Globalisation movement - what do you think about Globalisati

[Xenoth]

This movement encircles humanity. Globalisation is a sweet name for Imperialism. U.S.A., France and other developed, capitalist countries support this idea...
However What about developing countries?
What is your opinion about globalisation? Is this for betterment of all nations?

[Blasphemy]

globalization as it is today is a bless for corporations, but it is possible to push it towards socialism. this will enable richer countries support developing countries, and will create a mutual interest to create more and more workplaces.

i hope it made sense.... i actually have a very clear view on globalization, but i'm not sure how to articulate it....

[BOZG]

I despise capitalist globalisation as it leads to nothing but the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I actually see globalisation as a front for Manifest Destiny. Anyone got anything to say about that?

[Xenoth]

Globalization is truely a socialist movement, If we look globalisation from outside. Think. Combination of all nations, helping developing countries an demolishing borders.. However Practising of Globalization is not seen like socialism but also Capitalism.

[VolareMIRCantare]

Globelization is supported by capalists nations they will not want any socialism in it. The U.S has the most power within this globilization idea and if it happens all the world will become American. Also it will destroy the environment because coorperations that don't care about the environment will have more power.

[j]

Globalization=Cultural Imperialism

Globalization is going to other countries and exploiting them so that America can maintain its level of luxury.


j

[Sasafrás]

No matter what... Globalisation is just not cool, dude ;)

[Field Marshal]

just to give some further development with the present thoughts about Globalization:

FREE IMMIGRATION:

The globe today is divided up by invisible walls called "borders," maintained by hundreds of thousands of soldiers and police. As a result, if you happen to be a farmer born in a country which is mostly desert, it is illegal to simply move to one where there are adequate supplies of water. If you have the bad luck to be born in a country there is no decent school system, it is illegal to move someplace which has one. As a result, most people in the world today feel like prisoners. Real globalization would begin to take these barriers apart. Proponents of corporate globalization demand exactly the opposite. They want to maintain the invisible walls, and keep the poor trapped behind them, so as to allow Nike and The Gap to reap the profits of their desperation.

THE GLOBAL RULE OF LAW:

Real globalization would also mean creating the backbone of worldwide legal institutions: for instance, permanent tribunals to prosecute war criminals, enforce labor rights, and protect the global ecosystem. But it's the protesters who are pushing for such institutions; it's the U.S. government, that great proponent of corporate globalization, which is doggedly clinging to outmoded notions of national sovereignty in order to resist it.

THE FREE MOVEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURAL PRODUCTS AND IDEAS:

As economists like Dean Baker note, the single most significant form of protectionism in the world today is our gargantuan system of patents and copyrights. If we had a genuinely free global marketplace, whoever could manufacture the best computer chip for the cheapest price would be free to do so: whether they live in Chicago, Latvia, or Bangladesh. Prices everywhere would plummet, and some of the money freed up could easily be redirected towards publicly funded research. Instead, the U.S. government, which systematically violated English patent laws when we were the ones trying to industrialize in the nineteenth century, is now, like other proponents of corporate globalization, trying to prevent others from doing the same -- even going so far as to threaten a trade war with China to preserve Warner Brothers' right to charge workers who make sixteen cents a day, $15.95 for a Michael Jackson CD, or trying to tighten patent restrictions on pharmaceutical production to prevent Indian companies from continuing to manufacture medicine that Indian people can actually afford. Real globalization would loosen such forms of protectionism, or even eliminate them.

This is not the only measure by which the protesters are actually greater supporters of free trade than their opponents:

UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS AND LICENSING:

Governments and business organizations have spent decades creating uniform international product standards. A screw or a lug wrench made in Mexico or the Philippines is now likely to fit an engine made in America. If it wasn't for this painstaking groundwork, it would have been impossible for American factories to so freely relocate to such countries. However, there has been no similar effort to create uniform standards in professional services: for instance, qualifications to practice law, medicine, or accountancy. As a result, sheet metal workers in St. Louis have to compete with their counterparts in Tijuana, but lawyers, CPAs, and insurance claims adjusters there do not. If they did, the public would save billions, but a lot of prosperous and influential people would get upset. Corporate globalizers want to protect the professional classes from international competition. Real globalizers would demand that everyone play by the same rules.

[Blasphemy]

an example on how socialist globalizatin will work:

israel is an economically thirving country but low on water sources. turkey has an abundance of water. AIDS in africa has gotten out of control.

so here how it works: turkey helps israel rehabilitate its water sources and facilities. this enables israel to direct its resources to africa to try and contain the disease with its advance medical technology.

one nation help a second nation, so the second nation can help a third nation, that will eventually be able to help a fourth nation that will help the first nation. everyone helps everyone out.

[Revolution Hero]

Globalization, as it exists, is the process of spreading the influence of capitalistic corporations and exploiting the resources of developing countries.
Globalization process can become socialist or communist only with the creation of the system of the socialist states. Which is impossible in our modern conditions.

Capitalistic globalization is the mean of robbing poor countries.

[guerrillaradio]

"Globalisation" is not a fair word, because that suggests some kinda soup of cultures, as if we are taking equal parts of each culture and putting it in a melting pot. What you are referring to as globalisation is, as j rightly says, cultural imperialism. The American monoculture being spread across the world. It's worrying really, brands have more influence than language. The McDonalds "M" and Nike "swoosh" are more international than any language, recognised anywhere. It's just another step in America's continued domination of the world.