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)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
But make no mistake.. it's our love and support of Israel and the Jews which is the cornerstone of the hatred against us in the Muslim world (and other places). Not technology, not globalism, not some past aggression which we were percieved to be a part of.
Hell, Bin Laden said it himself.
Drop Israel, and everything will be fine. Or will it?
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
The point of making mistakes is to learn from them. We have proven that we don't.
Hell, Bush just appointed Negroponte to be our ambassador to the UN. So just as we laucnh a "War on Terror," we appoint a world-reknowned terrorist to be our UN representative.
The New World Order will continue apace.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
There was a good bit on it at newsday.com, but they pulled it. Here's google's cache of it [google.com].
This one's a bit extreme:
In a civilized world, Mr. Negroponte would not be a candidate for high public office; he would be on trial for crimes against humanity. As U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, he oversaw the supply mission for U.S.-trained "Contra" terrorists, based in Honduras, who waged war against the people and government of Nicaragua. Part of that campaign involved ensuring that the regime in Honduras received hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military and economic aid, despite its dismal human-rights record. Thus, when Battalion 316, a CIA-trained body of the Honduran army, slaughtered hundreds of alleged dissidents and kidnapped and tortured hundreds of others, Mr. Negroponte turned a blind eye. In reports to his government, he consistently claimed that the Honduran regime bore no responsibility for the wave of atrocities unleashed in that country. This week, Mr. Negroponte, an architect of terror and the illegal violation of state sovereignty, will be confirmed as the U.S. representative to a forum - the United Nations - whose Charter is based on respect for the sovereignty of all countries, whether rich or poor, and which claims to safeguard the rights of all human beings, whether powerful or powerless.
Hell, it's not even a complete sentence, but it gets the point across.
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)
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: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, Flamebait)
You're kidding right? Just about the only country trying to influence peace? What about Canada? WHat about Britain? The US's idea of influencing peace is to deal arms evenly around an area to make sure no one can uprise enough to take a big enough peace of the pie to be happy.
Oh yeah, and feel free to mod me down for trolling if you don't like my opinion. We can always use more heads in the sand.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
The US gives over $5 billion a year to Israel in aid. Together with the $2 billion given to Egypt for signing the camp David accords that is over half the US aid budget.
This largess is given to a country whose idea opf promoting peace is to take land from the Palestinians to build 'settlements' that are intended to make their occupation permanent and whose thanks to the US is for their Prime Minister to cal President Bush 'an appeaser'.
aparently bin laden NEVER spoke of the palestinean/israeli conflict before september 11th
The statement is untrue. The declaration of war against the US issued by Bin Laden many years ago mentions Israel. Zawhiri, the man somewhat inaccurately refered to as Bin Laden's 'number 2' is actually the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad who murdered Saddat for signing the camp David agreement. Israel has been the primary cause for Islamic Jihad for 20 years. Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad have essentially been the same organization since Bin Laden was expelled from Sudan.
There is only one response that Sharon should be making at this time 'How can we help'. Instead Sharon ordered an invasion of the West Bank on the 12th September and the assasination of 20 odd Palestinians - causing the deths of another 40 civilians who were killed by the bombs planted to kill the terrorists. The fact that Sharon has gone out of his way to incite more violence during the time of America's need is absolutely dispicable.
Sharon is not a friend of the US.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
You miss out one important step. The violence started the day that Sharon forced his way into the Mosque on the temple mount.
Sharon's behaviour was a deliberate attempt to incite a violent reaction which he calculated would be to his personal political advantage.
Sharon's strategy worked, he became Prime Minister before Netanyahu managed to complete his political comeback from the corruption allegations that had caused him to loose office.
As for the settlements, I don't believe that they are being extended, nor is any land being taken to make room for them (certainly not now),
According to Haaretz the number of settlements has doubled since the Oslo accords were signed. Confiscations of land to build settlements have taken place without any pause since the Sharon government came to power.
The US has repeatedly demanded that Israel stop building settlements and withdraw from those built since Oslo. As always these demands have been ignored, the Israeli right being confident that they can get the Congress to vote them whatever subsidies Israel demands.
but it's not particularly more right to suggest the Israelis living there should be kicked out than anybody else at this point.
So if you come and take my house the fact you have taken it from me means that I have no rights whatsoever to demand its return?
The Israelis occupying the West Bank and Gaza know that they are living on stolen land, in many cases they stole the land themselves at the point of a gun. What possible objection can there be to demanding that the land be returned to the people it was stolen from? Why should the US subsidize the settlers occupation? In Bosnia the settler's type of behavior was called 'ethnic cleansing'.
The Barak peace plan was never a possibility, you only need to look at a map to see why. Israel would keep practically all the settlements and control all the borders of the Palestinian state.
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:Actually... (Score:2)
So...you were born in the USA before 9/11?
Re: Actually... (Score:2)
we wouldn't want to get terrorised on christmas.
so why does donald rumsfeld insist that the bombing will not stop for the muslim holy days of 'ramadan'?
bin laden is a terrorist without the support of the general muslim population. he is doing his darndest to get more people on his side by trying to convince the muslims that 'this is a war on muslims' instead of just a war on terrorism.
just to put things in perspective - as horrible as the anthrax scare has been, MORE INNOCENT MUSLIM CIVILIANS HAVE DIED FROM US BOMBING 'ACCIDENTS' THAN PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM ANTHRAX (check out the BBC or canadian news). this makes a lot of the afghani people VERY VERY nervous.
if the US continues their bombings during the 'holy month' of ramadan - then it will only give bin laden amunition to dupe the rest of the muslims into thinking this is a war on muslims, and not just on him - do we really want to do that?
(and i cannot emphasize enough how much my heart goes out to all the many victims of this war so far. no killing is right as far as i'm concerned). lets stop the violence now. violence begets more violence - he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword
check out the 'AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE'.
rushing in to help those who are hurt or needy is the true call of the pacifist - killing or violence is not.
best regards,
john penner (canada).
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.
Re: Actually... (Score:2)
> > the people you're trying to defeat.
>
> Being "hard" or "soft" is not what war is about.
war is a no-win game.
the only 'good end' to a war, is to find
a solution such that both parties will stop
their fighting and killing of each other.
bombing and retaliation will not bring that about.
that will only escalate the violence such that more
people will die on both sides.
i agree with the general gist of the original post.
that in order to 'stop the fighting', we have to
come to undersand the underlying causes that
brought about the fighting in the first place.
lets not add fuel to the fire [earthlink.net]
best regards,
john penner.
