Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas: The economic globalisation is a sort of system which intends to make people believe that there is democracy. But in reality democracy leads to the fact that the elite of the country, especially in developing countries like Latin America,and in general the higher classes of society have most of the economic power. There is les democracy but more dominion of the old powers. You could add that the economic globalisation destroys small and medium-size firms in developing countries. That means it produces millions and millions of unemployed people, people who are excluded from the global system. Globalisation doesn't attempt to promote the development of the firms, or the development of labour in our countries. It is rather an expansion of colonialism in the era of automatisation, in the era of science, industry and knowledge explosion of the twentyfirst century.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: In essence, I would say that economic globalization in first instance promotes democracy, of course, as long as the players in the economic globalization carry the democratic values. So, in essence, I would say that is the case. The point is to what extent does economic globalization really help the people. If we can really create open systems in which we together have the intention to create partnerships and help people to come into their power, and be really participants in the global economic system, then it can function. And, of course, we may sometimes hit walls because when companies come into new countries, they are faced with certain traditions, and of course in many situations, it needs time to adapt to the new products and services that are offered. So, I would say in essence, yes, it can promote democracy as long as the carriers are indeed representing also democratic systems within their own companies. As you can see, it needs some warming up and getting accustomed to the situation, but we come step by step more into flow hopefully.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: In theory the first one should be the case but in reality very often the second one happens and that is because behind globalization is not a common interest but very often big powers.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Globalization sound like a new word. From my understand, we are one family, one family, what we call human being, doesn’t exist another alternative. And, the conception of globalization is started by recognition that all the global, all in this universe, exist this family, one family, respect, tolerance, benevolence. Again, the word globalization came with a high tech, all for us to communicate each other in an easier way. But, the source of globalization should be and, I repeat, the understanding that we are a family. Of course, we enjoy it, and we enjoy it,and use for good purpose the high tech, that now they put in front of the eyes the meaning of globalization. If this produce democrats or dictator, well, again and again depends on us. And, allow me to repeat. In the moment we are reunited in this globalization as human being, this question we will not need it. It will be much more the meaning of dictator, no question about, and the meaning of democracy. And, well, it is not only in a state.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: Globalization for me is a concept that’s very fluid and really sometimes confusing, because when you talk about globalization, talk about standardizing some of the values, trying to extend or liberalize the economy. And in this case, this has also resulted in some countries becoming economic -- dominating the economy, the world economy as opposed to other countries, and the other countries will not be able to really be able to have strong economies. In this case, this will result in some form of international dictatorship by those countries that have got the economic power. And in this case, we cannot really say that’s democracy. In the same way if we are talking about globalization, that brings us to the issue of a global village. If there is going to be a global village, who is the chief of that village? Obviously in a village there is a chief, and in that case the chief becomes -- if he is not democratic, he becomes somehow a dictator. And in this case, we are having such cases in which some countries are becoming too powerful and they want to sort of make their values accepted by almost all countries. And in this case, globalization is compromising democracy. And in this case, this is some form of international dictatorship. Of course, in a way, it supports intra [inaudible]-country democracy. Is the values at international level, if they are going to be impressed within the country level, it means that maybe a country might be democratic in a way. But in the same time, the nation, the international world can dictate to nations and that will compromise its sovereignty.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: Economic globalization, does it promote democracy? It is possible to promote, but not often it makes it possible. The intent of globalization is to enabling the purpose of gaining profit. And therefore, the intent is profit, it does not often promote democracy, because it is driven by the desire to acquire more economic benefit for the companies that indulge in trading. Whether it consolidates dictatorship, it could, it could. It is possible that economic globalization makes it possible for democracy to exist but is it also possible that it doesn’t promote democracy.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: Economy is not interested in giving people what they need the most, they have different goals. Economy is interested in maximizing their profits. Therefore they are more likely to strengthen dictatorship, but it is a dictatorship, which is hardly visible to the individual. It is a dictatorship to which people submit voluntarily. The power of economy lies in taking possession of resources, which nature gives us, and using these resources to impose them on others in their own way. It is easier for economy to negotiate with elites, to agree on profitable market conditions and access to resources. In democratic states there is too much resistance to accomplish such economic enterprises. Democracy is more an obstacle than an advantage. People must learn how to defend themselves against being used in such a way. They do not realize that they submit voluntarily to these powers and that their consumption is not based on their needs but it is connected to the possibilities to sell products which can be produced in large quantities. It is essential to free ourselves from this kind of dictatorship. We have to think about how to make this visible. Because they are nearly never represented in public by persons. In governments we still see the people, don't we?

