Is Globalism the new word for Impirialism?

[Rasta Sapian]

I recently watched the meeting between Tony Blair and Jaques Chirack in Paris. They talked about a number of important global issues concerning everything from the furure role of the united nations and the european union to the war in Iraq.

There was a large focus towards the developing nations around the world; and what future role they will have in the years to come.

The word Globalism has a destinctive corrolation to Impirialism, as the wealthy nations expand into developing nations; creating industry and focusing on breaking new ground for global democracy.

However, Is Globalism simply a new buzz word to describe age old Impirialism?
What do you think?

peace yall

[Comrade Latino]

Of course it is. They just don't call it impirialism because
it would make them look bad.

[Kurai Tsuki]

Globalism itself is not a bad philosophy. But those who are proponents of it tend to also be neoimperialists/neocolonialists.

There is nothing wrong with trade between countries, but there are obviously those who seek to make it unbalenced in favour of the United States and other rich countries; for example, the WTO, IMF and the FTAA.

See my post on neocolonialism. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23143&hl=neocolonialism)

[mEds]

Globalization is pretty much the same thing as imperialism in thought and in practice.

[Comrade BNS]

Globalism itself is not a bad philosophy. But those who are proponents of it tend to also be neoimperialists/neocolonialists.

:lol:

I agree Globalism would not be a "bad phillosophy" if you were a member of the dominant hegemonic culture. I mean have a look at Postmodernism today, the west doesn't give a fuck that it is undermining ancient cultures the world because its apparently "worthless" and "meaningless" culture of Postmodernism prevails. One of the "evils" of Postmodernism is that it refuses to criticise itself on the basis that culture cannot be inherintly judged. Thus in the postmodern world, we will have no more Che's, or Malcom X's. Because you can't stand up against problems in a society if you cannot criticise a society based on its flaws and problems. And it is this factor which postmodernists exploit the world over as a new form of Imperialism (globalisation), postmodern culture is "better" because it doesn't judge or criticise, not even itself. So the way the world is heading, we will be faced with a completely intransient static society full of meaningless sentiments and ideas. Sound like any fundamentalist society in the world today?

So why is it that as leftists we can criticise "other" forms of fundamentalist, totalitarian states, but not our own bullshit culture of Postmodernism?

Comrade BNS

[Ziggy]

Because Globalization has been around for 300-400 someodd years. We only see the effects of it now at the level we do because our age is so interconnected with communications that we in a sense have a heightened awareness. The practices of Globalization is so imbedded in our society that most believe it is not a problem but look back on other societies that had problems and think "oh dear, look at what happened to those poor chaps, must be because they were runned by filthy totalitarians. Thank god that's not us." We look to make things right but pass judgement not on ourselves but what has already come and gone.