sparky wrote:rather than just bemoan the ubiquitous negative effects of it, we should take advantage of the flipside. Which is massive selective cultural exchange, the garnering of previously unobtainable information (pertaining to causes that we feel aligned to), and reaching out to others for related activism. It is far easier to find people of particular speciality and ideological curiousity than it was even ten years ago

In terms of effects on the ecology, there's no doubt that the global trading of comestibles has been disastrous. Incredibly quickly, people in affluent countries have become used to eating all kinds of foods imported from around the world, out of season, at great monetary and ecological cost. Continuing with this state of affairs is insanity. Unfortunately, people have become so used to being spoilt for choice that raising consciousness about such issues is to fight the impossible battle i.e. for a moral conscience and against the deep-rooted greed and selfishness that consumer culture promotes.

But as Sparky rightly points out, we the people find ourselves with access to a veritable goldmine of information previously unavailable to us, and can use it to reach out to others for related activism. This is what the "organic movement" ostensibly does. However, attempts to homogenise the entire movement in itself are being made by those who stand to profit from a global food market, and I'd say they're proving pretty successful. How else would we end up in the farcical situation of being able to go in to Sainsbury's and buy "organic strawberries" in January? Flown over on a plane from Spain, of course - kind of defeats the point, one suspects. Even the term "organic" has been comandeered and homogenised in to the system as a useful marketing tool.

I'm not saying that battles aren't worth fighting, nor am I saying that the information made available to us by globalisation isn't valuable - simply that the real driving force behind globalisation - profit - has such a powerful influence on the way in which global enterprises and exchanges will be undertaken that the fight is necessarily an uphill one and that succeeding in disseminating the information without the message becoming diluted or reframed is something that takes a hell of a lot of guile and integrity.

Of course globalisation could be a good thing. But who's going to turn it in to that? So many checks and measures, and above all so much morality would be needed. A simple proof of the fact that gloablisation is currently failing in benefiting humankind: the fact that people are starving all over the world. Hell, the fact that the third world still exists.

I see the potential of globalisation and the power that it wields - but how does anyone with any desire to use this power positively get in on the deal?

chairman_hall wrote:

Cranius wrote:As well as being a system and process of homogenization that benefits capital, there is also an element of cultural and local reflux. Localized struggles can utilise the interconnectivity offered by globalisation to create it's own networks of solidarity, etc. So a new plurality emerges against the homogenizing project of capital.

How does this process work and where is the evidence for it?

This is the gordian knot of globalism. On the level we are most immediately responsible for, that is to say ourselves, we can work to create lifestyles that are not easily co-opted by capitalism for a start. This is pretty difficult, though, for obvious reasons...particularly as the 'lifestyle' is synonymous with advertising. But we can create enough of a gap between ourselves and the reality of the world as we find it to create new possibilities. The more difference we create in the world, the less traction the forces of homogenization have--I realise this is kind of ephemeral and general.

Beyond ourselves there are numerous networks that we can access. And we can see politically and globally multiple axes and alignments that are beginning to share sympathies: Bolivarian Venezuelans and Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries, Palestinians and British Academics in support of a free Palestine, Spanish Eco-Polytunnel activists and Heathrow expansion protestors (if you want to talk strawberries)...or even perhaps Ron Paul meet-up groups and Stormfront agitators.

Cranius wrote:Beyond ourselves there are numerous networks that we can access. And we can see politically and globally multiple axes and alignments that are beginning to share sympathies: Bolivarian Venezuelans and Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries, Palestinians and British Academics in support of a free Palestine, Spanish Eco-Polytunnel activists and Heathrow expansion protestors (if you want to talk strawberries)...or even perhaps Ron Paul meet-up groups and Stormfront agitators.

Yes, I see your point.

But, are these things not reactions to rather than consequences of the homogeneous nature of globalisation?

Rick Reuben wrote:The alternative is a restoration of personal sovereignty. Individuals are not obligated to submit to any economic system, not national or global. If individuals cannot defend their sovereignty from their national government, or if their national government betrays them and hands them over en masse to the globalist tyrants, then individuals must reject their treasonous national government.

I may regret asking this but...

Rick, I struggle with actually pinpointing your politics, was exactly do you mean with this paragraph?

Are you against all forms of government, or big government?

Do you believe in laissez-faire?

Unfettered capitalism is one of the worst societal systems I could imagine. You just have to look at the horrors of the nineteenth century in Britain to see the damaging effects of the free market.

Article quoted by Rick Reuben wrote: * Saudi Arabia plans to merge current investments into a new sovereign wealth funds that could have a value of $1000 trillion by the end of 2008.

That has to be a misprint.

crap.

Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote: the exploitation of the worlds poor is the prominent problem with global capitalism. It has created a pandemic subjugated class.

Cranius wrote:What is the alternative, other than a retreat into national sovereignity? Global capitalism subsumes us...that is a reality.

The alternative is a restoration of personal sovereignty. Individuals are not obligated to submit to any economic system, not national or global. If individuals cannot defend their sovereignty from their national government, or if their national government betrays them and hands them over en masse to the globalist tyrants, then individuals must reject their treasonous national government.

Individual sovereignity sounds great. With a small government the checks and balances of civil society will be abolished, along with any pretense of equality or even distribution of wealth. People will be free to compete unfettered by laws, morals, ethical codes and such (much like Hobbes conception of pre-social society as 'a constant war of everyman with everyman').

Of course, not everyone will be on a equal footing to begin, with the privileging of property over people--society will quickly stratify into haves and have-nots (but only with more polarity, if you can imagine that). Consequently, power and rights will be automatically ceded to those who own the most....your hated elites. Sounds like a great plan to really alienate people from one another and release them from their responsibilites to social life.

I'm beginning to see the merits of your emmancipatory cul-de-sac. When does this dystopia start?

By normal standards, we should, at the very least, be approaching page six right about now.

I'm disappointed in you.

[...]

Cranius wrote:Individual sovereignity sounds great. With a small government the checks and balances of civil society will be abolished, along with any pretense of equality or even distribution of wealth. People will be free to compete unfettered by laws, morals, ethical codes and such (much like Hobbes conception of pre-social society as 'a constant war of everyman with everyman').

Exactly how do checks and balances disappear in a small government? They disappear when people cannot hold a government accountable for it's actions, i.e. big government. "Pretense of Equality" also disappears under a government that cannot be reigned in.

Since when is wealth ever equally distributed, the upper class has always taken more, and it realistically won't change even under a socialist government.

Cranius wrote:Of course, not everyone will be on a equal footing to begin, with the privileging of property over people--society will quickly stratify into haves and have-nots (but only with more polarity, if you can imagine that). Consequently, power and rights will be automatically ceded to those who own the most....your hated elites. Sounds like a great plan to really alienate people from one another and release them from their responsibilites to social life.

Is there a way that society won't be exploited by an upper class(es) that has existed practically since the dawn of civilization? I really don't think so. It becomes even harder if one doesn't even point a finger at the economy, and the banks that have gotten millions of people in debt.

People are already alienated from one another. Walk in any metropolis, will you even acknowledge another person on the street? Do you interact with your coworkers outside of work, do you even know the people that live in your building/block?

I'd like to hear more about this "responsibility to social life" regarding the individual, as if such a thing actually exists, or is even favorable.