What is a progressive frame for globalization?

Dear Mikulek,

This is how I see it:

A trend toward greater interdependence between different regions of the world can be used to illustrate our belief in a common destiny for all of humanity. What happens in one part of the world affects everyone else. We are all in this world together and the only thing that makes sense is to cooperate to make it a better place for everyone.

That cooperation can take many forms. Participating in international treaties that save and improve lives present and future (chemical and bio weapons, land mines, Kyoto); supporting international bodies that foster better relations between the peoples of the world (e.g. UN); promoting better human rights and environmental practices worldwide. And so on.

My hasty $0.02. Regards,

Luis.

How can selfish xenophobic, racist nations cooperate in one world? They are forced to tolerate one world because economic necessities make them. Right now we are witnessing a struggle for the dominant world currency. Iran and Venezuela are trying to tip the balance away from the dollar. All this is a struggle, not an attempt to cooperate. Globalization is being forced on unwilling players. Rather than producing stabilty and cooperation it is producing a struggle of frightening proportions. One likely outcome will be a helter-skelter nuclear war.

The word reminds me of "drugs"-good if the doctor prescribes them to treat a disease-bad if a pusher sells them to your kids to get them addicted.

Sometimes people talk about increasing economic interdependence being a force for international peace. At other times they talk about wiping out indigenous cultures to make way for corporations who practice a new kind of imperialism.

You can't ship toys from China to the U.S. if the price of oil rises to a point where shipping costs eliminate any possible profit. Is globalization really the hope of the future? Or will local self-sufficient economies dominate a world of scarce and expensive energy in years to come?

And watch out-it is dangerous for any government to allow a destructive industry to use their country as a "flag of convenience"! When Haliburton began getting flamed by the American press for profiteering, they began to move their base of operations out of the country. Is that "healthy globalization"? They say it is.

Globalization is a chameleon. You can't frame it because you can't pin it down.

                             dMb

As humpty dumpty said to alice in answer to her challange tht he coukld not make words mean what ever he wanted them to mean, it is all in who has the power. In this case the holder of the power to frame the concept is still open as far as I can see. getting this framed well is an oportunity we should not pass up.

Let me make an attempt. Globalization should mean that nations back off on their self defeating nationalism and begin to reach out to other nations who are willing to do the same. The goal for all would be a level playing field economically and a severe halt on the squandering of our ecology. The victim of a successful effort in this direction would be exploitive capitalism. Even Karl Marx could not have visualized this. Europe on a very small scale has done a little bit of this. Crossing borders in Europe is often less traumatic than crossing from one state to another in the USA. Real globalization has to be based on the recognition that we are all in this together. It also has to recognize the role of those who have us by the gonads. Exploitive capitalism is a world level crime. It can destroy the planet. It has already made myriads of people miserable. A nurturing global system will stabilize and promote cooperation between nations. Why do there have to be "enemies"? The pitting of one group of humans against another under the guise of national, ethnic, racial, or religious pseudo-identities detracts from any notion that we have progressed beyond the culture of chimpanzees. Only those who exploit gain from such nonsense. My biggest concern is that when backed to the wall, they will not allow people to become one. They will use the nukes to stop anyone from diminishing their hold on us.

Back in the 1940's, fresh off a world war, many prominent voices called for global federation ...or at least a federal union of democracies which would ideally act as a growing nucleus for world federation.
Currently, if the UN want to enforce it's "laws" it must wage war against a member nation (not too efficient)
We need a global federation of democracies with a legislative body DIRECTLY elected by the people of its member nations..."bill of rights"...judiciary...executive.
In this way WE THE PEOPLE would have a direct say in international affairs. And when we construct this body to truly represent we the people, we can empower it to do its job (presumably learning from structural problems with the US gov model)

Arguments based on US sovereignty are bogus: the PEOPLE are sovereign (not the nation). In 1787 the sovereign people chose to expand the body politic and create an interstate goverment (which was essentially a state foreign policy)

Today they can again expand the body politic into the international arena. An effort in Massachusetts made a stab at this: thepeoplealone.org.

If Oregon has a dispute with Washington state, they don't call out the national guard and go to war-they settle it in the US supreme court.
Think of the $ saved from national arms...no more war powers to undermine democracy...