Re: Actually... (Score:3, Troll)
I think that this is completely the wrong way to do this - because the Afghan propaganda seems to be much more effective on 1 billion muslims than the US propaganda they've been hearing for the past 20 years. I think that every bomb that drops on Afghanistan is going to be characterized as an attack on islam, a genocide of arabs and persians, and proof of how Evil the US is. Every day, clearly, the US's standing in the coalition is getting worse and worse.
What we must do, is:
Pull out of the UN. Create a new world-organization that does not include nations who support terrorism. All member-states have to have a minimum standard of identifying citizens who want to cross borders, and serious laws against money laundering that are strictly enforced. Security is what people want. Security is the best way to ensure peace, and prosperity. Pull out of Saudi Arabia. Pull out of Israel (since the Israeli government clearly is not interested in peace). Develop alternative energy sources to power the Western economies of the 21st century. Stop all foreign aid and erect trade interdiction to all non-member states.
Let the Arabs starve. Let them know that it's their extremists and their pandering to the extremists that got them into this position, the only way to ensure their own survival and prosperity is to become democratic nations, and join the coalition, and find and eliminate their extremists, and stop sponsoring their propaganda in their schools.
If they want to farm dust, and play in their oil, and lead mideval lives, they're free to do so. But we should completely cease all contact with those societies, and prevent those people from entering Western society so they can no longer terrorize us.
And Israel's problems should be Israel's alone. I, for one, am sick of taking it in the nuts for them. If they want peace, then they have to get rid of their own extremists. Note that all this recent Palestinian violence started when Ariel Sharon came to power. He and his extremist regime are just as nasty as the Jerry Falwells and the Mulluh Omars of the world.
If OBL wants to create a "pure islamist state" and use oil as a weapon to topple the West, I say, let him try, and let him fail on his own.
The muslims of the world will soon find out that 90% of them don't want a pure islamist state, and when the west finds alternative energy sources, then they'll be crying like the oil industry did in the 80's - remember? OPEC cut back on supply, and demand dropped, and they went hungry.
In the end, what we'll have is a bunch of counter-revolutions in the middle east, Arabs who will overthrow these religious regimes, and they'll be much more strongly committed to democracy, because they had to fight to get it, instead of having "the man" impose it on them "against allah's will".
And the world will be a better place, not only because of the better political climate in the mideast, but because the western economies will be using less oil, and the environment may actually allow human life to exist on this planet.
Re: Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Pull out of the UN. Create a new world-organization that does not include nations who support terrorism. All member-states have to have a minimum standard of identifying citizens who want to cross borders, and serious laws against money laundering that are strictly enforced. Security is what people want. Security is the best way to ensure peace, and prosperity.
What makes you think the rest of the world will follow and dismantle the UN? The rest of the world wants oil, and has other connections with arab nations.
Pull out of Saudi Arabia. Pull out of Israel (since the Israeli government clearly is not interested in peace).
The Israeli government, including Nobel peace prize holder Shimon Peres, is clearly interested in peace. Albeit being under fire, Peres negotiated terms to cease fire. Those terms were all violated, mostly by the Palestinian side, that refused to constrain the terrorists. Seeing those attempts failed, the Israeli government cannot negotitate under fire any longer.
Develop alternative energy sources to power the Western economies of the 21st century.
Easier said than done. On the bright side, oil seems to will have run out in a couple of decades.
Stop all foreign aid and erect trade interdiction to all non-member states.
Let the Arabs starve. Let them know that it's their extremists and their pandering to the extremists that got them into this position, the only way to ensure their own survival and prosperity is to become democratic nations,
Arabs, in Arab countries, are already starving. The living conditions in most Arab countries are horrible. This does NOT generate Democracy. Democracies do NOT arise from such conditions. On the contrary, experience teaches that almost all totalitarian regimes initiated with starvation.
and join the coalition, and find and eliminate their extremists, and stop sponsoring their propaganda in their schools.
What makes you think they (The people) conclude that their regime, Propoganda, or extremists are responsible for this? The people are receptors of propoganda. Leaders control this propoganda.
If they want to farm dust, and play in their oil, and lead mideval lives, they're free to do so. But we should completely cease all contact with those societies, and prevent those people from entering Western society so they can no longer terrorize us.
This is a broad generalization. What will you do about the arabs already in Western countries? How will you prevent the enterance of Arabs into Western civilization through third-party countries, such as "neutral" European countries (France, for instance)?
And Israel's problems should be Israel's alone. I, for one, am sick of taking it in the nuts for them. If they want peace, then they have to get rid of their own extremists.
Makes me wonder what you possibly mean by "get rid of". Israel has constantly been the compromising side in the conflict. And the Palestinian side has constantly been the major source of violence. Yes, it is wrong to let settlers form new settlement, and give rough time to the arabs around, but its far more wrong to allow militant organizations roam the area freely, striking civilians with guns and bombs.
Note that all this recent Palestinian violence started when Ariel Sharon came to power.
As someone else pointed out, this is a blatant lie, as Sharon was elected after the recent violence was initiated, which happened after the Palestinians refused a huge compromise of the Israeli side with no compromise of their own.
He and his extremist regime are just as nasty as the Jerry Falwells and the Mulluh Omars of the world.
Especially the extremist Nobel Peace prize holders, who keep pressing towards a non-violent solution?
If OBL wants to create a "pure islamist state" and use oil as a weapon to topple the West, I say, let him try, and let him fail on his own.
OBL's state is not the primary issue. The deaths of more thousands he might bring is.
The muslims of the world will soon find out that 90% of them don't want a pure islamist state, and when the west finds alternative energy sources, then they'll be crying like the oil industry did in the 80's - remember? OPEC cut back on supply, and demand dropped, and they went hungry.
Hopefully the influence of arab countries will drop as oil runs out. However, this is not sure to bring down the politic power of arab countries, as they still pose the most major threat of instability, that the rest of the world fears so badly.
In the end, what we'll have is a bunch of counter-revolutions in the middle east, Arabs who will overthrow these religious regimes, and they'll be much more strongly committed to democracy, because they had to fight to get it, instead of having "the man" impose it on them "against allah's will".
This is one of the most rediculous claims I've heard. The worse you make these people's lives, the more totalitarian their regimes will look like. Its a fact of history. Nobody will try to implement Democracy where hardly anybody appriciates, or even knows what Democracy is. If you hope of an objective understanding from the "Arab People", you will be highly disappointed.
