Job Discussion Forums

[thelmadatter]

I find it interesting that the folks who complain most about globalization complain about 2 things: 1) how the rich countries take so much money out of poor ones and 2) how the poor countries are sucking all the jobs away from the rich countries. Seems a bit odd to me.

I do agree that this issue really polarizes. And I do agree that globalization does change/threaten local cultures. But it is not just the cultures of poor people in developing countries. Look at the US. The culture of my country now is NOT what is was 100 years ago. Why? The major reason is immigration (a global phenomenon). Huge immigrant populations led to the need for a 'multi-cultural' viewpoint (it was either that or have everyone kill each other, which, if you saw "Gangs of New York," did happen). The American culture of George Washington, etc. is dead. It had to happen.

My point is cultures live grow change and even die because they are tied to the economic and social needs of a group at a given time. When these two change, a culture must change or die. Those who try to preserve a culture at all costs risk relagating a people to 'museum relic' status.

Globalization is forcing EVERYONE's culture to change/ threatening EVERYONE's culture (take your pick). If Mexico risks being overrun by foreign corporations, it is at least in part because the local corporations can't/won't change to make themselves compete. If the US/Canada are losing jobs to Mexico, it is because the culture there can't/won't adapt to Mexican competition.

[moonraven]

Water is one of those elements to which everyone on this planet should have access--and not pay through the nose to do so to CocaCola or anyone else. These comments, like most of Gringo's "arguments", have no factual content whatsoever--who said CocaCola was selling bottled purified water cheaper? They aren't. Depending on the size of the bottle, the CocaCola product costs 1 to 4 pesos more than the other "brands". Figure out the additional money spent over a year's time. At no point on this or any other thread have I indicated that indigenous people--or anyone else--should have to pay more for water--or anything else--and get a lower quality product. You didn't get it straight, Gringo. But then you didn't want to.

Thelmadatter, you wrote:

"My point is cultures live grow change and even die because they are tied to the economic and social needs of a group at a given time. When these two change, a culture must change or die. Those who try to preserve a culture at all costs risk relagating a people to 'museum relic' status."

Would you like to explain your point? What group calls the shots in your scenario--one within the culture that is facing change or extinction--or an outside group? Traditions, then--uses and customs, as they say here in Mexico--count for less than a hill of beans? One of the reasons that traditions are useful, and that an historical consciousness is critically necessary, is the reality that not all change--or "progress"--is always positive. When a society--national or global--suddenly finds itself in a box canyon or at a dead end (out of fossil fuels and no replacement fuels developed due to monopolization and greed; no drinkable water except in bottles in the warehouses of CocaCola, etc.) its only hope of survival may well depend on going back to traditional ways of living. If nobody knows those ways anymore, lots of luck....

This kind of thinking--that because a particular historical process is happening it is necessarily good and should be expanded-- is very dangerous. Given that logic, nobody should have tried to contain the spread of Fascism in the last century; it should have been recognized as the process of the time, the movement of the Spirit in History, in Hegelian terms. This kind of thinking--that if we CAN do it we SHOULD do it--leads to dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (despite the fact that J. Robert Oppenheimer--director of the Manhattan Project that developed the bomb said, when he saw the mushroom cloud go up over the sands of Trinity, New Mexico: "I have become Death!")

Might makes right is the "axiom" you are promoting here: globalization will occur because the companies jamming their products into every market CAN do that. To throw up one's hands and say, "What the heck--those national economies, those traditions, those languages, those PEOPLE just didn't get with it--and weren't worth a hill of beans anyway" is Social Darwinism of the most cynical stripe.

[thelmadatter]

Cynical? Maybe, but I prefer to consider myself a realist. I dont consider change to be necessarily good - or evil for that matter. It just is. Moonraven, you bring up a good point... when we run out of fossil fuels we all will have to change our cultures ... the US obsession with the automobile, for example. We all talk about how terrible it is but the reality is that we won't change it until it is absolutely necessary. However I think what is most likely to happen is that we will develop an alternative fuel source because reallly, it is easier to develop science than it is to develop and impliment social changes. Will that be good or bad? Probably both and/or neither - it just will be.

