nationalism vs globalism (was Re: "not national but supranationalpowers that rule"

[Otto]

It's not only nationalism vs globalism. This equation doesn't work in the
light of what is really going on.

> >
> > http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0720-01.htm
> > '[...] If it is not national but supranational powers that rule today's
> > globalization, however, we must recognize that this new order has no
> > democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nation-states
do:
> > no elections, no public forum for debate. [...]
>

Robert:
> So, the national representatives at the G8 summit weren't elected within
> their nation-states after due democratic process?
>

In the case of Mr. Bush and some rich Arabian nations this is at least a
little questionable.

> > The protesters take to the
> > streets because this is the form of expression available to them. The
lack
> > of other venues and social mechanisms is not their creation. [...]
>
Robert:
> So, there are no open media, freedom of speech and debate legislation, or
> regular public elections via which to criticise the global treaties being
> discussed and the democratically-elected governments which support such
> initiatives?
>

Don't forget the Orwellian treatment of speech in the mass media and of the
politicians.Truth is Lie. Therefor I prefer fiction like Pynchon, Gaddis or
Vonnegut (btw: have you downloaded the piece of "Slaughterhouse 5" from
mp3.com? It's really great). The idea that the anti-globalization movement
is really for globalization in a more true sense of the word is very
appealing to me.

> > The
> > protests themselves have become global movements and one of their
clearest
> > objectives is for the democratization of globalizing processes. It
should
> > not be called an antiglobalization movement. It is pro-globalization, or
> > rather an alternative globalization movement - one that seeks to
eliminate
> > inequalities between rich and poor and between the powerful and the
> > powerless, and to expand the possibilities of self-determination.[...]"
>

> Empty rhetoric. In global economic terms the last point contradicts the
rest
> of this passage. If the developed nation-states are allowed to continue
with
> "self-determination" of the levels of protectionist tariffs they impose
then
> the rift between rich and poor nations will continue to grow.
>

Sorry, I don't see it as that. The "self-determination" of the money isn't
on schedule of the G8-conferences. This protectionist debate is going on for
decades now and I see big differences on this between the developed
nation-states. What would it help the Third World if opening up the
protected European agrarean market would only make our farmers so poor that
they would have to ask for social benefits. The Third World countries have
to be protected. Simply pouring Manchester capitalism over them won't work.

We are desperately struggling to integrate 17 million East-Germans and their
run-down economy. The expansion of the European Union will require
additional money and cannot be delayed for reasons of political stability.
It will be the poor people, the unemployed, old and sick, the children in
the developed nations and the Third World that will have to pay in the end.
It has always been this way.

> best
>

Otto