Originally posted by
[email protected] 08, 2007 11:55 am
If you read what I've been saying, you'd know that the process of people simply exchanging cultures is apart from globalization.
Well, I certainly know that that is what you've been asserting, but I've yet to see a single shred of evidence to support that rather dubious line of argumentation.
Again, if you define globalization to be a capitalist phenomenon then of course it's capitalist, but that's not how logic works. If you want to prove your contention you're going to have to offer something better than your own a priori assumptions -- 'cause so far, that is all that you have contributed.
Now, I have no doubt that you believe what you believe, but you're not convinced anyone by begging the question.
If you want to prove your case, then prove your case! You might want to start by excepting a more reasonable definition of the word "globalization".
My contention is that a.) globalization is a sterlizing force, it hampers true cultural exchange
And what, in your estimation, is a "true cultural exchange"? Is it the "pop locks" of which you speak so fondly? Is it Americans rooting for Manchester United?
Because I am still waiting for an explanation of how those things are not part of globalization.
I don't know what a "true cultural exchange" is, but what I do know is that cultural exchanges of all varieties are happening more and more every single day, and that that is as much "globalization" as the economics you speak of.
Recognize, I am not saying there aren't many many problems with globalization as it is currently manifesting itself, nor that there isn't a very strong economic aspects to globalization. I am merely challenging your assertion that globalization is in its entirety an economic capitalist process.
Now, I realize it is possible that this is nothing more than a definitional disagreement. That what you're defining as globalization is what I am choosing tp label the "capitalist aspects" of the globalization process.
But even if that is true -- and I am by no means certain that it is -- I suspect that there are some very real ideological and theoretical differences lurking beneath the surface here, and so I think it's worthwhile to continue this discussion.
If we are to continue this discussion however, we must do so in a way that does not devolve into nothing more than a pointless squabble on the meaning of words. So I'm going to make a proposal here, but we define the, for the purposes of this thread at least, globalization to be the entirety of the globalization process, including those aspects which do not happen to fit into your economist paradigm.
That means, yes, including "pop lockers" in Japan, and soccer fans in America. Because as much as you may rail against them, they are as much examples of globalization as any sweatshop or Third World factory you can point to.
For if we can't at least agree that globalization exists outside of the narrow economic confines of which you've defined it, then there really is no point for this discussion I was suggest we end it right now.
and that b.) it is incorrect to seperate globalization from capitalism and its own process.
I would agree with that actually.
If I gave the impression that I was suggesting that one can study globalization as it currently manifests without also studying capitalist expansionism and imperialism, I apologize, that was not my intention. I am by no means proposing that the economic situation which we find itself is anything but a continuation of the bourgeois era.
But I think it needs to be understood that merely because one cannot separate one thing from another does not mean that that thing is indistinguishable from the other, because I think that's the mistake you're making here.
We are in agreement that globalization, as it presently exists, is a product of capitalism, but then so is everything else around us . That's what it's like to live in a capitalist world.
But that doesn't make globalization any more inherently capitalistic than it does industrialization!
Indeed, like industrialization before it, globalization is nothing more than another stage in human development. A stage which is again being ushered in by the forces of capitalism, which is not something that I particularly like, but it's something that I have no choice but to accept.
I except it not out of reformism or passivity, but because I recognize that this is an inevitable process of human development. And because I recognize that any action taken against it will not reverse this trend, for this trend cannot be reversed, but will only serve to bolster the forces of reaction and conservatism.
That doesn't mean tolerating capitalist excesses, but it does mean accepting the reality that "tradition", for the most part, will not survive. Tt means fighting against exploitation and imperialism, but not confusing for real addressable problems mere irreversible social evolution.
Globalization IS capitalist. Why? The main perpetrators of globalization, by far, have been capitalist forces.
So have been the main perpetrators of shoes, I suppose that means in your mind shoes are intrinsically capitalistic?
Again, you need to learn to separate that which is a fundamental pillar of bourgeois hegemony from that which is merely a product of that hegemony's existence.
