Sep 21, 2006 12:08:34 AM cite

Neither ... nor! Essentially it creates more interdependence, which is good. One day it will be common knowledge that we are all dependent upon each other, that we form a whole, in which all are not happy if one suffers. That is the strategic positive value of globalisation in the long term. But the reason why I think "neither ... nor" is that it destabilizes in this present crude form each form of government. The rich ones get richer, the poor ones get poorer. The social tensions tend to increase. This fact may topple democracies as well as dictatorships. The reason for destabilisation or instability is the following: Income is today distributed according to work and jobs. However with the fast growing productivity of global industry the need for paid jobs will decrease despite growing output. Therefore total income tends to decrease with the reduction of jobs. This fact will be more and more aggravated by ever more men and women competing for a job. As a result the income paid for a job will according to market logic decrease. As a result of both effects, the total income available for consumption by the mass of people will go down even if the total income generated goes up. As a result we will experience one day in the future an economic depression of worldwide dimensions. What is needed in a society where productivity and production capability is higher than demand is another way to distribute income, i.e. to give out a basic income independent of work and job but according to the total wealth production of a country. This basic income then would allow a very simple basic life for everybody. The financing of this basic income would come from tax on consumption, tax on work-income would be abolished. Work-income as an "ad on" to the basic income would of course still exist. Work would then become a way of fulfillment and cease to be a slavery. In conclusion such a scheme would avoid the inherent instability of the present globalized economy. Probably mankind has to experience another big crash to become ready to adopt a radically different method of wealth/income distribution.

by Sirius

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Of course, globalisation as a process strengthens the dictatorship, because corrupt concerns and politicians work together. Yet this is a process which leads to a fact, that united…we come to such a time, when we have to settle differences in all organizational structures.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: .. first of all by a regular and gainful economy which is not embarrassed by any political or economical issue. If there were some obstacles like worker rights or general rights, economic globalization will remove these obstacles. I do not believe that economic globalization really cares generally for democracy, but it rather cares for getting a free space to play its rule freely. I also think economic globalization does not care for putting an end to dictatorships or helping weak people in the world. We can not connect the economic globalization with just a specific goal, because economic globalization is cleverer than being connected with just one aim.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Andries Botha: Economic globalization does not promote democracy. It sets up in my opinion very limited references of power, doesn't share that power, it affirms the few. Yet, I am not exactly sure whether a critique of that would be sufficient without offering some sort of observation about that we as a civic society cannot really resist the inevitable march of economy and its unequal distribution. Economic globalization in its very essence is about setting up markets, finding people -- cheap labor to supply the profit for those markets. And, there is very seldom a trickle down effect as most government policy makers would purport that there is or assume will happen.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: It is really fascinating to talk about democracy. As you know we have very little democracy anywhere on Earth. What democracy is supposed to be- free choice for being able to be governed by free choice. Meaning that I cannot promote myself to be better trustworthy than my next one. That’s what we do right now. For every election we do we push someone down. How can democracy be based on putting someone down? And then we talk about the economy. Economy is not really what it should be because right now the economy is based on who has more and competition, not a division of wealth. When you look at the world today you see the extremities of wealth to the extreme powerful. So the economic globalization has not lifted up the spirit of the people. We have never seen so many poor people today than we have had before. At the same time there has never been so much money available to the world. So things are not right. And when we don’t have the democracy and we’re trying to get rid of the dictatorship but we’re just replacing everything with the old stuff. Nothing new has come to the world or us. The economic globalization means very little to the citizens of the globe. And yes, of course, a country like Africa, continents like Africa who is the wealthiest continent has the poorest people on Earth. When you look at the kind of resources being extracted from this land and how little comes to the people you get astounded. So what did we do with the globalization? Nothing for the people.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: I think by economic globalization we need to be more precise and say capitalist globalization as that's the form of globalization that we've encountered and that we confront today is capitalist globalization. And the reality of capitalist globalization today is that actually is leading to concentration of power, concentration of state power, concentration of economic power in fewer and fewer hands. And rather than promoting democracy as its defenders claim, as its apologies claim, as its propagandists claim, the economic globalization of reform that we see today is actually consolidating power in a way that encourages dictatorship. Not just the dictatorship that we tend to think of, the dictatorship of individuals that overstates the dictatorships of leaders such as Saddam Hussein or the Saudi royal family with which the United States in particular has often had political, military and economic relationships. But also the kinds of dictatorship of capital; the kinds of dictatorship of economic interests over our lives, which are removing more and more decisions from democratic control; from participation of citizenry; from participation of people. And in particular we see this in the work place where more and more decisions are being removed from the involvement and the participation of working people, who are the people making the goods, providing the services that allow globalization to proceed. So we see increasingly a gap growing globally, not only an economic gap but a political gap, participatory gap between those overwhelming majority of people who work, who provide the labor that makes globalization succeed and the people who are reaping the benefits from it. Also, I think the question of dictatorship comes back just also to the question of military dictatorship, which is still a problem that we confront today.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Economic globalization promotes democracy because it has not [inaudible].

