• Globalization - Good or Bad?
    45 replies, posted
Depends what globalization you're talking about here. The current form of globalization sees the bourgeois spreading their disease throughout all parts of the world, so that the oppression they facilitate not only affects the workers in their own country, but also workers in other countries. Take sweatshops for example. Workers in countries like the US, Britain and Australia fight as best they can against unfair wages and poor workplace policies, but in third-world countries the people are exploited because they have no other choice for survival. Look at the production of Playstation 4's at initial release. They had to build [B]nets around the buildings[/B] so that the workers wouldn't commit suicide, due to the demand being so high, the conditions of the workplace being so appalling, and the considerations of the corporate fat-cats being minimal to non-existent. Globalization in its current form is just a mode for the ruling class to strengthen their chokehold on the working class, stretching it from a national affair to an international one. Globalization is [B]not[/B] in the interest of the majority, it is only in the interest of the rich minority, and in the complete disinterest of the vulnerable workers in the third world who will be ruthlessly exploited at the hands of it all. The only form of globalization that is healthy for the majority, the working class, is worldwide worker's solidarity by which we fight back against the merciless reign of the elite and claim back the world for ourselves.
Someone unironically using the term bourgeois. How pathetic. [quote]The only form of globalization that is healthy for the majority, the working class, is worldwide worker's solidarity by which we fight back against the merciless reign of the elite and claim back the world for ourselves.[/quote] Please elaborate.
Sure. The working class is trapped by an inability to control any of their circumstances except one: their labour. We can't choose where we live, what we eat, what we do for fun, where we want to go etc etc without submitting to the institutions, apparatuses and manifestations of the ruling class. You can't do anything without at some point participating in the modes of the current system. The only thing you can control is your labour. Who you work for, for how long, and how hard. But stress is put on this freedom by the shackles in every other area of your life. You could theoretically choose not to work, but it will impact every other part of your life, including your own survival. This absolute control of everything comes about because the workers don't own the means of production. They must submit to a ruler who does own the means of production in order to scrounge up some sort of an existence. The way to overthrow this is for the workers to unite, deny the bourgeois their labour, and then take the means of production for themselves, turning the workplace not into a machine operated by many for the profit of one, but into a machine operated and owned by many for the profit of many. By removing the heirachies that exist in the workplace and general society today, and replacing them with democratic modes that pay the workers what is due, the ruling class are overthrown and the workers own the state. [B]Edited:[/B] So far as globalization, then, the worker's revolution must extend the world over to minimize the threat of the bourgeois from other parts of the world. Solidarity with the workers all over the world will ensure equal, fair trade practices and more peaceful interaction with one another. This is far better than a wealthier country exploiting a poorer one with horrific consequences.
bad too much cultural imperialism [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - read the sticky" - Megafan))[/highlight]
We really don't know since we're still living the transformation. It will ultimately depend on whether globalization lead to our demise or made our world better.
I'd love a world were there is just one country/state/government. The economy would benefit vastly and the scientific advance would be far faster. I'd love a cultural mix!
good, inevetable, and has severely cut down on wars of aggression and tamped down things like imperialism. the world is suddenly too small for people to be slaughtering each other over a few miles of territory, nor is it big enough to house empires anymore. globalization has lead to temporary reshuffling of the workforces, global economic problems, and global terrorism, but it has also brought humanity closer togather, and shows promise to finally end world poverty and many common but horrible diseases. the W.H.O. is a direct result of globalization, they killed smallpox, it was very expensive and extensive but they did it, and they are on the cusp of eliminating polio for good. the U.N. allows location to broker treaties and hash out problems as well as large countries like the U.S. and Russia each offering a location to deal with treaties. the camp david accord has done more to stabalize the middle east than any of the military buildup did. the real challenge to globalization i think is two fold though, the stubborn petty kingdoms like mali or north korea who refuse to acknowledge the outside, and continue to act like the petty imperialistic powers of old, threatening aggression and total ruin if their demands aren't met. the second problem is africa, the most under-connected, under developed part of the world. globalizm is greatly helping africa allowing them to leapfrog the industrial development process china and many asian countries are in the middle of, but the culture there and the goverments there are holding things back. the people there are more interested in killing each other over homosexuality, tribal disputes, and colonial-era disputes, as well they are facing the worst health problems in the world, HIV has probably set africa back in development terms as much as the iran/iraq war did for iran, there has been an entire generation wiped out because AIDs was a death sentence, as well with advanced medicines starting to permit survivabilty, the population with aids is reaching massive proportions, in south africa one of the best economies in the region the % of the population with AIDs is over 20%, thats like having 5 friends, and half of them will have AIDs. AIDs has directly dropped the life expectency in africa by 30-40 years in most cases, this is the second largest problem facing the world right now with global warming being probably the first.
