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

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: If we define dictatorship as a commodification or a privatization, then yes. Economic globalization does not have to look the way that it does today. To merge economics with democracy as a very dangerous and sensitive thing, what does ecological impacts of this globalization have? And what does the economic globalization really promote? It’s a very sensitive thing because of what has been invested, rather than democracy being the goal as a control of capital; A consolidation of the wealth from the many to the few. We say that we are in Iraq to promote democracy. We have ousted the rule of a dictatorship. The country is an occupation. It could be seen as an occupied territory of the US, where the invested interest of the US corporations that will profit from the war. The country has no means to rebuild itself. A loan from the World Bank from the US will have to be spent and all its moneys, in a loan will result in more of their commons being controlled. We are talking about the oil, water, the roads, the power, the education privatized, they rebuild the new world order laws. And today’s democracy promotes economical globalization that is controlling and privatizing that which is, should be common to all.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: The answer to this question is neither nor. Economic globalization can create opportunities that can really help in some countries to consolidate democratic values. But it also can create situation where we’re not prepared and it brings dictatorship as a way to force business powers to take over societies. So to promote democracy in a area of economic globalization, we need to reduce social tensions over the use and access of natural resources. Business leaders can be corrupt, and promote dictatorship to insure their profit. So, when people - need to watch and really have a more active role in - given responsibilities to these forces that are acting in their society.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz: Economic globalization in itself can promote anything and it does not depend on what we create, it depends on how we use it, so that economic globalization can be very positive for many people who are marginalized. It can also be used to strengthen governments, both for positive and negative ways. So in the end, it is not economic globalization that promotes or destroys. It is how it is used and by whom and in what value system it is placed. That is what's important.

by Beverly Schwartz

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Bill Joy: I think in the short term globalization tends to enhance and concentrate power so that companies which can thereby operate in more areas of the world get access to the cheapest labor, the cheapest resources at scale can consolidate their economic power and the governments which then interacting with those companies using those economic forces can concentrate their political power. So in the short term globalization works I think as a strong force enhancing existing power structures. In the long run globalization though makes information available, makes people more aware, creates trade so that people meeting more people, becoming more aware of the rest of the world can desire the kind of openness and democratic values that are transmitted by the global cultures. So in the long run that kind of freedom of information and freedom of ideas moving through the globalized channels should serve to promote the interests of democracy and universal human values.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Bora Cosic: Just like every dictatorship uses democracy for its own interests, as constitution of it's govern, similarly dictators (rulers) can make use of globalization to maintain there lordship. Maybe sometime globalization will serve democratic forces, sense it is about: unifying many fragmented constituents, better organization of the live, etc.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Brian J. Weller: So, this is a mind map of the first theme, reinventing economics, and let’s look at globalization, democracy or dictatorship. In a way what we’ve done, we’ve globalized knowledge. We’ve globalized human values. We’ve also globalized the real aspirations for democracy. In a way, you could say that corporations have in a sense taken the idea of globalization and produced an homogenization, almost a sameness throughout the world. This is a real challenge because it can lead to almost like an economic dictatorship. So in some respects globalization is a trend. I believe that the world needs to reverse. Stateless corporations have given rise in a sense to corporate states where unfettered trade and investment rather than promoting prosperity and democracy lead to resource depletion, over-consumption and the loss of local and accountable democracy. You can see the effects of this in the global big box corporations. So globalization certainly, I believe, is challenging democracy and in my view we need to return to the local. We need to return to economic localization; return to our sense of place. So, I think there’s a real challenge for us today and it’s a story that we need to tell. This idea that globalization is the saving of mankind I believe is a very erroneous idea. It’s something that we need to challenge.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Catherine David: Both. (This is true. Some questions are so simple that… Globalization is not essential. For this reason, we should probably start and develop because it is extremely naive. Globalisation is not essential; it is not a divine intervention. So, forcefully it is associated to the current phenomenons. I started to look but I have become so furious and worried that I said to myself, I should not look to much because it will hinder me to sleep. It is very naive but I think that one should hold on to other questions that are close to your heart and for which you have a minimum of …)

