I feel ashamed that I’ve ended up abandoning all of my ron paul anti-globalization roots… Although, truth be told Google +, the only way to “win over the hearts of the masses” and tell people they are in plato’s cave, is to get really good at playing the game. Even if you know its a lie. A day doesnt go by without heartache. All the terrible things that I’m constantly reading about (but not plussing), all of the ways Satan and his sons are taking over the world, and sin. Sin is striking terror into the hearts of many families… Who knows how much autism and cancer and alzheimers will get worse while clean water starts to trickle and we adapt IMF credits, who knows the horrible effect google, augmented reality,corning glass, and other things philip k dick and CG Jung predicted will have on our souls…
I almost want to tread where I’m not allowed to anymore. Thats all folks– enough emotional downcast Steven Wright in a Public Space.
I spent a few hours with the Austin Occupy City Hall movement today. Like much of the movement, most of the time of the meeting was spent with dealing with internal problems, such as sleeping arrangements, camping equipment such as tarps sheets and blankets, rules regarding excess clothes, powerwashers, first aid, food arrangements and other “incidents” that may have happened.
Very little time was spent penetrating the issues occupy stands for, as Pops the leader of the group said very poignantly “we’re homeless, we cant do much. our best hope is to possibly make an impact on an individual” he implied that what the group needed was patronage and financial support of the middle and upper class.
There was a well-rounded documentary film maker, he’s working on a project and we’ll see how it turns out. Otherwise, most of the occupiers more or less believe their best hope is getting people to read signs, become educated, and more informed “on the issues”. basically a liberal progressive means of rebellion. It reminded me of the scene from CHE when he’s camping in bolivia trying to start another revolution, this time a latin american one (in the hopes of emperor BOLIVAR) the revolutionaries find out that the communist party of bolivia does not support an armed struggle and cannot afford to pay their stipends. Most of the men quickly turn despairing “How will I take care of my family?” Most of the urban farmers could only fight the revolution on the terms that the communist party would still continue to support them, and once they found out they would be getting no help the movement quickly died.
What we need is something like the original 80 guys who conquered Cuba (only 12 survived to see it to the end) which simultaneously already works with existing movements but also has members that are completely self-sacrificial without any deep worldly attachments. If Occupy can create an international dialogue with those around the world who are also fighting their ruling classes, international bankers, and global power elite (india/syria/saudiarabia/yemen/libya/south africa/argentina/venezuela/spain/ [parts of the eurozone opposing neoliberal economic policies ]/ the french insurrection/london riots/anonymous/) it might go further than the battle of seattle, and other left leaning egatlitarian democratic movements againts globalization. If it continues to isolate itself, and have general meetings purely on interntal regulatory problems (problems that only deal with perpeuating occupy, not actually DOING a beligerent political action) it will continue to disolve, and will be used to constrain the debate in the future
“…well you saw what happened with OWS, do you really want another movement like that?”
Left/Right is defined typically in the terms best explained by Norbeto Bobbio
Left historically shows support for the ideas that social and political institutions are socially constructed with the power of human reason, and using workable schemes through reason equality can be achieved. Right historically have been more reluctant to reduce existing inequalities because they are part of the Natural Order. They are skeptical of the power of Reason to change, and they affirm the traditional and custom based derived natural order of power.
The Particularist-Protectionist Right
The economic nationalism of Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson and Ross Perot, embraces populism. Populism is defined as a political ideology that articulates anti-elitist positions involving some kind of exaltation of “the people” mixed with appeals to people’s “common sense” and “moral decency” Right wing populists such as Buchanan demonize transnational corporate elites while at the same time launching xenophobic attacks (a drawback of populism). Populism is often fueled by peoples legitimate grievances that dominate everyday life but links and deflect popular discontent away from positive social change by targeting only small sections of the elite or groups falsely identified with the elite”
Reform party emerged in the mid 1990s brainchild of Ross Perot, winning 19 percent of the national vote in 1992. Most famously Texan Billionare Perot opposed NAFTA convinced that is carried ‘the virus of globalization’. Buchanan inherited the remains of the Reform Party in the summer of 2000, suceeding ross perot as spokesperson of the anti-globalist right.