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: I don’t think economic globalization promote, consolidate, or dictatorship. I think it’s good for the democracy.

by Harry Wu

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Helena Norberg-Hodge: Economic globalization is about the deregulation, so called liberalization of global trade and finance, and it is leading to a consolidation of a commercial dictatorship. It's a dictatorship that is far more difficult to challenge, because it's invisible, it’s out of reach, it's mobile. And until recently, we weren’t allowed to discuss it, because the media is also controlled by large transnational corporations that are also gaining more power through this process of economic globalization. So, it’s very important to be aware that economic globalization is a very specific process, one that gives mobile corporations ever more freedom and power. It is not about bringing people together. It is not about international collaboration and dialog, something which we urgently need, but economic globalization is the specific process of giving more freedom of movement to transnational banks and businesses. This process is now accelerating, but at the same time there is a countervailing force of people’s global movement resisting this very destructive economic process. The dictatorship, that has been created and that is being created, is one that operates both by force and by seduction. I have seen myself around the world how three-year-old children from Tibet to Mongolia to Africa to South America have been made to feel that they are inferior because they don't look like, they don't speak like, the dominant stereotypes.

by Helena Norberg-Hodge

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Homero Aridjis: The economic globalization takes place on its own way unaffecting democracies or dictatorships.

by Homero Aridjis

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: If human rights are overruled by economic interests, which could be the fact if we have an economic globalization, then I think it could consolidate dictatorship. Yeah.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: As with everything, it can do both. It does do both. The violence of economic globalization has fomented revolutions. Activism has brought forward voices that up to that time had not been heard or seen. It's so devastating and so treacherous that voices have had to rise up against it. At the same time, what it has done is consolidate power within the hands of a few. So the thing is to get out from behind both those things and say what else can we do with it? How can we use this opportunity to undermine the power structures? How can we use this opportunity to see who else around the world is doing what we're doing or has answers to the questions that we've been struggling with forever? How do we create alliances? How does our work get fed by those around the world who have a different view of it? I think that in so much of our work we work in a little place that's isolated and now that we recognize that globalization economically exists, we can use that now to share information and use all our points of view to dissemble, to pull the ground out from underneath and, and also it's the only way that then we can work together, think of a strategy and yank the power that we've given these kind of economic powers and take it back for ourselves. The people take it back. What's great about it is that we're seeing an activism and a passion from the people that's arising. And what's horrible about it is not just the dictatorship, but the huge accumulation of power and wealth in the few.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

John Gage: Economic globalization describes a process, a process of broadening competition, global competition that enables those that produce to compete with quality, with price, with name, with reputation. At the fundamental bottom of the competition is the idea that those that produce can participate in a broad economic market, derive revenues globally, while in the past, they may have been able only to derive revenues locally, to derive an exposure to a much larger market they would not have been able to be exposed to in the past. But, globalization is simply a process, the outcome who benefits, who in fact is able to participate globally may offer support to those individuals in the poorest countries, those excluded, or it may in fact emphasize the power of the established, those that today have the economic resources, the capability to take what they have as inputs, as creative components, and generate something on a global market that can undercut local production. So, globalization, economic globalization, can either support the individual or support the aggregate powerful interests. It’s the method by which we live through this process. It’s the sense of community that we bring to this process that will determine the outcome. So, does economic globalization promote democracy or does economic globalization support the most concentrated forms of dominance, dictatorship? It supports both. How we determine which is most supported relies entirely upon our behavior in this world of ever-increasing ability to transfer knowledge, information, products and compete.