And the world will be a better place, not only because of the better political climate in the mideast,
How will all of your restrictions, separations, starvations, and other means will make the political climate any better?
but because the western economies will be using less oil, and the environment may actually allow human life to exist on this planet.
This, assuming your new source of energy doesn't contaminate the Earth far worse.
I'd say you should re-think through your ideas.
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.
Re: Actually... (Score:4, Redundant)
Don't be so quick to judge. We are bringing justice to a people that have no concept of what justice really is. Should we really wait for a month to go by before attacking again? That gives them a chance to regroup and launch another September 11th.
Re: Actually... (Score:2)
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about the "Yom Kippur War".
Pot, kettle, event horizon.
Re: Bombing Sicily to get rid of the Mafia (Score:2)
bombing the afghans is like bombing sicily
to get rid of the mafia...
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: Actually... (Score:2)
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.
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.
When it's too late (Score:3, Informative)
You are right in one respect, but wrong in another.
Had the treaty after WW1 been softer, WW2 would probably not have happened. Germany underwent a lot of hardship after WW1, and that was the breeding ground we provided for Hitler. Germans felt unfairly treated.
So, in a way, Chamberlain was doing the right thing - he was being understanding, for Hitler had reason to be outraged.
Today, bin Laden arguably has reason to be outraged, too.
The problem is that in both cases, the mistakes had been made and the process was beyond the point of no return. America can learn from this, and should immediately. Right now, you are upsetting the world, and the world probably will come knocking again and again until you learn your lesson.
If you're gonna be a world leader, think and act globally. Stop your president from saying outragous, silly things like "wanted, dead or alive" and "either your with us, or you're with the terrorists". Granted, he's learning, but I only think he's learning how to restrain himself. Oh - and that's your misconception to correct if I'm wrong.
When you occasionally travel abroad, bother to learn a few phrases in the local language - "thank you", "please", "hello", "yes", "no" and "do you speak english?" for starters.
The list goes on and on. Your nation has an attitude problem almost as big as mine. Maybe it's about time you started doing things right?
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
But this is a *war* and there are bound to be civilian casualties. I'm sure not all Germans were Nazis, but we had to attack that country for the better of the rest of the world (and for the security of our own nation). Civilians die during war--it's not a good thing, but a fact of war. What percentage of our casualties have been civilian so far, 99.9%?
2. Assume that most Afghans are not terrorists. Then I think we should pay the suffering people some respect by at least respecting their holy month. That would also deny al Quaida the chance of pretending this is a war against Islam.
Giving the Taliban and al-Qaida a month to reorganize in the middle of this would be a huge mistake. War is war, and it sucks. Pearl Harbor was on a Sunday, do you think the bin Laden would pay the same respect to us?
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Flamebait)
This is a long explanation, but I think the anti-globalization argument is connected to "But why do they hate us argument." They are both equally ignorant points of view. If you are ready for some patriotism, read on. Otherwise, go back to Berkley!
Did we ask why Hitler hated Jews? No. Would it have helped? No.
The Blame America First Club (tm) has made it a mission to explain to the masses of compassionate Americans why their wealth, their entertainment, and their freedoms have made so many others unhappy. They say we should share are wealth to be loved around the world. Let's see how that would work:
The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is about 10 trillion dollars a year. Let's say we gave away 1/4 of that, destroying our economy and impairing our ability to contribute in the future. That would be 2.5 trillion dollars, divided by the population of the earth (6 billion), that comes down to $416 we could give to each person around the earth. They could then piss away that wealth because they don't understand how to invest it or use it to earn more wealth.
Or, we could allow capitalism to create wealth around the world. Yes, the minimum-wage-labor bigots would cry that we are exploiting 3rd world countries. If we ignore them, they will eventually accumulate wealth, understand the value of currency, and create wealth themselves.
Simple facts: They hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent, educated, and yes, free. Nothing but the destruction of all of these will quench their thirst for destruction. And yes, we can and will kill all the terrorists.
"You know what the great thing about martyers are? They're dead." -- Mike Rosen
Actually...no (Score:2)
Actually, you won't. Because killing them will just make their neighbours hate you more and turn them into terrorists.
Re:Actually...no (Score:2)
Two points: (A) We aren't running out of bullets, (B) not every neighbour has a death wish or $200,000,000.
You miss the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the brainwashed American masses think that option (1) is the patriotic option, despite the fact that it puts us in the losing situation of trying to fight the whole world and will probably end up in option (2) in the long run. A true patriot would realize that the only long-term path with any semblance of national security is (3). Note that (3) is not what most corporations think about when they are going overseas. They are most certainly not interested in exporting any of the things which make America a very livable place, such as environmental protections, labor laws, etc. Rather they are looking to avoid all of the pesky government 'intrusions' that try to make them act the least bit responsible or decent. They want the 'right' to pollute as much as they want, pay the lowest possible wages, and run like hell taking all of their capitol as soon as the next country looks like it will accept more pollution and even lower wages. Or as soon as they have extracted all the natural resources. Then people like you wonder why the masses in these countries aren't grateful that we gave them our pollution and paid them slave labor wages and strip mined their country.
That's why 'globalization' is such a hot topic. Corporations talk about a level playing field, but what they are really looking for is a way out of the basic regulations that keep America from being a 3rd world country. The Blame America First Club, as you like to call it, wants globalization to mean exporting our labor and environmental laws, our democratic government, as well as capital investment. Corporations are interested in maximizing profits by avoiding labor and environmental regulations. Usually this means avoiding any true democracy as well, since most people actually like things like being paid a decent wage and having clean water to drink and vote accordingly.
When
Re:You miss the point (Score:2)
If, no the other hand, we embrace global trade and commerce, we can increase our wealth along with everyone else's. I'm not a pecismist, I'm a realist, and I can see a very good future for the world. No one is suggesting that globalization can't involve environment protection, can't have minimum wage regulations, and can't respect others' cultures.
If you want to know why capitalism doesn't make us hated around the world, consider Japan. No more than 5 decades ago, Japan was our mortal enemy. Now we are close allies and business partners. Do Japanise people hate us for bringing our capitalistic values to their society? NO. And neither do the wealthy few from Saudi Arabia who profit from trade with America.
Two observations: If you add up all the non-American charity, in the world, it comes to less than half of our charitible efforts. That is, we GIVE twice what the entire rest of the world gives combined. We gave Afghanistan their independence, by giving them weapons and training to fight the USSR.
We give Muslims trillions of dollars in money for oil. We give them charity, foreign aid, and technology. It's good for us, it's good for them. The fact that THEIR economic systems do not promote a strong middle class is their problem and their choice, not ours. We are blamed because we promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia. But when we refuse to trade and refuse to invest our values in Iraq, we are blamed.
