Author
|
Topic: Re: virus: Globalization and its Discontents (Read 622 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Globalization and its Discontents
« on: 2005-06-27 17:56:54 » |
 |
[Blunderov] The mirror cracks? A longish read but worthwhile.
Best Regards.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050618161144808
<q>
Globalization and its Discontents
Robin Mathews
If the word “Globalization” is intended to mean a free flow of goods and
ideas, a relative equalization of living standards and opportunity, as
well as global concern for the needs and aspirations of peoples, then it
doesn’t exist, isn’t moving towards existence, and has never been
intended to do so.
Globalization is something quite different than those things - so much
so that large parts of the world are in extended trench warfare to
prevent its spread. The French and Dutch rejection (fittingly by popular
referendum) of the new proposed European constitution is just one
engagement in that war. Tony Blair’s cancellation of the referendum in
Britain signifies his certainty it would have lost there, too.
Globalization, in short, is the effort of a single class to gain total
governing power and control of the global economy. As if to underscore
that fact, Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper carries the story of the
extension of the deadline for ratification of the constitution not on
its front page or in its front section, but in the Report on Business on
the International Business page (June 17 05 B8).
The present, increasingly raw and visible conflict is not a new thing.
Rather it is the culmination of a struggle that began at least with the
Enclosure Movement in England. Fields, meadows, and pasture lands held
in common were “enclosed” (in that centuries-long Movement) on behalf of
private use and enrichment. The process began before the Industrial
Revolution and was completed in the nineteenth century.
Building (with the U.S.A. especially) on the Slave Trade and the erasure
or subjugation of native peoples, the British class that arose out of
“privatization” of lands moved on to gain control of the world markets
that the concentration of wealth made possible. Britannia “ruled the
waves”- the trade lanes of the globe. Slowly, the U.S. edged Britain
over. The U.S. is now “policeman of the world”, using its billy-stick on
any country that defies “the U.S. Way of Life” – neo-liberal, free
market, military-assisted control of global trade and raw materials.
That’s why Tony Blair goes proudly to Washington to consult with George
Bush on the division of global spoils: the old and the new empires
consult.
The forces of globalization are among the most powerful in the world.
They must not be underestimated. Almost all large corporations, U.S.
imperial might, governments serving U.S. and corporate interests, and
most so-called “international” military and trade organizations are
partners in Globalization. They try to mystify its real meaning.
Increasingly, though, the truth is becoming known.
Globalization won’t go away, however, despite what optimists – people
like John Ralston Saul and labour economist Jim Stanford – have to say
about its demise. The power and the iron grip of globalizationist forces
may mean, in fact, that only war and revolution will be able to break
those forces and to free the world from their curse
Characteristically, the move to globalization is said by many
commentators to have begun with the fall (heralding the rapid
disintegration of the Soviet empire) of the Berlin wall in the late
1980s. That series of events was said – to put the matter briefly – to
clear away former major global differences of political philosophy and
to open the world to a set of values that would allow peace, harmony,
and constructive use of global wealth and the world’s populations.
Even, however, as the theory was being uttered, it was based upon
illusion and fantasy. As we know now, the U.S. sent in Harvard
University economists to advise “shock therapy” for the Russian economy.
Shock therapy proved to mean wresting economic wealth and expertise from
the Russian state and people and passing them – by every unsavoury means
– to private entrepreneurs who were so greedy Russian tax revenues
stagnated, white collar and other crime became the way of life, ordinary
Russians struggled to find food and shelter, and a class of the
newly-minted super rich cornered excessive privilege and power.
Rather than being a contradiction in the movement to Globalization, the
Russian experience was, in fact, Globalization moving in on a Command
Economy – however inefficient – in which ordinary people were an
integral part of national definition and national wealth. For
Globalization to take firm hold, the Russian people had to be separated
from the economy except as contributors to the wealth of the super rich.
That is what Globalization is: the cornering of economic power by
self-appointed elite groups who cooperate internationally, create
various kinds of tribunals to serve their own ends, declare those
tribunals “international”, undermine the power of all other groups, and
impose upon a larger and larger portion of the globe a system which is
declared to have been created for the general good but which,
demonstrably, is not.
There are, at present, cracks in the solid front of the Globalizers.
