Danilo D'Antonio had written:
>>>(it is well known that through [globalization] the wellbeing and the
>>>prosperity increase everywhere in the world)...
to which I responded:
>>Whoa!! Allow me to suggest that such an outcome is not at all "well
>>known", unless you mean in the sense of "disinformation widely swallowed".
>>On both empirical and theoretical grounds I find such a characterization
>>dubious at best.
11/08/97, Danilo D'Antonio then wrote:
>May be that good and bad things are in every our expression. If so many
>people are now communicating all around the world by the Internet is it not
>also thanks to some effects of globalization?
Dear Danilo,
I make a strong distinction between generic tendencies toward global
infrastructures (a trend directly traceable at least to 1492) and the more
specific and somewhat recent set of processes directed toward the
replacement of the diverse nation-state system with a world-bureacracy
system operating under a laissez-faire philosophy.
The worldwide interconnection of telephone systems, enabling global
Inernet, is not within my usage of globalization. (I _may_ be forced to
adopt a more neutral set of terms). I do include in globalization the
current campaign to privatize public communications networks and to open up
all telecom and media markets to TNC investment and operations.
I do agree, however, that globalization, by anyone's definition, certainly
brings various benefits to various classes and regions, at least
temporarily. But that is a long way from agreeing that "the wellbeing and
the prosperity increase everywhere in the world".
>Yes, I agree with you that globalism is the reflection, the thought, and
>globalization is the action. Just as globalization is action without
>thought, it goes wrong.
My thesis is that globalization - even where you and I might agree it goes
terribly wrong - is not "action without thought". I intend to establish
that there is coherent thought in globalism, but that the ethical tradeoffs
in that thought are not ones that you or I would find acceptable.
There is an analogy in traditional geopolitics; here's an example. At one
point the U.S. was actively supporting the Kurds and encouraging them to
pursue armed resitance against the Iraqi government. Subsequently a deal
was made at higher levels, and the Kurds were abandoned to revenge
reprisals. This might have been interpreted as the U.S. acting "without
thought", but we have Mr. Kissinger on record commenting on these events:
"You can't make omelletes without breaking eggs". To him it was all pawns
on a chess board and a few gassed civilians was a price he didn't mind
paying, so to speak.
With globalism "market forces" is the doublspeak rubric (the honest term
being "TNC dominance") used to justify all excesses in the same way
"national interests" is used in geopolitical rhetoric.
>But I think that just as globalism involve a deeper
>use of the mind it leads even the worse globalizer to an improvement of his
>actions.
You seem to share Plato's faith in an ideal truth being the eventual
outcome of introspection, but I am aware of no credible argument for that
belief either on general grounds nor in the case at hand. "Deeper use of
mind" has a way, in practice, of being limited to the mastery of assigned
tasks, rather than being directed at re-assessing the assumptions of one's
milieu.
>I'm very happy of this occasion, because you are furnishing to me more
>elements to understand these concepts. I think that it is really necessary
>to make clearness in this theme because I see everyday a misuse of these
>words on the mass-media.
I also appreciate the dialog and agree with your media observation.
>Then, as there are various and different uses of
>these terms, there are ecologysts that do not recognize the globalizers and
>work together with them, and there are also other ecologysts that suspects
>of other ecologysts because they are defining themselves globalysts.
I've noticed a variety of elite initiatives aimed at subverting erstwhile
progressive organizations by offering them a collaborative role in projects
along with corporate interests. It's kind of like a company boss getting
chummy with the union boss, giving him rides in the limo etc. We all know
who's going to gain the most from such a transaction. There's power and
there's the trappings of power - not to be confused.
>May be that you want to get a glimpse at an article just named
>"Globalization vs. Globalism" at:
>http://www.panix.com/~jimcook/globalization/gl_vs_gl.htm
>
>My best wishes for your book: I hope to can be one of the first to read it!
Many thanks,
Richard