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Economic globalization or global corporatization has nothing to do with democracy; it is really about replacing governments which need to be of the people, by the people, for the people. But corporate governance, where again aspirations of people come second or actually don’t figure anywhere, when you look at the corporate interest, that the baseline. So, in terms of economic globalization that we hear is a solution towards poverty to bring democracy is nothing but a myth because we have yet to see that happen anywhere. If we look at the evidence that’s in, we do see increasing inequities. We do see corporations getting more and more power and taking over the power of the people. They have today more human rights compared to human beings themselves. If you think of Coca-Cola in India, where people right to water has been taken away, thanks to our corporation. So, when you look at this corporations, it becomes very very obvious that we live in a world where economic globalization is not the solution in terms of ending dictatorships, but it is actually about replacing and bringing in a new kind of dictatorship, which is corporate governance.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Ashok Gangadean: For me economic globalization reflects the consciousness from which it comes, from one of the great issues and dynamics on the planet, especially in terms of global wisdom and the wisdom of all of our great traditions that have taught us that if we’re in the egocentric way of being a human being our realities are shaped by those egocentric forces that our great traditions have taught us that when we mature as human beings out of that more limited fragmenting objectifying technology of consciousness of egocentric, egomental minding and enter into more integral and holistic and dialogic ways of using our consciousness in which we discover compassion and care and connectivity with others, with ourselves, and with our environment. We get two very different realities. So economic globalization from the egocentric consciousness will be one kind of phenomenon on the planet and that’s where really we see mostly, because our cultures continue to be dominated by egocentric, egomental patterns of thinking. And so capitalization and the spread of economic globalization from that point of view does promote and enhance this continuing of egocentric patterns and dynamics, and that form of consciousness in a way undermines true democracy. If democracy is power to the people wher the dignity of each individual’s paramount and the collective welfare of people are also equally important with individual welfare. That kind of democracy comes from deep dialogue from a pattern of connectivity in which human beings live together in equality and mutual care which is what ethics is about so that economic globalization understood from that integral, holistic, dialogic model, I call that logonomics rather than egonomics. Lognomics is a globalization that will take care of people and promote true democracy and overcome the dictatorship and other forms of tyranny and monocentric thinking that come with egocentric global economic forms. So, I think it really turns upon what is the consciousness.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Economic globalization as it has unfolded in recent history is really addressing the aspect of market fundamentalism as we have witnessed the increasing deregulation of global markets. The effect has been not the consolidation necessarily of dictatorships but rather the consolidation of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people while the majority of the people are not beneficiaries of this market fundamentalism. So I would say what we are witnessing is not so much the consolidation of dictatorships as a consolidation of wealth into few powerful hands, and we have not yet described these few powerful people who are very, extremely wealthy as dictators yet. So in any event, within our common understanding of what dictatorship is, I would say that we need to really understand market fundamentalism as promoting a disparity in the economic and wealth balance in the world.

by Audrey Kitagawa