Time alone will tell what those cracks mean. Leaping to conclusions,
John Ralston Saul – first in a long article in the U.S. Harper’s
Magazine, and more recently in a new book, The Collapse of
Globalization, argues we are witnessing (to quote Jim Stanford) “the end
of globalization”. (Globe and Mail, June 6 05 A13).
John Ralston Saul is the husband of Governor General Adrienne Clarkson.
One can imagine him working on the book in Government House in Ottawa, a
uniformed servant quietly bringing him sherry on a small silver tray.
Saul, we imagine, looks out the window onto the spacious vice-regal
grounds. Earlier, his wife had travelled to Halifax to cheer on the
Canadian soldiers leaving for Afghanistan. They were going to help keep
order in that distant country so the U.S. could solidify its area of
market, trade, military, and political control: Globalization.
Now Saul sees, we imagine, his wife leaving again for Afghanistan,
probably to remind the troops they are defending “our way of life”. Over
drinks that evening, at a public reception where he is standing in for
the GG, we imagine he will hear John Manley – to snorts of approval from
the Stephen Harper conservatives and a number of Liberal cabinet
ministers – speak of the need (corporations have) for Canada’s “deep
integration” with the U.S.A.
Saul, we imagine, returns to Government house, sits down for a short
time at his word processor, confirmed in his certainty that he is
witnessing “the end of globalization”.
Cracks there are in the smooth façade of Globalization, and they arise
from the huge contradictions present in it. That much is true. To begin,
Globalization, in its present form, is U.S. led and U.S. shaped. Since
it means, in short, U.S. control and supervision of market economy
governments wherever possible, it not only relates to U.S.
individualism, U.S. militarism, and U.S. chauvinism, but it also
fundamentally is intended to serve U.S. corporate and political
interests before all others.
For that reason, the cracks are opening. If the U.S. genuinely wanted
the free flow of goods and ideas, a relative equalization of living
standards and opportunity as well as global concern for the needs and
aspirations of peoples, there would be glitches certainly. But a feeling
of good faith and possibility would be felt in the world. There is no
such feeling.
Instead, fear and suspicion of the U.S.A. grow while its so-called
“international” front organizations: the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and others, lose
credibility daily. NATO is recognized as a simple military instrument of
U.S. policy. No longer a “North Atlantic” organization, NATO has
broadened its scope to be a fighting force wherever “western” (read
U.S.) interests are interpreted to be threatened.
The most widely publicized cracks, as already stated, have been caused
by the French and Dutch rejection of the proposed new (neo-liberal)
constitution for the European Union and the Tony Blair cancellation of
the U.K. referendum on the issue.
Less noticeably perhaps, but equally as important is the strength of the
Venezuelan (Hugo Chavez) rejection of U.S. domination and the insistence
that oil revenues there must be shared by the people. In Venezuela U.S.
representatives were caught celebrating the four-day Rightest coup that
began by dissolving the Venezuelan Parliament and the Supreme court
before Chavez returned, carried by the overwhelming support of
Venezuelans.
If the U.S. had arguing power with the Venezuelan masses before the
four-day coup, it lost all credibility by endorsing the brief rape of
Venezuelan democracy and fundamental rights.
Perhaps catching the Venezuelan hope, Bolivians have occupied seven
foreign-owned oil fields in Bolivia. They demand nationalization of oil
and a greater share of power for Bolivia’s native people.
Nationalization would mean the U.S. and corporate globalizers would be
unable to determine the quality of life for Bolivians.
Though the road is bumpy, South American countries, moreover, are
forging an internal free trade area, against the wishes of the U.S.A.
Cracks are appearing. China has decided to sue the U.S. in the World
Trade Organization because of U.S. restrictions on Chinese textile
imports.
That could be a joke. But it’s a very serious statement about the
apparent breakdown of governmental and corporate solidarity as
Globalization expands. The general move since the end of Second World
War to erasure of tariffs and non-tariff barriers and to the opening of
countries to foreign investment has, up to now, overwhelmingly
benefitted the U.S.A.
At the same time, the U.S.A. has persistently broken the rules of trade
agreements, treaties, and contracts, using its naked power. As a result,
Europe broke ranks recently and began retaliating because of U.S
protection of its steel industry. Canada – persistently cheated on a
number of fronts, especially on softwood lumber, has forced – through a
free Trade panel – the U.S. to provide justification for its phony high
tariff regime on Canadian wheat.
What those moves against the U.S. mean is that the plainly U.S.-centred,
imperialist intention of Globalization structure is becoming evident –
and intolerable – to more and more countries.
