarian, i'm fighting against it on another. And against my own tribes, i'm fighting to protect my own identity.
Our tribes give us our connection to society. That connection is what gives us meaning and purpose, beyond mere survival. Nationalism and globalism simplify the survival question by improving our standard of living, but they don't give us much to feed our spirit. And both nationalism and globalism work to crush our tribes, which get in the way of convenient homogeneity.
As for the Middle East, look at what they're getting. They see the worst of globalism - Coca-Cola and Britney Spears - while getting nothing of the best of it, like freedom of speech and a growing economy. And we're crushing the strong and beautiful tribe of Arab and Islamic culture. No wonder they are fighting back! However, i don't think the medievalists like bin Laden can win in the long run, either, because they don't offer anything BUT tribalism.
There's a key... globalist culture provides huge economic incentives to participation, but you pay with your soul. It's great to have a Starbuck's everywhere so you can always get good coffee, but it sucks that Starbuck's is putting the funky individualistic cafes out of business. T-shirts are wiping out tribal dress because they're cheaper (unless you're a geek like me, where the t-shirt and its logo IS your tribal dress. I'm wearing a Klingon Kultural Ekchange shirt under my business casual).
I could go on. Does any of this make sense?
Re: Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you honestly think that Christmas would be a concern for any terrorist? Do you think they're sitting around saying, "We've got a great plan, but we just can't do it on Christmas!"
Give me a break! You can't be softer than the people you're trying to defeat.
Define your terms better! (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to define your terms better - your article, as it stands is gibberish.
You confuse at least two types of "globalism":
little-g "globalization" could conceviably take place without Big-G "Globalization", I suppose, but because "globalization" currently comes along with US and Western Europe coporate entities (Ford, Microsoft, British Petroleum, Duetche Telecomm) and US-oriented Popular Culture (Coca Cola, blue jeans, Britney Spears, Hollywood movies), and "Globalization" derives its names and ruling class from US corporate entities, it's easy for some folks to confuse the two. Apparently, you (Jon Katz) haven't made this distinction too clearly.
Globalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Globalization is primarily a commercial function, and I don't believe it has a thing to do with the radicalization of opinions in the third world. Most people are happy to work for next to nothing for a rapacious Western conglomerate because their only other choice IS nothing.
Anti-American feelings in the Islamic world is primarily a response to U.S. support for Israel. Finland has some global corporations and you don't here people screaming "Death to Israel, death to Finland!".
Finding a way to reconcile Israel with her Arab neighbors would be a good start in reducing radicalism in the Islamic world. Religious fundamentalism is something we should not worry about, hell, maybe they're right.
Economic globalization is a fundamental choice that each nation is free to make, and again is none of our business.
It's Not Unusual... (Score:3, Insightful)
...for people to come out and lambaste Katz, but it's unusual for me: I prefer to do my Karma Whoring in more meaningful ways, like occasionally posting useful information.
But not this time! Katz, you have clearly gotten in over your head. The non-sequitor upon which this essay is based is an utter disaster. How can you conclude there is ANY relationship at all between a cosmopolitan world-view and acceptance of free trade? I can think of several respected scholars (former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, for one) who firmly believe that the notion of national identities, particularly in business, are passe, but still support the use of tariff mechanisms by nations to protect their domestic social institutions. Read The Work of Nations sometime for insight into Reich's concept of "Strategic Trade."
I realize that the two columns you do here are only a small component of your journalistic work week, but it would behoove you to contemplate that before undertaking an essay on the interrelationship between societal openness and macroeconomics, when you obviously didn't have the opportunity to thoroughly research the macroeconomics piece. What eludes me is how the views of such prominent a figure as Reich could fly under your radar!?
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Drop Israel, and everything will be fine. Or will it?
Everything will not be fine if Israel is dropped because Bin Laden will only want more. Israel is not the root of the problem, American business practices and wartime actions are the roots of this conflict. Bin Laden blew up the Pentagon and the WTC for a reason, it was not an act of random violence like most would like to think.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well-put. It has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with our (poorly-executed) attempt to make good in 1948 for what we stood by and allowed to happen during WW2.