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: Economic organization at the level of a community can either be a means of promoting oppression or providing a better way of having goods and services delivered to people. It really depends on the other mitigating institutions. For example, in a country if economic organization allows for a disproportionate amount of unaccountable power in the hands of few people, then it will not lead to furthering of democracy. And I presume that the question is about democracy in the greater sense of meeting people's real needs and a means of expressing their real values. And a globalization is a driving force that provides the opportunity to globalize values, that can globalize values of the trivial, values of greed and selfishness. On the other hand, it can promote values of human rights, it can promote values of human unity. So economic globalization to the extent that it has the mitigating institutions that promote human rights, environmental responsibility, the rule of law, social justice, could create the enabling environment for greater human expression and democracy. On the other hand, it also creates the wherewithal for the greater exercise of oppression and dominance. So the question is not economic globalization alone, it is economic globalization with human rights, or economic globalization without social justice. It is the same principles that apply in a community. Economic organization can be a means of helping liberate people or a means of dominance. It really depends on wheher there is the principal of justice and human rights.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: There is no globalisation. Economy is economy. There is no connection between economy and political systems. That means: Neither democracy nor dictatorship is promoted (by economy), which is totally irrelevant anyway, because art will take over soon. We have to learn, accept and realise, that things are only themselves. Consequences of something does not exist. This are just theories afterwards, but actually it does not have anything to do with the matter that is going on. Things happen, as they happen - one has to wait - suppliantly - until that happens that has to occur. There are only the dictatorship of love and the tyranny of the art. This is really good because the art of tyranny will never harm us. It (the art of tyranny) loves us anyway because it does not want anything from us. It is as passive as we are, then everything will be solved with pleasure and a paradies of the circumstances will be the result. Let economy be economy - no more and no less. The world is looking us, we cannot consider it because we are not even able to acquire it. The word "global" is inexistent - it does not mean anything. The world happens at the tip of our nose. We are not able to see or to cognize more and so it is good. We have to submit to our central perspective - totally and absolutely. This is the most radical thing existing. Art is the most radical regime - full of love, humbleness and respect. We are not the central - we are not the scale.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: I don't think that economic globalization creates or doesn’t create democracy; people create democracy. What creates democracy is -- they are inevitable. Economic globalization is where we are heading. We are not turning back to local; it's going to be an increasingly larger and larger scale. I think while that could be seen as a negative because obviously it consolidates power in the hands of ever fewer corporations and that by itself is anti-democratic because one thing you can sure of, corporations by definition are not democracies. And the good news is it creates the future conditions for maybe deeper and surer democracy because democracy seems to me is only going to work ultimately if it includes everybody. And so, perhaps, this idea that now that we are going to create an economy that involves and engages the whole planet, perhaps eventually out of this movement is going to come a democracy that also engages and loves everybody on the planet. So, my answer is economic globalization, within it the seeds of hope. Right now, very scary, very big challenges. That's it.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: I think that economic globalization in fact promotes democracy in a way that it possibly allows a higher competition between different economies which would consider themselves in a disadvantage, if they were locked up and couldn’t respond to the mechanism of the market, in order that through the extension of the frameworks of global economy, not only economic but also democratic values are extended, what allows to a certain degree to expand an ideology of major participation. Nevertheless, globalization also has the negative effects of not being well designed, of not protecting itself consciously against certain negative side effects, which can lead to undesirable consequences, like e.g. in the case of Mexico, where globalization has provoked the arrival of foreign companies which have caused certain negative effects in many agricultural areas and therefore an enormous migration to the United States, without having a positive effect in other regions, especially in the north of the country, in order that it can’t be denied that globalization is a double-edged sword, let’s call it that way.

by José Manuel Prieto