Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Hang on a minute...
That's just it, dude. The market deciding means that people decide what they want to buy.
And there would be nothing wrong with that, if businesses were limited to a certain size. A market economy is more responsive to people's desires, but it also means they must put up with the constant onslaught of consumer culture--the advertising that attempts to convince them how they should live and what they should buy. That advertising is controlled by the powerful businesses who already have the advantage. Small entrepreneurs don't have the same access to culture that the big guys do.
So yeah, generally speaking I think the most Americans, Europeans, etc. DO think that the rest of the world should adopt democracy, but that democracy could and probably will have its own character reflecting the culture.
And I don't disagree in a lot of cases, but I do object to the notion that we can export democracy or force it on people. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but try to force him to drink and he'll likely kick you--and that's a source of a lot of violence in this world. I think we can do a lot to encourage peace and freedom, but I think we have to encourage home-grown solutions rather than trying to force our way in economically--which is exactly what happens when Western corporations and governments try to open up new markets in foreign countries, in pursuit of profit.
Even the idea of democracy itself might not be right for everyone--the people of Bhutan are not entirely convinced. Granted, they have their problems like anybody else, but they evidently have a very different way of looking at things; even though they still value peace, freedom, and happiness.
There's also a lot of evidence that globalization has vastly improved the standard of living for a lot of people around the world and spread prosperity.
I'm sure there is--but globalization is a very much a mixed bag. I have no doubt it has brought prosperity to some, and presents one workable solution for eliminating poverty through microloans and other initiatives. I can also say that I enjoy the flow of ideas--I lived for many years in a city where I could learn Chinese martial arts and Indian meditation, listen to the poems of Rumi recited by Turkish Sufis, eat Sushi and chicken Shawarmas, and study Irish Gaelic--all within walking distance of my house. (Man, I miss that)
But globalization has not been very good for others, perhaps despite good intentions (although I'm not convinced the intentions always are good).
frankly, in many places you could make a case that a small number own the means of production, but that's because there previously WAS NO PRODUCTION.
That's exactly what I mean--our measure of "production" is skewed toward a particular ideal. We see production almost exclusively in terms of economic growth and material wealth. Now, I'm not saying there isn't terrible poverty in many parts of the world. There is, and it must be addressed. But much of that poverty and strife is the fall-out of colonialism, which destroyed indigenous ways of life in favour of European ones. Globalization is certainly friendlier, but it is still eroding other ways of life in pursuit of certain economic and political ideals at the expense of others. Those ideals are certainly attractive, but they come with a lot of problems too--questionable labour practices, biopiracy, and so forth--all essentially colonialist activities.
RSS
RE: Hang on a minute...
But the thing that really bothers me about this is the underlying assumption of globalization & FTA's--that the market can decide what works best. I mean, no offense guys, but what makes you think the whole world wants or needs "blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes"? Or that Walmart & McDonald's will, in serving their own self-interest, make the world a better place? (Do you really want to live in a world run by McDonald's or Starbucks?)
That's just it, dude. The market deciding means that people decide what they want to buy. That means if you, of some guy in Bangladesh decides they would rather not have blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes, then buy what you want. Contrast this with the central economic planning model employed by the Soviet Union. They decide what you will buy because that's all there is. In a market economy, the guy who makes what you want stays in business, and the guy who isn't responsive to the consumer goes away.
And embedded in this is the assumption that the rest of the world can and should adopt Western (particularly American) cultural patterns.
Yes and no. Certainly there is the concept of "inalienable rights" that are "self-evident" and all that in our Constitution that we believe applies to everyone. That said, democracy is a reflection of the will of the people, and different people and cultures have various values reflected in their practice of democracy. For example, many European societies are culturally put a higher priority on law and order, while Americans tend to focus more on individual liberties. So yeah, generally speaking I think the most Americans, Europeans, etc. DO think that the rest of the world should adopt democracy, but that democracy could and probably will have its own character reflecting the culture.
globalization has increasingly led to the ownership of the means of production by small numbers of people
Um, I wouldn't be so sure of that. The most nimble competitors have been small businesses and entrepreneurs. There's also a lot of evidence that globalization has vastly improved the standard of living for a lot of people around the world and spread prosperity. The Economist has two great articles laying this out. The first tackles BS politicians are spreading about NAFTA, the second deals with the myth of globalization and the alleged loss of prosperity at home. The same is true outside Europe and the US--it's a great time to be an entrepreneur, and frankly, in many places you could make a case that a small number own the means of production, but that's because there previously WAS NO PRODUCTION. The way theory works, and in a small way, Marx was partly right, even with centrally owned means of production the government must treat its workers well because of the need for their skills, versus a commodity market where I don't need you at all.
View Full Discussion