Globalization

[danielsh]

I hear the term "Globalization" thrown around a lot these days. As I understand it, the word refers to the expansion of trade into new global markets, a general unification of disparate cultures, &c. &c. Not knowing anything about it, I can't judge whether it's a good or bad thing. A whole host of big names, many of whom I typically believe, spoke against it on the album <i>Monkeywrenching the New World Order</i>. There are violent protests against the phenomenon itself and the WTO. What I'm wondering is: What's all the excitement really about?

[Andrew]

Globalization destroys cultures. Or at least forces politically or naturally a culture to adapt to their environment.

I've seen films of Cultures that once were, but are no more because they are forced to change. Most of the films perspective put this change as a bad thing, or at least that is how you feel after watching how happy they are in their own culture.

Globalization can also be the expansion of communication. back in the 1800s it would take weeks to get info across a country, now it takes a second. Information travels much faster now.

It's a small World

[Caid Ivik]

1989. Communist empire dissintegrates. Next year we can first Austria for first time without following of secret police interests. 1992 is built first McDonald, there are no more year-long waiting times for western computers and cars. My generation now sees a world much more larger than my parents. I can connect to internet, speak with Americans, Japanese or French and learn their languages at hand. I can study abroad and then do my work in any other country. While borders fade, responsibility over where I'll put myself is in my own hands.

Thank God for we can live this time.

[Wolf]

Globalization is unavoidable, and if we are to live peacefully and well in the future, we must understand it and adapt to it. For example, in an increasingly globalizing world, we need organizations like the UN (and the WTO, to some degree) to take a stand to actually moderate and regulate international activity; to provide a forum for conversation and a common frame of reference. The world is too close, weapons too destructive, and people too dependant on one-another for us to go at international affairs like we used to in the old days.

[Andrew]

But when governments tell other cultures how to live and that their way of living is uncivilized, that is silly. Kinda like how Europeans came to America and killed all the savage natives. ;) (Which was ethically wrong)

[Wolf]

You cannot stop the whirlwind.

[Andrew]

Yah, the world will eventually be one culture with several geographical subcultures.

In order to achieve that there will eithor be political or natural incursions. (political=war/trade natural=weather/natural phenomenon)

[Wolf]

The thing is, Andrew, your example of Europeans forcibly assimilating a culture is different than what is going on today in most respects. Granted, there is some intentional cultural assimilation, but, in many ways, the people of these countries are buying the globalized world over their own. Why are there McDonald's all over the world? This is because people in those countries had demand for a McDonald's. They allowed a corporation who was only too willing to come in and set up shop. Now, this alone does not mean that they were all willing, but, if this McDonald's is now doing well, it means that people are buying from them, willingly. Look at Tokyo, an example of globalized world meets old culture. Even there, the epitome of commercialism, they still retain cultural aspects that are unique to them. People are different, and they will always be different. There will not be one giant "global culture" with little subcultures per se, there will be thousands upon thousands of different cultures, but they will all be using the same resources, technology and mediums. This makes them all alike, but by no means does it make them "the same". People will always be different. That is simply the way it will be.

[Caid Ivik]

If your culture, which was in fact artificially dictated from above, was for a long time isolated from other ones, tough they were mixed, you would look at this trend from brighter side. EdricO is right, you Westerners need few years of hard communism. Then you will see the worth of globalization.

[Edric O]

1989. Communist empire dissintegrates.

You mean stalinist empire. I thought you would have understood this by now.

Next year we can first Austria for first time without following of secret police interests. 1992 is built first McDonald, there are no more year-long waiting times for western computers and cars.

You forgot to mention how the economy crashed, the GDP dropped to a record low level, and unemployment soared to unheard-of heights. And I believe your newly impoverished citizens were more concerned with survival than with McDonald's or western computers and cars...

Thank God for we can live this time.

Tell that to the 24 thousand people who die of starvation every day.

[Caid Ivik]

Because you Romanians are lazy and can't do anything from own initiative. Get down from tree...

[Edric O]

Don't get me wrong, however - globalization could be a very positive process, and it could be a great benefit to all Mankind. But not if it is carried out as it is today.

Globalization - the melting away of borders, the dissolution of nationalistic and racial prejudice, the unification of the world into one great Global Village - is a long-standing dream of the communist movement. We used to call it "internationalism", and you can see it in mottos like "Workers of all nations, unite!", or the lyrics of the Internationale.

For my part, I have always stood for a united world. And as Wolfwiz mentioned, this process of unification is inevitable.

The question is how it is to be carried out. The "globalization" we have today amounts to little more than theft and enslavement. It is an economic process that cripples 3rd world countries, throws their peoples into poverty and crushes their independence, all for the benefit of a select few super-rich who run the giant multinational corporations.