> Drop Israel, and everything will be fine. Or will it?
I'm glad you said "Or will it?" Because that's tantamount to dropping the one country in the middle east that's actively capitalist, has a burgeoning high-tech industry, and watching a second genocide.
The point now is that after 50 years, we're inextricably linked to them - it's no longer old-sk00l or neo-Nazis, it's also the fundie Muslims claiming that Jews (whether in America or Israel) control the world's money supply, and using that as the pretext for continuous bloodshed.
America is a target and will remain one, whether or not we withdraw support for Israel.
But to the peaceniks who really do think that dropping support for Israel will end the violence in the Middle East, I'd like you to think very carefully about how hard, and with what weapons, the Israelis will strike back, should they be faced with certain annihilation?
Bonus points for working out how many years it'll be before any survivors feel the need to build streetlights within 20 miles of the glassy plains around what was once Mecca?
Re: Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of the parent poster was of course that we are not just bombing terrorists, but by not paying respect to Ramadan we act as if we do. Actually less than 1 ppm of the people targeted by the bombs are terrorists--they just happen to live in the wrong country. When the next terrorist act strikes the US I wonder if you are just going to sit back and say, oh that serves the Bush administration right for boming Afghanistan...
And before you flame me, please note that I don't think the bombing is an all bad thing, just that it isn't an all good thing either.
Corporate responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, governments should bring the corporations back to an ecologically and sociological responsible position through regulation. This way their duties to the shareholders would be leveled with duties to the environment and society.
I'm not against commerce and the synergies available in large companies, but there must be a way to get those large companies to help distribute the benefits to _all_ the stakeholders - rather than just the senior execs and major shareholders.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
And of course, America stopping financial support to Israel isn't the end-all-be-all that we like to think. Israel will survive, albeit meanly, without American aid. They may resort to unsavory means to replace the lost revenue, but they'll get by. And they'll buy their arms somewhere else.
If we yank support, we lose our only real lever in that region. Things could get messy fast, and I think every administration in recent history knows it.
Re:"why we are hated" (Score:1, Insightful)
Precisely my point.
however, *not* to understand why we are hated in the first place and to understand the people who are attacking us is the equivalent of burying our heads in the sand.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating that we intentionally "not understand" the people who are attacking us. I was merely saying that, right now, the question is irrelevant, seeing as how they are trying to murder us and all. The solution right now is to fight back. Perhaps after that is done, it will be a good time to sit down with some espresso and muse about why those people "hated us".
We have angered a lot of people.
I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
They consider themselves at war with us, and it's not only MTV and McDonalds they are fighting.
I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
They are a people *we* are responsible for killing,
Wha? Who? Be specific.
Are "we" responsible for killing the terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11? No? Then who? You are very vague about who "they" are here. Who is "they"? Saudis? Afghans? Egyptians? It was mostly Saudi and Egyptian nationals who were the hijackers. How many Saudis and Egyptians are "we" "responsible" for killing, in your view? Please cite your sources.
through supplying weapons to Israel
Oh boy. So we are wrong for supplying weapons to Israel? Why? Because you would like to see Israel destroyed?
financial support to their enemies, etc etc.
Yeah, when you have no real examples of substance to put, just throw in an "etc etc." to cover it up.....
And we've done similiar things throughout the world, propping up dictators and supplying revolutionaries with weapons.
Again: I suppose that's true. I suppose that could explain why they (some of them) try to murder us. The response is the same, regardless: fight back.
If you refuse to look at that, refuse to understand it, and refuse to acknowledge its role in our current situation, then all you are doing is perpetuating it.
No, on the contrary. As you can see, I advocate fighting back against the people who are trying to murder us. If successful, this plan of mine (to kill the people trying to murder us before they can do so) will not "perpetuate" anything at all. If they are dead, they cannot murder us, see?