Your comment about fascism is interesting, too. But the forces I see changing and threatening cultures are not of this kind. Fascism (and communism as well) are/were changes that people planned and tried to impose on others, with no choice whatsoever (Neither the Nazi nor the Soviet Communist party was voted in). I suspect you see what Coca Cola et. al. does as the same thing. But the reality is that it is not. Al fin, every person decides whether or not to buy that Coke or Big Mac. Can it lead to a monopoly where there is no other choice? Sure, but not necessarily so. There are just too many other variables.

Back to my car example, politically, there has been attempts in the US to change our consumption of oil either through the rationale of "we must protect the environment" or " we need to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign (read Arab) oil" Neither of these pleas have changed anything. Witness SUV's. The only time when American driving habits changed substantially was in the 70's - why? OPEC crisis of 1973. THEN all of a sudden we bought smaller cars, really talked about conservation, etc. But as soon as the economic crisis passed, we went back to the old ways....

OK maybe Im rambling now - but the point I want to make here is that moral arguments ("should" vs "can") often fail in front of other forces. I think this is because there is not single moral that all we humans share except maybe one - bettering our own lives (however we define that).

[moonraven]

Just a couple of points--I have commented on this thread that no one has to drink sodas, but when CocaCola takes over the planet's water (a public resource and life necessity) to sell it back to folks (the most recent scandal on that being contraminated tap water they were bottling and selling in England), that's a different story.

Fascism definitely threatened cultures--especially Jewish and Gypsy cultures in Europe! Or do you believe, along with Mel Gibson's father, that the Holocaust never took place? Incidentally, the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy, although they had created mass popular movements before their electoral successes--WERE voted in.

Now, if I had had no historical awareness, I might have believed your statement, which is precisely why history and tradition are worth more than a hill of beans for me. The scariest aspects of most negative social changes is precisely that they WERE voted in--although obviously there are folks who believe that George W. Bush was NOT voted in, but imposed by the Supreme Court members appointed by his father....And afterwards, the consistent excuse for voting in negative changes is that the voters were ignorant, that they had been sold a bill of goods, that they didn't know what was producing that stinking smoke spewing out of those Auschwitz chimneys....

[MixtecaMike]

Hello again from the Original Poster.

The title of this post was an obvious attempt at provoking discussion and different viewpoints, it has succeeded!

When a certain poster took offense at everyone who dared to think differently and refused to accept my attempts to make peace I decided to bite my tongue and stay out. However...

"CocaCola takes over the planet's water..."

Get real, please, CocaCola sells Ciel which is one of many bottled water brands available here. It's cheaper than Perrier or Evian, and it's more expensive than "Agua Santa Maria" $10.50 for 19 liters. They will never own my local tap water, they will never own the water in the rivers (when there is any).

NOBODY is forcing Mexicans to drink products made by the CocaCola company, yes they persuade them via advertisements, but there are and will be alternatives. In cola drinks there is Pepsi and now BIG cola (yumm, delicious) and RC Cola and several otheres, in bottled water there are gaia knows how many alternatives.

People disagree with me all the time, I can accept that. People take the piss out of how I talk and what I say too, it sometimes bugs me but in general I can also accept that.

People who can't listen courteously to alternative (don't get upset, I mean differing) approaches to a topic forfeit their right to have their side of the topic heard with courtesy.

[moonraven]

As I mentioned earlier, one of the major concerns and poltical sticking points here in Latin America is precisely the privatization of water.

Mike, I have not been discourteous in my dealings with you. I have not made any racist comments about your ethnic origins (despite the fact that you have misappropriated "Mixteca" for your nom de guerre in this forum.) You, however, have made disparaging comments to me as an indigenous person ("stupid folk dances", for example), because I don't agree with you in regard to the glories and benefits of WalMart. Apparently you did not read yesterday's news, that a Chicago judge accepted the biggest class action suit ever to be litigated: it's against--yes, WalMart, on behalf of 1,200,000 women employees who have been discriminated against by the corporation.

Don't tell me to "get real"--try punching into the Yahoo search engine the subject, CocaCola and the planet's water--and read some of the approximately 5770 entries about abuses by the company--the most salient probably being the recent cases in southwest India. You are entitled to your opinions on whatever subject, but you might consider backing them up with some facts if you want to debate issues.

