Is this the end of globalism?

[sweetheart]

During the Clinton 90's, globalization was perceived my much of the world
as a message of hope, of wealth sharing, with the Internet and mobile
technologies and all. Now it has become a message of war and hatred
under bush and his plague of republican corruption.

The corporations realize that without globalization, they're screwed,
because they rely on global markets, global patent and copyright courts
and global wars to keep in business. However, the bush legacy is a
collapse of the global consensus that enables this exploitation. This
is why i believe that the latest drives to reform the UN, are geared
around recovering something of globalism for US corporations, as they
realized too late in the game that there is a better deal for most
nations on earth, in ignoring and avoiding all contact with American
institutions, and the imperial agents like the WTO and IMF.

But local-ism is hardly a panacea, that the world divide in to 10,000
backwaters where racism and misogyny grow unchecked. In one sense,
liberals are globalists, as we believe that ALL women should have
equal rights and ALL races deserve equality under the law, so to
regress to local-ism is hardly an option. But there is a dangerous
swing in the balance, and even if the democrats regain power in 2006
and/or 2008, the pressing issue will be restoring the integrity of
federalism over the allure of one's back garden.

Are you still a globalist? And why should anyone play the game when
the US has abused its poll position so badly?

[applegrove]

1. They see global empathy as a threat to US stability. After all when

the oil begins to run out and the US demands oil from the ME at gun-point..they don't want global relationships to be strong. That is why people in Canada, the US and Britain are supposed to start thinking locally. Thinking local is the opposite of thinking global.

Remember the globalists at the G8 demonstrations are the enemy. US is terrified of the power of international NGOs to influence the UN and the like. They are terrified of loosing power (which they will as the rest of the world finally faces fair trade). They intend to use military hegemony to ensure good deals for their corporations.

Think of the threat the internet & co-ops are the corporations? If the WH can get as many Americans as possible into the stock market (where corporate stocks are traded) then they can get Americans to be loyal to that American corporate model. And back whatever international 'policing action' the American Army or the CIA decides on (like the treatment of democratically elected Chavez).

[Deja Q]

9. I wish canada had in 1995 when NAFTA was signed... NAFTA allows the US

to take their oil in the event of a crisis.

[applegrove]

11. I think it just protects the % flow of oil in a crisis. US cannot roll in

but Canada cannot turn off the tap and sell only to Canadians when the crisis happens.

That's okay by me. The one I wonder about is Water?

[The2ndWheel]

2. It was what during the 90's?

I believe everything should get smaller. But power doesn't work that way, and as business grows, government must grow. As government grows, business must grow. As population grows, both government and business must grow.

As things grow bigger, fewer and fewer people will control power, as some type of order needs to be in place. Look at our own Homeland Security. Look at John Negroponte as another example. There are a thousand different agencies, but now one man is at the top of all of them.

We all have that same problem. We all want to help, but there's only so much you can do in a village so big. Even as the world becomes a smaller place, it's physically still big.

I just believe that everything is too big and complex. As human beings we seem to be in such a hurry to get somewhere, that we have no idea where we're going. What's the endgame of civilization/globalization? Everyone living in luxury? How would that even be possible?

That's just my take on it anyway. Could be right, could be wrong. Just a guy with an opinion.

[sweetheart]

14. The global problem

The consolidation of power needn't be at odds with considering the whole
planet in a wholistic view. There are 6 billions of us, a limited
amount of various resources, and to think globally, is to take all of
these in to consideration... and yes, beyond national sovereignty.

This very argument is core to the neocon's view that they have a right
to meddle all over the planet. It is as well the view of citizens
the world over who believe they have a right to meddle in the affairs
of the very corrupt USA and its war machine.

So is the solution to reverse that, and tell everyone to mind their own
business? Bush has, by his use of the preemptive criminal attack on
iraq, reverted to a pre-WW1 state of view, that the world is better
kept safe through bilateral agencies and alliances. Europe knows better
after learning the hard way, that such a view is a long term loser.

I have a feeling, to recover goodwill after the criminals are put down,
will take an act of outragerous generosity and goodwill. I hope
we dems have it in us, as anything else will leave entrenched bush's
dreadful state of affairs.

[Karenina]

17. Good information to be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1860299

[sweetheart]

18. Thank you, excellent!

It makes me think about the artificial federalism of knowledge. That
the real economic truth is printed on the underground, and that the
universities of the world pump out republicana views about free trade.