In any event, you failed to answer my closing question:
Do you advocate that black people being lynched by the Klan "take the time to learn about why they are hated"?
Let me know....
what about global religons (Score:1, Insightful)
There might well be a conflict between fundamentalism and the US but the fundamentalists are just as much in favour of globalism as are the Americians. Even terrorists nowdays are globalist -- just witness the IRA training rebels in columbia.
cheers
Neil Broderick (ngb@orc.soton.ac.uk)
God....damn. (Score:3, Insightful)
The fundamentalists hate Western culture and they want everyone who lives a life any different from theirs to die. They want Western culture destroyed and will willingly put themselves to death to further their cause.
Why? Because the want their culture to be the dominant one, that's why. It's as simple as that. When one Northern Alliance soldier was asked why he was fighting the Taliban, he said "Because they are not from my tribe." Tribes. That's all this is.
We, and by we I mean the whole of Western society, are a tribe. That's all we are in the eyes of those who want us dead. We are a tribe and the fundamentalists can never belong to our tribe because our way of life is incompatible with theirs. But the fundamentalists can't slow down the spread of our tribe because people the world over and absolutely dying to become part of our tribe. The fundamentalists have been passed over and left in the "has-been" section of the primitive world. And, because of fear, lack of understanding, desperation, whatever, the fundamentalists seek to tear apart the society to which they can not belong.
As I look around the room where I work, I see people who wouldn't assume that they are the same as me. We've got different color skin, different religious backgrounds. But to these terrorists, these religious extremists...we are the same. And we are not them. And thus, we must die.
I want to take a moment to address another couple of statements I read in this thread, without bothering to make multiple repies.
Yes, we've most likely killed more Afghan civilians than whoever is putting Anthrax in the mail has with their attacks. From all accounts, that still leaves more than 5,000 civilians on our side. If you want to draw parallels between agressive acts, you'd better include all of them.
Violence creates more violence. Indeed. But what choice do we have? It is obvious that there are people in the world who hate us so much, they would like nothing better than to kill our people. No political or humanitarian acts will ever stop this way of thinking. The very existence of our nation is a threat to the way of life for extermists such as the terrorists holed up in Afghanistan. Therefore, the only choice we have is to make an example of the Taliban. An example that illustrates a point to other governments: "If you don't keep it under control, you won't stay in power."
Back to globalization. Pay close attention to this, because it's 100% pure truth. We can't stop globilization of Western culture. Why? BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE WANT IT! The Japanese imported music, movies and baseball just to be more like us! Envy for our success and relatively secure life will drive other cultures to want to be like Western cultures. We don't have to be active in the globalization of Western culture...it'll happen without us.
When your dog turns on you you put it down. (Score:3, Insightful)
The real greed is on their side. While we seek only money, the seek power and to take freedoms that others have as proof of their power.
Hmmm.... that's a nice quote... but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
John, did you notice that a lot of people who don't live by the sword get killed by those with swords? I hate to suggest you might be a bit naive, because I suspect that perhaps you understand this truth but if all of us sheep were to disarm, you think the wolves would disarm too? Sorry, but I have to think not.
I am in agreement that we must understand the nature of the problem on a deeper level than most people seem interested in thinking about it. Only then can we address some of the issues that give the bin Laden's of the world a fertile ground to recruit terrorists from - the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the hopeless. I also agree that certain parts of this 'war on terrorism' could lead to a widening of the conflict... up to and including a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
But to suggest that we can allow 6000 murders to go unpunished or unprosecuted is equally reprehensible. I don't (frankly) care what excuse bin Laden has (or the hijackers) - 6000 murders is still 6000 people slaughtered with malice of forethought. The kind of individuals that could do this won't hesitate to do it again and they're far enough gone that attempts at "understanding" will only give them time to work more of their evil. Similarly, waiting for the UN to accomplish anything (ha ha, World Court, good joke...) is pretty utopian and also allows these villains to work their evils.