See a double standard there?
Re:You miss the point (Score:2)
But we don't promote capitalism and trade in Saudi Arabia, and we sure-as-hell don't promote democracy. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a hereditary elite that gets the benefit of the trillions of dollars of oil that we purchase from them each year, and trickles down a small fraction of that wealth to "the little people" in a manner that's not at all capitalist. There can be no free enterprise without freedom. The good things about capitalism have nothing to do with global mega-corporations making fistfuls of money for their shareholders and upper management, and have everything to do with "two guys in a garage."
Now I understand! (Score:2)
Oh yes. Your argument makes so much sense. Now I understand. America is hated because the rest of the world is jealous.
Of course! That's why everyone hates the Swiss! They have the highest Earning Power (GDP per capita) in the world. All that fresh air and beautiful scenery too! And their public services are so efficient. Bastards! The only thing I don't understand is, since they obviously must be really hated, why haven't they had any terrorist attacks yet?
Re:Ironic (Score:2)
The simple fact of the matter is, the controlling factions of Afghanistan have committed an act of war, a war crime at that, and we must respond. If you disagree with this, I have an exercise you might try. Have someone hit you. You don't hate them, so you won't retiate. They hit you again, only harder. You don't retaliate, again, because you don't "hate."
Eventually one of two things will happen. You will defend yourself at the expense of someone you "don't hate." Or, you will be very seriously injured. This is no different. We can have a few dozen Afghan innocents die, or just keep letting Americans die. I'll take the former. If you think war means hate, I suggest you go sing "Give Peace a Chance" around a bond fire with some middle east militants and see if how long you live.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Right now, someone has to lose and someone has to win. I'd prefer to be on the winning side. When we have toppled the Taliban we need to do what we did with Japan: rebuild it.
We also need to address the deplorable conditions in other countries that will grow terrorism.
But blaming terror on some kind of social injustice created by global capitalism is not the answer.
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Redundant)
Americans of today are disliked because they strive for homogeny; they want to always have access to their Starbucks lattes and their McDonalds' happy meals. Americans want to drive their SUVs, shop at malls, watch Must-See TV, and rely on others to make crucial decisions for them. Most importantly, Americans always want to blame someone else.
Do you know what the most popular restaurant in Paris is? McDonalds. The only reason SUVs don't sell well in Europe and Asia is the price of gasoline is higher. Every nation has shopping malls, and Must-See TV is syndicated around the world.
America isn't perfect. We have our Christian fundamentalists (abortion clinic bombings anyone?), we have poverty, we need to work out more and eat better (which again, would be a sign of consumerism and wealth), we even have a legislature that is showing less and less willingness to preserve the Bill of Rights. That said, it's still a pretty decent place to live.
I admit I am feeling pretty nationalistic after 9-11. I'm a libertarian, I don't support capitalism at all costs, but I don't sing along with the brainwashed-politicly-correct Madison/Berkley/MIT dogma. That dogma being, no matter what the facts, you can feel good about yourself if you Blame America First.
I'm sorry, but you're living in a fool's paradise and I don't want to die in your fool's paradise.
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:Actually... (Score:2)
A lot of people just argue with anything that questions their blind faith.
Post WWII vs Cold War (Score:2)
After WWII, we learned from the mistakes of post-WWI and helped both Europe and Japan rebuild. We were taking what we talked about with the American Dream and helping others achieve it. Let's ignore for the moment whether the American Dream should be exported or not - that's not the point. The point is that we were doing what we were saying.
During the Cold War that all changed. While talking American Dream, our conduct was "Enemy of my enemy is my friend." We turned a blind eye towards their bad habits, and supported them if they were against the communists.
Defining yourself by what you are not is a terrible way to live a life, IMHO. That goes for a person, an organization, or a country. Perhaps we had to pursue our anti-communist foreign policy, but to have done so in so single-minded and negative a fashion, without similarly acting on our own positive beliefs was unwise. The aftereffects of our negative foreign policy are coming back to roost.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
Given:
1. Technology increases the ability of diverse folks to communicate on a global scale, immediately and without filters. (Think Internet chat rooms, cheap global long distance, etc.)
2. Communications will illuminate differences and challenges to strongly held beliefs. (Think
3. Immediate and unfiltered communications do not provide context and explanation of practices/customs/norms that are different. Thus, we don't get why Persian women would wear headscarves and they don't get why American women would wear short shorts. It's considered an affront on both sides of the argument by a portion of the population.
4. Partially understood differences (rather than misunderstoond, I misunderstand French, but I partially understand a french person speaking English) yields conflict. (Call it the Babel Fish Axiom - "Because of this, the Babel fish has led to longer and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." - THHGTTG)
Thus: Technology yields greater communications with less context and explanation, which yiels more conflict.
I think this is Katz's point, but a little more logically outlined.
What type of... (Score:3)
social threefolding (Score:2, Interesting)
The Lexus and the Olive Tree (Score:5, Interesting)
[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.
I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]
Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.
IMHO. HAND.
Re:The Lexus and the Olive Tree (Score:2, Interesting)
Not every culture holds as its highest ideal the individual pursuit of wealth. The western global free market economy is not the only economic system. Radicalisation comes not only from the fringes, but often right square from the centre, from having an economic system imposed upon you by outside forces. It is important for a people to be able to define their own terms of participation in the global economy. When the terms are dictated by outside forces, and by and large for the sake of corporate profits, there WILL be a radicalised response.
Cheers,
Rev. Hibachi
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.
anthrax--careful, John (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:anthrax--careful, John (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:anthrax--careful, John (Score:2)
The Army of God is on the suspect list. And it's completely homegrown American.
It sounds like a fundamentalist outfit. That's in line with the article's thesis.Re:anthrax--careful, John (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually strongly suspect the anthrax attacks are not originating with al-Qaeda.
For one thing, the letters [cnn.com] strike me as funny:
Also, some of the targets seem strange to me. A tabloid newspaper? That appeared to be, if not the first target, an early target, and is not exactly a symbol of America to people around the world. If I were an investigator, this is the one I would be looking at most closely. If I were a terrorist wanted to sow fear and confusion, I would send anthrax to random people's homes, or I would steal a load of Publishers' Clearinghouse sweepstakes applications and load them with the bacteria before returning them to the mails.
It's all circumstantial, of course, but the al-Qaeda angle doesn't seem right to me. I'm betting it's some American guy or guys with a B.Sc. in microbiology.
