Title: Re: <nettime> Anti-globalisation movementsThere is some interesting and revealing conflation in this email. Economic globalisation and the spread of democracy are not the same thing. The problem is that in America they are increasingly looking like the same thing. The rules that govern capitalism and the rules that govern democracy are not the same. All the way through this email the words capitalism and democracy are used as if they were synonyms.
We all have a big problem when some corporations have more money and power than many governments. That problem is increased when an American president acts for the corporations that paid for him rather than the people who elected (sic) him.
The alternative? Take money out of the American election process. Then we can have more faith that the elected will protect the rights of the many against the wrongs of the few.
> "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
>
>
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net >