It boils down to this: If you are a human being, you have some right to life. Those who would abbrogate your right to life for whatever cause are probably evil. They need to be brought to account. Is that all that needs done? Not by half. Afghanistan and a few other places need rebuilt. They need rebuilt not to make them anti-Islamic or to make them capitalist, but rather to make them a place where the women are not oppressed and where reasonless fundamentalism doesn't reign and where terrorists are made unwelcome. That is why we must dismantle their government and their terrorist networks and seek to bag bin Laden.
Innocents will get killed. Some new bad feelings will be created. But appeasement or ignoring the problem because the solution might be costly (as we saw clearly in several historical periods) has lead to more death and destruction than a lot of forthright actions. The horror of war is a universal constant, but the horror of the Taliban and Al-Queda is greater.
And instead of focusing on the few civilian deaths (yes, they are rotten...), try to focus on this: This is probably one of the few wars in history where anyone has TRIED to distinguish between civilian and military targets. No firebombings of Hamburg/Mecca. No Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima/Kabul. There is a conscious effort NOT to hurt those already brutalized by war. Will some be hurt or killed? Probably. But not all that many and the Americans should be lauded (along with their allies) for at least making a firm attempt not to kill those who aren't involved. Ask the Taliban to stop parking military vehicles and HQ inside of civilian neighbourhoods if they value their people. And if they don't, this is further evidence they need removing. I notice Al-Queda and the hijackers don't distinguish between civilian and non-civilian targets. Bin Laden himself said all Americans (and by extension, the rest of us in the civilized capitalist democracies) are his enemies, whether we carry a gun or pay taxes.
I don't know about you... but when a man declares me his enemy without ever meeting me just based on his assumptions about me, and is willing to kill me for that, I'm more than willing to see him prevented (permanently) from doing harm to me or others like me. He is willing to assign my life and the lives of those he uses as pawns a value of zero or less... so I am forced to consider him a fundamentally broken mind and an evil the world can do without.
Thomas B. Canada
Re:The Lexus and the Olive Tree (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you plan on going to live in one of these alternatives? I thought not.
It is important for a people to be able to define their own terms of participation in the global economy.
Amazing how a single letter can completely reverse the meaning of a sentence. I think it is important for people to define their own terms of participation in the global economy. But "a people" implies some kind of collective decision making and enforcement of that decision. This inevitably comes down to forcing people to stay where they are instead of letting them seek their own fortunes in whatever way seems best to them as individuals.
Paul.
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Insightful)
Wealth is the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that the underlying issue is fundamentalism vs democracy at all. Or even fundamentalism vs technology. Access to technology and distrust of globalisation are issues here in the West too. People that can't afford a good education or computers are scared. They know that they are competing at a strong disadvantage in our economy. This makes them, and the large number of people in many industries who have had stagnant wages over the last 20 years, (justifiably) afraid of globalisation.
But, take it a step further. If you are living in a place where you don't have decent access to clean water, let alone the internet, how will you react to globalisation? Remember, the message you will hear is the importance of technical skills and knowledge -- things you don't have and can't get. Any rational person (or even not-so-rational) will be afraid. Especially if you feel powerless to do anything about your situation.
This is where fundamentalism kicks in. Its leaders offers two things these people want: easy answers and a voice -- a way to express their frustration and fear to a society (the West) that they perceive (largely correctly) as indifferent to them and their needs.
Democracy (or lack thereof) is irrelevant in this situation. The issue is fear and poverty. Why would you ever support a program (globalisation) that you feel is against your own interests? If you felt that fundamentalism would help defend you from it , wouldn't you support it?
The question for Westerners is twofold. First, are they wrong about globalisation's effects on them? And second, what are we willing to do address their (real and perceived) concerns.
If globalisation is to be a good thing, all parties need to benefit and feel that they are benefitting. Otherwise, we are having a discussion about imperialism and exploitation: which is exactly what many of these people feel we are discussing.
Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see that any of *our* institutions have successfully promoted abroad. And I think it's fair to say that our State department, and the various commercial interests that lobby our government don't want to see a replication of this country's freedom (limited as it is) in the developing world. Free people are too interested in their own welfare and promoting their own interests. Global corporations want things like: cheap labor, cheaply extractable natural resources, captive import markets, etc. Freedom interferes with these things, because people naturally want to maximize their own country's autonomy.
From what I can see, Globalization in practice amounts to exporting unproven economic theory, and forcing developing nations to be the laboratories of capitalism, whether or not it serves their interests.
I'd be interested to hear counterexamples, if people can think of instances where the transfer of Euro-American social institutions has produced the kind of relative stability/prosperity that we enjoy.
-w
What Bin Laden said (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not globalization. He doesn't want to remake the world in his view, and he doesn't want to take over the world. He wants Muslims to retake the Muslim world, which he sees as having been colonized by the West. He really doesn't care what happens to us in the West, so long as we leave Muslims alone.
Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore.
But you're saying this on the basis of your own understanding of the problem. If that understanding was proven incorrect, then I presume you would revise it. So crack open a book, and maybe you'll learn that your CNN black-hats-white-hats view of the world doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
It's a sad commentary on humans, but its the truth--do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.
You're talking about "understanding" after the fact, but you're neglecting the understanding of bad situations before they turn into wars. A better understanding of Germany after WWI would have meant a less onerous Treaty of Versailles being imposed, preventing the perfect conditions for an extremist nationalist rising like the Nazis.
Similarly, better understanding of what a pile of shit the US has made of its foreign policy in the Muslim world will prevent future Bin Ladens from rising. It's called "fixing the roof while the sun is shining". No-one is asking you to understand the rain in your living room better, only to understand that if you had fixed the roof last week when the hole was pointed out to you, it wouldn't be there now.
Of course Bin Laden would still exist, even if we had understood the problem better. But he would not have had the army of supporters, both passive and active, that he now commands. Further use of your "bombs are the only language these people understand" analysis will lead to an unending stream of them, more than you and your gov't will ever be able to find, let alone bomb.
Absolut Horse Shite (Score:2, Insightful)
A. You're not starving
B. You're not being shot at
To a college age budding intellectual, it must surely seem that starving and being shot at is hugely preferrable to a Microsloth McWorld. Thing is, you're already there in your McDorm fomenting acts of McDissent curtesy of the hard-earned McDollars of your McParents. Those who really are starving and/or being shot at might relish the idea of a chance at that which you are so eager to dismiss.
When Palestinians and Israeli's can argue religious ethics over french fries in a middle eastern community college before the start of their Film Survey class in which they will deconstruct the socio-political undercurrents of Dumbo, then we can ask them if they'd like to give it all up to become rock-throwing McAnarchists.
One of the primary errors here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Jon, you can't have equitable spread of anything and a free-market economy unless you have a really strange definition of equitable (most dictionaries will not include 'I got mine' as a definition).
Economies are inevitably controlled in some fashion- one term for this is 'dirigiste' (sp?) which means 'directed'. One result of this is the evening out of the ungovernable boom and bust cycles of free-market capitalism. There is plenty of reason to think that a worldwide ungoverned boom and bust cycle would be a bad thing.
Globalization does not have to mean uncontrolled freemarket Chicago School capitalism- it is just a convenient label for this, as uncontrolled freemarket Chicago School capitalism pushes for a global boom (as was once, foolishly, written about in Wired, in the 'Long Boom' issue) without a moment of thought for the resulting global _bust_ that will follow.
Equitable spread of technology yes- but free market economy is the last way you're gonna get that.
