Re: altermondialistes, altermondialisation, altermondialisme (Le Monde)

I think of globalization of the few as the dominance of political and economic 
strengths of the elites and their relentless or ongoing accumulation of wealth 
and capital through this process. So this is nto only political, it entails 
corporatist and narrow interests as well.
As for "true globalization", there is seriously no such thing if the definition 
of this is increasing interconnectedness in the various spheres of society. 
Globalization includes destructive forces as well as constructive ones, so this 
surely can't be for all? There would be resistance and acceptance, support and 
opposition everywhere.
There has been too much emphasis on the politcal and economic aspects of 
globalization. Many other areas like the environment and social stability are 
paid only lip service by the developed nations of today, only settling such 
things on local levels and also only doign SOMETHING about them for electoral 
purposes. And now with the UN being sidelined by the US and all major 
international institutions losing credibility, there is no world polity in 
sight, IMO.There would be increasing world chaos and dissatisfaction.

Justin

----- Forwarded message from Evgeni Nikolaev <evgnikolaev@ukr.net> -----
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:55:53 +0300
From: Evgeni Nikolaev <evgnikolaev@ukr.net>
Reply-To: Evgeni Nikolaev <evgnikolaev@ukr.net>
Subject: Re: altermondialistes, altermondialisation, altermondialisme (Le Monde)
To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu

For one thing, now I am writing an article (in Ukrainian) in which I show
that in reality ALL forms of globalisation come from the will of powerful
countries to obtain political influence all over the world. Globalisation is
actually politics, and little more.

Warren wrote: "For example, even in 2003 I doubt that humankind is much
more "globalized" than it was already in 1903". I agree. This is shown in an
excellent book:

Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson. Globalization in Question - Second
edition. - 1999.

Secondly, I would not speak about globalisation of the few and globalisation
of all. Globalisation is "of all", since the word global means something
that coucerns the entire world, i.e. "all". I'd rather speak about benefits
of globalisation for the few and sufferings from the globalisation for the
rest.

Globalism is a stage of capitalistic imperialism, according to the works of
Oleg Bilorus, a ukrainian scientist and politician. In other words, it is
the new world system within capitalistic system. It has already formed(!)
and it is understood as a system of total economic and political rule of the
new global monopolistic corporations (TNCs) in the world. The TNCs intensify
the exploitation of many countries and regions, including their own.

I believe the definition itself reminds of marxism and also of world-systems
theory. The essence of it is the eternal theme that the strong exploit the
weak. I don't think this is too dangerous and might lead to a new world war.
Now world wars are too dangerous even for the leading states.

World polity? In some spheres - yes, in some others - no.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Luke Rondinaro [mailto:larondin@yahoo.com]
  Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:34 AM
  To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu; Evgeni Nikolaev
  Subject: Re: altermondialistes, altermondialisation, altermondialisme (Le
Monde)


  This makes great sense, and it definitely squares with my own
understanding of the globalization issue.  It's a matter of the
globalization of ALL versus the globalization ("mondialisation") of the few.

  One other idea, might it also be correct to make this distinction and
classification? --->

  Globalization of the Few = Political Globalism
  Globalization of All = [True] "Globalization"

  It may not even be a good idea at all.  Still I welcome your thoughts on
the notion.  Best!  (Luke R.)

  Luke Rondinaro, The Consilience Projects
  www.topica.com/lists/consiliencep

----- End forwarded message -----