It is a failure to think of the whole situation, the world, and act
bloody mature for once. Wouldn't it be a pleasure to have an inkling
of balls, of some real man, cuz, i'm sick of these republicana of
mass ignorance, of infantile emotional denial of facts, like with
global warming or with ANY preconceptions from the past, except the
will to have knowledge, the will to be really right, by some authority,
or that that authority is only the citizen, and none other. That
all government comes from the heart, the real thing, not the lie.

Wouldn't it be benevolent God that one never in life, meets a republican.
But rather to know them close up, and the truth is that they are bonkers,
and the robot breaks down when it has to defend their behaviour in terms
of the destruction of this earth, and the eocnomic polices that impoversh
through free trade, drugs wars and what not. The ideologies are all
used to enslave. It is grossly cynical what has become.

People are all bonkers on insane prison planet earth. None of them
is rational, they rave madly like insane poets foaming egotism
like shellfish oozing goo
And republican stenching out ooze
But I could write the most eloquent defense and indictment of captialism
, perhaps a great prose work, but nobody cares, because the whole
thing is completely cynical. It is an irrational warmongering gang
doing a highway robbery with balloting machines. Bloody hell, i wish
those G* protestors the best at defending the people from these kings
in their palace at versialles.

Emotion over poetic enthusiasm, one must be intellectually dissociated
just to talk to a republican. Truth is a betrayal, and betrayal
on their part, and betrayal is truth, by which the truly rational
human being wishing all 6 billions justice, for ones petty little life.

/end rramble

[Finder]

3. Globalism by definition is confusing to most...

I think all progressive minded people are globalists. Globalism naturally leads to the need for global leadership and depending where you live or your political philosophy you either fear or welcome a "world order."

Should the UN be the figurehead or should the US as superpower be the leader seems to be the gist of most arguments.

Some see the UN as anti-american while others see it as being a pawn for the US. While everyone is arguing, mega-corporations are becoming the "New World Order."

[sweetheart]

10. In the lust for corporate blood

Liberal minded people need to consider the global vacuum that exists
for political economy outside the US due to the bush moral collapse.

Say the dems retake the Executive in 2008, to simply claim that bush's
criminal lot was just an anomaly, and calling for a return to DNC
business thinking and the washington consensus of olde will not work.
Trust has broken down and as much as the dark ages replaced the
roman empire when it disintigrated, there is a distinct flavour of that
these days. Localism is just a new word for the old concept of the
feudal city state, which is not ... really NOT where any progressive
wants to go.

The conservatives have realized this, i swear it, and are setting about
making the UN a bastion of nazi fascism, so that there will be a total
collapse and a total dark age. I do agree with you, that the UN seems
the likely stopgap, as much as it was once the catholic church for
centuries in the absence of empire during the dark ages.

However, given the UN's charter is not that, i doubt it can achieve it.
There is an ill-tide in the wind of localism that is the same tide
that has killed millions in congo, thousands in kosovo and so many
other local small minded regressions. It is worrysome, and i'm hoping
that democratic smart-thinktank-thinkers have prepared themselves for
dealing with this serious confidence vacuum bush has created.

[The2ndWheel]

13. But hasn't

globalism killed millions over the years as well?

[sweetheart]

15. colonialism perhaps

To think globally, we all 6 billions of us, live on a small planet.
This sort of thinking does not kill millions. What does, is thinking
that a small fraction of the world's population has the right to impose
by force its will. That view is more colonial recoined as globalization.

And yet, there is the fact that the number of persons killed in war
worldwide has gone down in more recent times (after cold war). There
IS a marked hopeful upspringing of democratic government in places that
were dreadfully problematic not long ago. Are we to not push for
the spreading of human rights, just because colonialists have abused
power in the past? Do we toss the baby out with the bathwater?

[Nikia]

4. Globalism isn't necessarily good

The economic globalism that has gone on with U.S. and other first world corporations is similiar to colonialism. These poorer countries are not on equal footing. Their workers do not enjoy the same wages or protections that workers in first world countries enjoy. We trust that somewhere along the way that things will get better for everyone, but that is not required.
With the potential oil crisis (of it running out or becoming so scarce that it is very expensive), globalism might not last. The costs of transportation will make products made or grown thousands of miles away too expensive for mass consumption. We will have to start growing and manufacturing as much as we can within relatively short distances if we cannot find cheap energy alternatives.
I don't know how things will turn out. Even if we able to maintain cheap energy, I don't know if the world is ready to embrace globablism. Everywhere you look, there is hyper localism with side by side ethnic groups fighting each other. Even more peaceful peoples do not agree with some aspects of American culture that have nothing to do with equality.