“Darwinian world of borderless economy, where sentiment is folly and the fittest alone survive. In the eyes of this rootless transnational elite, men and women are not family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, but ‘consumers’ and ‘factors of production'” – Patrick Buchanan
“greedy global mandarins who have severed the sacred ties of national allegiance head the council of foreign relations and the business roundtable. ‘their elitist conspiracy has eroded the power of the nation-state and replaeced it with a neoliberal new world order” – patrick buchanan
Although buchanan recieved only 1 percent national vote in the 2002 presidential election, variations of his message continue to resontate in a country where 78 percent of the population have not travelled to another country in the last 5 years, and 26 percent follow foreign news closely.
— this view has been moderately ill-represented in the anti-islamist movement even though it initially dealt with the influx of immigration and open borders
Gerhard Frey’s German Right-Wing Extremism
The DVU (deutsce volksunion) German People’s Union was founded in bovaria in 1971 as a right-wing umbrella group by Dr. Grehard Frey, a neofascist millionare publisher who has been providing most of the party’s funding.
“We adamantly oppose any cuts in social spending, and strongly resist the neoliberal agenda to turn Germany into a low-wage class society like Britain and the USA. An increasing number of people in these countries have to cope with “Third World”-style living conditions while a small minority of billionaires and multimillionaries are earning mre money than they could possibly spend. German Chancellor Schroder wants to introduce this perverse culture to Germany too. There is no way we will ever tolerate this” – DVU document
The document goes on to note that Germany, by itself, would not be powerful enough to stop the spread and influence of transnational corporate elites and bankers, and that a regional agency of “ordinary europeans” would have to be developed to co-operatively tackle the NEOLIBERAL UN IMF take over, but this european co-operative would look nothing operationally like the UN or EU.
United in their opposition to a neoliberal internationalism, sovereign european nations would voluntarily appeal to form an anti-imperialist blog against the further spread of American-style globalization. Moreover they would “actively support popular movements in many other countries of the world against so-called ‘globalization’ which is in fact an Americanization of the world” Similarly explicit antiglobalization statements are routinely inserted in NPD (national democratic party) promises to “build a new Germany out of the rubble of liberal capitalism”
Hugo Chave’z Bolivarian National Populism
After spending 20 fears fighting ultra-leftist guerillas, teaching sports and history at the military academy in Caracas Chavez ultimately came to the conclusion that the tradional Venezuelan party system was too corrupt to be reformed. Taking advantage of his new assignment as the commanding officer of a parachute regime Chavez attempted to overthrow the democratically elected President Carlos Andrez Perez. His attempt failed instantly, but when he appealed on television he made a strong enough support among his countrymen to be pardoned 2 years later by President Caldera.
Chavez still believed the electoral aspect of Venezuelan politics was too corrupt to run for president (with whats happened to Buchanan, Paul, Nader, and Perot its easy to see the electoral failings) but, when it became clear in 1998 that large segments of the population supported his national populism, he changed his mind. Assuming the leadership of Patriotic Pole, he embarked on a rigious electtion campaign. In 1998 he was elected with 56 percent of the vote and immediately issued a decree for a national referendum on the elections for a national constitutent assembly that would be gven the task of drafting a new constitution. This passed with 80 percent of the vote, and in july 30 2000 Chavez was elected a six year term as “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”
By the 1980’s Venezuela’s foreign debt had skyrocketed, giving the IMF the opportunity to link further loans to the implementation of a comprehensive economic program that included strong dregulation measures and drastic austerity budgets. The implementation of this neoliberal agenda led to significant price increases for basic goods and services, ultimately sparking large uban riots in 1989 and 1996, during which police forces and state troops killed thousands of protestors.
Throughout the 1990’s neoliberal globalization filled the coffers of Venezuela’s tiny wealthy elite, whereas the vast majority of citizens experienced a noticeable drop in their living standards, by the time Chavez campaigned for president nearly 80 percent of Venezuelans lived in poverty, unemployment held steady at almost 20 percent (with 50 pecent of workers languishing in the “informal economy”), and the violent crime rate had exploded to fifty murders per weekend in the capital city of Caracas.
Chavez’s political message took aim at two targets: Venezuela’s elitist and corrupted political system perpetuated by the established parties, and the “savage neoliberalism unleashed on the South by Northern globalist forces.”