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.
Re:Contrast: The Economist (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Contrast: The Economist (Score:2)
There is a slight difference. JonKatz doesn't have a firm grasp of the subject matter -- all he has is strong opinions. The Economist certainly has a pro-business slant, but this is based upon a firm grasp of the subject matter.
This is why JonKatz engenders passionate dislike -- whether we are talking technology, economics, or any other field, his grasp of the subject matter is lower than his readership, yet he makes strong pronouncements based upon his ignorance.
JonKatz appeals to young geeks who share is values and ignorance. I think it is a rite-of-passage: at some point, people mature and become educated and realize what JonKatz is all about (he certainly would have appealed to me when I was 15 years old).
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.
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:Globalisation for Greed (Score:3, Informative)
Errr no it isn't. This is exactly what happend
Last year $43m [progress.org] was sent...
also from CNN Last paragraph [cnn.com] Lots of the Taliban are ex-members of "freedom fighters" including their leader.
It isn't the same as supporting Poland as there you are supporting a country, integral in itself. Here we are talking about various nutters with guns who we happen to like. Lets not kid ourselves that the currently popular "Northern Alliance" are not a bunch of murdering thugs as well.
Fund murderous thugs and eventually you get your reward. Previously they had a common enemy (the USSR), then they had each other, then they had their previous paymasters. Same situation as Iraq.
Re:Globalisation for Greed (Score:2)
I can't believe you would actually reply with that. That gift was in the form of humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan who are STARVING TO DEATH. I'm sure you would be the first to cry bloody murder that the US government would allow a famine to continue while it had so much extra money on its hands, but when they do, it sure makes a convenient argument against them later.
Basically, in your scenario, the US could do absolutely no right. There are, to my knowledge, three broad options the US could pursue in regards to Afghanistan:
So then, please enlighten me as to which of these three options is acceptable to you, or give me a fourth which I have not considered. As far as I can tell, you've ruled out every possible course of action.
Its not just the US, its lots of others too.. (Score:2)
The UK doesn't exactly look too good here, 300 years or so of buggering up the country makes the US' 30 years look pretty small cheese in comparison.
The point here is that it is important to do things now with a _clue_ about where it could end up.
Right now is a classic example, the "Northern Alliance" who China regard as supporting terrorism in China. Are a bunch of nutter thugs from whom the Taliban split because the Taliban are religious nutters not just straight nutters. Do we want those people in charge ? No thank you.
How about using a sensible concept in a country like that like "democracy" and "subsidy". Help to build a democratic goverment and build all those cheap Nike factories in Afghanistan. Make sure the oil revenues are evenly distributed rather than just to the rich elite.
In Kuwait the west defended a dictatorial regime with a poor human rights record, especially against immigrants from the 3rd world, and replaced it with... exactly the same regime.
How about replacing a bunch of nutters with a demoncratic goverment.... that _we might not always agree with_. But that has a vested interest in peace.
Option 4) Work _with_ the other countries in the region, have Pakistan involved in determining the make up and format for elections (I know miltary dictator setting up a democracy), have Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria et al involved in this process.
Remember this was a war against _terrorism_ NOT against the Taliban, their crime is harbouring a terrorist... who they OFFERED to handover to a neutral country (ala Libya and the Lockerbie suspects).
Bombing the Red Cross is _not_ the sort of act that will increase stability in the region.
Re:Globalisation for Greed (Score:2)
Well, yeah. One day he's repelling a Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, the next he's bombing US embassies, attacking US ships, and murdering 5000 US civilians. People don't necessarily stay the same. I don't see why our view of them should.
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.
Re:Globalisation for Greed (Score:2)
Wrong. In one of his few moments of coherence, the poster above noted that the US's immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan following the war with the USSR is one of the reasons Afghanistan has been fighting a civil war for over a decade. Your solution -- go in, get what we want, and then leave the country a bombed-out mess -- is exactly the opposite end of the spectrum from a well thought out, effective foreign policy.
GLOBALIZATION IS ABOUT HAVE EXPLOITING HAVE-NOTS (Score:2, Interesting)
So that is why there is work here.
We compete on the gloabl stage for work. We offer a business advantage over third world competitors in that we are stable and are run by the rule of law. And because we have this advantage over 3rd world, that is the only reason why we have work here at all. Otherwise we would have no work here because we CHARGE HIGH WAGES.
People, that is a GOOD THING! WE WANT HIGH WAGES!
WE DON'T WANT LOW WAGES!
But big corporations want both stability/the rule of law AND low wages. So therefore "open borders immigration" and globalization is what corporations want because it LOWERS WAGES!
Our politicians want to give them that because the corporations PAY THEM.
Can you please see that this is a process of negotiation! That there are CONFLICTS OF INTEREST between corporations and the citizens of western democracies?
When you go to buy a car and the salesman says he wants 100K, you don't just pay him, do you? YOU NEGOTIATE!
The problem is that corporations have poured so much money into propaganda through so many means that people like Katz beleive the pro-globalization propaganda. Or maybe, Katz is being paid by business lobbies to write pro-globalization propaganda.
Jon Katz, do you take money from corporate lobbies?
Re:GLOBALIZATION IS ABOUT HAVE EXPLOITING HAVE-NOT (Score:2, Funny)
Re:GLOBALIZATION IS ABOUT HAVE EXPLOITING HAVE-NOT (Score:2)
We compete on the gloabl stage for work. We offer a business advantage over third world competitors in that we are stable and are run by the rule of law. And because we have this advantage over 3rd world, that is the only reason why we have work here at all. Otherwise we would have no work here because we CHARGE HIGH WAGES. People, that is a GOOD THING! WE WANT HIGH WAGES!
High wages for Westerners. Screw the poor elsewhere! They want to work for us but don't let them! Let them starve instead. We want them to work for us to lower the price of our goods. But don't let them! Let's have our products be overpriced instead! The most important thing is to protect the wages of the middle class.
Even if a person were as short-sighted and narrow-minded as that, it would still be no argument against globalization. The economics of the situation are that when we send money abroad those people become consumers and they buy stuff we make like K-rad computer games and Intel processors. So they can escape poverty, we get cheaper basic goods and we get paid to do more interesting work than working in a t-shirt factory. What a ripoff, eh?
If you don't believe the economics, just look at recent history. Ross Perot claimed that NAFTA would send tons of American jobs to Mexico but until the recent slowdown there was virtually no unemployment in the US. We know that low-end jobs did move to Mexico. But we also know that new, high-paying jobs have been created in the tech sector in the last several years. That seems like a good trade to me!