Capitalism isn't "bad", nor are its proponents by any means evil or malicious, it is merely an economic system that has outlived its usefulness. But don't be deceived, it was once eminently useful. And it was through that usefulness that we've managed to create the world we have today.
A world where, granted much of the population still lives in abject misery, but in which for the first time a sizable proportion lives in what can be charitably called something approaching comfort.
That's largely thanks to capitalism.
Now, however it's time for something better, but that's something better , not something regressive, not turning back the clock, not reversing the progressive -- yes, that's right progressive -- gains of the capitalist era. And one of those gains, one that were only beginning to see, is the growing global interconnectivity that has become known as "globalization".
Communism is not about preserving local culture, indeed in many ways it's about precisely the opposite: transforming all of humanity into one classless stateless society.
Do you not realize that the society by definition must be monocultural? That it cannot help but be one massive all-encompassing human culture?
For how else could such a society operate? Any truly democratic, truly communist, truly free society, would require unlimited, unrestrained, and instantaneous communication from all people to all people at all times.
And that is something which "tradition" cannot survive.
Traditional festivals do have a manifest effect on workers' lives. They get a few days off.
Well, yes and no.
Often these festivals are associated with religious or civic duties, which are hardly what I would call "days off", indeed often they're nothing more than funding opportunities for local religious organizations -- in Europe most notably the Catholic Church.
But if your priority really is days off, there are far better ways to achieve that than by perpetuating reactionary and antiquated socioreligious traditions. Besides, even those places where these "festivals" do disappear, they are usually replaced by civil holidays and other secular equivalences.
So somehow I doubt that that is really are concerned here. No, I suspect that your worry is the same as that of all social conservatives, you fear the decline of the nationstate and of the "culture" that goes along with it.
You see globalization as ushering the end of regional differences and local is six socio-ethnic identities, and you may well be right. But these are things which have to die if humanity is to progress.
Much like capitalism, nationalism has given us all it ever will; it has very little else to offer.
You may recall that far before 70 years ago, many people in Asia WERE going to Church and reading the Bible. Is that not a western culture being practiced in Asia? With increased communication, more culture can be shared at higher speeds. That does not mean the exchange fundamentally changes.
Yes it does. And it's most unfortunate that you haven't realized that yet.
Again, when it comes to communication, speed is content. You've highlighted an excellent example, but you unfortunately missed the point entirely.
Yes, 70 years ago they were reading Bibles in China, but they were doing that 200 years earlier. Missionaries started coming to the Far East in the 16th century, and for the next 300 years they would spread the same bulk and the same message over and over and over again. And it spread ... eventually.
it took 12 generations to spread this relatively simple message to this relatively small population. And yet in less than a 24th of that time, ideas thousands of times more complex have been transmitted to thousands of times more people, thanks to globalization.
Or rather, I should say, thanks to the technologies of interconnectivity and intercommunication; but as is my point, those really are one and the same.
The Han knew quite a bit about the Roman Empire.
No they didn't. And if you've been taught they did, I would suggest that you get a refund from your college history course.
Or, better yet, here's a fun idea; how about you go down to that college history department and tell them this theory of yours, that there is nothing new about recent cultural exchanges, that this level of intercultural dialogue has been going on forever, that "nothing's changed".
While you're at it, you might mention his "revolutionary" theory of yours that early medieval China was not ignorant of Rome as every single competent scholar on the subject has taught , but rather quite knowledgeable on the subject.
Who knows, they might just make you an honorary professor! :rolleyes:
The right-wing sometimes masks its jingoism as defending culture from an enemy, but what you ignore is that most of the time, that enemy is a Mexican, African or Turkish immigrant. The far right has a field day blaming everything on immigrants.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But nationalism doesn't have to be anti-immigrant to be nationalism.
And in fact when it's masked in colours of "tradition" and "culture", the people usually aren't mentioned at all. Rather it's the symbols that are at issue.