As for your comparison of Ciel with Perrier--a carbonated bottled water--not a garden variety drinking water, that is an invalid comparison, like comparing mayonnaise with caviar, as Perrier is clearly not part of the drinking water menu of folks forced to buy bottle purified water on minimum wage salaries or less here in Latin America because their tap water (when they HAVE running water in their houses--there are lots of folks who don't) is not drinkable. Then show me--with supporting FACTS--how CocaCola will never own your local tap water, or the water in the rivers.

[Gringo Greg]

The Moonie has struck again! We gotta love her, don't we. She embodies every female characteristic that we left the US/Australia/England/Wherever for. I sincerely thank you, Moonie, from the bottom of my heart.

You have attacked and alientaed every regular poster on this forum with your rubbish, but that is ok. I like skimming it, it is cool to pick out your ludicrious statements....

You talk about the poor, but then say Coca-Cola is taking over the water and forcing the poor people to pay high prices for it. I can't even follow most of the rubbish you post, please clear it up for us.

And what the heck with the privitization of tap water systems? Tell me what is so bad about it. In a public owned system in the third world, the poor have to pay a monthly fee based on usage, the water system is substandard and sub-potable. The fees paid go into the giant cesspool of the local government budget. I am sure you believe in the tooth fairy and that these politicians are saints, but most adults have figured out that they are CORRUPT and not to be trusted. So even now, so called public water systems are a bastion of corruption.

But, I just don't make silly comments. I can give you an example. In Olongapo City, Philippines, they previously had a public owned water system. The water tended to go off very often and the water delivered was never potable and never reliable and worse it was expensive. It was privatized and with the privatization came investment into infrastuructre to make the water cleaner. It now meets WHO standards, people do not need to buy bottled water, they can use the water right out of the tap. And now, the water system is reliable. How much do the people pay? Adjusted for inflation, they pay a little less now than they did before.

Cleaner water at a cheaper price. Again, Moonraven has proven her support for corruption and proven her disdain for the common person.

And just so you don't get all antsy over this, the same situation was repeated in Zamboanga City with equally great results.

Most people realize that public owned in the third world simply means owned by corrupt thieves, it is a logical jump that even my 5th grade students know. Why do the police officers who earn $150 a month drive Mercedes? How does the accountant at the local electrical office drive a BMW on his $500 a month salary? Maybe Moonie can make the jump in logic.

[thelmadatter]

As often happens in political discussions, logical fallacies occur. Sorry Moonraven, but when challenged on your viewpoints you tend to resort to scary words and dire predictions "fascism" and Coca-Cola wants to control the worlds water!

Attacking Mixteca Mike nick is pure ad hominem. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

This does not constitute intelligent debate. Although still quite tempting (must be adreniline or something) there really isnt anything to be gained by further discussion with you.

[moonraven]

Sorry if I rattled your cages, but you deserve to have them rattled for shooting off your keyboards without investigating anything. Everything I have said in regard to this thread is based on facts and information--not propaganda and wishful thinking. None of you has produced even the seed of a coherent argument for the validity of savage capitalism. And I doubt that you will, as there isn't one.

[delacosta]

Knowing that the other person is angry,
one who remains mindful and calm
acts for his own best interest
and for the other's interest, too.

Samyutta Nikaya I, 162

[moonraven]

RATTLING CAGES�the ad canum�er, hominum�argument

�Hah! Look at this photo on the Common Dreams site of Dick Cheney.� Raven points to a fuzzy full color image on the screen that looks to be, from where I am sitting, a mad dog.

Yikes, Rave! Looks like a rabies epidemic is blasting off. Who IS that mad dog, anyway?

�I just told you: Dick Cheney. Snarling the F-word at Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont. Cute guy, right?�

Hmmmm. What did Leahy do, hoist his leg on Cheney�s personal fire hydrant?

�Says here that Cheney was being asked about his manipulating spoils of war contracts for Halliburton.�

And that�s when he snarled out the F-word? Did he start barking, too?

�I don�t know. It doesn�t say anything here about barking. But it does say that Senator Leahy said he thought Cheney must have been having a bad day.�

You know, Rave, this would be very funny if the guy weren�t running the US government. And if he were not sending the troops into the Valley of Death to be slaughtered. Have you noticed that the body count in Iraq is incrementing geometrically now?