[QUOTE=trotskyy;43942576]Sure. The working class is trapped by an inability to control any of their circumstances except one: their labour. We can't choose where we live, what we eat, what we do for fun, where we want to go etc etc without submitting to the institutions, apparatuses and manifestations of the ruling class. You can't do anything without at some point participating in the modes of the current system. The only thing you can control is your labour. Who you work for, for how long, and how hard. But stress is put on this freedom by the shackles in every other area of your life. You could theoretically choose not to work, but it will impact every other part of your life, including your own survival. This absolute control of everything comes about because the workers don't own the means of production. They must submit to a ruler who does own the means of production in order to scrounge up some sort of an existence. The way to overthrow this is for the workers to unite, deny the bourgeois their labour, and then take the means of production for themselves, turning the workplace not into a machine operated by many for the profit of one, but into a machine operated and owned by many for the profit of many. By removing the heirachies that exist in the workplace and general society today, and replacing them with democratic modes that pay the workers what is due, the ruling class are overthrown and the workers own the state. [B]Edited:[/B] So far as globalization, then, the worker's revolution must extend the world over to minimize the threat of the bourgeois from other parts of the world. Solidarity with the workers all over the world will ensure equal, fair trade practices and more peaceful interaction with one another. This is far better than a wealthier country exploiting a poorer one with horrific consequences.[/QUOTE] I think you're being too dramatic and focusing on only the short term negatives of globalisation (also, your flag dog says that you're Australian yet you're using the word globalization - American spelling?). Demands in western societies have created sweatshops throughout Asia, yes, I won't deny that. However bad that those sweatshops may be, they contribute to increased industrialisation, increased modernisation, of those countries. What has happened gradually is an improvement in the standard of living in those countries, for example, the average person in mainland China is no longer restricted to living on just rice like under the Mao-era of communist China. And globalisation isn't just wealthier countries taking advantage of poorer countries (if you would so believe it), it is countries influencing each other through means such as culture. Australian society is heavily influenced by American culture, but we also have influences from other people who have emigrated here. As I said in a previous post, you could not get Chinese takeaway, eat in at an Indian restaurant or order a pizza if you lived in pre-globalised (there is no distinctive line, but I consider this period to be before WW2) Australia. And to be honest that would be pretty boring. And despite all those foreign influences, Australia has never lost its British heritage.
Also saying that there is a possibility of the entire planet federalizing should be resulting in permanent presence in a insane asylum
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;43955112]Also saying that there is a possibility of the entire planet federalizing should be resulting in permanent presence in a insane asylum[/QUOTE] It is inevitable. The only question is how soon and what form.
Globalization is overall a good thing. Highly individualized countries based on relatively minor things doesn't seem like a good method forward into space and the universe. We need centralized government, and much less than a global government will not satisfy the needs for structure and organization that are required for us to reach that goal. Even without shooting for the stars, if we simply want to talk about effectively stopping horrible poverty, inequality, disease and famine, you're going to need to do this for the future of earth. It's already the only reason so many things have changed as it is, the process is happening. Fighting it is not a good thing in my mind, but the power should rest with the people
the logic that globalization will reduce cultural diversity is unsound because it assumes cultures are constant and existing populations will not change or create new cultures. sure, it "merges" cultures together into one, but what about sub cultures? for example: there are many different ethnic cultures within china. Han is the majority. However, the han are also different in their own sub cultures which number in the tens to hundreds. In some areas, differences in dialects are as close as 100km We drastically reduced cultural diversity in north america when we settled and displaced the aboriginals but is there any reason to say the "metis" or "acadians" or even the more modern "canadian" or "american" are not cultures on their own? or lets go further and differentiate the southern states from the northern. or Hong Kong from mainland, or even more drastically, the caribbean to africa . A difference in ethnic origin is not culture. Nor does the reduction of such a cause for alarm because people will always create a way of life. History does matter, but as long as we learn from it? <--- this last paragraph is highly opinionated
I think it's bad but I'm not going to elaborate further.
Globalism is generally bad, especially when it's forced or unwanted. Globalism should be something that happens naturally during prosperous times when it benefits all people. If it's having to be encouraged, pushed or forced on people, then the purpose for it's existence is already null and completely useless. Economic and political globalism is bullshit, however we're liable to see a increasing presence of a "global culture," due to the widespread use of communications. That is a good and natural form for globalism to exist within IMO because it's voluntary and opt-in/opt-out on a discretionary basis.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;44039781]Globalism is generally bad, especially when it's forced or unwanted. Globalism should be something that happens naturally during prosperous times when it benefits all people. If it's having to be encouraged, pushed or forced on people, then the purpose for it's existence is already null and completely useless. Economic and political globalism is bullshit, however we're liable to see a increasing presence of a "global culture," due to the widespread use of communications. That is a good and natural form for globalism to exist within IMO because it's voluntary and opt-in/opt-out on a discretionary basis.[/QUOTE] Economic globalization is rather inevitable with the increase in communications and travel, and general improvement of both. Why would the economic side of it be bad? Generally it involves opening up borders and markets to trade and integrating the world economy into a single mass.
Globalization is the only way forward. We have to gradually sacrifice cultural diversity and national self interest if we are to truly flourish here on Earth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.