I suppose it's convenient to imagine a nationalism only manifest as ugly racists picketing the border or rounding up illegal aliens, but the reality is that the far less easily identifiable animal. And yes, when Chavez or some other Latin American populist stand up and says that Halloween or some other innocuous noneventsposes a "threat", they're appealing to nationalism, consciously or not.
And, indeed, nationalism has always been a part of Third World leftist movements. That's hardly surprising, when you're fighting a foreign imperialist enemy, it's only natural that you'll rally to those symbols which most strongly suggest the opposite.
But this is meant to be a forum for advanced theoretical discussions, and we should able to leave such emotionalism where it belongs.
I find it a bit funny that you're comparing me to nationalists while you champion "freedom" and "personal liberty".
That strange, 'cause I don't find anything particularly amusing about freedom and personal liberty.
I guess that's just me... <_<
They're eating at those places for a multitude of reasons. However, the bottom line is that the bourgeoisie put the KFC's there for their own benefit. Secondly, it has less to do with "choice" and more to do with "survival". Pakistan needs to compete and integrate with the market, and that includes adopting a capitalist lifestyle; more importantly, that means living a life that has less and less time for food at home, thus increasing the need for American fast-food.
I think you missed my point. I'm don't disagree that KFC is entirely motivated by profit, nor that American businesses operate by the rules of American businesses. Rather I am trying to point out that globalization is about more than these forces.
But while, yes, people in Pakistan are eating at KFC because it's there, they are also eating new and foreign foods because they want to , and that is a fantastic thing.
In many ways it's the death of the culture, less and less people are living the way that they "traditionally" did and, as time goes on, they will eventually lose the ways in laws and cultures of their ancestors.
If you choose to mourn that, that's your affair, but I don't. Rather I celebrate it as liberation.
KFC isn't freeing anyone, but the fact that people in Pakistan and China and New Guinea and Hawaii and Siberia and Antarctica all have access to the same assortment of foods, and dances, and toys, and clothes, and jewelry, and all sorts of other trivial stuff makes me happier than I can express.
We can, and should fight for KFCs and other capitalist exploiters of the world, but we should not be fighting globalization, because globalization isn't KFC. KFC is a part of it, but so are those toys and dances and foods and clothes and Pakistanis singing Mexican music and Japanese dancing "pop locks".
And while I suspect that you are more confused than you are genuinely xenophobic, make no mistake when the politicians rail against the "death of culture" and the "sterilization" of identity, they're not talking about capitalist exploitation, they're talking about those singing Pakistanis and those pop locking Japanese.
They are scared because the world is changing, and they don't know what to do about it; and so they're clinging to the last threads of their "identity". It's understandable, but it's certainly not progressive.
It definitely isn't revolutionary!
Great, we have more information about other cultures, but when we go there we find people eating the food we ate at the airport, we find increasingly similar (and sterile) cultures.
Yes we do, and, I imagine that'll be more true 50 years from now than it is today, probably even more true 50 years after that.
It's called progress.
Capitalism can't "mar" something it created
Capitalism "created" globalization in the same sense that it "created" the labour movement, that is both globalization the labor movement developed within the capitalist era; but that doesn't mean that either of them are intrinsically capitalistic.
Again, globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon, one of those facets is economics. Now, because the dominant economic system is capitalism, globalization manifests in a capitalist way. But that doesn't mean the globalization itself is in any way innately capitalist.
Rather it is the inevitable result of increasing communications technology. Meaning that regardless of the economic or political system in existence, whenever this level of technology exists, global interconnectivity must expand.
The fact that American dances may or may not be popular in Japan is an example of that, so is the fact that American corporations are exploiting workers in the Third World. You think the first one is a good, or at least neutral, thing where is you feel the latter is a bad one. And you're right.
But they're both still aspects of globalization, and you can't pretend the former doesn't exist just because it doesn't fit your theory.
There are very few black and whites in this world, and this is no exception. Globalization has its negative aspects, no doubt, but those negative aspects are because it is existing within a capitalist paradigm. Take away that paradigm and globalization becomes a neutral force.