�Well, that�s what happens when you let a dog take control. Dogs are not popular with Arabs, you know. There�s not much difference between them and hyenas except domestication. And domestication doesn�t seem to have made dogs a better species. If anything, their worst characteristics: a pack mentality and blind loyalty to the master (in this case the Masters of War) have become dominant.�

Rave, is their a point in there someplace? Or is this an arcanely knitted confection designed to show that Huntington was wrong in his racist analysis of cultures clashing�that is to say the clash of religions between Muslims and Christians�and that it�s really about Arabs hating dogs?

�I�m looking for the point. Just got distracted for a minute looking at Cheney�s crooked teeth. The point is that dogs have been bred not to look at facts or information, just to accept propaganda from their owners and gang up with other dogs to enforce it. Cheney, in this case, apparently sees himself as the Alpha Dog, and hence his outburst of scatology in the Senate. Leahy rattled his cage, and Cheney, like any conditioned Pavlovian, drooled out the controversial cussword.�

And Ravens don�t pull those capers?

�Of course not. We are the independent shapeshifting tricksters of the animal kingdom. We just move on to another level of consciousness.�

Raven turns off the computer, flaps his wings 3 times and flies into the closed window.

Poor modest little guy. He will return to one of his levels of consciousness soon.

[lozwich]

Ok. I've tried really hard not to say anything derogatory about anyone in this and various other flame wars that keep being started in this forum. But enough is enough.

Sometimes there's just no point in telling someone to be quiet is there? Because they just don't listen to any viewpoint other than their own. It must be so nice to be right all the time.

[Weona]

[thelmadatter]

Weona, you point out the need for me to clarify a couple of statements.

What I was thinking about with 2) about poor countries taking jobs from rich ones was NAFTA. A huge issue for the political right in the US is that with NAFTA, there would be a "giant sucking sound" (quote Ross Perot circa 1992) of jobs going to Mexico where the wages are lower. I am NOT saying that I agree with this statement. We agree on one thing, globalization does move at least some jobs to other places looking for cheaper/cheap labor. On the other side of the political spectrum, the battle cry against NAFTA was that it would lead to (more) economic explotation of Mexico.


Yes, both were sweeping generalizations, and both were the two extremes. My point was that I found it interesting that two sides that normally never agree on something both hate globalization. Politics makes strange bedfellows.


Second clarification. When I wrote about immigration, I had in my mind the great wave of European immigration to the Americas at the end of the 19th century and very early 20th. I grew up in NJ, near NYC. I alluded to NY by mentioning "Gangs of New York". I dont know where you got race mixed into this because the violence and turmoil featured in that movie was amonst whites/ Europeans (so-called "natives" (English/British descent) and Irish fleeing the potato famine). I realize that there were also Chinese and African Americans in New York at the time but the angst was not really race, it was being overrun by foreigners and losing power, quite frankly. Around that time, there was "serious, scientific" effort to prove that eastern and southern Europeans were physically inferior. Sound familiar?

In my mother's and grandmother's time, there was "racism" pointed at white people against other white people. My mother (German/Norwegian heritage) was not permitted to date a guy because he was Italian. My first boyfriend's mother's parents (Polish) never quite forgave her for marrying a "dirty Irishman" (their words). It is only in the mid-to-late 20th century that a large number of immigrants are not white. My point is that we human beings find all kinds of reasons to hate and fear others.

You assumed "white man's world" because it supports your point. Its easier to villify if you introduce the word "race" because that is the major bugaboo of this age. All one has to do is call another "racist" and all of a sudden we have a "good guy/bad guy scenario" and all arguments are moot.

My problem is trying to paint the world black and white (and that is not a racial statement!) - completely good and completely evil, us vs. them. Racism, ethnism, do this obviously but so do those who cannot have a political discussion without resorting to name-calling and hysteria. I think some there see only two sides 1) those who support globalization/major international corporations,imperialism and the overall oppression of the poor and minorites and 2) those against globalization, local peoples, diversity and humanity.

That extremism seems quite dangerous to me.

[Gringo Greg]

Hey Moonie, what is this about facts and information? I posted a personal story that I witnessed and expereinced with my own eyes. You post about what you read on some propaganda site on the web. Come on' give us some real facts, an eyewitness account, something to go on rather than just blindly posting about wrongs that your propaganda mongers tell you.

Come on, you didn't even address the corruption of politicians. I love it, Moonie. Everyone knows why you didn't respond. You didn't repsond because you are unable to respond to facts, you just ignore it when facts proving you wrong stare at you in the face.