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

[Paul Mackin]

Seems to me that Rob's answers to Doug's wild assertions were well
presented. I appreciate that he is willing to do this kind of service for
the p-list.  My own inclination most of the time is why bother to even
address such nonsensical ravings but such is a mistake and resorted to out
of laziness.  Otto's objections might be seen by some as laudable. It would
be better if the disparity between rich and poor were reducible to a greater
degree. The idea of democratically representative government is of course
only relative. Unfairness is going to remain in the world with or without
globalization and globaliztion talks. These circumstaces however do not take
away from  the validity of Rob's points.

                P.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Otto" <o.sell at telda.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: nationalism vs globalism (was Re: "not national but
supranationalpowers that rule"


> 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
>
>