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.
The sidelines are very nice at this time of year, aren't they?
There's a lovely breeze flapping my anti-IMF banner in a rather patriotic way. And lots of room to duck behind these kegs.
I love to see my man Gramsci's name popping up, too.
Yeah Hayden I'm into Gramsci, sort of a neo-Gramscian approach distinguished by analysing world order, power and the state in terms of hegemony, the achievement of political stability, not through the use of force, but by persuading the populace to accept the political and moral values of the ruling class.
In addition, I follow Connell’s work in relation to Australian society, which posits hegemony at three levels, the level of individual consciousness and social attitudes, the level of unconscious mental processes, and the level of the practical, material structuring of everyday life and routine interactions. Using these approaches to analyse the impact of globalisation on politics emphasises the reflexive, mutually determining relationship between material capabilities, ideas, and institutions, a la Connell’s notion that ideas and beliefs are additional sources of power to economic factors, and Gramsci’s belief that individuals possess ‘dual consciousness’. Many individual’s ideas derive from the ruling class’s control over civil society and its ability to use such institutions as the church and schools to persuade people to accept that neo-liberal capitalism is, not only, the natural order of things, but, right, proper, and desirable as well.
However, people’s conceptions and beliefs are also produced through their activities and experiences, so that, to some extent, they should be able to see through the neo-liberal rhetoric and propaganda of the capitalist system, recognising that their interests my be best served by changing it.Gramsci described it as a time of political trench warfare in which the revolutionary elements in society attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the subject classes, the masses, in other words, the public.
I'm also into Ghandi's seven social sins,
- Politics without Principle
- Wealth without Work
- Commerce without Morality
- Pleasure without Conscience
- Education without Character
- Science without Humanity
- Worship without Sacrifice
(and I know that last one brings up images of Joss & Tim & Goats)
and David Hume's 18th century assertion that subjective (observed) knowledge can only describe how reality appears to us, an “apparent reality”, rather than the objective “deep reality” that describes the ultimate physical laws and substances that constitute our world, which still stands unrefuted to this day. In fact it seems to be gaining even more credibility with the latest cosmology research and physics stuff.
and Immanuel Kant who warned that a socio-economic order in which whole regions or peoples suffer serious harm and disadvantage independent of will or consent, cannot command widespread support and legitimacy.