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: I think it promotes democracy in a way because the more people have something to eat, the more people don't go hungry to bed. Then they have time to learn other knowledge and challenge their leaders, but without this opportunity that means that people will not send their children to school, only the people will concentrate more on finding everyday food, destroy the forest, because they use them to cook, for example. And the homes will be destroyed. People will be prevented from thinking. People will be prevented from being advanced if there is no globalization in countries like Africa, Asia, where they're still poor. You find that it's very difficult because every family, every woman and every man have to find ways of helping their children and then you find that even diseases which could be cured are killing people. I think with globalization it's important for everybody, but also we shouldn't misused globalization. I think everything shouldn't be misused.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Well, first we have to call in the question the myth of there being some monolithic globalization. There is corporate globalization from above and there is democratic or people’s globalization from below. So, when we talk about corporate globalization, we are talking about the chasing of profit, pursuit of markets in order to reinforce the kind of class hierarchies that make it difficult for working peoples to have their voices heard in shaping their destinies. The democratic globalization from below has various kinds of connections: NGO’s, people’s organizations, trade unions, community groups across national boundaries that are trying to shape the globe in the interest of those, the great Franz Fanon called the wretched of the earth. The clash between corporate globalization and democratic globalization is such that we must acknowledge both the effects of people’s organizations as counter voices against the powerful and dominant effects of corporate globalization in the end driven by multinational corporations. One of the reasons why we are here is to keep track of the night side of corporate globalization and to promote, highlight, affirm, support democratic globalization from below. Dictators, dictatorial elite can go hand in hand with corporate globalization, and there are democratic elites can go hand in hand with corporate globalization. Democratic globalization always causing the question, any dictatorial rule, because what sits at the center of democratic globalization is the answerability and accountability of institution to everyday people.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: The issue here is for what and for whom is this globalization. In actual scenario, globalization benefits those who are in power. When we are going to analyze, it is always disadvantageous to the Third World countries, and, therefore, in one way or another globalization promotes economic dictatorship by the world powers. So, therefore, I think in the perspective of indigenous people, there is a need to really see and look at what's behind globalization and perhaps redefine it in a manner that it will not only benefit the global powers, but it will benefit local and indigenous communities down on the ground. So, in the perspective of indigenous people, globalization in one way or another promotes dictatorship by the superpowers at the moment. So, I think as an indigenous peoples’ representative, this is the thing that we should tell to the world, especially those who are in power to more or less consider a globalization that would benefit both people in the First World countries, in the Third World countries, in the Second World countries, and especially indigenous people.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Yes, Mr. Dubois. I feel that it does both. I think that there are places where actually the globalization has been very politic. It has brought in kind of a belief in the future and people have felt that they have more power to decide over their lives because the globalization has brought new opportunities in many countries where new things happen. Businesses are opened and people believe in the future and these places, I can say India is one of those places, that I am impressed by how globalization affected India as a society. But then I also feel that there are countries, which actually has gone the other way, where dictators have strengthened their positions through these kinds of foreign investments in this country, which is part of this globalization process. I feel that the globalization itself has no aim in promoting democracy or dictatorship. I think right now globalization is very economically oriented and it’s basically the big part of the globalization is how to make money in different ways in different countries in the world. So, in countries where there is a basis for democracy, it just goes forward by promoting democracy and places which are already a dictatorship, it actually strengthened it. It feels like. So, again I think the solution is in kind of global agreements of what are the rules which we play under.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: Globalization should be seen from the view of the oppressed rather than of the opressor. Globalization was not made for classes in disadvantage who are given the possibility to say what they need. We observed that all concepts are made of already presupposed concepts which are in relation to the conventional. Globalization, for example, for indigenous people – to whom I belong - this globalization does not meet the necessities of those indigenous people. It’s a globalization for people who already have, who already possess something. For those who do not have, we do not believe that it is going to be a democratic process but one of dictatorship, because it imposes a world without knowing what’s best for indigenous people, for example.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: I don’t think that globalization per se either promotes democracy or consolidates dictatorship. Dictatorship is always dependent on a willful ignorance of people outside of the dictator state. Either the creation of them as enemies or the blocking of any news from outside, so that globalization in theory because it’s creating this tremendous intercommunication in the world, it seems to me that it has the possibility of being a force against dictatorship. Whether globalization is completely controlled by market forces, then it will – I guess globalization is completely controlled by market forces and then has the effect of whether it’s producing democracy or not. But, in theory, I think that a coming together of the peoples of the Earth has a potential of democracy in a way much more than a potential for dictatorship. Dictatorship always is a refusal to hear the other voices.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: The question of economic globalization whether it promotes democracy or consolidates dictatorship is of course a very big one in the world today. I’m an evolution biologist and I look at globalization in a much broader perspective than only in terms of its economics. And in order to talk about the economic globalization, I have to look at that bigger picture. What I believe globalization is really about, is about forming global family, moving out of what I call juvenile species mode of hostile competition and into a more mature mode of cooperation. This has happened to many species all through evolution, and it’s our turn now as humans to do this. And when I look at the broader picture of globalization, I see that cooperation is already happening in many ways. We have money systems that are interchangeable across all languages and cultures. We can use our Visa cards everywhere. We can travel anywhere in the world. Air traffic control is completely cooperative even for countries that are at war with each other. So, we have travel and money exchange and we have communications which went from one-to-one telephones to one-to-many broadcasting to now many-to-many conversations on the Internet, which are the in the direction of democracy or non-adversarial politics preferably. We have interface dialogs, more frequent world parliaments of religions, we have the UN, we have international treaties. So, we see cultural exchanges, international space stations, all of these things are in the direction of human cooperation at a global level. On the other hand, our economics are still way behind in the juvenile mode of hostile competition and that’s what we have to work on now to bring the economics of humanity into line with this process ultimately of forming global family.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 10:05:00 AM cite

Ervin Laszlo: It can do one or it can do the other. It kind of depends on what we are doing with it. Globalization is a process that’s happening, it can’t be reversed, it can’t be ignored. What it does for the time being is consolidates wealth and power. That is not dictatorship in the classical sense. That is certainly a consolidation of power and is far from being democratic.

by Ervin Laszlo