Ideology (was Re: Profit and Loss)

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Sweet" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Ideology (was Re: Profit and Loss)


>
>
> Mike Weaver wrote:
> >
> > For those who regard globalization as a myth and feel confident that the
> > U.S. government is a supporter of democracy around the world, I
recommend
> > Promoting Polyarchy (Cambridge 1996) by William Robinson. He shows that
the
> > policy change by the U.S. from supporting dictatorships to promoting
> > electoral democracy was designed to retain the elite-based and
undemocratic
> > status quo rather than to encourage mass aspirations for
democratization.
>
> I regard "globalization" as a myth. Thus far, not a single
> poster here has come up with any facts to refute the facts I
> have provided that prove "globalization" does not exist.
> Regionalization we have. You mentioned the famines at the
> turn of the last century. Why does the author turn to the
> famines that occurred around 1900 to make claims that free
> trade is not good policy? Isn't it because free trade, trade
> was higher in 1900 then it is today? Isn't it because
> markets were more open then? If there was more trade then
> why are we now talking about this new "globalization" thing.
> Trade is down, not up. Of course there is always an economic
> aspect to famine, but to try to claim that famine was caused
> by free trade and that free trade in the 21st century will
> also cause famine is an argument that can't be supported.
>

I think you have to take "globalisation", when spoken of by both sides of
this debate, as something being awaited.  It isn't here yet, so perhaps it
is "a myth" at this stage, or a fantasy.  You appear to be insisting that
the fantasy has to be a present reality before you can speak of it.  If it
were a reality now, summits and agreements like FTAA would have already
happened; everything would be settled; the rules would be in place and the
borders open.  But were are several steps along the route: the internet, the
advances in free trade that have already taken place, the re-structuring of
national economies, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not, along World
Bank/IMF guidelines, are only a few examples.  All of these things open
borders, prepare the way in some form or another.

I think you actually mean "the global economy".  Globalisation sounds like a
process to me; perhaps as yet it hasn't had the effect of increasing trade
to the U.S., but it is supposed to, isn't it?  If we are not to call this
process globalisation, perhaps we can find a noun that we all agree to?

Phil


>
> Also, those that support free trade do not necessarily feel
> confident that the  U.S. government is a supporter of
> democracy around the world. In fact I would argue that a
> position that calls for less trade and more isolation
> supports USA violations of  United Nation's resolutions and
> international law. If Iraq and Cuba, to name but two
> examples, were able to trade freely with the world and with
> the USA life would better for all involved.
>