Chavez believed that Latin America’s best bet was to form military and political alliances with nations in the Middle East and Asia in order to counterbalance the power of teh globalism most evident in teh U.S. Based “Jewish financial mafia”” ‘the only way to fight neoliberalism is to unite”. Chavez admitted his aim is nothing more than to realize the old dream of nineteenth century Bolivar, Gran Colombia. It would be an important foundation to challenge the etsbalishments of the united states and the european union.
Ralph Nader + Dennis kucinich
Ralph Nader from back in 1994
“Q: There must be firms or forces in society that you have decided now are more malignant than you thought 25 years ago, and companies on the other hand that actually have improved and are behaving better. There must have been some changes.
A: With the collapse of communism and with the absence of any alternative way of ordering private property and using public assets, we’re entering into a generation of global power of the multi-national corporations. There’s no society that’s able to withstand commercial western culture. Perhaps fundamentalism and Islam is trying to do it…. But that’s going to be the challenge now, whether democracy is going to be up to it. Whether these giant corporations are going to be able to respect instead of erode and control democratic processes and these new trade agreements like GATT and the World Trade Organization are not encouraging. ”
Dennis kucinich interview:
“Okay. Last question, you got, you really got me started thinking about globalization and you have opposed, I believe, globalization treaties as they stand. And I’ve grown to really feel that globalization is bad for America and bad for Third World countries. Where do you stand on globalization now?
Kucinich: Well, first of all, let’s take a broader perspective. I see human immunity as being an imperative. I see the world as being interconnected and interdependent. And then all of us are one. That we are one organic whole as people worldwide that transcends the nation-states, religion, culture.
There really is a spiritual unity and an organic unity much the same as Einstein promoted a unified field theory of the physical universe. There is the same kind of unity in the social universe. Now, the fact that trade organizations have developed are not necessarily a bad thing.
However, when the organizations were developed the intention of being able to lower wages, lower standards on human rights and worker’s rights, lower environmental- quality principles; that’s a problem. So the North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank all work together somewhat synchronously to lower standards of living, to increase corporate control over nations, to strip the wealth of nations and into the, towards massive privatization programs, to impose upon the people of the world the structural readjustments of lower wages, and lower benefits, and lower expectations, to bring about a measure of control of nation-states, which end up being antithetical to the organizing principles of those nations.
So do these international structures have to be that way? No. But they ended up that way because they’re leading the cause of international finance and international capitalism, which is essentially amoral and about maximizing profits at the expense of human values. ”
Intercontinental Network of Resistance
The inter-continental meeting in 1996 in the chiapas mountains featured over 5,000 attendants and was called upon by Subcommandte Marcos, the closing remarks speak for themselves
“But what next?
A new number in the useless enumeration of the numerous international orders?
A new scheme that calms and alleviates the anguish of having no solution?
A global program for world revolution?
A utopian theory so that it can maintain a prudent distance from the reality that anguishes us?
A scheme that assures each of us a position, a task, a title, and no work?
The echo goes, a reflected image of the possible and forgotten: the possibility and necessity of speaking and listening; not an echo that fades away, or a force that decreases after reaching its apogee . Let it be an echo that breaks barriers and re-echoes. Let it be an echo of our own smallness, of the local and particular, which reverberates in an echo of our own greatness, the intercontinental and galactic. An echo that recognises the existence of the other and does not overpower or attempt to silence it. An echo of this rebel voice transforming itself and renewing itself in other voices.
An echo that turns itself into many voices, into a network of voices that, before Power’s deafness, opts to speak to itself, knowing itself to be one and many. Let it be a network of voices that resist the war that the Power wages on them. A network of voices that not only speak, but also struggle and resist for humanity and against neoliberalism .
The world, with the many worlds that the world needs, continues. Humanity, recognising itself to be plural, different, inclusive, tolerant of itself, full of hope, continues. The human and rebel voice, consulted on the five continents in order to become a network of voices and of resistances, continues.”
Second Declaration of La Realidad (Reality) for Humanity Against Neoliberalism
Brothers and sisters of Africa, Asia, America, Europe, and Oceania:
Considering that we are:
Against the international order of death, against the globalization of war and armaments. Against dictatorships, against authoritarianism, against repression. Against the politics of economic liberalization, against hunger, against poverty, against robbery, against corruption. Against patriarchy, against xenophobia, against discrimination, against racism, against crime, against the destruction of the environment, against militarism. Against stupidity, against lies, against ignorance. Against slavery, against intolerance, against injustice, against marginalization, against forgetfulness. Against neoliberalism.