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.
NOT the biggest, most important story (Score:2)
Global Warming is by far the biggest, most important story in our lifetime. We'll all learn that soon enough.
Bad side of globalization (Score:4, Informative)
It was discovered that one of the great causes of discontent and unrest in Central America in the 60's was unintentional, where Peace Corps workers left out magazines, loaded with american advertisements, where locals saw them. The indiginous people, uninitiated to the ways of Madison Avenue, would see what american had, what their country and culture lacked and it erroded their faith in their own noble cultures. They had to have cars, they had to have women with come hither looks, they had to drink Tanqueray, they had to have a Timex! Discontent breeds revolution, revolution creates upheaval and all the ills (hunger, disease, orphans, maimed bodies, etc.) Enter the "fundamentalist", whether it's Daniel Ortega spouting the promises of Marxism and reclaiming the land in the name of the people, or some Mullah in Afghanistan preaching a glorious afterlife littered with nubile virgins to people desperately poor, the appeal is the same: Anything is better than what we have now.
The bitterness of people in the middle east has been a long time simmering. From european colonialism to corporate colonialism to the shameful double standard of Israel vs. Arabs (and yet these people come from the same blood, but tell them that.)
Now the West loses billions of dollars in upset commerce, tourism, etc., and it's the poorest people on earth the US is pitted against in a war which consumes even more billions of dollars. (With hopes from some that war will stimulate the economy(!))
Jimmy Buffett had it right, if you ever have listened to the Feeding Frenzy CD. Drop a bunch of money on these people, then drop a bunch of catalogs, for the cost of one B-1 bomber we could have full employment, they could have all kinds of toys and we'd have peace. Well, peace if that bully in Israel would stop the acts of war against the palestinians.
My $0.02 anyway...
Re:Bad side of globalization (Score:2)
In my own humble, ininformed, and probably stupid view,
You make it pretty hard for a guy to flame you for being uninformed.
the reason Fundamentalists gain so much support is that Globalization is basically capitalism, whereas the societies where it fails are those where people are so dirt poor that they can't afford the products or services offered by cosmopolitan societies. People no better or worse for the fate of their placement of birth, limited access to opportunity and ability to be brainwashed by zealous ideologues.
This "poverty breeds fundamentalism" view is not supported by the facts. It is usually the middle class and upper middle class that leads the revolution for or against fundamentalism. Where are the fundamentalists from sub-saharan Africa? Why aren't poor Nigerians blowing up planes? Look at Bin Laden and the university-educated students. Do they cite poverty as an issue? The issues are much more subtle and poverty is only one issue, if even that.
Drop a bunch of money on these people, then drop a bunch of catalogs, for the cost of one B-1 bomber we could have full employment, they could have all kinds of toys and we'd have peace.
Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Our billion dollars would be turned into weapons and turned back towards us. Nation building isn't about dumping cash into a cauldron of discontent and factionalism.
Well, peace if that bully in Israel would stop the acts of war against the palestinians.
Yeah, the fault is all Israel's. The fact that many Palestinians are dedicated to the distruction of the Israeli state and the murder of all Jews isn't relevant. This issue is simple like the other one: just tell those evil Jews to stop beating up on the virtuous Palestinians.
Re:Bad side of globalization (Score:2)
Good god... the indigenous geeks have the same reaction when they see Japanese tech magazines! I know I get PO'd whenever I see the neat shit they have in Tokyo, that I'll never be able to lay hands on here in North America.
It's our arrogance is why others hate us. (Score:2)
We preach about free trade, yet Shrub gets his panties in a bunch when some country can sell us steel for cheap.
Our companies fight tooth and nail for the ability to sell to the entire world, yet want people in the US (the richest general population on the planet) to only buy products domestically (no buying cheap drugs from Canada, region-enforced DVD players, etc.).
We, as a society, can't have it both ways, yet we try so damned hard to have it that way. We dictate to the world our standards which enrich our corporate world (NAFTA, WTO, intellectual property right protection, etc.), but balk at the idea that someone else may produce a better mouse trap for less.
It sickens me, really.
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.
Globalization is an abused word (Score:2)
The International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders represent a different kind of "globalization", for which we used to use the term international. For example, many people make the claim of being an "internationalist", which means that they are loyal to no flag and their ethics are inclusive of the entire world population (but not necessarily a "one-world-government"). I wager that Doctors Without Borders would prefer to be called Internationalist rather than globalist.
Most opponents of "globalization" are not isolationists (a common straw man of neoliberals). If anything, they want to see even less restrictions on movement, communication, and goods than multinational corporations lobby for, but as a means of feeding people, not extracting profit. Central to this view is the idea of open borders--free and easy immigration for all. Anyone notice how long those people were marooned off the coast of Austrialia? Or how long refugees rot in camps in the U.S.?
The reason that multinational corporations oppose that kind of globalization, the globalization of population movement, is that they would lose the very profitble factor of geographic advantage -- the ability to pay a sweatshop worker in Burma $0.12/hr rather than a union worker in the U.S. $9.00/hr. So multinational corporations form PAC's and fincance politicians that want to lower trade tariffs while restricting immigration at the same time. And let's not forget IMF policies forbidding the nationalization of industries (or forcing privatization of State industries), cutting of social services, and leveraging loan promises against environmental protection.
As much as politicians make pretty speeches about "the New World Order" and globalization's bounty of technology and prosperity, the fact is that they are being bankrolled by multinational corporations. Listen closely and you'll hear that they are really saying nothing substantial at all.
If you start talking about Al Qaeda and the Russian "Mafiya" being globalized then you digress from the commonly accepted meaning of the word (and thus have an uphill semantic battle to fight). They are multinational organizations, for sure. The reason why those groups and corporations are multinational rather than international is that multi- signifies that they have membership/property in various nations, rather than having an ethical inclusiveness to ALL nations. Corporations and terrorist/crime organizations have selfish ethics (ie. a corp's loyalty is to it's stockholders, mafia's is to it's family, a terrorist network is loyal to their cause, etc.) Internationalists are loyal to the Earth and it's inhabitants, regardless of whom they are.
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?
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.
