Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think that the Globalization 2.0 is dead as the dodo.

I've been under the impression that this was the case for a while now, and I think that the appropriate reference isn't Keynes it's Polanyi.  It's about the market turning every into commodities and sucking the sacred out of life, and societies and people clutching for anything that offers even a passing hope of reconnecting with a world in which daily life operated on relations between people instead of have money being the universal medium of the human experience.

I think that economist and the political scientist of the current era need to through out the models of the post war world culminating in the economic takeover of the social sciences, and look back to look forward.

To look back to what happened the first time that globalization collapsed, and take the lessons from that time so that they don't have to be learned again.

Capitalism has to be tamed before it sucks the last bits of what's human, what has a soul, out of life.  Because when capitalism is allowed to turn life into a matter of so many units of utility, the resulting emptiness drives people to look for anything that can give their life meaning.  That can reconnect with the sacred and the human.  

The story of globalization has been that there are individuals and there is the sum total of all individuals everywhere.

But there is to be no such thing as society.  There is to be no connection between individuals that occurs outside the context of the market.


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 06:07:37 AM EST
ManfromMiddletown:
the resulting emptiness drives people to look for anything that can give their life meaning.  That can reconnect with the sacred and the human.

They can also reconnect with the passionate and for anything which gives them a sense of belonging and purpose.

This isn't always benign. For many people it can take the form of nationalism and war.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 06:55:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely.  

Look what happened the last time around.

Yet, all the same the capitalist crowd keeps telling us that the reason that the Nazis came to power wasn't because of the alienation produced by capitalism, but becuase capitalism hadn't gone far enough.......

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your sig has never been more apt. I was thinking of it as I posted a BBC news  item about a landmark ruling for Open Source over in the Salon.

"This opinion demonstrates a strong understanding of a basic economic principle of the internet; that even though money doesn't change hands, attribution is a valuable economic right in the information economy."


We all bleed the same color.
by budr on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 07:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that the Globalization 2.0 is dead as the dodo.

I agree.

My analysis, in case you didn't know, is:

Globalization 1.0 - Decentralised but Disconnected, with "market presence" being physical;

Globalization 2.0 - Centralised but Connected, with market presence through intermediaries;

Globalization 3.0 - Decentralised but Connected - with market presence being a "network presence".


But there is to be no such thing as society.

Nope. It's as our Conservative leader "Dave" said, contradicting Thatcher:

"There is such a thing as Society; but it is not the State".

There is to be no connection between individuals that occurs outside the context of the market.

Correct.

But "Peer to Peer" markets - without intermediaries extracting value, but with service providers adding value - will not be Markets as we know them, Jim.

Imagine a Market without Profit - because within a consensually agreed Partnership framework there is no Profit and No Loss.

Imagine a Market where it is in participants' interests to be transparent, and to cooperate, because they know that they will thereby create more value for themselves while also creating more for others.

A Pipe Dream?

I don't think so: I believe the basis of a new Globalization 3.0 is already emerging, because it is in fact "What Works", and those enterprises - whether "Public" = "State" or "Private" = conventional Corporate - who do not use these methods and frameworks are at a disadvantage to those who do.

When it comes down to it, I think the truth is that "Ethical is Optimal".

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know if Globalisation was ever decentralised - it was always directed from Imperial, Colonial, Neo-colonial or corporate centres.

And there were always intermediaries - be they traders, local puppet regimes doing their imperial master's bidding but also extracting "value", banks etc. - wherever there were large scale or remote transactions where it was not easy for parties with complementary interests to do direct business with each other and have that business guaranteed in some enforceable way.

That is perhaps what the internet HAS changed - the ability to cut out the middleman by enabling greater access to information and greater direct connectivity - although some kind of enforceable contract law is still required where these direct relationships break down.

There have also always been social/family/local relationships that were not mediated by money or zero sum calculations of self-interest.  These were generally on a smaller, less organised scale, and could be subordinated/destroyed by the use/abuse of power.  Thus Thatcher had to get rid of the unions because they were often based on social, political and ideological relationships and "distorted" the market.

However it could be argued that the EU is an attempt to express such relationships on a larger scale in an attempt to avoid total domination by the economic.  What is so corrosive about the US political culture is that even politics has been subverted by the primacy of the private profit motive.

It's time I got out of this game....

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 08:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Great Transformation of which Polyani wrote, for most traditional societies to which it has come through the mechanism of 'a market based international economy,' has been the sort of transformation which occurs when a tree is cut down, sawed into pieces and run through a chipper/shredder. A dying organism goes in; small, relatively uniform chips come out.  Those chips may then serve as labor units and provide a small measure of consumption in the context of a new cold, dead world view which is provided in place of what has been shredded.  

Small wonder that people do not appreciate the "benefits" of the "global economy."  The "beneficiaries" are now cultural orphans, bereft of the social context within which they can even understand their world.  Should we be surprised at simmering rage amongst these "beneficiaries?"  Or should we be more surprised at how "normal" this seems to most of us, a few generations after our own "transformations?"  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series