“Optimists” like Lawrence Martin, see a Canada that is beginning to
wriggle away from the U.S. embrace. (Globe and Mail, June 9 05 A17).
Martin cites China as one cause. Not only is it challenging the U.S. on
the large front. It is also providing a market for Canadian exports.
Martin cites also the dangerous state of U.S. finances, suggesting
Canada should steer clear. He believes as well that North American
market integration is becoming less and less popular in Canada. Perhaps.
Martin becomes positively lyrical about the chances for Canada as the
Discontents of Globalization grow. He is worth quoting: “So we could be
entering a watershed period, when Canada’s overwhelming dependency on
American trade begins to recede and greater degrees of separation
characterize other areas of the bilateral relationship. This would mark
a new chapter in our development, one in which we could shed remaining
vestiges of the client state mentality, become a more independent actor
and, out of economic necessity, pursue new markets and a northern
vision.”
In such a world Canada has new chances of independence. Martin observes
that “signs of a return to nationalism elsewhere” outside of the U.S.,
“will have an impact on Canada”.
In Canada, “nationalism” is always present, often underground because
usually repressed by corporations, U.S. propaganda, a toadying media,
and governments fearful Canadians might begin acting like Venezuelans or
Bolivians. But the largely submerged sense –among a large portion of
Canadians – that we should throw off our role as “hewers of wood and
drawers of oil” for the U.S., may, indeed, break through again. It did
in the 1960s after the Centennial celebration and it took more than
fifteen years of work by the continentalists to stifle the push for
Canadian independence. Next time, the discontents arising from
Globalization may give Canadian demands for self-respect and sovereignty
a more lasting life. Those demands are beginning to be heard already.
But all must be seen in terms of the power of empires. Even though
history has been speeding up, the likelihood of the U.S.A. collapsing
its imperial role and adopting a balanced and wise policy in the world
anytime soon is hard to imagine.
That’s why I wrote near the beginning that maybe only war and revolution
can break the grip of Globalization on the world. Let us pray I am
wrong. </q>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of rhinoceros
Sent: 25 June 2005 04:53
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:Existential risks
[Lucifer] Here's a succinct argument for how and why developing Friendly
AI is going to save the world. Do you agree with the Singularitarian
argument?
<quote>
> I don't understand why the development of molecular
> nanotechnology will mean the inevitable destruction of
> all things everywhere (on earth, at least), or why the
> development of smarter-than-human intelligence will
> somehow avoid this disaster.
>
> Could someone explain this to me? Be gentle, I'm not a
> full fledged singulatarian yet (still slowly climbing
> the shock ladder).
Because by far the simplest and most commercially attractive application
of
molecular nanotechnology is computers so ridiculously powerful that not
even
AI researchers could fail to create AI upon them. Brute-forced AI is
not
likely to be Friendly AI. Hence the end of the world.
Grey goo or even military nanotechnology is probably just a distraction
from
this much simpler, commercially attractive, and technologically
available
extinction scenario.
Developing AI first won't necessarily avoid exactly the same
catastrophe.
Developing Friendly AI first presumably would.
<end quote>
[rhinoceros] I am sceptical. Friendliness, enmity and indifference are
traits the interplay of which is part of intelligence.
There are also technicalities which I don't understand. I haven't seen
anything resembling general intelligence worth talking about in the
current AI research, but I understand that molecular nanotechnology is
what is supposed to make it possible.
But then, what is the creator of a "Friendly AI" algorithm supposed to
do, standing there and holding a storage unit with the Friendliness
program in it? Should he unleash a self-replicating nanoswarm first,
equipped with sensors, actuators and knowledge of all kinds of computer
systems, to carry the Friendliness program upon all official,
commercial, or rogue research centers? Hmm... why not? Actually, I can
see that more than one Friendlines researchers will want to give it a
try, each using *the right* Friendliness algorithm, which will make
things even more interesting...
Sorry for scaring your children ;-)
By the way, what I described in my scenario is called Blue Goo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
Other varieties
-------------------
Grey goo has several whimsical cousins, differentiated by their colors
and raisons d'être. Most of these are not as commonly referred to as
grey goo, however, and the definitions are informal:
* Golden Goo is the backfiring of a get-rich-quick scheme to assemble
gold or other economically valuable substance.