Considering that we are:
For the international order of hope, for a new, just, and dignified peace. For a new politics, for democracy, for political liberties. For justice, for life, and dignified work. For civil society, for full rights for women in every aspect, for the respect of elders, youth, and children, for the defense and protection of the environment. For intelligence, for culture, for education, for truth. For liberty, for tolerance, for inclusion, for having memory. For humanity.
First. That we will make a collective network of all our particular struggles and resistances. An intercontinental network of resistance against neoliberalism, an intercontinental network of resistance for humanity. This intercontinental network of resistance, recognizing differences and acknowledging similarities, will search to find itself with other resistances around the world. This intercontinental network of resistance will be the medium in which distinct resistances may support one another. This intercontinental network of resistance is not an organizing structure; it doesn’t have a central head or decision maker; it has no central command or hierarchies. We are the network, all of us who resist.
Second. That we will make a network of communication among all our struggles and resistances. An intercontinental network of alternative communication against neoliberalism, an intercontinental network of alternative communication for humanity. This intercontinental network of alternative communication will be the medium by which distinct resistances communicate with one another. This intercontinental network of alternative communication is not an organizing structure, nor has a central head or decision maker, nor does it have a central command or hierarchies. We are the network, all of us who speak and listen.
This we declare:
To speak and to listen for humanity and against neoliberalism. To resist and struggle for humanity and against neoliberalism. For the whole world: Democracy! Liberty! Justice! From whatever reality of whichever continent.
EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) La Realidad (Reality), Planet Earth, August 3, 1996
A documentation of what globalists will and have been saying, this is a statement from a Global Forum Fortune 500 by George David “We are at an optimistic time in our world: the barriers between nations are down, economic liberalism is decidedly afoot and proven to be sound, trade and investment are soaring, income disparities between nations are narrowing, and wealth generation globally is at record high levels, and I believe likely” – Why Critics of Globalization are Wrong by George David
The Rhetoric of Globalization made by pro-globalizers is as followers:
1. Globalization Is About the Liberalization and Global Integration of Markets (not an ideology)
“in other words the concrete outcomes of market interactions are neither intended nor forseen, but are the result of the workings of what Adam Smith famously called the ‘invisible happen'” yet Globalists usuaully convey the assertion that globalization is integration of markets in the form of moral imperatives “The concept of ‘free trade’ arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics”- George Bush
2. Globalization is Inveitable and Irrerversible
Despite the presupposition that the market is based on independent inter-subjective decisions of independent and individual rational actors within a liberally organized democratic society, it is still spoken of within a marxist hegelian determinism. By seeing globalization as the natural historical local of the universes organization principles, it is passively accepted yet actively pursued! President Clinton on US Foreign Policy “Today we must embrace the inexorable logic of globalization– that everything from the strength of our economy to the safety of our cities, to the health of our people, depends on events not only within our borders, but half way a world away”
3. Nobody is inCharge of Globalization
“The great beauty of globalization is that no one is in control. The great beauty of globalization is that it is not controlled by any individual, any government, any institution” – Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman sachs
The meetings, the groups, the foundations, that all work on spreading neoliberal principles and new world order principles have been deeply rooted in ancient history.
4. Globalization Benefits Everyone
g-7 summit of 1996, speaking in a jacobin spirit
“Economic growth and progress in today’s interdependent world is bound up with the process of globalization. Globalization provides great opportunities for the future, not only for our countries, but for all others too. Its many positive aspects include an unprecedented expansion of investment and trade; the opening up to international trade of the world’s most populous regions and opportunities for more developing countries to improve their standards of living; the increasingly rapid dissemination of information,technological innovation, and the proliferation of skilled jobs. These chracteristics of globalization have lead to a considerable expansion of wealth and prosperity in the world. Hence we are convinced that the process of globalization is a source of hope for the future”
5. Globalization Furthers the Spread of Democracy in The World
The globalist claim is anchored in the neoliberal assertion that freedom, free markets, free trade and democracy are synonmous terms. This focus on the act of voting– in which equality prevails only in the formal sense– helps to obscure the conditions of inequality reflected in existing asymmetrical power relations in society.
