Globalization and Anti-Globalization.

I am going to proactively address the fact that I am likely going to get off the topic of globalization, at least directly. I do not want this to happen, as the course is Capital, Culture and Globalization, and globalization was one of the only criteria for this assignment. So I figure if I ramble on here for a little bit about globalization, hopefully my rambling will result in me generating some ideas on the idea of globalization and technology.

Is this how a blog works? Is it acceptable to just think online? Because that's what I am going to do...

So. Globalization. My ideas of the topic so far have been overwhelming, if anything. So many things are involved in globalization. Off the top of my head, I'd say that globalization for the purposes of this course has gone everywhere from industrialization, philosophical thought, cultural values, human rights, public relations, corporations, capitalism, socialism, democracy, government, agriculture, the advancement of law, technology... glad that word came up in my mind, or else I would likely be back to off topic.

At this point, I think my previous definition of globalization must be too complex, because I keep having to look back at it to remind myself of which components I can refer to. I remember multicultural, multinational, process, and those are pretty much the only key words that come to mind. So let's look at a not so technical source to find a not so technical definition. The CBC article titled What is Globalization seems sufficient (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/summitofamericas/globalization.html). Woah. My opinions are changing. This article just presented me with a different approach: anti-globalization.

Globalization, according to some and mentioned in the article, "describes the increased mobility of goods, services, labour, technology and capital throughout the world." I had not considered the mobility aspect of globalization, but as I read this article am realizing that mobility is a better word to use than a process. Conversely, another definition, as explained by anti-globalists, is that is "the process of exploiting economically weak countries by connecting the economies of the world, forcing dependence on (and ultimately subservience to) the western capitalist machine."


The article proceeds to work in the interests of both sides with what seems to me like an adequate and fair list of both perspectives. Going over these lists, it's my impression that those in favor of globalization would typically be politically conservative; interested in individual economic prosperity as opposed to equality (this is my perception of the underlying motives of politically conservative individuals, in a nutshell). It seems that advocates of globalization are concerned with independence, choices, and the removal of barriers, while anti-globalists fear that it reduces equality and positive political intervention.


I feel like Darwin would be in favor of Globalization; survival of the fittest, concerned with the benefit of the few. According to this article globalization also seems to be something that would be supported by capitalists. If you're not following, you should really look at the link. The lists are giving me a very good idea of globalization and the perspectives involved; quite beneficial to someone trying to understand globalization. Oh, I just found out how to make that link an actual link! Better go back to the other links and "linkify" them for you. Easy access to encourage you to click it!


Did anyone notice that I obviously named this post after I wrote it? Obviously.