If we want to globalize, then we have to globalize more than just corporate interests. If you want a global economy, you need a global government, and global welfare measures against poverty.

A global communist revolution would also be nice. ;)

[Edric O]

Because you Romanians are lazy and can't do anything from own initiative. Get down from tree...

Actually, I was talking about the horrendous situation of Slovakia in the mid-90's... a situation that was mirrored in Romania and other Eastern European countries, of course.

Even today, the majority of Eastern European countries have a GDP which is LOWER than the one in 1989.

[Caid Ivik]

Unification? I see nothing like that. I remain a Slovak, but I have more possibilities available. It's not turning people to one model, but just breaking barriers, which limited us from knowing others. It's not only political or economical process. For example, technology has its merits here too, and you can't blame it.

[ordos45]

True Edric, but if memory serves was it not once around 60,000 per day?

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, I was talking about the horrendous situation of Slovakia in the mid-90's... a situation that was mirrored in Romania and other Eastern European countries, of course.

Even today, the majority of Eastern European countries have a GDP which is LOWER than the one in 1989.

Well, there are no people starving to death here now, our GDP rises most of all european countries and in mid-90s it lowered, because no one wanted to buy our tanks, so it was for good purpose...

[nemafakei]

There's nothing wrong with globalisation, so long as there are sensible ways of making sure responsible peoplke are in control of it, and are able to stop exploitation.

[SurlyPIG]

Ditto to Nema.  I think that it's wrong for developed nations to trade with any nation that doesn't have similar labour standards like max hours of work, minimum wage, minimum work age, safe working conditions etc.  Unboundaried globalisation is a step backward towards nineteenth century Britain, not forwards towards a higher global standard of living.

[Andrew]

Kinda like Americans exporting to Asia then selling the same product to America. Kinda reminds me of 18 century when raw materials would be sent to Europe from America, then finished product back to America.

Guess transportation is cheap compared to labour and capital.

[SurlyPIG]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.  I think that if you're going to sell a product in Canada for a price fitting in magnitude, then the worker who made it should have a wage similar in magnitude comparable to Canadian workers, and working standards similar to those in Canada.

[Edric O]

Well, what can I say? I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is that the greatest multinational corporations have grown more powerful than many 3rd world governments - so those governments are unable to impose any restrictions on the 19th century-style ultracapitalism practiced in their countries.

(and of course, many such governments don't WANT to change anything, because their corrupt members have a lot to gain from corporations who come to their countries looking for cheap labour)

[TMA_1]

I agree with edric on this one.

from what I can surmise, the problems with globalism are many.

one is that these international groups tend to be rich, and cater to the rich. Often they dont think of trying to raise up other nations. What this does is expand the gulf of the poverty-stricken nations and the relatively rich ones. This is absolutely horrible and dangerous, as it not only kills many, and makes many even more miserable than they already are, but it also makes many of these nations bitter, and this is one area where you get a lot of terroist activity and the like.

another fact is that many christians see this as evil, not all though, just an opinion of a few christians out there. See, many like me believe that if humanity unites (either economically or politically, or both) that it just unites the sin nature, and grows evil to an even bigger and more powerful (dangerous) system. It is like taking a bunch of criminals and uniting them in one voice and one purpose. Obviously I dont see that the good of mankind triumphs over the bad, that can be seen throughout history.

The bible talks about the dangers of globalism. After the flood (for those that believe in it) a man named nimrod, son of kush built a great empire for its situation. It encorperated all peoples even though God told them to multiply. This created many problems, like I said above it just increases the evil, but it also ruins diversity. If you destroy that, then you create a stagnation of humanity which is dangerous. No advancement and a decline in many things. There were a few groups that broke away from nimrod before the scattering happened, one was a man that would come to be the founder of the assyrians.

Eventually all their evil grew into the building later called the Tower of Babel, because of the confusion of tongues. In fact Babylon got it's name from this very incident, and many of the ancients recognized this. Such as Barosis, Josephus, many jewish and greek scholars, even the Sybils and the like.

Also like I said above, if you unify, you destroy diversity which creates stagnation.

Not only this, but you destroy culture. You cannot help this when you globalize, because by it's very essense you are unifying. This is extremely presumptious and evil to do, as all cultures are equal and no one culture can enforce treaties and such on another, unless that nation or culture agrees to it in an alliance.

It is bad all together in my opinion, of course thats just me.

[SurlyPIG]

I think the responsibilty of stopping it should be on the shoulders of the developed nations these corporations originate in.  If country A bans child labour, it makes absolutely no moral sense for country A to allow imports of products made by children.