i've been reading up on globalisation for a while and i'm leaning towards the views of those opposed to it, but i still have to understand it better...so i was wondering what you guys think about it and why? i did a search already on this forum and surprisingly didn't find anything over the past yr...

It has been covered, in so much as the combined aspects of globalisation encompass a lot of things going on in the world, economics, social and cultural integration as well as world spanning technology.
In short, its a catch-all for a lot of different things.
If you wanted a very breif answer I am pro-
Economic
Social
Technology
And a negative-
Political
Cultural

Essentially I believe people should have equal and unhindered access to markets, money, ideas, education, employment and technology outside the region they are living in or where born into. I however also think the right to self govern and keep your cultural heritage has a lot of merit though, thats something which you probably couldnt eliminate in decades anyway.
Through the sharing of my 3 pro-views though I do believe that people will eventually gravitate towards some kind of collective political system eventually and become more accepting of cultural difference over time and exposure to them in hopefully, a neutral and educational medium. Current things like internet and media censorship though by either religious dogma's and national governments will hold that up.

we should all be farmers. seriously.

If globalization helped everyone, and not just a few, then I'de be for it. Political globalization is good to a point, but I woulnd't trust any other rule of law unless it was that of my own country. A globalized government would be too risky to tyrannism if there are no counter-governments.

Globalization, in the end, will homogenize and blend societies together based on a capatalist base. This means that as we move further into free-trade globalization, you will start to see culture and traditions dissapear.

Look at the societies founded on capatalism, the American suberbs. Can you find any particular aspect of distinct culture that could differenciate one area from another, that is outside of that person's original heritage (if they still practice it). The common thing about the American suberbs are vast, endless neighborhoods with strip malls or malls, or large chain stores, retail, and other modes of capitalism close by. These are usually driving distance and are very rarely walking distance, so an automobile is certainly necessary to participate in these modes.

I can go to the suberbs of Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, and I honestly would not be able to tell them apart. If this mode of life starts spreading to other societies, along with the mode of life (9-5, commute to work, etc.) than traditional culture will yield to this system. It is more efficient from an economic position, but there is a price to pay. Traditional markets will yield to Walmarts and Costcos, traditional shopping and leisure avenues will yield to mega malls, people will become more distant and seperated.

Sometimes, all of this choice ultimatly will pose bad effects to the humans who participate in it. America has access to some of the healthiest foods, yet are known to be fat. This has to do with freedom of choice. These area is very complex, as you want to give people enough freedom so you don't end up looking like a controlable government, yet regulations need to be put into place to protect some people from their stupidity in choices, futrther damagning themselves. Is it good for people to be largely in debt, showing off a lifestyle that lives up to what American standards say is succesful. They have the choice to do this, but irrational choices harm them.

Free-market is a dream theory, that can only exist in a world where freedom of choice yields no consequences. But this isn't the case, and there are consequences, many consequences. The American society is a sink or swim society, the more wealth you have, the more succesful you are. If this concept spreads around, societies will become more homogenized, yet individuals will become more distant.

You will never see another aspect of culture of any kind be created. Capatalism doesn't allow culture to be created and nourished over time. The market won't allow it. Is globalism and free-trade good for the world? If it yielded all aspects of culture and homogenized people, is it still good? Thinking about the social impacts of free-trade is just as important as the economic ones. Not every person is built to do well in a cut-throat capatalist society, and a capatalist society looks down at these people.

I personally detest the American suberb way of life. I come from two worlds, one in Seattle, and one in Veracruz, Mexico. My whole family in Mexico is upper-middle class, and I go down there frequently. To tell you the truth, even though the people I know down there don't have as much as my parents do up here, they seem to have a better quality of life (slower lifestyle, more social ties, longer vacation time, lots and lots of parties). Now, don't be deterred by the fact that they don't have as much money as my parents, because they still have a lot. All of my cousins have as much as I do, (cars, video games, University educations, ect.) Yet, they are involved in the ver traditional, slow paced, relaxed and enjoyable lifestyle, and find any excuse to throw a party.

Now, a lot of Americans claim that the whole world wants to come to America for better oppertunites. This is not true. Only the poor and money hungry people want to come here. Do you think any of my family wants to come here, or any middle class families from around the world? No, why would they? Why would they give up a much more enjoyable lifestyle to come here and overwork themselves? They would loose all of the things that you are supposed to enjoy in life.

