[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Anti-globalisation movements

["David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsm1@tampabay.rr.com>]

"Globalisation is much more than an economic system, or strategy. It is
also a political and cultural ideology.  Globalisation can perhaps be
summed up as an ideology which seeks to impose a global regime (of
accumulation), through rule of law, which guarantees free trade at any
cost (social, cultural, environmental)."


Sometimes i think that activists, scholars, social critics, etc give the
ruling powers way too much power.  It's as if they think that the leaders of
the top democracies and corporations are in control and conspire against the
common good (whatever that is).  One of the things that i witnessed in
corporate america is that those who rise to power ... have a very good
understanding of human nature ... are very adept to discovering the way
things work ... and use the system to their advantage (to accomplish their
goals).  That is the difference between leaders and critics.  Leaders, by
definiton, understand how things work and how to use the system to their
advantage regardless of what system is dominant at the time (capitalism,
marxism, gangs, communes, nonprofit organizations, christianity, islam,
whatever).  A leader in America has the advantage of living in a system that
is based on eliminating the barriers to individual success.  In America, an
individual can define success for his or herself and work towards their own
goals without having to belong to a particular race, sex, religion, et
cetera.

Critics are really good at crying foul without having the responsibility of
trying to govern 300 million people ... without offering realistic
alternatives to the status quo ... which, by the way, is quite stable right
now ... and stability is one of the primary things average citizens want and
need.  History is filled with examples of what people are willing to endure
just for a little food and shelter.  (I offer that last statement not as an
excuse for American behavior but for a little perspective on the
matter-at-hand.  Capitalism/Democracy is not perfect but its an improvement
over many of the past systems of government).

Your definiton of globalization is ok but I offer the following:
Globalization is the export or expansion of capitalism and democracy.

This definiton is more accurate, less confusing and its easier to
attack/defend.  At abolishthebank.org (an anti-capitalism organization) they
state, "We reject a system driven by an exploitative logic that sees human
beings as human capital, ecosystems as natural resources, and culture as
simply a commodity. We reject the idea that the world is only valuable in
terms of profit, competition and efficiency.".

I've read some of their criticisms and, like the above statement, i can
agree with some of their concerns.  However, it seems to me that they are
assuming that I, and Americans in general, are not able to distinguish
between our business life, our social life and our spiritual life.  They
think we are only defined by our work.  They assume that we only see humans
as capital [AND] that profit is the ONLY thing we value.  In my opinion,
they are elitist (as are many scholars and activists).  They grossly
underestimate the intelligence of others.

But my biggest comlaint is that they offer no alternative.  They say this
about their own organization, "We are autonomous, decentralized and
non-hierarchical ... ".  Is this what they want for the rest of the world?
What are the implications of such a system?  How can it be encouraged and
promoted?  If the whole world followed this model would we finally have
justice for all?

Their message will never be taken seriously until they can offer a real
alternative to the status quo.

"Perhaps the most disturbing and objectionable aspect of globalisation
is a move towards the denial of responsibility, or obligation, to the
world's population"

This is very true.  The strong must help the weak or their will be a
revolution.  The question then is, how do we help them?

If a corporation does something wrong then we should be able to charge the
corporation and its top officers/board members as criminals.  If we do this,
will it help those in developing countries?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I think it
would strongly discourage corporations from abusing their power.

Or, maybe we should join the thousands of other organizations that are
trying to help developing countries ... educate them to the alternatives
(what are the alternatives again?)... help them to learn from the mistakes
made in the West.

Or, maybe we should re-write the IMF and World Bank charters.  I think doing
so could be very beneficial.

I don't think a clear definiton of "anti-globalization" will ever sell
(unless everyone becomes isolationists).  In my opinion, time would be
better served looking for ways to crimninalize corporate behavior, education
and re-writing the charters of these NGOs.

Finally, i find TILT (Tactical Media: how to make trouble and influence
people)  supremely ironic and hypocritcial.  That is the primary method that
capitalists and politicians have been using for years (see Coercion by
Douglas Rushkoff) to sell their message/product/whatever.  Your trying to
sell your views just like everyone else.

Lucky for you that you live in a free and open society because as soon as
you convince enough people to accept your message then it will be
incorporated into the mainstream.

I want you to know that i really liked your email and that as an "idealist
libertarian" i share many of the same concerns.


With Respect,

David Goldschmidt


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold