Display:
So it's not that criminality doesn't exist as a concept. It's just that it's very selectively applied, and that being above some or all of the concepts of law and civilised behaviour marks you as a member of that set by definition.

That just sounds so medieval.  It seems to me that the whole of US history has been about unwinding that political and social hierarchy and making this "freedom" thing available to more and more people by dispersing power among them.

The reality, depressingly, is that there is always a push back by the few colluding against the many to consolidate power.  Globalization seems not to have introduced ideas of democracy to the world as much as it has introduced new methods of oppression to those who have power and want to keep it--without moral responsibility.

I wonder if globalization is one step forward and two steps back, or the reverse?

by jjellin on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 12:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with globalisation is that it has been all about economics - increasing corporate power - and absolutely not about politics - increasing the power of global political organisations.  Economic empowerment allied to political depowerment in the form of deregulation.  Thus the UN has to be undermined, the EU disembowelled, the US deregulated.

In some ways globalisation is also a misnomer.  It has only been acceptable when effectively an extension of the US empire.  Otherwise its Chinese workers stealing our jobs.


notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 12:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Very good points.  You've got me thinking now.  

Maybe Iran is but a first convulsion (and maybe not even the first) of globalization in the political dimension, which makes it much scarier for those in power, and much more significant historically.  I keep hearing people say that the protests there are already far beyond Mousavi and even the election itself.  What does that really mean?

by jjellin on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 12:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As Chris Cook has argued, its a struggle between the old guard and a "modernising" element in the Iranian elite.  One more amenable to globalisation than the other.

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 01:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact, the modernisers were in control of the reins of power (ie the oil complex), and have now lost it to the backwoodsmen.

But, as I argue in my article, these new guys do not have the technical expertise to run a modern economy, and I must say that even in the five years I have been going there Iran had made great strides in modernising (not all of the oil money was siphoned off).

The new people in control can typically be identified by PhDs (Iranians have inordinate respect for qualifications, particularly Western qualifications) from the Imam Khomeini University in "Strategic Studies" and the like. These are (allegedly) handed out if you get your name right on the title page.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 03:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series