I don't understand the anti-globalization thing, I must admit. Sounds like a case of rich First World nations saying to the Third World, "We've got ours, so go away and toil in the fields your whole life. You're not bright enough not to be expoited even though our ancestors soon organized and got themselves better lives, so forget those factory jobs and upward mobility and all that, just stay stuck and isolated like you are." Kind of patronizing. Not all local culture is worth preserving--FGM, slavery, corruption--that kind of stuff.

"Anti-Globalisation" is a misnomer, frankly. Anyone with a brain within the "movement" agrees that "Globalisation" isn't the issue - it's the way the global market is structured to enforce free trade on poor, weak countries while building huge tariff barriers around strong, rich ones. To look at it in classical Marxist terms, what we've done is outsource the suffering of the proletariat so it looks, for the most part, like we've abolished serious poverty.

"Anti-Globalisation" is a misnomer, frankly.

In fact, it was the US business press, followed closely by economists, politicians, corporate leaders, and the rest of the mainstream media, who branded the protests, ‘anti-globalisation’. They pointed to unprecedented levels of wealth and production in the advanced countries, recent scientific breakthroughs, and faster, cheaper, more accessible travel (including the new holiday destination of space) and communication, blaming the mass civil disobedience on leaders failing to ‘sell the benefits’ of globalisation. It was a deliberate attempt to undermine the credibility of the protest movement, using ‘globalisation’ to evoke a shared vision of harmonious development, infinite progress and unlimited abundance for all through the power of the world market. It ensured that the protesters concerns were largely dismissed or ridiculed by the mainstream media as a tangle of competing, often conflicting, demands that are not only misguided and unreasonable, but also downright impossible to achieve.

However, the tactic produced some unexpected consequences, almost the opposite of what was intended it seems, thrusting ‘globalisation’ firmly into the public spotlight, entrenching the link between the phenomenon and the worsening of many of the problems of the world, and raising questions about it’s nature, origins, processes, and aims. Rather than painting the protest movement as ignorant, irresponsible, freedom-threatening militants, it opened a ‘can of globalisation worms’, which revealed the increasingly global order as a multi-faceted story involving growing aspirations for things such as sustainable development, international law, and social justice, not just a global economy. It publicised the discrepancies between the professed universal vision and the US-centric practical application, throwing up concerns about imperialism, democracy, environmental destruction, human rights, national sovereignty, and a trilogy of discontents regarding the idea of capitalism, the processes of globalisation, and the behaviour of corporations. It focused attention on the competing conceptions of globalisation and uncovered the lack of academic consensus about virtually all aspects of the phenomenon, engendering a notable, and necessary, increase in globalisation theorising and literature. At the same time, the growing recognition of the widespread inequalities and injustices facing societies around the globe fed into a broader dissatisfaction with the current system, which, in turn, generated increased debate about these concerns within the public discourse.

I don't understand the anti-globalization thing, I must admit. Sounds like a case of rich First World nations saying to the Third World, "We've got ours, so go away and toil in the fields your whole life. You're not bright enough not to be expoited even though our ancestors soon organized and got themselves better lives, so forget those factory jobs and upward mobility and all that, just stay stuck and isolated like you are." Kind of patronizing. Not all local culture is worth preserving--FGM, slavery, corruption--that kind of stuff.

What others have said about "anti-globalization" starting as a corporate propaganda term. It is much more of an anti-corporate dominance movement, the furtherst left end of which is an anti-capitalist movement. It is worth remembering, that the U.S. "globalized" itself by not following the rules we want to impose on poor nations today. We had strong tariffs through most of our history. (In addition to slavery, keeping this going was part of what the Civil War was about.) We violated intellectual rights extensively; that's how we got the steam engine baby. And the more successful third world nations followed this example; Singapore, Tawain, Hong Kong before Britain gave it "back" to China, China itself all used strong protectionism and violation of patent and copyright as tools of development. What is called by the propaganda term of globalization is an imposition of a set of rigged rules the first world has never played by itself. And third world nations won't accept it voluntarily.

As Thomas Friedman says (approvingly on his part but not on mine) "The invisible hand requires the invisible fist".