Nowm I'm not saying that Mexico is good in all aspects, it is really shitty in a lot of aspects, nor am I saying America is poor society, but looking at the two is important in doing my comparison on the difference between a new capatalist society and a more traditional society. Sometimes, I dislike using Mexico as a comparison because Americans typically think of Mexico as what they see from the immigrants, or from movies, and think all of the cities are third world countries except for the resort towns. This is further from the truth and a lot of people down there have what Americans have (ofcourse, this is thanks to capatalism, but lets not forget we are talking about the social consequences of too overly ambitious capatalism). I will say this, most of the aspects to which Americans are made fun of and joked about are the result of capatalism (fat people, overworked, inflated heads, annoying tourists, uncultured, stupid, etc.)

Last edited by OurManFlint on Dec-06-2006 at 17:28

To be honest, I agree with a lot of your points on america and american capitalism. Some of the most soul-destroying places on earth are the suburban sprawls of US cities which are so devoid of personality, identity and culture it's frightening.
But on the same account you can find that in cities everywhere around the world, most of the large English cities arent that much better either or any of the big German ones. If it wasnt for roadsigns and GPS I'd probably be still stuck in some of them trying to find my way out, trying to find my way home! hehe

So, should perhaps we could look at other forms of societies which do very well on a monetary and quality life, they are very different than the US model as a basis, because ultimately it's just one country out of a few hundred?
I also don't feel the US model will be widely adapted by the rest of the world for a number of reasons for a very long time, mostly because it's simply unsustainable. The US eats up 25% of the oil and energy of the world thats dragged out of mines for starters and it only makes up 5% of the worlds population. That kind of energy expenditure just isnt sustainable in the long term.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherWay83 i've been reading up on globalisation for a while and i'm leaning towards the views of those opposed to it, but i still have to understand it better...so i was wondering what you guys think about it and why? i did a search already on this forum and surprisingly didn't find anything over the past yr...

There are no convincing arguments against genuinely free trade. Where there are no trade barriers, no country - certainly in the medium to long term - is put at an inherent disadvantage. If you are not familiar with the theory of "Comparative Advantage" I'd recommend reading up on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_Advantage

The complaints about the current model of globalisation - which are well founded imho - arise not from free-trade but restrictions on free-trade. The US and other western nations are able to use their economic clout - through the IMF and other institutions - to enforce rapid economic liberalisation on poorer nations and then take advantage of the lowered trade barriers by flooding products, in areas that they have a comparative advantage, into the poorer nations. The poorer nations are unable to prosper, however, because the areas of production that they are most likely to have a comparative advantage in (usually agriculture, low-skill manufacturing etc.) are also the areas that economies like the US, the EU and Australia protect through the imposition of tariffs and domestic subsidies. This puts poorer nations at a comparative disadvantage (which wouldn't be the case if all trade barriers everywhere were lifted!) and hence the current level of acrimony against "free-trade".

In summary, free-trade is good, the current "free-trade" system is not.

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint Globalization, in the end, will homogenize and blend societies together based on a capatalist base. This means that as we move further into free-trade globalization, you will start to see culture and traditions dissapear.

You say that as though people have no choice in adopting a particular culture. If, for some reason, someone somewhere finds the suburban culture of the US more appealing than the culture they presently find themselves in, shouldn't it be their choice as to whether they adopt that culture or not?

quote:

Sometimes, all of this choice ultimatly will pose bad effects to the humans who participate in it.

And that is the price of freedom. If people are willing to accept freedom, then they must be willing to accept the responsibility for their choices. We can't prevent people from doing something just because we believe it might result in "bad effects": that is the very antithesis of a free society.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo we should all be farmers. seriously.

I'll provide the tractor, you provide the hoes.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I just had to step in

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint Globalization, in the end, will homogenize and blend societies together based on a capatalist base. This means that as we move further into free-trade globalization, you will start to see culture and traditions dissapear.

I'm sorry, but this rather dystopian view of globalisation makes no sense whatsoever.

Economically, all I have to say is the wealth developed by capitalism cannot be compared by anything else in History. As mass production advances, things become cheaper. And, as time passes by, more people have access to more goods: here in Brazil, you can find an absurd amount of mobile phones even in slums. But, the reason why I'm posting this is to talk about culture, not economy.

First of all, an effective exchange of culture and information has been present since the birth of language - be it among individuals or peoples. The problem is that both "globalisation" and "culture" give an idea of being "things", due to their substantive nature, when they clearly refer to processes, and should be rather interpreted as verbs (as a matter of fact, "culture" did come from the verb "cultivate").

No "culture" dies off, thanks to the dynamic nature of culture. The fact that every individual (and group) has in him/her/itself a different perception of reality is already a denial of the possibility of any "homogeneity". Although anti-globalisation enthusiasts often worry about the ubiquity of McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Hollywood films (in what appears to be a rather xenophobic uprisal, in my opinion), we've got plenty of examples of how it just doesn't happen that way. Books, such as "Golden Arches East: McDonald's in East Asia", refer to how the same fast-food chain is seen under different perspectives, depending on local culture.

Globalisation made it possible for Korea to have Christian churches and England to have Buddhist temples, and the religion, in this case, tends to be modified by the local culture. Here in Brazil, for example, we do have a local fusion of Catholicism and African religions in cities like Salvador, which had a massive influx of slaves.

Another misconception, for example, is that as soon as a culture changes, it dies or degrades. That's also impossible, given the fact that no nation has been completely isolate throughout History. A good example is Japan and its Daibutsu, in Kamakura:



The story behind its project began with the Egyptians. They were very good at engineering (think of the pyramids and the sphynx), given the fact that they needed it for their survival. Across the Mediterranean, there were the Greeks, who could make realistic - and tiny - statues. A boost in Greek Culture happened during a war in Egypt, when several Greek mercenaries were hired, and they brought back to Greece all knowledge they found. After this boost in Greek craftsmanship, this Greek art was taken by Alexander the Great (who was actually Macedonian), to places as far as India, where it encountered Buddhism. Buddhism, in its core, does not condone representations of Buddha, but, alas, the Greeks were just too fond of making statues, so it was inevitable that realistic statues of Buddha appeared. And, as Buddhism reached India, it was once again modified, and, finally, it reached Japan.

Finally, the fact that mass media is not equally distributed (i.e. we watch CNN more often than a Malaysian news channel) is not exactly a disadvantage either - your average Malaysian probably knows more about the US than vice-versa, and that's certainly a good thing in a world of information.

In the end, the awareness of globalisation only shatters the dreams of traditionalists. And THAT makes globalisation double-plus-good by default

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I just had to step in

My observations were more based on how a human being's culture or roots yield to that of a different society. For example, I'm hispanic, my mother was born and lived in Mexico until she was 25. She taught me Spanish. She raised me almost the same way she was raised, following certain traditions, cuisine, perceptions of things, ect. My sister celebrated her quinceanera in Mexico with my whole family down there. In other words, we are still connected with the way of life of another society very distinct from the American way of life. (I'm not trying to group together all way of life in America, because this is virtually impossible). The American way of life I refer to is you typical suberban household, in a neverending neighborhood, 9-5 jobs, etc...

Now, I meet a lot of hispanic people from time to time, at school, from my mom's connections, etc. and I can't tell you how many people who are "hispanic" that can't speak Spanish, don't follow any traditions from their respected countries, don't like spicy food, and really don't relate to any hispanic identity at all. They have hispanic names, yet are no where near identifying themselves with it, minus verbally identifying themselves as hispanic. In other words, they are only hispanic on paper.

I see this all the time, and I can only conclude that it is because their previous families came to this country, didn't teach their kids the language, didn't pass down any traditions, and their kids adapted to the Amercian way of life. They become homongenized. The same as everybody else here. The girls are as traditional as Paris Hilton, and act life her too.

Where it connects with capatalism is when the Amercian model of capatalism eventually gains a very big influence on certain countries, they will start looking more and more American, socially and economically. Now, they probably won't loose their language, but I can see some aspects of grounded culture dissapearing over a long period of time.

The same way people go to America and loose their culture will produce the same result if the American model spreads to other countries. This process will take generations, but it will lead to homogenization.

When people are suddenly surrounded by a different and more influential mode of life, they will adapt to that way of life. This can be seen from immigrants to America, and it will be seen if the American model spreads to other countries. The American people are homogenized, this is the phenomenon I'm talking about.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that globalism is a terrible thing. I am very happy to see other places enjoying the same kind of economical freedoms and the developed countries, and if homogenization is the price to pay for those freedoms, than so be it. Maybe some aspects of life in other countries need to advance and change for the better, maybe its some the traditions themselves that hold societies back from economic and social freedoms(actually I'm certain there are). But in my opinion, globalism will cause homogenizaiton.

watch the dvd ( the corporation) and u will have your answer

___________________
www.house-pacific.com

quote:

Originally posted by B018 watch the dvd ( the corporation) and u will have your answer

Amazing contribution, I'm amazed by the depth of your argument!

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint My observations were more based on how a human being's culture or roots yield to that of a different society. For example, I'm hispanic, my mother was born and lived in Mexico until she was 25. She taught me Spanish. She raised me almost the same way she was raised, following certain traditions, cuisine, perceptions of things, ect. My sister celebrated her quinceanera in Mexico with my whole family down there. In other words, we are still connected with the way of life of another society very distinct from the American way of life. (I'm not trying to group together all way of life in America, because this is virtually impossible). The American way of life I refer to is you typical suberban household, in a neverending neighborhood, 9-5 jobs, etc... Now, I meet a lot of hispanic people from time to time, at school, from my mom's connections, etc. and I can't tell you how many people who are "hispanic" that can't speak Spanish, don't follow any traditions from their respected countries, don't like spicy food, and really don't relate to any hispanic identity at all. They have hispanic names, yet are no where near identifying themselves with it, minus verbally identifying themselves as hispanic. In other words, they are only hispanic on paper.

Well, that's not because of globalisation per se: that's because they grew up in the United States, live amongst "Americans" and they did what happens when you're in a different region - you integrate. If you were in Indonesia, they'd eventually stick to "Indonesian" culture, which is far from being dominant in global culture. They don't need to be tied to their parents' tradition unless they feel the need to (which often isn't the case). This is one of the reasons, for example, why many languages, such as Italian, German and Japanese are disappearing in Brazil, even though they were spoken by millions in the past. The children of these immigrants are now learning Portuguese, naturally, which doesn't mean Italians in Italy, Germans in Germany and the Japanese in Japan are following the same trend.

And, also, being "Hispanic" is merely a social construct and doesn't correspond to genetics at all (albeit it intends to), which leads to this perception that "they're only Hispanic on paper".

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint I see this all the time, and I can only conclude that it is because their previous families came to this country, didn't teach their kids the language, didn't pass down any traditions, and their kids adapted to the Amercian way of life. They become homongenized. The same as everybody else here. The girls are as traditional as Paris Hilton, and act life her too.

The part you've stressed shows not a matter of homogeinity, but outgroup homogeneity bias.

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint Where it connects with capatalism is when the Amercian model of capatalism eventually gains a very big influence on certain countries, they will start looking more and more American, socially and economically. Now, they probably won't loose their language, but I can see some aspects of grounded culture dissapearing over a long period of time. The same way people go to America and loose their culture will produce the same result if the American model spreads to other countries. This process will take generations, but it will lead to homogenization. When people are suddenly surrounded by a different and more influential mode of life, they will adapt to that way of life. This can be seen from immigrants to America, and it will be seen if the American model spreads to other countries. The American people are homogenized, this is the phenomenon I'm talking about.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with the last sentence for empirical reasons: People in the West Coast, East Coast, Midwest and in the Southern states are far from being homogeneous in any sense - be it linguistically, religiously, culturally or politically (otherwise the elections would be rather simple). They all share a common "language", for example, but there's a rather interesting variation when it comes to dialects. California seems to be more tolerant toward minorities such as homossexuals, whereas Kansas seems to be more traditional, religiously speaking.

Not to mention the fact that you're comparing individuals living in American soil with those that are thousands of kilometres away. That's why I don't know when Thanksgiving is (even though I feel I know American culture quite well), and the Japanese don't think of Christmas as a religious holiday.

Such homogeinity is logically impossible, and can only be found if you fallaciously overlook way too many details.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]