Is globalization good or bad?

6 September, 2007

Say, you are relatively well to do: you’ve got a computer, untethered internet access and do not need to worry where to get your children’s next meal. You realise that you’ve got globalisation to thank for your wealth, so you sit behind your computer, surf to and argue with all your good reasons in favour of globalisation.

Change of key: you are on the wrong side of the divide and never heard of nor needed a computer. Mainly because your worries are existential: your livelihood has been compromised by development aid to Western corporations, so that your grain has been priced out of the local market by subsidised produce from far away.

Your counterparts in this exercise – the people that wrote in to sing the praise of globalisation – are told this helps the poor survive, but you know better than that. Except, you are in no position to write about this.

In reality, to globalise is a transitive verb. _We_ globalise _you_, because we have the money, means and military. If you are with us, you may reap the benefits. Otherwise, your existence is doomed.

What kind of debate can you expect if the losers of globalisation are not there to tell the story?

Post Scriptum

Globalisation is no new development. In essence, it entails the forceful pursuit of the interests of the powerful at the expense of the rest. Technology has raised the stakes by putting essentially all societies worldwide at risk. Call it feudalism, colonialism, globalisation or empire – the message is the same:

you belong to us.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: