“It’s inevitable”!

Give me a break, pleeaase!

The world is full of possibilities and we need to think of some – quickly!

- Avg Joe

“The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries. The whole globe…has become one economic workshop, the different parts of which are inseparably connected with each other. This work was accomplished by capitalism. …
[...]
The nation must continue to exist as a cultural, ideologic and psychological fact, but its economic foundation has been pulled from under its feet.” (Leon Trotsky, The War and the International, 1914)

Nevertheless, the interwar years did see substantial seperation of the ‘inseperable’, with a new wave of globalization (and new organizational forms) taking shape from the late 1950s but, more recently, becoming stressed by its own success.

Or, the interpenetrating of formerly national economies through the agency of not-national capital also generates international, national, subnational tensions which can manifest as heightened nationalism(s) and, potentially, the ending of this phase of globalization.

But I’ll bite.

I think Duncan’s comments “explain water to fish” accurately summarizes this books objective. There’s something in the industry called “vanity publishing”. This books seems to reek of this.

Likewise, it is also necessary to draw a distinction between high culture and low (popular) culture.

As to culture: High culture in the United States is very diverse. For instance, one can go to museums in just about any major city in the U.S. and see superb collections from all points of the globe. However, U.S. popular culture is very parochial. How many American teenagers are familiar with Thalia or Shakira?

Conversely, in Mexico (where I live) there is great diversity in popular culture. Besides knowing the Latin pop singers like Thalia and Shakira, every teenager intimately knows the music of Madona and Britney. Just let me add that, for a latin singer to crossover to the U.S. market, like Ricky Martin, he has to anglosize his music.

High culture in Mexico tends to be very parochial and insular. You cannot go to a major museum in any Mexican city and see anything but Mexican. The director of Latin American art at a major U.S. museum told me a story of a bequest from the Gellman Collection that gives some insight. Gellman allowed a choice between a superb collection of 20th-century European modernists or an equally superb collection of 20th-century Mexican modernists. My museum director friend bemoans the fact that they chose the Mexican collection, “as if they really needed more Mexican art,” he said–and thus deprived the Mexican people of being able to get a glimpse of the 20th-century European greats.

As to the economy: Where you see “globalization,” from a Latin American perspective I don’t see anything but economic imperalism.

I don’t want to run on too long, but just let me cite a couple of links:
http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Labours_Platform_for/709

http://www.summit-americas.org/Documents%20for%20Argentina%20Summit%202005/IV%20Summit/Discursos/Discurso%20del%20presidente%20de%20la%20República%20Argentina.pdf

To give some flavor of Kirchner’s speech to those who don’t speak Spanish, I will translate a passage:

“Today, what is denied to Argentina are not funds or new loans that we have not solicited and that, obviously, we haven’t thought to do so; it is something worse, the denial of refinancing if we do not accept conditions that are none other than the same policies that drove us into default. For Argentina that was running towards the abyss, there were help and fresh funds; for Argentina that with effort and lonliness recovered, there is no refinancing. This situation merits that Garcia Marquez dedicate some paragraphs of his ‘magic realism.’ “

As Kirchner points out, while the imposition of neo-liberalism may have brought about some growth in the economy, the “recommended or imposed objective to minimize the role of the governments” results in a growth in poverty and a more unequal distribution of income.

Let me give an example of what Kirchner is talking about. Here in Mexico the government sold the national telephone company to group headed up by Carlos Slim. Slim paid top price for Telmex, but for that he also received what is in effect a 15-year monopoly for telephone services in Mexico. The prices he charges have moderated somewhat–still not like in the U.S., but better–but for a long time we paid 5 or 6 times for telephone services what you paid in the U.S. As a result, Carlos Slim is now one of the three wealthiest men in the world. To put this in perspective, Slim’s wealth is equivalent to 14% of Mexico’s GNP. Bill Gates’ is equivialent to less than .5 of one percent of the GNP of the United States.

Maybe, the reflexive cry of “oppression” (or, “Free Markets!”) in response to the inevitability of “Globalization” is simply an unwitting participation in an even broader network…a broader network that describes Globlization in terms of a “good node” or a “bad node”.

Based on the post (since I haven’t read the book), it seems like Grewal is trying to explain water to a fish.

Why is it that people tend to think of Globalization as if it’s a relatively modern phenomenon? [By "modern"----w/in 500 years.]

A globe is a sphere, and humans have been pushing for sphere expansion since the advent of the dot.

The narcissism reveals itself by considering the sphere expansion to be a modern dilemma unto its own. Globalization is the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics. It’s entropy. It’s not a network.

And where does Cowan come off stating that “ways of thinking are now much more diverse within countries and in fact within the world as a whole”? Ask a person where he stands on abortion. If he’s against it, it is wildly improbable that he’s also against gun control, and for capital punishment, etc., etc. This is not diverse thinking. It’s one of two tracks…established by….you guessed it—The Network…aka The Dreaded Hegemon. [Just say it Mr. Grewal.]

And finally: Grewal calls for “a reassertion of democratic sovereignty to counter the unintended (and undesired) consequences of network choices”….What in the hell does that even mean?

I’m going to read the book (which would have been helpful before spewing these opinions), but I hope it’s not filled with this kind of abstract drivel…”reassertion of democratic sovereignty…” Gimme a break.