And I heard Moynihan being glowingly mentioned on another politics program sometime last week and seeing as he certainly seemed well thought of by the Buffistas I wondered if you ('cos you're the one with the tag and all) could point me to a few links on some of the more important/historic or just worth knowing things that he did/said or achieved.

My Moynihan story: I went to a "magnet" high school in New York City. My senior year, 25-30 students went on a trip to Washington DC where we met with various congressmen, senators, undersecretaries, and a Supreme Court Justice (Whizzer White). New York's Senator D'Amato insisted on meeting with us on the steps of the Capitol so he could use it as a photo op. The guy was a bit of a sleeze and came off as choosing his postions entirely for political reasons (by contrast, Sen. Orrin Hatch charmed our pants off. Us liberal NYC school kids didn't agree with much of what he said, but we respected that his beliefs were sincere). D'Amato also kept combing his hair which amused us to no end. Anyway, while chatting with him on the steps, Moynihan walked by. Or, more accurately, staggered by. The guy was plastered. He asked us who we were and we told him. "Oh," he replied with a dismissive hand wave, "yer th kids who're supposed t' be so smaaaart." And he continued on his way.

I think you had to be there.

More reason to have confidence in the U.S. conducting a successful relief effort:

Deal to sell water all wet, critics charge

By RICHARD SISK

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

UMM QASR, Iraq - The U.S. military came up with a solution yesterday for the penniless people of this port town begging for water: Sell it.

Despite general mayhem at distribution points - including knife fights - the Army has struck a hasty agreement with local Iraqis to expedite distribution of water to the roughly 40,000 living here.

Under the deal, the military will provide water free to locals with access to tanker trucks, who then will be allowed to sell the water for a "reasonable" fee.

"We're permitting them to charge a small fee for water," said Army Col. David Bassert.

[link]

This was from April 1, and the daily news is not exacly a bastion of first rate journalism. So this was an April Fools day hoax, right? Please ...

X-Posted from Natter.

I don't understand the anti-globalization thing, I must admit. Sounds like a case of rich First World nations saying to the Third World, "We've got ours, so go away and toil in the fields your whole life. You're not bright enough not to be expoited even though our ancestors soon organized and got themselves better lives, so forget those factory jobs and upward mobility and all that, just stay stuck and isolated like you are." Kind of patronizing.

Gar beat me to the next bit, so I'll just add that in many cases it is not just as simple as 'if we didn't set up factories and production facilities in 3rd world countries then they wouldn't have access to any work' or 'what are they complaining about earning $1 a day, if it wasn't for us they would be earning nothing'. In many many instances the multinational factory or agribusiness or huge mine or whatever actually takes over the land that the natives had been living on, working on, subsisting on. (like the 400,000 Indian farmers who were displaced to make way for a huge agribusiness run by Tesco's, growing snowpeas to can to sell in Sainsburys in London)

In many cases, if any actual serious money changes hands for land and development stuff it often goes straight into the pocket of the corrupt dictator/ruler or ministers and not to the people who are affected the most.

So we take away their ability to actually feed and shelter themselves, even if it is in a hut with a dirt floor on unowned land eking out a subsistance living, by taking away the land (their shelter and their food supply) and often poisoning the water supply and earth as well.

Remember that not all non-western natives live an absolutely miserable existence, poverty does not necessarily equate to misery. I think Fay made this point recently.

And I guess the most telling thing is that many of the original and most vocal proponents of this corporate led economic globalisation have now changed their mind, such as Joseph Stiglitz (ex WB) George Soros (private investor who broke the Bank of England). Even globalisation advocates such as Robert Wade (London School of Economics) and The Economist now admit that many basic assumptions need re-examining because it is glaringly obvious that the gap between the poorest and everyone else is only growing wider.

Fascinating discussion y'all are having here. I love to see my man Gramsci's name popping up, too.

But I don't have anything substantial to add at this point, so I'm going to sit on the sidelines.

hands hayden a hotdog

The sidelines are very nice at this time of year, aren't they?

Aside from admitting that if my state brought up a vote to become Canada's newest province, I'd be in favor of it, I'm trying to stay behind the kegs on the sidelines right now.

The NY Times obit for Moynihan is here - it's a pretty good overview. Buffista/foamy will get you in the door if you're not registered.