Globalisation

Really...Not Crap

No to borders. As they say.

CRAP

Globalisation is the vile extension and entrenchment of First World pseudo-imperialism and subjugation of the worlds poor to multinational corporate exploitation.

It also serves to whitewash micro-cultural characteristics and establish a cultural and social monolith dominated by Westernised traditions and culture.

Except that it doesn't. Global interaction serves only to increase diversity in the face of the corporate singularity. Up until the twentieth century greater interaction meant greater diversity for immediate and obvious reasons, there is nothing to say that this has somehow been reversed since aside from our own guilt.

That almost everyone feels this way speaks more about how isolated the Anglophone world is becoming, rather than how homogenous we imagine our lives to make the world. We may be making them poorer and more miserable, but we couldn't rob them of their identities with a million episodes of 24 and a thousand Britney albums.

posting to ground floor of hundred-page thread

big_dave wrote:Except that it doesn't. Global interaction serves only to increase diversity in the face of the corporate singularity. Up until the twentieth century greater interaction meant greater diversity for immediate and obvious reasons, there is nothing to say that this has somehow been reversed since aside from our own guilt.

That almost everyone feels this way speaks more about how isolated the Anglophone world is becoming, rather than how homogenous we imagine our lives to make the world. We may be making them poorer and more miserable, but we couldn't rob them of their identities with a million episodes of 24 and a thousand Britney albums.

I think that this is a hard thing to quantify and assess with any deal of phenomenological truth.

I can see how local traditions may become more resistant to the globalised culture but that may only occur due to the psychology of an individual. The hard and possibly trite fact is that you can moreorless go into any city in the world and buy a Coke or a Big Mac. This is the tangible thing we can see in any city in the world and it speaks volumes to me. You would be hard pushed to find a Afghanistan brand in every city in the world. If globalisation meant cultural diversity you would be able to point to a plurality of cultural signifiers in any city in the world, instead you see the golden arch monolith.

Moreover, as you have said, the exploitation of the worlds poor is the prominent problem with global capitalism. It has created a pandemic subjugated class.

Fuck globalization.

lemur68 wrote:posting to ground floor of hundred-page thread

We'll be civil. For you.

in general...CRAP....

Well, there are a couple of aspects to globalisation.

Like, freer flow of cultural product and people, interconnectivity, etc.? Not crap.

Exploitation of poor by corporations via sweatshop labor, outsourcing to dodge regulations, etc.? Crap.

chairman_hall wrote:

big_dave wrote:Except that it doesn't. Global interaction serves only to increase diversity in the face of the corporate singularity. Up until the twentieth century greater interaction meant greater diversity for immediate and obvious reasons, there is nothing to say that this has somehow been reversed since aside from our own guilt.

That almost everyone feels this way speaks more about how isolated the Anglophone world is becoming, rather than how homogenous we imagine our lives to make the world. We may be making them poorer and more miserable, but we couldn't rob them of their identities with a million episodes of 24 and a thousand Britney albums.

I think that this is a hard thing to quantify and assess with any deal of phenomenological truth.

I can see how local traditions may become more resistant to the globalised culture but that may only occur due to the psychology of an individual. The hard and possibly trite fact is that you can moreorless go into any city in the world and buy a Coke or a Big Mac. This is the tangible thing we can see in any city in the world and it speaks volumes to me. You would be hard pushed to find a Afghanistan brand in every city in the world. If globalisation meant cultural diversity you would be able to point to a plurality of cultural signifiers in any city in the world, instead you see the golden arch monolith.

I agree.

I see the liberal/left/libertarian fear of homogenising globalisation as a direct descendant of the "civilization" myth of previous centuries. It doesn't matter how we see our culture as greater, greater in refinement, greater in closeness to God, greater in freedom, greater in enlightenment or greater in force and numbers, the political effect is just that we see it as greater. And it doesn't matter whether or not we see this invented greatness as desirable or how we moralise around it, I'm just interested in the fact that we see our culture as the Greatest.

Protesting globalization seems to be English speakers apologising for an imagined Greatness.

Moreover, as you have said, the exploitation of the worlds poor is the prominent problem with global capitalism. It has created a pandemic subjugated class.

Yes, and hanging our heads about a lack of 'diversity' is somehow a crass grieving over a minor effect of the problem rather than the problem itself.

It reduces individuals genuine concern to the cry of the middle class tourist: since these places have become poor, they are less fun to holiday in. Oh no, Starbucks where there used to be cute little cafes. Oh no, Hollywood movies on the marquee. Unpleasant, but not the apocalypse.

Anti-globalisation protests and protesters seem to be genuine, but but by-and-large I think that they seeing only the cosmetic side of the issues.