Free London School of Economics Course (Score:4, Informative)
The London School of Economics is giving a Free course called "The Globalisation Debate" at the onlineline University course clearinghouse "Fathom.com [fathom.com]. Their system doesn't permit direct linking, so you will need to search on Globalisation, or the school. Here's the course description:
Globalisation is a fervidly contested and often misunderstood concept. It has occupied and divided economists, sociologists and anti-capitalists alike. Anti-globalisation protestors have regularly and successfully picketed World Trade Organisation summits as part of their stand against the might of globalisation. Yet, many economists tout the benefits of increased trade, sophisticated telecommunications networks and cross-border investment to developing countries, pointing to the gains workers and unions throughout the world stand to make from closer integration.
Most people seem to know whether they are for or against globalisation, without pausing to consider what exactly it is and where its effects can be seen. Globalisation might be a term too slippery to be closely defined, but it is a vibrant debate worth engaging in.
In this seminar two major sociologists put forward their versions of globalisation. For Anthony Giddens, it is a phenomenon characterised by fundamental changes in the world economy, the communications revolution and trade between nation-states in physical commodities, information and currency. For Leslie Sklair, globalisation should be seen as a new phase of capitalism, one that transcends the unit of the nation-state. In an interview, he introduces the globalisation debate and stakes out his position within it. Sklair builds on these arguments through a flash image gallery, which explores how the idea of globalisation is used by transnational corporations.
The course is taught by Leslie Sklair is a reader in sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and is responsible for the doctoral programme in the sociology department. He has been a visiting professor at New York University, San Diego State University and Hong Kong University, and has lectured on globalisation all over the world. His Sociology of the Global System (1995) has been translated into Japanese, Portuguese, Persian, Chinese and Spanish. He has conducted fieldwork on transnational corporations in Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Egypt and Australia, and in Europe and North America.
Great on Paper (Score:2, Interesting)
Ed
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.
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.
Katz misses the point again. (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case as well you are seeing a reaction to rampant captialism (globalization) wrapped in the wonderfully motivating skin of religious fundamentalism.
Middle Easterners do not hate the working man in America. They hate the huge multi-nationals and their US military police force that secures them further profit at the expense of lives and sometimes countries.
This country has been living off of the fat of the rest of the world for 2 generations or longer. Wouldn't you resent a country that swoops in bombs and kills many of your population and then sets up your government for you, all in the name of oil profit?
How come there is no Italian or Japanese military base on US soil? How come there is NO other countries military base on US soil, yet we have 60+ major military installation in other countries in the world?
Globalization is the problem not the solution.
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!?
The other problem of globalization. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only do people not want our way of life, they are not in a position to accept our way of life. It is well known, within political science, that a republic must have a strong middle-class and third world countries do not have one, it is part of the antiquated definition of being third world.
However globalization is doing something that the world's poor like and the American middle-class hates, it is equalizing the wealth. Poor countries, like Singapore, are getting western blue collar jobs dumping sizable amounts of wealth into those countries. While on the other side of that it is making all blue collar professions in the west all but disappear and as this happens the only thing for blue collar workers to do is get better educated and find a white collar job. While they do this they flood the market driving the wages down for what use to be a staple for middle class life. Now both the middle and lower classes are both in white collar jobs making the destination all but nonexistent.
The disappearance of the middle class in America and the west is a frightening but all too real consequence of our global economy. No longer will we have an American upper, middle, and lower class; we will not have an Egyptian upper, middle, and lower class, or distinct classes for Europe or China or anywhere else. We will have a World upper, middle, and lower class. This means that the much of the world's poor will be brought above the poverty line at the expense of the West's affluent middle class. And this is a threat to the stability of our Republic that nobody relizes.
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.
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.
Myths about the anti-globalization protesters (Score:2)
The reality is quite different. Although there are all sorts of groups among the protesters, including, for instance, union members protesting loss of jobs in this country, the general view of the anti-WTO crowd is NOT anti-globalization. Most agree that free trade can be a very good thing. What they are protesting is the MANNER in which free trade is being pushed.
With trade organizations taking precedence over local government regulations, environmental and labor laws are being pushed aside in the name of free trade. In such a case, there will be some people in those third-world countries who will benefit, while many common people have it even worse. Think of the child laborers making Nike shoes, for instance. The owner of the factory is doing quite well with free trade, but that 8-year-old working the machine in the corner is not having such a nice life. So the protesters are basically saying, 'Have free trade, but do it in a socially-responsible manner that upholds the worth of the individual.'
Since capitalism and free trade in a pure form doesn't really care about the worth of the individual except as the individual provides work or cash, the media lies about the situation to color people's perception of this debate. They reduce the complex arguments down to "Free Trade Bad," which is not at all the message being argued.
Globalization has been around a long time (Score:2)
I think you kind of misjudge that globalization has been a recent trend.
I say that is completely wrong. After all, during the zenith of the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD the entire Mediterranean Sea was under Roman control, so Roman culture homogenized the culture of that part of the world. The same happened when Islam spread starting the 7th Century AD, which by 1000 AD created an fairly homogeneous Moslem culture that went from southern Spain to the west, down the east coast of Africa to the south, and much of central Asia to the east. And Arab merchants based in the Arabian Peninsula in those days became extremely wealthy, just like the multinational corporations of today.
In short, the globalization of today is just repeating what happened 1000 to 2000 years ago, only we have faster means of goods transport.
Movie, "Life and Debt" (Score:2, Interesting)
Great Rules for Writing (Score:4, Funny)
In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
Great! Glad you answered that one. Now I don't have to read the second of two parts.
JonKatz, here are some "Great Rules for Writing" from William Safire in the New York Times:
Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
It is incumbent on one to avoid archaisms.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
De-accession euphemisms.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.
Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.
Globalism is not a political movement (Score:3, Interesting)
Globalism is not and has never been a political movement. It is no more than a social and political trend that began with the Industrial Revolution. Geography is less of a constraint than it was in past. Airline travel, the telephone, satelite TV and the Internet mean that you can live in one country and have the same communications access as if you lived in another country on a different continent.
Anti-globalism is a political movement of sorts. There is no real cohesion between the aims of the various factions however. In many cases the aims are completely opposed.
Bin Laden is not an anti-globalist in any meaningful sense, he is anti-US but his political aims are global. He wants to return the world to the middle ages one country at a time, starting with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Palestein but continuing on to Andaloucia (Spain), Africa etc.
Some of the anti-globalists are anti-democratic tin pot nationalists who want to declare independence for their little fragment of a nation state so that they have a better chance of getting power themselves.
Other 'anti-globalists' are tin-pot union leaders looking for some form of protectionism that will discriminate against goods produced by foreign workers.
Most of the 'anti-globalists' are not protesting about the process of globalisation however but the limited form in which it is taking place. As they see it the West is busy exporting the working practices and political structures of the nineteenth century while trying to deter democratization that might threaten Western interests.