Re:So Sad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing we have done was in any way justified any part of the violence committed against us. Nor do the things that most enrage the terrorists fit into that group:
Re:Great on Paper (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you can look at Vandana Shiva's talk [abc.net.au] about free-market's assault on India: everything from the destruction of indigenous jobs by heavy subsidizing of imported soya oil to companies patenting and attempting to forbid Indian farmers to grow crops that the Indian farmers themselves had developed! Basmati, Neem: natural products developed in India, but patents were taken out on these things by U.S. companies. Ever heard the name Monsanto? Unless you try and take a closer look at what people in India are saying, you won't: you're not going to hear about this from U.S. media- or 'globalized' media, for that matter. When was the last time you heard the name Bhopal [corpwatch.org]? And yet more people died at Bhopal than in the WTC terrorist attack- by now, more than twice as many. Bhopal was caused by intentional negligence motivated by a desire to cut costs and economize, the better to compete in the global market... to this day, the reaction of Union Carbide has been to hush it up, even to the point of refusing to specify the poisons involved, which would help medical relief efforts that are _still_ relevant... but saying what was in the poison gas would be bad PR and possibly lead to some form of liability, so silence is still kept...
Yes- do please take a closer look at these things. The more you look, the more you see- and it matters.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
But to the peaceniks who really do think that dropping support for Israel will end the violence in the Middle East,
I'm not a "peacenik," and I don't think that leaving Israel high and dry would solve everything, but I do think that America should use its sway to seriously pressure Sharon to change some Israeli policies. Having only been alive since 1978, I won't pretend to know everything about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but it seems like one reasonable demand on Israel is that they withdraw from the occupied territories in Palestine, immediately and completely.
I don't say this because I think it'll get Osama Bin Laden out of his cave proclaiming a deep and abiding love for America, but rather because it's just The Right Thing To Do. The lands are internationally recognized as belonging to Palestine, and the preponderance of the world urges this withdrawal every single year, but America and Israel basically give them the finger in the name of "maintaining security for the Israeli state." Well, that's about as acceptable as it would be for the US to go occupy BC, Sonora, and Chihuahua because we didn't like Mexican immigration policy or something. It's just not the way you deal with issues.
That said, if we insisted on the withdrawal from gaza and the west bank, it would obviously have to be accompanied by a strong security force to defend Israel proper to avoid genuinely giving in to Islamic extremists. Israeli security MUST be maintained, that is true. But not by occupying parts of Palestine in a campaign of attrition.
I don't think this argument is ignorant or antisemitic, but some people attribute both of those modifiers to any argument except total, unwavering support for every action by the Israeli government. But this is a state that occupies other nations' internationally recognized territories, and is willing to summarily execute foreign nationals without providing evidence of guilt of any crime, let alone a trial. If we are going to use US resources to defend a country, it should be one which adheres to values that we as Americans ostensibly hold.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Factually incorrect on three levels.
First - Sharon had no need to "force" his way anywhere. While obviously not a Muslim, the reality here is no different than when a non-Christian enters a church in that he has as much right to enter as does any other member of a democratic society.
Second, that mosque is built on the remains of the Jewish temples.. If it were the other way around, I can guarantee you that the Muslims would have torn it down.
Third is the truth that the violence started a long time before that. Arafat may be the "Chairman" of the PA now, but how do you think he began his "illustrious career"..
Sharon's behaviour was a deliberate attempt to incite a violent reaction which he calculated would be to his personal political advantage.
Quite possible; but last I checked mind-reading hadn't become reality as yet so I at least must refrain from making statements such as yours.
But then how do you explain Arafat and his lack of activity in regards to dealing with the terror groups such Hamas and Islamic Jihad? It wasn't until the U.S came down hard on him that any action was seen by the PA to reign them in.
You've got it wrong! (Score:2, Insightful)
US funding of Israel and the US habit of vetoing the hundreds of UN resolutions that otherwise would have been passed against Israel have both funded and ligitimised the loss of countless Arab lives.
I would guess that a lot of the rest of the world (I'm a New Zealander BTW) would be unimpressed at other bits of US foreign policy: ignoring the world court when it finds against them (e.g.: bay of pigs), the treatment of Cuba (the Red peril is past, okay?), the unjustified bombing of the pharmaceutecal capabilities of the Sudan (which supplied 90% of the anti-malarial drugs in that country), using trade as a weapon (that why New Zealand was drawn into Vietnam, for example)
I am amazed and saddened by the lack of insight Americans have into the misery caused by American foreign policy. I'm not saying that everything American is bad - far from it, I'm all for the global village and US technology has had a lot to do with making that happen. What I am saying is that Americans should wake up. To say that someone would attack you because they either hate freedom or are jealous of big American cars is either dangerously naive or willfully blind.