6. Globalization Requires War on Terror
Daniel Griswold, Associate Director of the Cato Institute (A Major DC5 Think Tank) “An essential part of any plan to establish freedom in Iraq should be a commitment to a free market and the instutions that support it, including a commitment to free trade… The technology dynamism, and openness for our own market helped us win this war; if spread to Iraq, could help us win the peace”
Robert Kaplan reminds his readers “The purpose of US power is not power itself; it is the fundamentally liberal purpose of sustaining the key characteristics of an orderly world. Those characteristics include basic political stability; the idea of liberty, pragmaticaly conceived; respect for property; economic freedom; and representative government. At this moment in time it is American power, and American Power only, that can serve as an organizing principle for the worldwide expansion of a liberal civil society” – The Hard Edge of American Values
“UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 12 (Xinhua) — Permanent Representatives of China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to the United Nations jointly sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon here Monday, requesting him to circulate the International Code of Conduct for Information Security as a formal UN document of the 66th session of the General Assembly.
The four ambassadors called on in the letter all countries to conduct further discussions on the Code, drafted by the four countries, under the UN framework in a bid to reach consensus on international norms and rules that regulate states’ conduct for information and cyber activities at an early date.
The Code is the first of its kind to put forward comprehensive and systematic proposals on international information security rules.
According to the Code, its purpose is to identify states’ rights and responsibilities in information space, promote their constructive and responsible behaviors, and enhance their cooperation in addressing the common threats and challenges in information space, so as to ensure the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) including networks to be solely used to the benefit of social and economic development and people’ s well-being, and consistent with the objective of maintaining international stability and security.”
There is increased moves from major players internationally regarding internet regulations. We know what people mean by using the internet to promote constructive and responsible behavior.
It’s difficult to see internet regulations take form. They are happening behind the seems, is anyone really keeping track?
It’s one thing to believe in Globalization, as in you believe it is a fact of reality that the market of social relations will inevitably lead to human progress, specification of tasks, the free market, survival of the fittest, and ultimately most beneficial for the entire world and you agree to books like “The World is Flat“.
It’s another thing to believe that you exist in a world full of people who believe in Globalism, and that the “action’ of “globalisizing” is having its effects, and people are starting to act think and do more along these lines, that things contingently could be another way even if they progress towards one world market as we speak, that history operates in cycles of power, and that CURRENTLY globalization is a phenemological reality because its an ideological domination, and not vice versa.
I believe I am existing in a world where the multi-national financial global movement is taking off, that previously it was pushed through the 1960s-1980’s through war, 1990’s softly through affleuncy and capitalism, 2001 + militaristically under the guise of pre-emption, and the fall of the housing market (the other reason for banks). I believe I cannot conceptually wrap its effects, as each country is in each of its own phases of accepting/rejecting the neoliberal global package and one can hardly surmise how every country in every instance relates to this global normativity.
Imagine the battle of Thermopylae would of been lost, crushing athenian democracy all over the world. Now, imagine existing in a world dominated by Persia, Would it be insane to imagine what Atheninan Democracy would look like? If you were an archaeologist would it worthwhile to look at the ruins of the athenian and roman empires like we do now with the incas, aztecs, and mayans, hoping to find a clue to their organizational structure looking for meaning and purpose? Would it be worthwhile to consider what an athenian democracy might look like “nowadays” even though, living in a persian world, we’d know not to attempt such a “barbarian method of governance”
The answer to these rhetorical questions is simple, and these questions end up looking rediculous… we emphatetically ought to yell “of course”. We imagine in a hitler run world that naturally, people would investigate capitalism and socialism and all of these other things,
The Hegenomical idea would be globalization, but the fact (like the hitlerian fact) would be neoliberal domination. We currently live in a world completely dominated by neoliberal economics and this as seen as a “univerisalization”
“”What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” –
So one can BELIEVE in this reality, but one may strive to choose to live and to create a new world beyond the scope of neoliberalism. The first step is seeing that this movement toward globailzation is not a “universal feature of human reasoning” that anyone or any culture would eventually grow to determine as the best practices, with enough time, but a set and style and method of running things that has and does tend to particularly benefit some people over others. Recognizing economic contingency is key, especially in recognizing how often we’ve transfered the value of things in the past.