[sweetheart]

5. However, what is the alternative

Many world nations have dreadful records in terms of womens rights,
race rights, cannibalism in congo for christ's stake... if globalism
is not good, then fine, but the alternative to let terrible atrocities
and repression remain in place, is something unconscionable.

It is an unfortunate byproduct of american hegemony, that the wisdom
of western society is attributed to the largest economy, but those
ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity are not american ideals at
all, nor are they particularly anglo saxon. In rejecting this global
offer, the alternative is china's repressive dictatorship? India's
stupid poverty? Malaysia's patriarchy, indoneisan incopetence,
phillipino mediocrity, japanese racism, korean racism, sudan's genocide,
brazil's impoverishment? There is no alternate pole of civilization
that is worth anything, especially if you are a woman and/or a democrat.

[Nikia]

7. Of course I believe in global eqality, liberty, and fraternity

Some practices in some countries and cultures really disturb me. How do we reach such cultures with these ideals though? Is there a way to do it without stamping on all aspects of their cultures or bringing it with other things that are not in their best interests or less positive aspects of our culture? Certainly, we should go to third world countries and build schools and hospitals. That would be positive. Should we have corporations, who have the primary goal of making profits, go to third world countries and steal or barely compensate land and other resources, and employ people at wages and conditions that made the Gilded Age look progressive? Does this necessarily lead to equality or liberty? Global capitalism does not necessarily lead to these ideals. For example, Japan is still a racist, sexist country. These local inequalities will persist whether or not global capitalism comes to them or not, whether or not they have a McDonald's, whether or not they adapt American/European dress or not. Do they hate us for our freedom or another reason?
I don't know what the best solution would be. UN organizations do seem like a good idea. Perhaps, other independent organizations, not sponsored by governments, could be good as well, but they'd have to be more careful about not becoming terrorists.

[The2ndWheel]

12. I'm not sure there is an answer

"but those ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity are not american ideals at all, nor are they particularly anglo saxon."

Agreed. Every society is made up of the same mixture. Some want to treat people in a decent way, others want to control people. Some women don't mind not having choice, others do want it. Some men don't give a damn if a woman is his boss, others can't stand the thought of it.

"if globalism is not good, then fine, but the alternative to let terrible atrocities and repression remain in place, is something unconscionable."

I've been sitting here for about 10 minutes quickly going over the various answers to a statement such as this, and I can't pick one as the right one. Every possible response, that I can think of, has a logic to it.

This topic just shows another example of the mess that is humanity.

[undeterred]

6. It sounded good but then my job went to the other side of the globe

and I still haven't found another one. I haven't been able to afford a major purchase in 4 years. If that's globalization, I don't want it.

[sweetheart]

8. That's kletocracy and poor governance more than globalism

No person or nation is an island, we are immersed in a complex
interrelationship that has been the status quo for longer than our
lifetimes. To suddenly declare it bunk because you've lost your job
is small as much as it is a voter's personal perogative.

[hemp_not_war]

16. No I'm not a globalist

Like communism, I think it sounds good on paper, but in practice it's not good. It just further consolidates power into the hands of fewer people, and absolute power corrupts absolutly. The media tries to frame the debate where you are either globalist or isolationist. I am not isolationist, I believe in global trade, global negotiation, and working together globally, just not controlled by a world body. When I look at the forces for globalism, one thing I notice is all the corporations merging. CEO's are given huge bonuses to consolidate power even when it looks like a bad decision. Look at what happened when US media consolidated power to 5 corporations. They dictate reality. In the drumbeat for war look what happened to people who said he was lying? If you were ones who tried to tell the truth publicly, you probably recieved death threats or at least threats of physical violence. It was truly scary. However as a nation we can come together eventually and work it out. With global control of both media and governance it is not so easy to overthrow. Could it be done? Maybe, but they could engineer wars to their benefit if they were ever seriously threatened. It may be inevitable that most (90% or so) of the worlds wealth will be consolidated into a ruling class; ie the hands of a few families.