Wake up! Read ZMag [zmag.org] for some insight.
Re:God....damn. (Score:2, Insightful)
- whatreallyhappened.com [whatreallyhappened.com]
- WAR ON TERROR: THE REAL VICTIMS [icnetwork.co.uk]
- Boom, Bust and Echo: A Dark Theory Behind Black Tuesday (This one is a little over the top, but there is some interesting information) [guerrillanews.com]
- Asking "Why?" [hampshire.edu]
- Explaining Arab anger [bbc.co.uk]
- They can't see why they are hated [guardian.co.uk]
- Who did it? Foreign Report presents an alternative view [janes.com]
- When Will We Learn? [antiwar.com]
- Why we should reject American propaganda [kuro5hin.org]
- emperors-clothes.com [emperors-clothes.com]
- zmag.org [zmag.org], see especially:
- The New War Against Terror [zmag.org]
I could go on... Like, say, Emmanuel Constant [refuseandresist.org]? I wish I had other examples to give...Money Makes the World Go Round (Score:3, Insightful)
In it, she argues that no world government can regulate the financial industry. Every attempt leads to offshore loopholes. The financial industry actually regulates world governments. Every time a government votes to increase spending for health, education and other social services, the financial centers vote by sucking their money out of that country. Since capital is so concentrated these days thanks to mergers and consolidations, the effects are immediate and chilling.
Many times, people are living in wretched conditions because their governments promised to secure loans given to private corporations that end up failing. Indonesia, for example, closed 250,000 clinics, 6 million children dropped out of school, and the infant mortality rate has risen 30 percent, in order to raise taxes to pay back bad loans.
You can't help but think that that is going to have an effect on our ability to function as a civil society. People should have education and health care, it leads to technological breakthroughs and satisfying lives. Money should have a social cost associated with it. If that makes me a pinko commie, then so be it.
It seems to me that our foreign policy in the last half of the 20th century was to secure low wages for industry and keep democracies out of power in Central and South America, SouthEast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. It's only fair that what's good for American citizens should be fair for our global brethren.
Ghandi said, "There are many things I'd die for, but nothing I would kill for." The terrorists would act differently if they truly had social justice as an end and not chaos, but they'd have a lot less sympathy around the world if our monetary policy were different. I think there are other ways to solve imbalance than crashing a plane into a building. I just wish someone would point them out to me.
I'd also suggest reading Warren Wagar's Short History of the Future [powells.com], in which he argues that a corporate global economy is eventually superceded by local government/ communal anarchy. Many of his decade-old predictions have already come true.
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Insightful)
That propaganda technique will soon lose effectiveness. When the food trucks do not roll in in a few weeks because of U.S. bombing expect most of the country to die of starvation.
That is called genocide. I won't be proud of that. I hope you won't.
I don't understand you people. Do you think that if bin Laden dies everything will be OK? His life or death means absolutely nothing as far as future terrorism.
We will play lets pretend and imagine that we have cowed every nation in the world into coughing up any person that is anti-american in their country.
What do you do when terrorism continues?
It comes from just where it came from last time...Florida.
You will wind up figuring out that it is alot easier to pull a couple bases out of Saudi and telling Israel to get it's act together and make nice than dealing with the fallout.
I have no idea even where to start with how messed up our logic is. I understand, I'm an American, I am pissed as hell but I have yet to hear one good argument for attacking Afghanistan. I know it feels like we have to attack someone, but in this case there is nowhere worth attacking.
I'm the last person to apologize for the Taliban but they are what is there. Believe it or not they are a fairly popular government despite the fact that they are monsters. They put an end to 20 years of civil war. How do you replace that? A new government will be constantly under attack by the majority of the population who see whatever comes in as a U.S. puppet.