* Black Goo (or Red Goo) is goo unleashed intentionally by terrorists, a
doomsday weapon, or a private individual who wishes to commit suicide
with a bang.
* Khaki Goo is goo intended by the military to wipe out somebody else's
continent, planet, etc.
* Blue Goo is goo deliberately released in order to stop some other type
of grey goo. It might well be the only solution to such a disaster, and
would hopefully be better controlled than the original goo.
* Pink Goo is mankind. It replicates relatively slowly, but some people
think it will nevertheless fill any amount of space given enough time.
In the pink goo worldview the spread of humanity is a catastrophe and
space exploration opens up the possibility of the entire galaxy or the
universe getting filled up with Pink Goo - the ultimate crime, something
to be stopped at any cost.
* Green Goo is goo deliberately released, for example by ecoterrorists,
in order to stop the spread of Pink Goo, either by sterilization or
simply by digesting the pink goo. Some form of this, along with an
antidote available to the selected few, has been suggested as a strategy
for achieving zero population growth. The term originates from the
science fiction classic, Soylent Green.
----
This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2005 board on Church
of Virus BBS.
<http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=65;action=display;thre
adid=32872>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re: virus: Globalization and its Discontents
« Reply #1 on: 2005-06-27 14:03:49 » |
|
> Globalization is something quite different than those things - so much
> so that large parts of the world are in extended trench warfare to
> prevent its spread. The French and Dutch rejection (fittingly by popular
> referendum) of the new proposed European constitution is just one
> engagement in that war. Tony Blair's cancellation of the referendum in
> Britain signifies his certainty it would have lost there, too.
Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect one hundred pounds.
The problem with this is that it lumps a number of different things
together. French concerns with the EU being used to promote a 'liberal
Europe' certainly do relate to concerns over free trade, particularly
with reference to lower-cost Eastern European states undermining
French commerce (with an additional pinch of racism over Turkey). On
the other hand, the British are concerned with an entirely opposed set
of objections; those of the EU being used to promote a 'social Europe'
that regulates and impedes business (what might be called 'taming
capitalism' in Europe). These are certainly objections of a sort to
globalisation but of very different kinds; I find it rather odd that
opponents of globalisation seem to find it difficult to take differing
cultural and regional variations into account.
> The most widely publicized cracks, as already stated, have been caused
> by the French and Dutch rejection of the proposed new (neo-liberal)
> constitution for the European Union and the Tony Blair cancellation of
> the U.K. referendum on the issue.
In practice, the EU is a muddy compromise between state protection for
industries and free trade within the Union. The constitution has
little specific within it that favours any particular economic model;
any clauses within it relating to economic affairs typically date back
to the treaty of Rome.
> Less noticeably perhaps, but equally as important is the strength of the
> Venezuelan (Hugo Chavez) rejection of U.S. domination and the insistence
> that oil revenues there must be shared by the people. In Venezuela U.S.
> representatives were caught celebrating the four-day Rightest coup that
> began by dissolving the Venezuelan Parliament and the Supreme court
> before Chavez returned, carried by the overwhelming support of
> Venezuelans.
Hmm, it's not difficult to find examples of peoples expressing
preference for social cohesion, equality and solidarity rather than
economic opportunity and liberalisation. India would be one example,
as would France. Iran points to a quite different one; such arguments
are also quite popular in Zimbabwee (though with less of a mandate).
Caution might be advisable when making generalisations between these.
Incidentally, I'm far from sure I accept the rather romantic image
painted of Chavez here.
> Cracks are appearing. China has decided to sue the U.S. in the World
> Trade Organization because of U.S. restrictions on Chinese textile
> imports.
I don't think it's any great revelation that Western states have been
rather more enthused about opening up foreign markets rather than
their own. The EU is as good at this as the US. But this is surely one
aspect of globalisation; the movement of employment from Western
states to countries like India and China, typically within high-tech
industries. I don't think mapping the politics of colonialism onto the
economics of globalisation entirely works.
> But all must be seen in terms of the power of empires. Even though
> history has been speeding up, the likelihood of the U.S.A. collapsing
> its imperial role and adopting a balanced and wise policy in the world
> anytime soon is hard to imagine.
Hmm, is it? To address the imperial issue, I'm not sure the 'American
Empire' is on especially firm foundations at present. Equally,
outsourcing was a significant issue in the last US election; as China
becomes more of a significant power I would expect protectionism to
feature more prominently on national agendas.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