Therefore it's missing the point entirely to demonize globalization, especially as there is absolutely nothing that any of us can do about.
You're intent on darkening the waters, and it's obvious that you're doing so to mask your lack of a point. I'm not going to respond to most of your points directly, because most of it is unnecessary (especially when you repeat yourself, in spite of the fact that you're completely incorrect). Instead, I'm going to boil this down to the fundamentals.
I've explained my points well enough, you just refuse to recognize that. Like I explain things to a child, let's start from the beginning.
Why is globalization capitalist? First of all, globalization is being done by capitalism, capitalism is the agent of globalization. Profit is the singular reason for globalization's inroads into the world. More importantly, globalization is just capitalist expansion, and therefore they are one in the same. Why? Capitalism naturally expands and increases exploitation, that much is obvious. Globalization has pushed the borders of capitalism further and helped exploit the workers of the world in more effective ways. That, alone, shows that globalization cannot seriously be separated from capitalism, because one aids the other and visa versa. By the way, I would only expect a question like that from a poster like yourself.
My definitions have been more than reasonable, you have offered nothing but the bourgeois definition.
Moving on, how are genuine cultural exchanges NOT part of globalization? Cultural exchanges existed in earnest since culture began, they predate both capitalism and globalization. With technology advancements, it has become easier to take culture, but that does not make it part of globalization. Why not? First, they are not mutually inclusive, you can have one without the other. Why? Take away all the KFC's and DisneyLands; what are you left with? Cultural exchange without capitalism. Is that globalization? You're kidding yourself if you say "yes".
The difference between pop lockers and sweatshops is that one occurred because people wanted to do it, the other occurred because of PROFIT. In other words, one occurred because of capitalism, the other did not.
What you keep ignoring is that it isn't JUST the "expansion of interconnectivity", it's WHAT that expansion IS. Your analysis is anti-materialist. Let's look at the issue for once: the expansion of interconnectivity is merely improving the interconnectivity of capitalism, thereby increasing exploitation and bourgeois control. Why? Globalization is characterized by such expansion, profit is the primary fuel. The interconnectivity of capitalism helps no one but the bourgeoisie, and yet you seem to be defending it.
Why do you support the detriment of working people's conditions? Globalization does nothing BUT that, and there are a multitude of examples. You discount the destruction of workers' cultures, but that is fallacy, because its displacement is inherently a part of the supremacy of capitalist and bourgeois norms, and that must be opposed. You seem to be excusing the advancements of capitalist customs against workers' lifestyles. You may object that these are tied to the Church or another anti-worker organization. This is also fallacy; most of these festivals predate Christianity, many of them are secular (siesta, for example), and so the charge that they are tied to the Church is just ridiculous and anyone who's studied human history can tell you that. Furthermore, I can tell you that these festivals are certainly NOT replaced by anything but more work, there is nothing to suggest as much. These are not things that have to die for "humanity to progress", they have to die for capitalism to progress, and you defend that.
Leftists have always opposed cultural hegemony and protected cultures of workers. Connolly, Cuban revolutionaries, Paul Robeson and others are good examples of this (off the top of my head). Instead of understanding what leftism is about, you callously write off workers movements as "nationalistic", which is simply ridiculous and wrong (and completely expected of you).
On the point of the Han Empire, there was far more information available to the Middle Kingdom than you let on. Go ahead, try and make up for your mischaracterization by insulting me; it won't help your nonexistent argument, but you might feel better.
Oh, and by the way, the reason your love affair with "freedom" and "personal liberty" is so funny is because you decry me for having non-leftist beliefs, yet you sound like you're a libertarian. Tell you what, I'll support the struggle of the working class, and you support bourgeois notions of "freedom" and whatever other reactionary bile you can come up with (how about starting with "rational self interest", I think it'd be right up your alley), and then let's see who looks like an idiot (they'd look a lot like you at this moment, in fact).
In the end, what you call "progress" is what the capitalists call "profits". Get a clue.