As a political critique it was far more accurate in the 1970s than today. The list of dictators supported by the West and in particular the US is very long. The US subverted democratic governments in Chile and the Congo and replaced them with mass murderers.
US administration policy since the cold war, and in particular since the Clinton administration has been to end support for most of the worst regimes. Marcos, Pinochet, Suharto and the rest have been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is therefore somewhat strange to start an unfocused 'the US can do no right' movement at this time. There are several areas where the US is standing on the wrong side of history, proping up the gulf dictatorships for example, however US foreign policy is much reformed.
The biggest problem of globalism is ex-patriate meddling in their former home countries, particularly in the second and third generations. Sean Connery's calls for an independent Scotland made from a Spanish golf course are ridiculous and harmless enough. The funding of the IRA by Irish Americans or the Sikh separatists in India by Bradford shopkeepers was not. The problem with ex-patriates is that they can believe all the propaganda they like, they can fund all the murder they like and live in perfect safety far from the consequences of their meddling.
The funding of Israeli settlements by US Jews and the funding of extreemist Madrasah schools in Pakistan by Saudis are just another example of a type of meddling from a long distance that is hated by the majority in the countries that are subjected to it.
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.
Hypocrisy from the bourgeoise (Score:4, Informative)
In Osama Bin Laden's message to the American people, which the White House asked newspapers and television to not show, he said the primary reason this happened is because the US military has been occupying his homeland, Saudi Arabia, for a decade. This is usually breezed over in American media, if mentioned at all, but it's what set him against the US to begin with. This is a quite rational, political reason, in fact he got kicked out of Saudi Arabia by the US-friendly monarch of Saudi Arabia for advocating American withdrawal. This makes a lot more sense than the loopy reasons being thrown about here and elsewhere. The people who talk like that have counterparts in the Muslim world, who say we're "evil crusaders bombing Afghanistan because we hate Islam, and no matter what anyone does, the US will always hate Islam and arabs". Someone made a reply here in which they cynically said that OBL never mentioned the Palestinians before 9/11. They have a decent point, this may be so, and many leaders in Islamic countries have used the nexus of Israel and the Palestinians to try to rally broader support from the Muslim world.
Regarding Katz's statement - first, I'm set back by his arrogant view that America is the torch-bearer of cosmopolitan enlightenment, and the world is blessed by the spread of our enlightenment. This is the same kind of manifest destiny, imperialistic, colonial idea that America and the European powers held in centuries past - what results from this type of colonialism? South Africa. The Vietnam War. The antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims on the Indian subcontinent that the British antagonized.
Katz's view on the benevolence of multi-national corporations, capitalism and technology are repulsive to me as a working class American, who knows what reaction a third world nation, who's corrupt bourgeoise politicians borrow from the US and Europeans in the name of the country, only to have the WTO turn around and demand that the country pay up for the money the corrupt bourgeoise of the country stole. What do you think the money borrowed by Pakistan and other countries went towards, building roads in poor, rural areas? Ha! Then the WTO comes in, and has the government privatize all the public utilities (which means that they all become owned by foreign corporations), do away with social welfare programs and so forth.
That's to say nothing of the laundry list of things multinational corporations have done in third world countries, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Perhaps Dow Chemical Union Carbide's gas spill in Bhopal, India which killed thousands and injured hundreds of thousands. I can't educate people as to what the US media has not been educating it's citizens of US involvement around the world in in a short post. You'll have to check out the role of Shell in Nigeria, Nike in Indonesia, Phillip Morris in Thailand (making the US use GATT to sell it's deadly tobacco drugs - and without warning labels, and too children, just like it did decades ago in the US). It's a laugh that the US is sending $1 billion to Colombia to fight drugs - how come we're not spending $1 billion on other drug-producing countries? Hell, the head of the US army "anti-drug" force was caught red-hand trafficking drugs into the US. The US began by stealing the Panama canal a century ago, funded the Colombian military for prior decades because it was "fighting Soviet communist proxies". The Soviet Union folds, but the same money and military support keeps flowing, but now the US military's PR department has changed the reason to "fighting drugs". I could go on and on forever.
It's funny how the US is going to rid the world of fundamentalism when polls show that the US is the most religously fundamentalized country in the industrial world. If the federal government lifted church/state restrictions, the South and the West would put back creationist science, prayer in school and so forth quicker than you'd believe.
A Christian nation like the US should know the bible verse Matthew 7:1-5
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
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:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (Score:2)
The only Starbucks stores in Europe are in the UK and Switzerland. Besides, if you think Americans enjoy that sort of thing, you're mistaken. We have citizens that are just as upset that Wal-Mart is replacing local hardware stores, and Barnes & Noble is bankrupting local booksellers. Nobody's excited about that kind of globalization, not even us.
The real problem of globalization is the American attitude which puts individual freedom above just about every other principle. In Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Japan, Russia etc our values are different. We put family and religion first. We do not care about your profit motive.
Huh? In one sentence, you say that we put freedom over every principle. In the next, you say you're different because you put family and religion first. I'm not sure how you can choose your religion without first having the freedom to choose it - unless, of course, you're in favor of state-sponsored religion that enforces your personal choice. The freedom of religion was the whole point over here in the US, and the driving force behind our nation's founding. If you see freedom as a value that jeopardizes family and religion, you don't understand freedom. The whole point over here is the freedom to choose your religion, your friends, and for that matter, the brands that you buy.
We will eventually win, because we will eventually stop buying into your culture of greed. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but it will happen.
What's stopping it? You're the ones buying our products. Nobody's holding a gun to your head at the Gap and making you buy their t-shirts. It's not like you don't have your own products to choose from. McDonald's isn't the only place to buy hamburgers, and Starbucks isn't the only place to get a cup of joe.
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (Score:2)
Our kids are. Metaphorically of course.
They are some what more sensitive to the propagandising of the the various corporate interests.
Freedom is a fairly specious notion. When we had a King most people thought that we were free because we had a king, and hated the notion of democracy. Did they chose to have a king. Well in a sense. At least until we got around to cutting his head off.
I think its over simplified to say "it exists, therefore we choose it". Clearly we have had some choice in the matter, but the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Of course unlike some I don't see this in terms of American cultural imperialism. Most of the population in American were not asked any more than most of the British were during the time of our empire. It seems to me that there are a few who are profitting mightly from the situation, whilst most of us get on with the struggle to survive.
Phil
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?
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it. (Score:2)
I concur, completely and wholeheartedly.
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: